• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

France vs Wallabies, EOYT 2010

Status
Not open for further replies.

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
When he said 'focus on playing straighter' do you think he was really saying 'dropping Giteau'?

I think they need to do the old training trick with gits and set the training ground up with vertical lines every 10m to give him some terms of reference.

He seems to want to win the game by himself too often; instead of putting another player (and the team) in a better position
 

Gagger

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Staff member
Rewatched 2nd half of French game last night. As usual forwards graft got overlooked for backs glitz.

Defensive line speed was impressive - they really shut the frogs down and made them play behind the gain line
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I don't thick we overlooked it. I for one stated that, except for the scrums they outplayed the French in every facet of forward play.
 

Gagger

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Staff member
Go to the front of the class Scotty!

Seriously - I remember your post which was fair. I'd say most reaction was about how shit the frogs were and how good our backs were
 
T

tranquility

Guest
Gagger, your display pic represents all that i love about the festive season.
 

Set piece magic

John Solomon (38)
Well yes Gagger you're right, part of the reason it looked like our backs were scoring such simple tries was because of the forward dominance - we were rock's in defense and rolling thunder in offense, which gave our backline that much space to move. When the forwards work, the backline needs no invite.
 
T

tranquility

Guest
The way our backline functions currently is very interesting. I recently re-watched the first lions match played at the Gabba of all places. I could not get over how much bigger our backline was in that game, compared to now. Not only in actual weight, but all of the players in that side were grown men and fully developed physically. Grey, Herbert, Roff, Latham. I know it has been mentioned many times before, but it would be very interesting if those two backlines ran at each other because they are just so contrasting.

It just goes to show how skillful the current crop of players are that not only are they able to play as an undersized backline, but also such an under-experienced backline. Could lend itself to alot more in depth analysis me thinks.
 

Hawko

Tony Shaw (54)
The way our backline functions currently is very interesting. I recently re-watched the first lions match played at the Gabba of all places. I could not get over how much bigger our backline was in that game, compared to now. Not only in actual weight, but all of the players in that side were grown men and fully developed physically. Grey, Herbert, Roff, Latham. I know it has been mentioned many times before, but it would be very interesting if those two backlines ran at each other because they are just so contrasting.

It just goes to show how skillful the current crop of players are that not only are they able to play as an undersized backline, but also such an under-experienced backline. Could lend itself to alot more in depth analysis me thinks.

When the Ellas and Walker first played at Randwick they were supposedly undersized, but they just cut everyone to pieces. Week after week. Thirty years ago or more but I cannot forget it. Big is not always good. When Kurtley got big it was really detrimental. Speed and skill are the primary requirements. If you haven't got those two then you won't cut it at the elite level whatever size you are.
 

Lee Grant

John Eales (66)
Well yes Gagger you're right, part of the reason it looked like our backs were scoring such simple tries was because of the forward dominance - we were rock's in defense and rolling thunder in offense, which gave our backline that much space to move. When the forwards work, the backline needs no invite.

Well said spikaza and Gagger: I watched the whole game again a couple of days ago and the forwards underwrote the performance. The French pack had gimpses of dominance, especially earlier when Chabal was doing his thing but our guys didn't let them cause too much damage.


I thought the scrum débâcle would translate to elsewhere in forward play, but it didn't. The replacement of Alexander, who should not play at THP again IMO, and Fat Cat coming on, plus Slipper moving over to the right hand side, helped the Oz scrum. So did the forced retirement of hooker Servat just before oranges and the rotation of LHP Domingo not too long after them. Having said that you'd think that what the French had remaining: the Perpignan front row, would have twisted the knife more than they did.


Some other thoughts:

• Oz rugby should bottle AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)'s right arm fend. It created the Fat Cat try when palming off the French fullback; however Porical is of the line of Garbajosa and no great kudos was earned. But the palming off of Jauzion, a split second after stepping Rougerie, was an astonishing thing. When he got the ball again moments later, his palming of skipper Dusautoir led to the try of Genia.

