Some of the most wacked out analysis I’ve seen on this sight. Just bizarre.
France v Wallabies (RWC Warm-up), 28/8 1.45AM AEST
- Thread starter rugbyAU
- Start date
dru
David Wilson (68)
You have Hooper and Arnold as the two primary jumpers. Over-reliance on Hooper suggests that it was going wrong with Arnold, or more likely the call. It was weird to see the consistency with the setting the maul from attacking line outs from the #2 slot in the lineout. Surely there are call issues here? Or something from the French that spooked the Wallabies. Call and throws, that is where to look for line-out improvements from the France warm-up. And the maul in general needs investigating in training.
FWIW If it is an attacking lineout on the 10, with little likelihood of a defending jumper, Skelton has been used in this role for his club.
Both Valetini and McReight are valid secondary jumping options. If they are not well versed with using the 7 as an optional primary jumper, then that training approach is the same with any other 7.
The lineout has been going better than fine. I'm calling this game a one off until we see evidence in other games to the contrary. McReight may not be a locked-in 7 starter, but the lineout would be an unusual reason to drop him.
Mr Pilfer
Alex Ross (28)
Yes I am still hoping that Frost was just rested from the France game and is still Eddie’s preferred starter. Richie Arnold has not been that impressive and is not as good as his brother is/was
Digestif Palu
Stan Wickham (3)
Is it? What he said wasn't very deep but on face value it's true, wacked out seems pretty strong. We had two safe options that we're most likely going to on our line. I didn't go back and look to see if Arnold was heavily marked but considering he is 208cm, our only jumper of renown and the amount of takes Hooper had it makes sense. I will add that Woki is the best lineout thief I've seen in a long time, he reads it well and has the jump, skill and height to pick a lot off.
Probably not the right place to discuss it but there is a legitimate argument for having a bigger body at 7 and while I'm of the opinion that McReight wasn't fantastic against France, it's not a slight on him just a culmination of other factors resulting in the trade off between his strengths and weaknesses not being as valuable at this level anymore, especially considering the makeup of our pack.
Digestif Palu
Stan Wickham (3)
If you're going to phrase it like that sure. However his performance being one of our best is very subjective but more importantly I think he's suggesting that him being in the team makes the balance off. It's more him being the unfortunate victim of balance than suggesting he had a bad game becuase of our lineout. I can't speak for the other person but that's my take and how I read it.
Hooper and Skelton have been more effective at the breakdown so far, not just in terms of pilfering either but I think their individual stats there are pretty similar off the top of my head. McReight is certainly the best support runner and cover tackler currently in the team but if Gleeson can provide a better lineout option and deliver some of that then the balance is probably better. Or shifting Hooper to 7 and having Leota or someone at 6. You obvioulsy lose some positives but gain others.
Edit: Maybe that's not what the other poster was saying but I think it's hardly "wack" to discuss the makeup of the team after the game, McReight did not have a good enough game to be undroppable in my opinion. If the coaches think it will benefit the team, I don't have a hard time seeing the reasoning.
Last edited:
emuarse
Chilla Wilson (44)
More importantly, why didn't coaching staff who have communication via water boys with the backrow players advise them to adapt?
LeCheese
Greg Davis (50)
The crux of it is that it's odd to suggest that the fix to a supposedly unbalanced forward pack is to drop one of the most consistent performers of the year.
Hooper was ineffectual at 7 and is doing decently at 6; Gleeson has potential but doesn't bring the same linking and support play as McReight (which has been pretty valuable so far this year)
Hooper was ineffectual at 7 and is doing decently at 6; Gleeson has potential but doesn't bring the same linking and support play as McReight (which has been pretty valuable so far this year)
stillmissit
Peter Johnson (47)
"it's more him being the unfortunate victim of balance" that was rarely mentioned with Michael Hooper.
The backrow balance is one thing but we have Bobby V who plays like a 6 and Hooper who plays like a 6 with McRight doing a lot of the covering work as well as attacking the breakdown. I have always said Bobby V should be at 6 then we could play Hooper at 8 in this RWC until Wilson or someone else proves his credentials for next year. Still waiting to see the wonder boy Gleeson doing what many here expect.
The backrow balance is one thing but we have Bobby V who plays like a 6 and Hooper who plays like a 6 with McRight doing a lot of the covering work as well as attacking the breakdown. I have always said Bobby V should be at 6 then we could play Hooper at 8 in this RWC until Wilson or someone else proves his credentials for next year. Still waiting to see the wonder boy Gleeson doing what many here expect.
Last edited:
stillmissit
Peter Johnson (47)
disagree Emu, These guys are supposedly pro players and to have to be told to adjust to such an obvious thing as letting one of the most important players on the park take tackles they could have done is a bad sign with major implications.
In my day the 7 did their best to protect the 10.
Last edited:
We had two lineout calls that we just repeated all game. It was fine in the first half as it kept working but we should have adjusted when the French reserves started picking up on them. It has nothing to do with the number of lineout options but the fact that we just didn't use other options available.
Sword of Justice
Arch Winning (36)
I think McReight being subbed off in games rather than Hooper has created the bigger imbalance to be frank. It was at that point against the ABs that we couldn't hang with the pace.
Hooper is playing well but we still need someone fitter with quicker lateral speed to make first contact.
If we have 4 guys who are above 6'4" on the field at the same time and the lineout isn't working, I wouldn't be looking at McReight.
