England v Australia

[Ruggo]

People forget so quickly how average Quade was at Test level too. He changed for the better with time and experience.

Therefore, saying Foley is at his ceiling in his second year of Test rugby is akin to saying my 10 year old is never going to get a job because he doesn't have the necessary qualifications and doesn't interview well.

Both have good attributes and assets to our test side but I think it is arse about. Selecting Cooper on the bench is expecting him to pull off some freaky shit which is a narrow view of his rugby abilities. I think he is better used by allowing him to stamp his mark on the game from the get go. I think Foley is more likely to do the freaky shit and I think it showed last year in how he was used. I think his extensive 7's background has a lot to do with this.

For the record, none of this is based along state lines.

 

[Scotty]

I'm not sure how you can read anything into those stats.

They seem to say that To'omua receives the ball at first receiver roughly half the time regardless of who is playing 10.

Given he played more minutes, it doesn't really suggest Foley opted to kick more than Cooper.

I think this game again showed that it's not a cut and dry decision between Cooper and Foley. I agree that Cooper offers more when he's at peak form, but we're yet to see him regain that. His play is a long way short of where it was on the 2013 EOYT.

Hopefully they both have excellent Super Rugby seasons and make it a really difficult choice. It would seem quite likely that one will start and one will be on the bench in our best RWC team.

The big thing that I keep noticing is that Foley just seems to disappear at times. This seemed to happen in the first half when we were attack in their half and just completely lost our shape. I hardly saw Foley in this time trying to direct the traffic and organise the attack better - he just went missing!

PS We looked a lot more organised in the first half when To'omua was in control instead of Foley.

 

[HighPlainsDrifter]

With Simmons out and no natural caller plus Skelton the 2nd half lineout was always going to be iffy .

 

[HighPlainsDrifter]

Get Pulver to rope in Jenny Craig or enter Big Will on Celebrity Biggest Loser but stop at 125kgs and build up to 135-140 kgs for RWC ... or chain him with Pocock to an earthmover for a few weeks with no fridge in sight , only downside Pocock might end up as dinner ....

 

[HighPlainsDrifter]

One of the league guys did it , name escapes me though ...at the time of Pocock's 2nd breakdown he gave him encouragement that it was possible .

 

[Brumby Runner]

People forget so quickly how average Quade was at Test level too. He changed for the better with time and experience.

Therefore, saying Foley is at his ceiling in his second year of Test rugby is akin to saying my 10 year old is never going to get a job because he doesn't have the necessary qualifications and doesn't interview well.

Don't agree Pfitzy. Quade's problem was that he had too much talent in a way and tried too many off the cuff type plays. He had to rein his game in to be a better player. Bernard, on the other hand, will have to find something more in the way of creativity to rise to the level most of us want to see. A much harder ask, and one that I'm not sure he has the natural talent and flair to do.

I can see a real level of difference in their respective abilities and while Foley has some strong points in that he plays a steady game, he will never be able to replicate the match winning plays that Cooper is able to bring off. At the risk of being accused of being biassed, if we want steady, Matt To'omua is in better form than Foley atm. But the best combination we've seen in the past twelve months has been Cooper at 10 and To'omua at 12. Worked again last night when Quade came on.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Totally different game situations too - tired defenders, different tactical situation.

Its a difficult comparison you're drawing.

And it seems to me that that is a difficult conclusion to be drawn if indeed you haven't yet seen the game. England also brought their fresh legs on at about the same time as the Wallabies. Their backline defense was still in your face stuff (literally just ask Horne and Cooper).

 

[RugbyReg]

Quade was also 20 on test debut. They're both basically the same age now. Judge them on how they are now.

 

[Forcefield]

Huge Quade Cooper fan. I reckon he's head and shoulders above Foley. I think the comparative win rate of games with Cooper vs games without speaks for itself.

 

[Dave Beat]

People forget so quickly how average Quade was at Test level too. He changed for the better with time and experience.

Therefore, saying Foley is at his ceiling in his second year of Test rugby is akin to saying my 10 year old is never going to get a job because he doesn't have the necessary qualifications and doesn't interview well.

That is often said about QC (Quade Cooper), i see it differently.
He has so much talent and has an incredible vision for the game. This have been seen in the last couple of tests were he gets multiple touches.

The comment about average at test level, i think comes back to combinations, game plan, and coaching - injuries over the last couple of seasons has impacted each of these.

We can go back to the red S15 title, the reds beat a TEST strength Crusaders outfit, and that was great rugby to watch.

When QC (Quade Cooper) can read his players, and the players read QC (Quade Cooper) it is a very potent mix - things started coming together on last years EOY tour.

 

[fatprop]

That is often said about QC (Quade Cooper), i see it differently.
He has so much talent and has an incredible vision for the game. This have been seen in the last couple of tests were he gets multiple touches.

The comment about average at test level, i think comes back to combinations, game plan, and coaching - injuries over the last couple of seasons has impacted each of these.

We can go back to the red S15 title, the reds beat a TEST strength Crusaders outfit, and that was great rugby to watch.

When QC (Quade Cooper) can read his players, and the players read QC (Quade Cooper) it is a very potent mix - things started coming together on last years EOY tour.

I think the difference in the years since the win is that Cooper has had rely too much on the wide money ball to quite static runners looking to go around teams.

And I get to say again that has been down to the lack of work off the ball running lines by the runners whether by lack of effort or average coaching

Prime example of back's "work" from the weekend was Horne, he was on Foley's inside shoulder a lot before he got that pass running that inside line, that moment was worked on for most of the game

 

[The Snout]

I tend to read rather than write, I enjoy the intelligent arguments on the forum here. Just my observation.

Our backs are fine. We have good depth there and it's nice to have players pushing for selection. I think we are as healthy in depth as I've seen in the backs ever.

