• 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.

Gnostic's totally unbiased, depressed and cynical Wallaby player ratings V SA 280810

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
1. Robinson 6.5 - scrum solid, started to see his linking game and made a couple of carries this week.
2. S. Faaingaa 4 - Scrum solid, lineout throwing poor, even before the rash of losses at the end of the game his throwing was wonky. Fell off a few tackles as well.
3. Ma'afu 4 - Scrum solid (surprisingly), but what does he offer anywhere else? He has had 1 prominent game away from the set peice all year
4. Sharpe 9 - His carries this year are much tighter and he invariably makes the gain line. Line-out work was excellent. COunter maul was again very good and the Boks obviously did their homework on this as Steenkamp's score showed when the quickly moved the ball away from Sharpe and Mumm to the flanks where Elsom and Brown should have covered.
5. Mumm 3 - Upright in the carry, fell off tackles and lineout went to shit when he was supposed to be leading it. Not helped by very poor throwing from Finger.
6. ELsom 5 - Won a couple of lineouts, made a couple of carries which didn't trouble the defence. His support of the ball carrier was much better this week. I remain ambivalent to Elsom. He just hasn't showed why he was the best 6 in Oz four years ago. He has been poor to average since his return and this was again fairly average.
7. Pocock 6 - His tackle rate is amazing. He rarely falls off an attempted tackle and remains the best on-ball opeside in the comp this year. He loses 1.5 point for drifting to far and too quick to leave a massive hole I could have scored from for Smiths try.
8. Brown 3 - Same old same old. No presence at breakdown, no assurance at the base of the scrum, poor carries that do not even make the gain line.
9. Genia 6 - The passing in the first half was quick and crisp straight from the ground. What happened, he got tired and started the meer cat and was lucky on at least three occassion not to get turned over at the ruck as the Wallabies failed to clear the ball.
10. Cooper 7 - Well contained by JDV and Houghard (sp) he still beat the centres for SA with the ball.
12. Giteau 5 - ran with the ball straight just once and made a half break. Still has crabs. I expected and remember him as a far better defender than he is showing.
13. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) 4 - As with Horne Giteau is doing him no favours. Neither AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) or Horne are outright power runners like Mortlock and Herbert (either brother). Both need half a hole or a questioning defender to make the break (as Mat Burke (again either one) needed. He can be a very good 13 if he is given the time and half gaps. He is getting neither and hence barely makes the gain line. In defence he is getting caught out quite a bit but needs some time.
11. Mitchell 8 - The only Winger in the 22 showed what a winger's job is. Perhaps getting dropped and his (wrongly awarded) red card have him on notice that another poor game will see him dropped likely for good if Hynes and Ioane are fit.
14. JOC (James O'Connor) 5 - Before people say he scored 2 tries. Whoppee, what did he do to create those tries as a Winger? The only bit of god wing play we saw from him was the loop and support for Beale's attack from behind the line. JOC (James O'Connor) gets 5 for supporting the carrier for his first try, the Beale support and chasing a kick off hard. It doesn't deserve more. His defence is still suspect on the wing.
15. Beale 9 - He is growing in confidence with every game. He was easily the most dangerous back for Oz.

16. Moore 6 - why didn't he get back on when Finger was obviously struggling? Lineout throws he did were accurate, Carried over the gain line and the one scrum he had was very good.
17. Slipper 6 - The difference in the pack once Ma'afu leaves is amazing. He scrums better and is better around the park. The only reason I can see Ma'afu starts in front of him is that Slipper can cover both sides of the scrum.
18. McCalman 6 - agressive, got over the gain line. If he got more time he wold probably have got a better mark.
20. Burgess - Not used ( Sack Deans now)
21. Barnes - Not used (sack Deans now)
22. A. Fainga'a - Not Used (sack Deans Now)
26. Simmons 5 - didn't effectively cover for the loss of Sharpe. But as he does call the lineouts for the Reds either its a big ask and was let down by Mumm in that regard.

Coaching Staff -

Noreiga - Proves that you can make at least a coin purse out of a sows ear by getting a solid scrum out of Ma'afu and Fainga'a.

Graham - WTF does he do? The "Skills" are average at best. There are those who say players should need to be coached in the basics and to this I say BULLSHIT, but if that were the case I say Why is there a skills coach?

Williams - Jim you played 8 at test level and did so very well. Why does Brown still get a gig at this level. Can't you convince Deans that he offers nothing. The pack has started to hunt as a unit the issue are still some parts of the unit (that have been consistantly trotted out for over two years) are not up to the task.

