Don't expect a good old fashioned Aussie ambush

[qwerty51]

So it was Link's fault?

Beale and Vickerman's fault for getting injured in the final.

 

[Richo]

Wow, this thread descended from interesting discussion into inanity pretty damn fast.

 

[Riptide]

Link seems pretty handy with the gameplans. I know it's a pipe dream but if we could get him in as an assistant coach for the WC I would be beside myself.

Link is the one coach I feel would be able to isolate NZ weaknesses and nullify strengths. But as has been said already, that's not how Deans coaches.

Frankly, this Wallaby team is good enough to open up holes in the NZ defense and exploit them. Generating some fast ball off multiple phases is critical and NZ looked quite vulnerable up the gut and close to the ruck. Slowing NZ ball down is critical.

 

[DPK]

If Link took over post-Deans, we would have a backline of players that have been trained to use their natural abilities to create opportunities out of a blank canvas (playing what's in front of you) with a coach who might be able to harness their abilities to play to a specific gameplan which has a main objective to target their opposition's weaknesses.

If he was successful, the Wallabies would be a side that can ambush their opposition with a bold gameplan, and at the same time unleash hell in the chaos of broken play.

 

[Richo]

Not that the conversation isn't without merit, but 2013 is a long way off. Who knows how many of the current back line stars will even be playing rugby in Australia then?

 

[DPK]

I'm more optimistic after this years Super 15 that many of these players will still be in Australia, Richo.

You're right, we can't expect 100% retention.

 

[Richo]

In addition to the Reds winning, there does some to be real camaraderie among the young blokes. Always a good sign.

 

[undercoverkiwi]

I've always thought one of Deans' shortcomings was his inability to coach from a position of weakness*, he's always coached strong sides where he's been able to dictate the gameplan. When he started at the Wallabies he seemed to try to make them play Crusader-ball, which you just didn't have the pack for. And if he lacks a cunning plan here, then it's another example of this.

That said, he is pretty smart at finding very small chinks in an opposition's armour and just tweaking minor things that make a difference. I expect to see a lot of Beale and O'Connor being used on the inside ball, as our defence has been caught out a few times by players chopping back in.

*Please don't get too caught up in semantics here, I don't think Australia are weak, just not favourites.

 

[Gagger]

I've always thought one of Deans' shortcomings was his inability to coach from a position of weakness*, he's always coached strong sides where he's been able to dictate the gameplan. When he started at the Wallabies he seemed to try to make them play Crusader-ball, which you just didn't have the pack for. And if he lacks a cunning plan here, then it's another example of this.

Bugger - you wrote exactly what I was going to write - but better!

Crusaders either run you side to side until they find a hole or pull it tight and smash you in the pack.

We're now able to do a) but haven't been able to do b). Finally the reds found parity this year, and the Tahs had their moments as well until the whole pack was broken. So there is hope.

 

[Ruggo]

I think he had trouble as our players generally don't play with the instict of kiwi players. The young crop has changed this somewhat. He has pretty muched coached in the same niche as UCK pretty much said. Coaches evolve and I think Robbie has also.

 

[waratahjesus]

Bugger - you wrote exactly what I was going to write - but better!

Crusaders either run you side to side until they find a hole or pull it tight and smash you in the pack.

We're now able to do a) but haven't been able to do b). Finally the reds found parity this year, and the Tahs had their moments as well until the whole pack was broken. So there is hope.

not to start a fight here, but i think the reds defused the breakdown rather than found parity. They were smart about it, but they were never dominant. Its one of the reasons for mine that some forwards where found out wide (and get accused of seagulling) was that link actually spread the opposition defence at all time to limit the oppositions ability to group forwards in close and counter ruck, it led to smaller rucks on alot of occasions and quick ball.

also underestimated was the reds kicking game, whats called a kicking mentality at other clubs was gold for the reds due to there execution of it, sure they chanced there arm but what is never talked about is they played great field position and forced there opposition to kick so they could chance there arm in broken play.

 

[Gagger]

not to start a fight here, but i think the reds defused the breakdown rather than found parity. They were smart about it, but they were never dominant. Its one of the reasons for mine that some forwards where found out wide (and get accused of seagulling) was that link actually spread the opposition defence at all time to limit the oppositions ability to group forwards in close and counter ruck, it led to smaller rucks on alot of occasions and quick ball.

Watch the final again, it was a shitfight at the breakdown that the Reds held their own in.

One of the keys I thought was Beau doing a number on Richie, who can be riled. Quades little spat with RM in HK wasn't a one off idea

 

[undercoverkiwi]

Watch the final again, it was a shitfight at the breakdown that the Reds held their own in.

