Taking the kicks takes the immediately opportunity, planning/hoping for the penalty advantage puts you into the refs hands.
And we saw again how well that works.
- Status
Taking the kicks takes the immediately opportunity, planning/hoping for the penalty advantage puts you into the refs hands.
And we saw again how well that works.
BDA
Jim Lenehan (48)
This thread is a bit misguided. Are we discussing Horwill's captaincy generally, or just his captaincy in Saturday's game?
In terms of saturday's game, I thought both Horwill and Mowen seemed to do a pretty decent job of leading their respective teams, and the referee, through-out. In terms of the decision not to take kickable penalties, well we all have the benefit of hindsight. I've seen much worse decisions. In the context of the game I didn't mind it because it kept the pressure on the Brumbies and Horwill obviously had great faith in the team to get over the line (and they did might i add). In fact, not only did they score the try but they did it with enough time for a final crack at the end; it was purely their execution that let them down.
Sometimes the problem with turning down the points is that it becomes almost defeatist to then decide on subsquent penalties that you'll now take the 3 points. The team defending takes it as a small victory of sorts. I recall a game several years ago in NZ (I think it was the tahs v Blues). The tahs were down like 20 points in the first half. They got a succession of penalties in the Blues' 22, each time turning down the points and choosing to attack. On about the 4th penalty Mumm opted for the penalty kick and it was clear they were never going to win that game. Slightly different context but it illustrates my point. After attacking the line for 5 minutes unsuccessfully Horwill was locked to that decision and his decision to stick with that approach was ultimately vindicated.
If the Reds had taken 3 points at the 65min mark, the final stages of the game may have been very different. It's akin to the Aus v SA RWC Semi. Had the Boks kicked their penalty goals that game would probably not have been played in the Wallabies' 22, which would have meant (in theory) signficantly less penalties, which meant less scoring opportunities, less pressure, etc.
I have no problem with Horwill's decisions. In hindsight he perhaps could have taken the first points on offer but its impossible to speculate how the game might have turned had he done so.
In terms of Horwill's captaincy in general, which is perhaps what we should be concerntrating on, one only has to look at how the Reds have lifted as a team since his return. For mine, Horwill and Genia should be Wallabies C and VC.
In terms of saturday's game, I thought both Horwill and Mowen seemed to do a pretty decent job of leading their respective teams, and the referee, through-out. In terms of the decision not to take kickable penalties, well we all have the benefit of hindsight. I've seen much worse decisions. In the context of the game I didn't mind it because it kept the pressure on the Brumbies and Horwill obviously had great faith in the team to get over the line (and they did might i add). In fact, not only did they score the try but they did it with enough time for a final crack at the end; it was purely their execution that let them down.
Sometimes the problem with turning down the points is that it becomes almost defeatist to then decide on subsquent penalties that you'll now take the 3 points. The team defending takes it as a small victory of sorts. I recall a game several years ago in NZ (I think it was the tahs v Blues). The tahs were down like 20 points in the first half. They got a succession of penalties in the Blues' 22, each time turning down the points and choosing to attack. On about the 4th penalty Mumm opted for the penalty kick and it was clear they were never going to win that game. Slightly different context but it illustrates my point. After attacking the line for 5 minutes unsuccessfully Horwill was locked to that decision and his decision to stick with that approach was ultimately vindicated.
If the Reds had taken 3 points at the 65min mark, the final stages of the game may have been very different. It's akin to the Aus v SA RWC Semi. Had the Boks kicked their penalty goals that game would probably not have been played in the Wallabies' 22, which would have meant (in theory) signficantly less penalties, which meant less scoring opportunities, less pressure, etc.
I have no problem with Horwill's decisions. In hindsight he perhaps could have taken the first points on offer but its impossible to speculate how the game might have turned had he done so.
In terms of Horwill's captaincy in general, which is perhaps what we should be concerntrating on, one only has to look at how the Reds have lifted as a team since his return. For mine, Horwill and Genia should be Wallabies C and VC.
BPC
Phil Hardcastle (33)
You're thinking of Dr Flahive and Taf.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
As BDA notes above, somehow speculating that a 'takes the 3 points' approach at various game stages would have almost certainly won the match for the Reds is factually ill-considered, it assumes the game post that significantly altered captain's decision would have unfolded just as it did in reality and of course no such assumption can be made. Thus it is pure speculation and theory.
What is not pure speculation is this IMO:
- The Reds'/Link's unrelenting high-octane, hyper-attacking game plan was in effect masterful in conception. To have crossed the Brumbies' line no less than 6 times to the Brumbies crossing the Reds but once based upon a 65/35 possession ration for the match says it all. (And further confirms the notion that the Reds' attack is getting right back to its 2011 best, and perhaps better in some respects, 6 line crosses vs a team of the Brumbies class is quite remarkable, with a 3:1 tries outcome being realised.)
- What cruelled the Reds' game plan was in the detail of flawed execution, e.g., Horwill's knock-on under the posts, Chibba's very poor throw soon after right on the Brumbies' line, impatience at the 2H siege on the Brumbie's line leading to micro-moves that were rushed making it easier the Brumbies to hold the ball carrier up, Lance's wayward passes, Genia's kick out on the full, and so on. Namely, echoes of 2013's earlier Reds' flaws in handling and composure in key moments. Then there were numerous scrum penalties and other penalties that simply gifted points to the opposition, and at least 2 of those penalties were avoidable through tight discipline of a type essential to fully implementing a game plan that took high risks in hyper-attack but which equally required low risk tactics in yielding kickable penalties with the Brumbies excellent kicking capabilities. Look closely at the Reds' early 2013 season and we see that it's these types of execution and handling flaws that at least partly explain relatively few BPs and a weak-ish aggregate +ve PD.