Deans - The Myth of coaching. I begin to question if his provincial record was more to due with the blessing he had of a few players and settled sides at Canterbury. I remember more and more the idiocy and sheer pig headedness of his last stint as a national coach. Before the Deans supporters start yelling the same old tire excuses just ask yourselves where are the Wallabies a better team than they were when he got the job.
The answer is in just one phase the scrum. The Wallabies at every other phase of play are worse or the same as they were three years ago. Basic skills, breakdown play, line-out, set piece plays.

In Summary the Wallabies as a Team get a 5. They totally rely on individual brilliance in attack and do not create anything as a unit. Shut down the individuals and they will turn over the ball and then they are easy pickings as players are played out of position and in some cases just not up to test match rugby.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Hard to argue with many of those ratings.
All our loose forwards carry too high - Mumm, Rocky, McCalman too when he came on, even Pocock (but he gets forward more by sheer bloody mindedness I think). None have the knack of getting low and driving through the defense.
I thoroughly agree about Graham - farkin passenger.
So too Williams.
Get a proper defense coach, a better forward coach (keep Pato, he seems to be making gains with the scrum).
I won't go into the Sack Deans Now stuff again, we already closed a long and pretty tedious thread on that. I think we all know each others' thoughts, and I think we're stuck with him for now.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
20. Burgess - Not used ( Sack Deans now)
21. Barnes - Not used (sack Deans now)
22. A. Fainga'a - Not Used (sack Deans Now)

What would these guys have done though? In the last 10 we were camped in the Bok half on attack, how would any of these guys made a contribution greater than what Genia, Cooper, Gits and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) did?

Burgo, Barnes and Fainga'a are good solid options, but I cant see why you would want to throw them into a test in the last 10 when we desperately need a try to win. I would much rather have Genia, Cooper and Giteau on the park, even if they were a bit tired.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
Genia was obviously struggling in the second half and started to slow the delivery of the ball from the breakdown. Compare his first half passes which were from the ground. Like I said the meer cat impersonations came back in the second 40.

Barnes for Giteau. 31 tackles missed, many in the centres. Like I said I don't recall Giteau being so bad in defence, but whilst Barnes doesn't offer as much potential attack as Giteau the fcats are Giteau hasn't lived up to that potential for a long long time and Barnes is a better defender.

Fainga'a was never going to get on and was injury cover only, but for who I have no idea. Again Deans has stunned us with his selection policies. 1 specialist winger in the 22.

It was obvious that the Wallabies were tiring as many predicted. Hence why I called for the 5:2 split and the maintenance of the energy levels of the team.

Let me just point out, I picked the starting 22 and most of the bench and predicted the result and margin. It was there to be seen, just have to critically evaluate the play and not get caught up in the personalties and national loyalty.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
Let me just point out, I picked the starting 22 and most of the bench and predicted the result and margin. It was there to be seen, just have to critically evaluate the play and not get caught up in the personalties and national loyalty.

Yes, yes, gnostic, you are of course a fucking genius. Predicting an almost unchanged lineup- how did you do that? A Wallaby loss on the high veldt- I know I didn't see it coming. Why are you wasting your time on a rugby forum when you could be out there using your powers to fight crime? Go, now, for the good of the city!!

But seriously, Gits and Genia were still two of our best chances of breaking the defence in the last ten. They weren't tearing it up, but you have to keep your proven performers on the park in the last minutes of a close one.
 

Richo

John Thornett (49)
BaaBaa, I disagree re Gits in the last ten. He might be a "proven performer" but that proof was given a long time ago now. He wasn't offering anything and, as Gnostic notes, he actually makes our attack more predictable because he never uses those outside him, especially 13.

Barnes for the last 15 or 20 would have been a good call. I like him outside Cooper because he's so strong in defense, they play well together, and Barnes would at the very least make sure his 13 sees the ball once in a while. Giving the Saffas a different look wouldn't have hurt, either.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
Yes, yes, gnostic, you are of course a fucking genius. Predicting an almost unchanged lineup- how did you do that? A Wallaby loss on the high veldt- I know I didn't see it coming. Why are you wasting your time on a rugby forum when you could be out there using your powers to fight crime? Go, now, for the good of the city!!

But seriously, Gits and Genia were still two of our best chances of breaking the defence in the last ten. They weren't tearing it up, but you have to keep your proven performers on the park in the last minutes of a close one.

Come now Barbarian, play the ball not the man, I simply, was highlighting the fact that unlike a few here I saw the result coming and the reasons why.

Nothing you say in "proven performers" makes what I said untrue and the performance from the pair was falling away as the game wore on.

It has been discussed a lot regarding the players having to adapt to the ref, but the coach has to also be flexible to change the approach and put somebody else in the middle if the attack/defence is stagnating or failing to do the job.

The fact that Barnes and Giteau are so different is a huge bonus and would have asked the Boks to change their mode of play to accommodate the change on top of the advantages to the Oz team in defence and attack.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
But Richo, how often did Giteau have the ball? Both Gits and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) had very few opportunities, and to accuse Gits of being a ballhog is a bit much I think.