Regardless of which side has the ball Dusautoir is one of the great French players, as is Jauzion, who had the mortification of being hooked following the Sanchez try. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) should be a nominee for the Palme d'Or.


• We are accustomed to lauding Pocock, the fetcher, and Pocock the dominant tackler but we don't, or at least I don't, give enough kudos to Pocock the ball-runner.


• We should stop using Mitchell as the designated left foot kicker when clearing from our 22 and players are running to their left. One was charged down by Rougerie and another went out directly into touch after being passed back over the 22. This led to the scrum penalty try and Alexander's card. Better a box kick earlier in the piece as Kafer mentioned, but if a LF kicker has to be used: Barnes and Cooper are quite decent with their wrong foot.


• On another day we might have said that we kicked away too much pill, both with the un-Aussie up-and-unders and kicking through for runners to score - but didn't they work a treat?


• Coaches will look at this game not only to counter us, but also to learn how to score tries against a team that was the deserved 6N winner earlier in the year. Putting aside pig stuff, one thing that will be crystal clear is the benefit of straight running. This was exemplified by AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Beale but it was also orchestrated by conductor Barnes, who is becoming a man for all seasons. How the French wingers would have loved to have played with our backs that night.


• The French would have looked at the England backs, and the likes of Easter, running at Cooper a couple of weeks before - but they hardly ever did. The only tackle I can recall his missing was right at the beginning of the game and I thought a lot more targeting would take place. The trouble was that their boofhead flyhalf Traille could not even launch limited movements like that - let alone try scoring stuff.


• I still can't work out why the French forwards didn't do more and saying that we didn't let them doesn't really answer. Nor can the absence of the excellent lock Nallet explain why we beat them at the coal face - we would have liked the presence of Horwill.

Nor can I work out how our forwards can play like that but were an embarrassment at Twickenham. That their forwards didn't allow ours to perform physically doesn't answer that question either.

Still, better to finish the tour with the France victory than the England loss.
 

Gagger

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Staff member
Great points as usual LG

This was a fascinating game from a Jason vs Goliath backlines perspective (as described in Bruce's great blog post).

Rougerie simply couldn't/wouldn't get low enough on AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), nor could he stay close enough with speed/agility. A good number of our tries later on were scored from turnover ball IIRC; again their bigger backs found it hard to re-align and cover quickly enough.
 

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
Agree on our forward play in the loose: it was excellent and there were times when the counter rucking was absolutely outstanding. It even set up at least one try.
 

DPK

Peter Sullivan (51)
• We should stop using Mitchell as the designated left foot kicker when clearing from our 22 and players are running to their left. One was charged down by Rougerie and another went out directly into touch after being passed back over the 22. This led to the scrum penalty try and Alexander's card. Better a box kick earlier in the piece as Kafer mentioned, but if a LF kicker has to be used: Barnes and Cooper are quite decent with their wrong foot.

I agree with your points, but Mitchell does have a gigantic boot when he hits it sweetly. A skill worth honing.
 

HKTiger

Allen Oxlade (6)
........
Nor can I work out how our forwards can play like that but were an embarrassment at Twickenham. That their forwards didn't allow ours to perform physically doesn't answer that question either.

Still, better to finish the tour with the France victory than the England loss.

Sources in Cardiff inform me that the Wallabies celebrated the All Black victory a little too long. The hangover game was at Twickenham.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
Some thoughts on your comments LG -

1) The Frogs fielded what I would think of as a pretty experimental backline, all for size and not their usual flair. It was very different to the side that won the 6N.

2) The big difference between the French and English games for me was the line speed in defence from the Wallabies. The ball the French got was pressured at all times and only Chabal made any metres with ball in hand. The key was Barnes at 12 he led the defensive line forward and the French were knocked over behind or on the gain line. This contrasted with the passive defensive effort against the Poms and against the ABs as well. There were extensive discussion on this board throughout the year on the lack of size in the backline preventing "dominant" tackles. I said then and now that dominant tackles are not so much an issue if the ball carrier and the next receiver are under pressure by a very effective defensive line speed with those tacklers having a very high tackle success as Barnes, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and the wings do. I think the English did to us what we did to the French basically. Against England the Wallabies were knocked over by a very fast defensive line, but also had the massive defensive liability of Cooper at 10 (defending) and with Giteau at 12 he did not lead the line forward in defence as Barnes did against the English. It also helped that the English were offside at the ruck on defence for large periods of the game giving their line speed an extra yard.