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
The biggest issue with Gordon being overworked in defence seemed to come from Danty targeting his channel off of 8 man lineouts (or shorter lineouts with Danty set wider and a pod closer in to hold the forwards). It seems like an intentional strategy from the French to exploit the significant mismatch between Danty and the majority of opposition backs. Potentially they're hoping the reaction will be to have a better defender like the 7 moved to cover that space and open a gap for Dupont to exploit between the tail of the lineout and the backline. The Major shift for us in the future here is probably Koroibete taking this channel or supporting Gordon here, rather than Nawaqanitawase as was often the case. I'd have to go back and look, but I'm pretty sure we were been running him in this channel throughout the RC. Kerevi over Foketi probably adds further defensive starch.
As far as our lineout lacking variation goes, if there is any truth to the statement that we're not revealing our hand too early (and Eddie has plenty of history doing this) then the lineout is one of the major areas where this would happen. It's an area ripe for opposition analysis so there is a clear incentive not to keep plays and variation hidden, even if it's under pressure in a warm up game like this.
As far as our lineout lacking variation goes, if there is any truth to the statement that we're not revealing our hand too early (and Eddie has plenty of history doing this) then the lineout is one of the major areas where this would happen. It's an area ripe for opposition analysis so there is a clear incentive not to keep plays and variation hidden, even if it's under pressure in a warm up game like this.
shaquille_oatmeal
Frank Nicholson (4)
In all honesty we need to give Eddie Jones some more time. He's crafting the next generation through this world cup, and whilst I don't expect much (and I don't for a bit), what he's doing is building a stronger rugby future. Considering players like Jorgensen will be 28/29 in two world cups time along with many other youngsters, we should really consider how backing this team is backing a more long-term development of Australian rugby.
Digestif Palu
Stan Wickham (3)
Clearly it's not a popular opinion and this thread might not be the place for it but I disagree on all fronts. He's had three starts this year where he did not offer enough to say he's one of our best or not to be considered for dropping in my opinion. If we're talking Super form too, he struggled to have as much of an impact against stronger opposition at the breakdown but I agree he had a good year and is a good player.
It's not odd to put his name in the ring for reshuffling, the lineout is part of it but his main point of difference is his pilfering, which he has not provided enough of to be the deciding factor, especially since Skelton, Hooper and Valetini are providing good pay in that area. Do we drop the captain and actually one of our best and most consistent performers to reshuffle? Do we stick with the same team? Do we move someone bigger to 7? All fine questions. I actually think the forwards in particular are trending upwards and I don't really mind who they go with out of the squad but asking the questions does not seem odd to me.
This is really going on a tangent so I'm happy to move on but Australia seems so obsessed with the pilfering 7. The reality to me is that Smith and Pockock benefited from being innovators and incredibly good in their role but things have moved on. Not to mention both players while being shorter, weren't small guys and had a physical edge, as well as skills for Smith. Teams have had years to train against an individual pilfering but also rules have changed, as well as the current trend being towards size. Of the top four teams Kwagga Smith might be the only one that fits this role but I'ts safe to say he usually brings a lot more than pilfering skills and also doesn't normally start. Of the top 10 maybe Wales is the only other team that trends the same way as us at 7 but currently Morgan looks on another level of physicality compared to McReight. I certainly think McReight brings a lot around the park but we could potentially have better balance without him in the team. It's at least not odd to me to discuss.
Saying T Hooper was ineffectual, not having a go at you here since that is the consensus, demonstrates our bias towards the pilfering 7 for me. He was incredibly involved that game, put pressure on so many rucks and got at least one turnover, while topping the tackle count, adding value in the lineout and tight forward play. I don't think it's his best position and he doesn't have the speed and agility to be the support tackler and runner that McReight is but he is certainly not ineffectual or a bad option at 7.
As an aside @stillmissit M Hooper has nothing to do with this but you're saying two wrongs make a right? If your stance is he was bad for the balance. Completely different team and situation though, certainly it's not controversial saying Pocock at 7 would have been better for the team at points but at his best Hooper also added a lot of value. Either of 6. Fardy 7. Pockock/Hooper 8. Palu is a great lineup but they were rarely all available or in form.
Joe Blow
John Hipwell (52)
Thats utter gash. In two months is the time to rebuild.
This is rugbys showpiece and our results will have a large effect on where the game goes in Australia over the next period(4yrs or more).
There are glaring holes in Jones’ selections and appointments with the obvious at 10 but also in selecting a captain that means we go into every game he starts with literally one line out hand tied behind our back.
How much time will they need to right the ship?
Tomthumb
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Really? We have sucked for 20 years, how will this tournament change anything?
stillmissit
Peter Johnson (47)
Can't really see where you are going with this. If your post is to suggest we replace McRight with T. Hooper then I disagree. I am not against a larger 7 and many here think Gleeson could be the answer. I think T.H. is a decent 6 who will get better as time goes on.
My issue is that we have to play the cards we are given and atm McRight makes a better 7 than the bit Gleeson has shown and I do not think he is an 8. So the question to you is what does your back row look like (keeping in mind that Leota is starting to look ok).
My preference is to play the same backrow given current timeframes and urgency, stick with Bobby V at 8 (although I think we are wasting a great 6), Hooper at 6 and let's give Gleeson a go at 7 with McRight on the bench for one of the lesser matches and see if the hype has more substance than hype,
stillmissit
Peter Johnson (47)
I am hopeful that our future comes out of this tournament but hope doesn't win wars.