I'm tired though of the 'we only need to achieve parity in the forwards' attitude. It's like it promotes a work ethic that barely enough is good enough.

IMO, we need a forward pack trying to achieve dominance at set piece, not just harbor an attitude to hold the fort so the backs can sort it out.

If we achieved that, a scrum as a weapon and backs that are a weapon, fuck me, we would barely lose a test.

England and Australia seem like opposites. England have a quality pack and backs that couldn't ignite a leaky fuel station. Australia have a B grade pack and backs that are world class.

Australia needs to get past our attitude that it's all about the backs winning it for us and if we only had Player X at inside centre we would win. We need to quit complaining about the ref and other scrums not packing straight. We need to improve to point that we can handle and take care of the problem with or without the refs help.

I like watching the Socceroos. And for years from 1974 Australia used to get all sorry for ourselves cause we couldn't qualify for the World Cup and big bad FIFA gave us a dud qualifying draw to get there blah blah.

Then after we failed again to qualify again for 2002, Johnny Warren came out and said enough is enough, we have to stop feeling sorry for ourselves and take responsibility for our soccer. The rest is history.

My point being, we have to stop complaining (or complain not as much) about refs and other forward packs cheating and actual put some bloody time and effort into developing from juniors to Wallabies forwards that can scrummage and not get bullied around.

And if faced with opposition scrums that are pushing the rules then being able to deal with it through skill if the ref isn't going to police it. Police it ourselves.

I just think our backs orientated way of thinking really limits Australian rugby, I'd like to see us mature past it and have all the weapons respected and developed.

 

[wamberal]

Do not forget that we had our three top hookers, arguably top four (Latu being the fourth) out of action, plus Scott Sio.


That makes a huge difference to the set-pieces, and our tight play in general. Moore and TPN have been amongst our most reliable ball-carriers for yonks.


Latu and Sio could be world-class sooner rather than later.


If Coleman from the Force steps up and Skelton matures, we could actually have a pretty fearsome tight five by this time next year.

 

[Froggy]

I couldn't agree more Snout.
As I posted a few pages back, sure Cooper may be a better option at 10 than Foley (my opinion, anyhow) it won't make a scrap of difference until we start to smash people in the forwards.
We need more with the Potgeiter/TPN attitude, 80 minutes of controlled aggression. We seem to have a surfeit of good, skilled forwards who work away for 80 minutes (Slipper, Kepu, Simmons, Carter, Mccalman etc) but no-one with real, sustained aggression. Any AB or Boks pack always seems to have three or four!
And yes, the scrum needs serious work. I thought Blades was an exceptional prop, great technique considering he wasn't that big, but doesn't seem to be getting that across. Andrew is a great guy, and gives a lot to junior rugby, but yes, I think another scrum coach is needed.

 

[The Snout]

Agree Froggy. I think our forwards are good guys giving their best but we just seem to be short a couple of real bastards and set piece scrum/maul ability. And not just the ability to hold our own, the ability to win games via the forwards if conditions demand it.

I firmly believe that our proud identity of running rugby is really a legacy to the past that as the years go by is doing us less and less favors.

Forwards in Australia in both codes, league and union, seem to scrummage/maul because the rules say we have to as opposed to using it as prong in the attack. Maybe that's league rubbing off on union's mindset in the country. And I just think our teams would be so much better and complete if it wasn't all about attack from the backs.

 

[chiraag]

There must be someone else who can kick and play at 15?

Dane Haylett Petty. He's a natural fullback and had a really good 2014, although played much of it on the wing with Hayward playing at fullback. He'll be at fullback for the Force for all of 2015 though with Hayward gone. Safe under the high ball, a good long kicking boot, excellent defense and he can break tackles and make metres. Obviously not as exciting as Folau but he has all of the qualities that you want in a fullback. Will need to have a massive 2015 though to get on the radar.

 

[formerflanker]

IMO, we need a forward pack trying to achieve dominance at set piece, not just harbor an attitude to hold the fort so the backs can sort it out.
If we achieved that, a scrum as a weapon and backs that are a weapon, fuck me, we would barely lose a test.
I just think our backs orientated way of thinking really limits Australian rugby, I'd like to see us mature past it and have all the weapons respected and developed.

I watched the Fox presentation of the Grand Slam Wallaby luncheon - great footage and insightful, funny interviews.
Forwards and backs said their success was based on exactly what you want us to achieve now - forward dominance.

 

[FrankLind]

Don't agree Pfitzy. Quade's problem was that he had too much talent in a way and tried too many off the cuff type plays.

I call that flakiness under pressure and lack of decision making ability.
He was easy to unsettle because of his suspect temperament under pressure.

Quade got ahead of himself following the Reds 2011 title.
He thought he was the shit and got taught a severe lesson.

He seems to be more mature now, but I want to see him put under the blowtorch again to see how he reacts to see if he is really over his flakiness.

 

[nathan]

What was wrong with the defensive system?
They scored 2 tries off the back of two dominant scrums.
England had no other opportunities to speak of.
Their defensive system worked well IMO.

It wasn't that the defensive system wasn't working - my point was the implementation of all of the aspects of play may have gained better results if it was gradual.

 

[Pfitzy]

Don't agree Pfitzy. Quade's problem was that he had too much talent in a way and tried too many off the cuff type plays.

The fuck?

If trying stupid moves in a heated environment is "too much talent" then my entire time spent trying to pick up chicks at Uni only failed because I had "too much talent".

He tried to play fucking touch footy early in his career and failed. Now he knows the balance between the audacious and the worthy.

Too much talent? Fuck a duck.

Quade was also 20 on test debut. They're both basically the same age now. Judge them on how they are now.

"Only" 30 Test caps difference!