(One wonders if a subtle but potentially key flaw in elements of Link's Reds' management model is a slight tendency to indulge individual player skill deficiencies and not insist on a higher level of personal skill development or dispensing with solid journeyman players no matter how 'culturally compatible' and loyal. We seem to be doing very little external recruitment and trust heavily in local talent pools and players. IMO, there are just too many occasions when the non-star Reds make errors that seem consistent, not exceptional. Lance's and A Finger's passing has been suspect all year for example, and why oh why do we persist with a tight five that seem incapable of creating a dominant scrum that is not a dangerous penalty factory against better scrums (as happened on Saturday) when, for example the Reds post 2011 could recruit the best props and/or scrum coaches in the world?)
In summary, it was erratic execution, uneven skills, and crucial errors in key moments that turned a masterful game plan (so typical of Link) into a merely just-adequate game outcome. To his credit, this is precisely what Horwill knew all too painfully when his first proclamation after the game was 'we really shot ourselves in the foot......'.
What is not pure speculation is this IMO:
- The Reds'/Link's unrelenting high-octane, hyper-attacking game plan was in effect masterful in conception. To have crossed the Brumbies' line no less than 6 times to the Brumbies crossing the Reds but once based upon a 65/35 possession ration for the match says it all. (And further confirms the notion that the Reds' attack is getting right back to its 2011 best, and perhaps better in some respects, 6 line crosses vs a team of the Brumbies class is quite remarkable, with a 3:1 tries outcome being realised.)
- What cruelled the Reds' game plan was in the detail of flawed execution, e.g., Horwill's knock-on under the posts, Chibba's very poor throw soon after right on the Brumbies' line, impatience at the 2H siege on the Brumbie's line leading to micro-moves that were rushed making it easier the Brumbies to hold the ball carrier up, Lance's wayward passes, Genia's kick out on the full, and so on. Namely, echoes of 2013's earlier Reds' flaws in handling and composure in key moments. Then there were numerous scrum penalties and other penalties that simply gifted points to the opposition, and at least 2 of those penalties were avoidable through tight discipline of a type essential to fully implementing a game plan that took high risks in hyper-attack but which equally required low risk tactics in yielding kickable penalties with the Brumbies excellent kicking capabilities. Look closely at the Reds' early 2013 season and we see that it's these types of execution and handling flaws that at least partly explain relatively few BPs and a weak-ish aggregate +ve PD.
(One wonders if a subtle but potentially key flaw in elements of Link's Reds' management model is a slight tendency to indulge individual player skill deficiencies and not insist on a higher level of personal skill development or dispensing with solid journeyman players no matter how 'culturally compatible' and loyal. We seem to be doing very little external recruitment and trust heavily in local talent pools and players. IMO, there are just too many occasions when the non-star Reds make errors that seem consistent, not exceptional. Lance's and A Finger's passing has been suspect all year for example, and why oh why do we persist with a tight five that seem incapable of creating a dominant scrum that is not a dangerous penalty factory against better scrums (as happened on Saturday) when, for example the Reds post 2011 could recruit the best props and/or scrum coaches in the world?)
In summary, it was erratic execution, uneven skills, and crucial errors in key moments that turned a masterful game plan (so typical of Link) into a merely just-adequate game outcome. To his credit, this is precisely what Horwill knew all too painfully when his first proclamation after the game was 'we really shot ourselves in the foot......'.
I like Horwill as Captain. He sets the tone for the team with his in your face style. It really sits well with the Reds as all of the players respect him. He is the heart and soul of the team. I also think that it works just as well at the Wallabies it's just that the relationship between him and Deans is different to the one he has with Link. I'm expecting him to play a big part in the Lions series in terms of his play and his leadership.
Caputo
Ted Thorn (20)
I disagree and think it was mostly slow moving hand to hand combat, Rolling Mauls and Pick and Go Drives. The Reds were just as culpable in killing the game style.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
RH,
We have only struggled against the Brumbies scrum this year (and even then we won 3 penalties against them - only one of which was dubious). What it is clear to me that the reds forwards bring to the game above all else is proficiency at the breakdown. To my eye we dominated this area against the brumbies, a team that contains the much lauded smith and mowen.
The reds desperation and skill at the breakdown on the weekend were what put us in that 6 line crosses position and a penalty count in the order if 7-17.
We have only struggled against the Brumbies scrum this year (and even then we won 3 penalties against them - only one of which was dubious). What it is clear to me that the reds forwards bring to the game above all else is proficiency at the breakdown. To my eye we dominated this area against the brumbies, a team that contains the much lauded smith and mowen.
The reds desperation and skill at the breakdown on the weekend were what put us in that 6 line crosses position and a penalty count in the order if 7-17.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
The game style was never killed. I don't think anyone would suggest that the style of that game was anything but entertaining. The game plan by the Reds was, I feel, as RedsHappy described it; high octane and hyper attacking. The negativity that has come out post match was first an allegation of cynical tactics by the Brumbies who have retuned fire with allegations of negative play (mauls, pick/drives etc). None of the criticisms have been about the style of the game.
I think it's accepted that some of the tactics of the Brumbies in their goal line defence were indeed cynical. It's hard to argue otherwise. It's also accepted that teams will generally play in this matter if subjected to enough pressure whilst they are getting away with it. The Reds would've done the same. That's Rugby. I feel that calling the rolling mauls and the pick and go's of the Reds negative is a bit much though - probably because I played all my footy at lock, so to me the only purpose of a back line move is to shift the focus of the next pick and go or maul.
- Status