Look I'm not saying he is sensational but I would back him to break the line more than Barnes in the last ten. I can see how Barnes better defence could have bolstered the midfield, but I would have kept Gits for his attack and goalkicking. When you are down by 6 with 15 to go you dont bring on players to bolster your defence.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
Come now Barbarian, play the ball not the man, I simply, was highlighting the fact that unlike a few here I saw the result coming and the reasons why.

Nothing you say in "proven performers" makes what I said untrue and the performance from the pair was falling away as the game wore on.

It has been discussed a lot regarding the players having to adapt to the ref, but the coach has to also be flexible to change the approach and put somebody else in the middle if the attack/defence is stagnating or failing to do the job.

The fact that Barnes and Giteau are so different is a huge bonus and would have asked the Boks to change their mode of play to accommodate the change on top of the advantages to the Oz team in defence and attack.

Yes, Gnostic, and I was merely giving you the congratulations you deserve.

And I don't buy the sudden urge to play Barnes. What has he ever done with ball in hand for the Wallabies? Weren't you one of the many crying for his sacking after Melbourne? The Boks wouldn't have changed their mode of play at all, because Barnes asks no questions of the defence.

I think you could be FAR more critical of the decision not to bring on Moore than the decision not to bring on Barnes.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
Ah the sarcasm, I suppose I do deserve that with my baiting of the Deans lovers.

No I wasn't calling for Barnes to be sacked, show me where I posted Barnes to be sacked? I was and still think Giteau needs to go to the bench to cover 10/12. In any event the differences between what Barnes and Giteau offer could be a major weapon if used properly, the trouble is it doesn't get used.

Read my OP again, I was I thought critical of the decision not to replace Fainga'a, but somebody decided to highlight a small part of that post and ignore the rest so I replied to that.

The Fainga'a non-replacement was totally baffling especially when the Lineout went pear shaped in the 2nd 40.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Gnostic, I for one am getting pretty tired your labelling of people who don't follow your (oft repeated) mantra of "sack Deans" with Old Testament fervour. There is a middle ground between you, and the Deans Lovers (I have yet to notice anyone giving him unrequited big-ups by the way), whoever they may be. Plenty of others see the faults - given he is here to stay for now, we need to look at options to get more from what we have.
We all get it - you want him gone.
I don't think you quite qualify as Nostradamus by tipping that result by the way. It seems a few did.
 

Richo

John Thornett (49)
Barbarian, I don't think Gits is a ball-hog per se, more that he's a ball runner much more than he is a passer and this international season we haven't seen 13 involved at all, whether AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) or Horne.

I totally agree with you about breaking the line though, good point. Maybe he should be coming off the bench to do exactly that in the last quarter of the game?
 
R

rugbyfan

Guest
What would these guys have done though? In the last 10 we were camped in the Bok half on attack, how would any of these guys made a contribution greater than what Genia, Cooper, Gits and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) did?

Burgo, Barnes and Fainga'a are good solid options, but I cant see why you would want to throw them into a test in the last 10 when we desperately need a try to win. I would much rather have Genia, Cooper and Giteau on the park, even if they were a bit tired.

I think he was leaning towards more of the point of putting these players on becuase there was nothing being created, and the players were fatigued. Even if Barnes can't create something at 10 or 12, what does Australia have to loose by giving fresh players a run?
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
I have now learnt my lesson about using (what I thought was fairly obvious) bait to elicit discussion and maybe a rueful laugh at me going on about my favourite topic (it is expected after all). The whole thrust of my OP was lost by the side tracks caused by the three little words highlighted.

My points are:-
1. Relying on individuals to create something instead of building momentum through solid play by both Pigs and backs. The best example I can give is when Far-Jone went off injured in the 91 RWC semi against Ireland things went a bit pear shaped. The team however built a try through solid team play and didn't rely on the star Campo to get over but Lynagh did through solid work in the last phase. The movement began from the kick off and they move the ball the length of the field to get in that position through the good play of the TEAM.
2. The bench usage is as most have agreed very poor, but in this case my main thrust is that Barnes apart from being a better defender offers something totally different to Giteau. This can and would change the whole dynamic of the Oz centres and by extension the Bok centres.

Sorry to have side tracked all with the 'bait' in the OP its was supposed to be a bit tongue in cheek though and not what the post was about.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
I have to side with Gnostic here...

The Wallabies are clearly relying on individual performers to get them across the line but the team as a whole just isn't working...

Their skills are poor, and there have been so many games now with tiring performers that needed to be subbed but Deans has just been stubborn...

And his match day squad are completely unbalanced... how can we only have one winer in the squad and a backline full of inside centres?!

Oh, and the continuous use of players that have regularly not performed... and there are other options out there...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top