One of the keys I thought was Beau doing a number on Richie, who can be riled. Quades little spat with RM in HK wasn't a one off idea

It's a shame the breakdown was such a mess in the final, makes it hard to judge who was really on top, both teams getting away with murder. But I agree the Reds had more than parity. How that translates into a test match, I'm not so sure. it's certainly an area we expect to dominate (the physical contact, and the breakdown).

Jaquade will not be soon forgiven for the shove on King Richard the 7.

 

[waratahjesus]

Watch the final again, it was a shitfight at the breakdown that the Reds held their own in.

One of the keys I thought was Beau doing a number on Richie, who can be riled. Quades little spat with RM in HK wasn't a one off idea

i agree gagger, im not having a go, im just saying that several games in the season they defused the breakdown rather than achieved parity, its one of the reasons the ball was going so wide so early, to take bigger forwards out of it, its smart coaching and played to there strengths. I think the reds had such self confidence over the last couple of games they could have run through brick walls if need be, but over the course of the season i feel Link couched the breakdown out of the game at times.

 

[disco]

Half of the crap on this thread is why I didn't want to mention Link & the Reds in my original post because I knew this bullshit would start.

I do have to give Deans credit for that 1st try from Quade Cooper in HK when it would have been easier to take the 3 points the Wallabies certainly planned that move to pull Nonu out of the line.

 

[Gnostic]

i agree gagger, im not having a go, im just saying that several games in the season they defused the breakdown rather than achieved parity, its one of the reasons the ball was going so wide so early, to take bigger forwards out of it, its smart coaching and played to there strengths. I think the reds had such self confidence over the last couple of games they could have run through brick walls if need be, but over the course of the season i feel Link couched the breakdown out of the game at times.

One of the keys of Links & Reds coaching team success is their proactive method. A plan for each game. To that end why do something that your team doesn't have the people and strengths to execute against that particular opposition. The mantras of Sun Zu come to mind. Contrast with Deans Wallabies team which to me just appears reactive to other teams which dictate the play to a large degree.

I am still at a loss as to why the Wallabies after 3 years under Deans show none of the title winning complete Rugby play that was and is the hallmark of the crusaders. Instrad we get ruck avoidance and play what is in front of you.

 

[cyclopath]

One of the keys of Links & Reds coaching team success is their proactive method. A plan for each game. To that end why do something that your team doesn't have the people and strengths to execute against that particular opposition. The mantras of Sun Zu come to mind. Contrast with Deans Wallabies team which to me just appears reactive to other teams which dictate the play to a large degree.

I am still at a loss as to why the Wallabies after 3 years under Deans show none of the title winning complete Rugby play that was and is the hallmark of the crusaders. Instrad we get ruck avoidance and play what is in front of you.

Certainly a difference between Link and Deans, no doubt. A small point of order - if Deans is just reactive, why do they repeatedly fail to attack the breakdown when the other team is clearly focussing on it? I think it's more that he has a plan pre-game, and the whole team / coaching staff are a bit stuffed as to what to do if it doesn't fit. If they reacted to an aggressive breakdown presence, maybe they'd get somewhere. Not simply pro-active v reactive, I think, but more having flexibility in the game plan to adapt more to the game. I think they actually don't play what's in front of them, and sometimes wish they would a bit more.

 

[Gnostic]

The ruck problem is a tricky one because it ties into a number of issues, the top two IMO are
1) Defensive structures see so many of our forwards spread across the field and not working as a pack, hence they dont get many counter ruvks happrning quickly. Many happen shortly, 1 or 2 phases after a set piece when the pigs are still in a collective. Our speedy backs are in generall not suited to counter ruck duties.
2) Attack structures rely so much on speed that few numbers are comitted in most cases just enough to secure that quick ball. In fsct we generall only comit two or three to each ruck and if two of those are our light weight backs is it any wonder we get driven off the ball.

I dont see this as part of playing what is in front of you. It is a fundamental part of the structure that Deans has built to plsy the quick ball game he has sought, hence the needs for huge work rate players, dominance is not needed, parity is all that is required here.

 

[waratahjesus]

all this talk of link, deans has the backs humming to a certain extent, we need a forwards coach like Foley who can organise the pack better.

 

[Gnostic]

all this talk of link, deans has the backs humming to a certain extent, we need a forwards coach like Foley who can organise the pack better.

Thats the problem WJ, the structure doesn't allow it. Much was said why Foley left in the first place. Workrate is king and that is a big key of Deans whole 'plan' it goes back to the points I raised above.