3) Cooper appeared to me to be hidden away at defence time. He was no called upon to make many tackles at all and didn't appear in the line for the French to target. They were left running at Barnes, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Pocock. When theytried to go wide to have the outside backs run at Cooper that fast line speed came into play and their huge centre pairing without their usual backline skills hampered them.

4) I agree fully the only way for Alexander ever to get selected at THP for Oz again is for him to play there for the Ponies. Given Palmer and Ma'afu are on the book and Jerry Y had that broken ankle (which I would expect to keep him out for the start of the Super Series) he will play LHP. If the Wallabies are serious about the scrum they will have to select horses for courses. On the heavy slow tracks seen in the NH there is a strong case to select a "potplant" type THP who can achor the scrum. I understand what Deans is doing selecting a very mobile front row but it is basically accepting that the scrum will be shit. As there can be so few scrums in the game perhaps this is a valid winning approach, but I just don't like conceding such a traditional part of the game. The fact that the scrums are a total lottery refereeing wise it re-inforces the fact that it may not be worth selecting for a strong scrum and compromising in other areas.

Lastly I think it would be easy to get carried away with the French win, impressive as it was because a few of the French heads were hanging after Genia's try. Some of the effort seemed to go out of their play then. I would be very surprised if some of the backline players and a couple of the forwards get a run in the 6N.
 

Bruce Ross

Ken Catchpole (46)
Lastly I think it would be easy to get carried away with the French win, impressive as it was because a few of the French heads were hanging after Genia's try. Some of the effort seemed to go out of their play then.

You do a nice line in understatement, Gnostic:

"A few of the French heads were hanging."

"Some of the effort seemed to go out of their play "

By contrast the French crowd kept their heads high, the better to whistle shrilly at their own players.
 

disco

Chilla Wilson (44)
• We are accustomed to lauding Pocock, the fetcher, and Pocock the dominant tackler but we don't, or at least I don't, give enough kudos to Pocock the ball-runner.

RugbyReg did comment earlier on that Pocock was becoming like a 2nd Palu for us.

• We should stop using Mitchell as the designated left foot kicker when clearing from our 22 and players are running to their left. One was charged down by Rougerie and another went out directly into touch after being passed back over the 22.

Mitchell has been charged down when clearing from our 22 on other occasions & rival teams will know he takes his time to wind up so I think this could be perferct for Deans to set up an attack from inside our 22 with Mitchell either stepping back inside the rush defence are looking for Beale on the inside sought of like what Giteau did to McCaw in Melbourne.
 

Lee Grant

John Eales (66)
A very good post up there Gnostic.

I liked these parts:

I think the English did to us what we did to the French basically.
The question will always be, putting aside the mechanics of it: why did we let them?

The key was Barnes at 12 he led the defensive line forward. Good point. I liked it when he was having a go at THP Mas. The whistle had gone and he was still trying to get Mas to the ground and the THP was just swatting him away, but he was having a go. He may have a sook-face as people keep saying, but Bernie did too and he was not shy to remind bigger players that he was around. Like the great man had, Barnes has a steely resolve.

I don't think that anybody is getting carried away with that win. As a few of us said before the match: it was an oddly picked side even for Lievremont. One could see that he was playing a long game with some of the bizarre back selections. Some were 4th or 5th string players, and flyhalf Traille was not even that.

Their failure to perform was not that surprising. What shocked me was the passive performance of the forwards. Their best LHP and lock were out but otherwise that was a good pack on paper.

Who would want to be the French coach after that unaccountable performance - or Deans after Twickenham?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top