Phil Wilkins is pulling something...

[naza]

Cutter, fair points. I'd say the forwards comfortably outperformed the backs this season and our backs are holding us back.

I'd also like to see us working on ensuring our attack isn't so reliant on quick ruck ball. Every rugby style game relies on fast ball going forward to create attacking opportunities. Think league and touch as examples. Every defence tries to slow down the ball because they know they are more effective moving forward than backwards. Its only freakish individual moments or very bad defence that allows tries to be scored off slow ball.

Cause all it takes is a slow halfback, a poor ref, a cynical opposition flanker to slow your ball down. naza this is where we cross swords. As a former forward, its my view that the forwards' job is to make sure opposition flankers dont slow it down, to make sure that if your halfback is rubbish, you get the ball to him in a way that he doesnt have any excuses and to play to the ref. At the moment our forwards arent doing this enough. Cordingley was digging for the ball then looking around to where he was going to pass it. By the time he went to pick it up the AB defensive line was set or the ABs had counter rucked and won the ball. It cant always be like this, but it should be on a platter for him so that when he gets there he doesnt need to dig and can pass it straight out.Where is our counter-attack ? I agree with you on this one. The risk/reward ratio for counterattack is out of whack at the moment. Counter attack was in in 2003 when the brilliant counterattacking ABs didnt win the RWC. Successful teams are conservative which is why the ELVs were needed to give a leg up to attackers.Where is the offloading ?The Wallabies have improved, but Wales are the best at this when they play well. Why don't our backs have any moves ? I'm sure they have moves, but they cant run them off bad ball or, if they do run them, they dont work off bad ball.Why don't they do something to keep the defence guessing ? Such as a cross field kick to the winger?Why can't they even field up and unders properly ?

The statute of limitations for trotting out the 'Eddie Jones has them playing like robots' excuse is over.

A few comments above. Over all, I agree that our backs arent performing wonderfully at the moment. Bear in mind though that its not a great backline. Mortlock is too old, Cross is a strong runner but not much of a distributor, Hynes is solid in a Rob Egerton kind of way but no Campese, Barnes is a poor man's Lynagh, Tuqiri is incredibly over rated and doesnt understand rugby lines, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) understands rugby lines but is rarely given a good one to run. Giteau is Giteau but he's not Ella, Larkham or Carter. Also, as much as Eddie Jones is "dissed", the Wallabies scored some beautiful set piece tries with him at the helm.

Deadset, its like being back in primary school - the teacher gets out the red marker pen and goes to work.

Eddie Jones' Wallabies scored with great set moves as you say. Why did we get rid of this ? Surely you keep the good stuff, and work on the stuff you're not good at ?

Finally, a concession that our backs aren't great. It seems the goalposts have moved and instead of parity, now we need comprehensive dominance up front. Half the reason we struggled in the counter ruck in the last 20 minutes of B3 was because our pack were so tired from doing all the work. The forwards do all the defense, all the ruck work, all the attack. Be nice if the backs did something for a change.

The ELVs mean its purely up to the ref to stop opponents slowing the ball down.

Cross field kick to the winger keeps the defence guessing ? That's the 1st, 2nd and 3rd option in Giteau's playbook.

 

[Sully]

And another point we didn't just win possesion we had just over 60% possesion and the about the same in teritory that nearly a dominant display by our forwards!

 

[naza]

And another point we didn't just win possesion we had just over 60% possesion and the about the same in teritory that nearly a dominant display by our forwards!

Exactly. I don't know what this lot are going on about.

The bottom line is with 2 minutes to go, 4 points down, Giteau hands possession away with yet another aimless kick. Sums up how our backs have played all year.

 

[Sully]

5years ago we could win games with less than 40% possesion now teams can beat us with less than 40!

 

[Pfitzy]

The possession and territory stats mean shit all IMHO - there is no way to calculate them into points except the Shoulda Clause - we had all the territory and possession so we Shoulda won.

 

[Cutter]

5years ago we could win games with less than 40% possesion now teams can beat us with less than 40!

Yes, but it was slow ball. A good defense will always repel attacks of slow, flat ball.

 

[Lindommer]

5years ago we could win games with less than 40% possesion now teams can beat us with less than 40!

Yes, but it was slow ball. A good defense will always repel attacks of slow, flat ball.

Which is why we don't need another Gregan-type player at half-back. I can put up with Burgess' occasional wild passes as long as he gets a few on the money but we will never win with slow ball. Our results the last few years with the uber control freak at HB should've taught us that. We desparately need to rebuild the Wobblies with some youth and energy, but not Beale at this stage.

 

[Lee Grant]

And another point we didn't just win possesion we had just over 60% possesion and the about the same in teritory that nearly a dominant display by our forwards!

Sure? Read this which has it 50/50 - or near enough.:

http://rugbystats.com.au/rugby/thescore1669.html

 

[Gagger]

Not really a coherent argument - but to pick up on a few points:

1 - For his weaknesses Beale ran a backline that got to the S14 final and far from embarrassed himself when there. This was also done with little or no experience inside our outside him, so it's not like you can say he was a passenger. He ran it.
He's got obvious weaknesses that I think you'd expect a 19 year old to have stepping into S14. Think of how much Barnes has matured in the last year and surprise, surprise he's 22. The problem is the hype that the likes of Wilkinson and the Ellas (talking up their asset) have given him.

We need a backup playmaker (has this become the most overused word this season?) - losing Barnes and the Tri-Nations proved that. Giteau also has a predilection for putting his head on the wrong side of tackles. So Beale needs to go to Europe and get some training / game time.

2 - As a twist on the static ball argument, I'd say that for the wrong reasons the Wallabies actually did pretty well on occasions with the static ball. Better than the other 2 outfits in fact. In Brisbane it was all we ever got and we still managed to march down the field more often than we should have.
Also, the last time we the A team backline (Auckland) we scored one of the few set piece tries / first phase tries in the tournament (Mortlock skinning Smith on the outside).

So one of the few positives that comes out of this 3Ns for me is that we were competitive with slow ball, with quick ball we can even belt the ABs as proven in Sydney.

 

[Lee Grant]

Good post Gagger - yeah we need a back up playmaker and using Beale on tour to soak up the atmosphere of being in a Wallabies squad may have long term benefits. And no other flyhalf in Oz put their hand up in the S14 this year to be an EOYT development player.

He could play in that Barbarians game and possibly the Italian test from the bench - though I still shudder when I remember the last Wallabies performance on tour against Italy when we should have lost and would have had the home team's goal kicking been better.

Was that the game they tried Larkham out at inside centre? Anyway - Browns cows would have been embarrassed by that rabble that day.

Yeah the Wallabies did pretty well despite getting a lot of crap ball but they were too many unforced errors behind the pack to blame the forwards only. Cordingley didn't help matters but it would have taken a Catchpole or Hipwell, the masters of steaming crap ball, to make a difference, but they were Wallaby greats.

For me it's first things first: get the good ball as we did in Sydney and to a lesser extent in Perth and Durban, and then we can judge the backs better. As I indicated on another thread - good ball can't help mistakes like bad passing behind the pack or from receivers running too far in front of the ball carrier, nor with other unforced errors, but it lessens their occurrence.

It's no secret that our opponents got better front ball in our 3 losses and that was never better illustrated than at JHB.

First things first.

 

[Lee Grant]

Or is better defence first?

Chicken and egg.

 

[Biffo]

Keep right on hammering away, Lee. The Wallabies must first get consistent, persistent and quality forward performances before I, for one, will get involved in talk of "this back or that back?".

Do not digress.

 

[Scotty]

2 - As a twist on the static ball argument, I'd say that for the wrong reasons the Wallabies actually did pretty well on occasions with the static ball. Better than the other 2 outfits in fact. In Brisbane it was all we ever got and we still managed to march down the field more often than we should have

Rubbish. See AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)'s and Horwill's tries for examples.

Or is better defence first?

Chicken and egg

There is no chicked and egg here - they are too different animals, so there is no reason we can't work on both at the same time. In saying that we lost the game with our defense, so that is number one priority.

For mine this year our forward performance has improved on previous years, while our backs performance has deteriorated (but we need to take into account the change in playmakers).

 

[RugbyReg]

Lee, yep Bernie was 12 with Rogers at 10 and Gits at 9.

Have been watching replays of the Welsh test of that tour of late when that combo started. I still rate it. Particularly Gits as SH. With Burgess and Lucas and Sheehan we don't need it now. But I maintain he was better than Gregan, at that stage.

We just needed a 12 and why not try Bernie/Rat? The real problem was at 1 and 3 where Baxter and Blake were.

Interestingly our best performance of that tour was when Larkham was back at 10, Staniforth was in at 12, Shepherdson in for Blake, Robinson in for Baxter, Moore in for McIsaacs/Cannon and Chisolm was discarded. Although it was just Scotland.

 

[Grandmaster Flash]

Interestingly our best performance of that tour was when Larkham was back at 10, Staniforth was in at 12, Shepherdson in for Blake, Robinson in for Baxter, Moore in for McIsaacs/Cannon and Chisolm was discarded. Although it was just Scotland.

The gothetahs website had a great video compiliation of that highlighting Staniforth's contribution (he was awesome) and set to Simple Minds' Don't You.

It was up on youtube but taken down but I think it was downloadable from a website?