Poms Vs Wallabies

[fatprop]

I think the the mid week game will be very important, whoever plays lock, 10,12 & 15 will be trialling for the test side.

Locks aren't there to get over the advantage line, but they are required to be on the hip of the runners driving through and cleaning out

Sorry, but why, if you have locks that are 198-200 cm and 120 kg, are they not there to get over the advantage line? Sure, if you play a bean-pole that may be so, but these 2 guys are big solid units, and one of Chisolm's touted strengths in the past has been his ball-carrying ability. Why now is that surplus to requirements, just because he has become more a lock than a 6 as he was before? Use the abilities of the players there, whatever they are, I reckon.
I agree a bit with Nick too - the Poms will sniff blood in the water, and although they will field a weaker front five than they hoped, I think they'll fancy their chances of bullying us out of the game, especially at Twatenham with all their pilgrim singers swinging low.

A big tall guy is easier to get to ground, have a look at the best NRL runners, the are all Palu & Pocock's size

 

[cyclopath]

So that Chisolm that used to play for the Brumbies and be a good ball runner must have been someone else. My mistake.

 

[fatprop]

So that Chisolm that used to play for the Brumbies and be a good ball runner must have been someone else. My mistake.

The Chisholm being a ball runner was not doing the work of a tight forward, that is why he was dropped and "counselled" by Friend & Finnegan

http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/super14/blunt-chat-lifted-chisholm/2009/01/09/1231004263932.html

It was mid last year. Chisholm had been dumped from the Wallabies squad, was playing club rugby in Sydney and was seemingly at a crossroads in his career.But a meeting with ACT Brumbies coaches Andy Friend and Owen Finegan who both gave blunt assessments on where they believed Chisholm was at in his career and the 27-year-old was back.

Back into form. Back into the Wallabies squad. And he's hoping back into the mantle of Australian rugby's premier lock.

''The chat I had with those guys, I admit it hurts, for sure because it was blunt, real blunt, especially with Owen and his assessment,'' Chisholm said.

''I finished playing with Owen a few years ago but it's reassuring he can be so honest and up front about things like that. There was no sugar-coating, trust me.

''I had to take it on the chin and work up from there.

''I'd like to think I've stepped up as I needed to.''

The major issue Friend and Finegan had with Chisholm, who has been a regular in the Brumbies' starting side the past two seasons, was linked to his role on the field.

Chisholm wanted to be and at the time was a ball-running lock.His new coaches wanted less running with the ball and more physical, gritty work at the breakdown.

Despite not totally agreeing with his coaches' views, Chisholm made the required alterations to his game and the results have been evident.

''I got back into the Wallabies squad so that was a good start,'' Chisholm laughed.

''I initially saw myself as a ball-running forward but they saw things differently.

''Every chance I get I put my hand up to run the ball I don't shy away from that but they wanted me to have more emphasis on winning the breakdown, which I think I've done.

''Friend praised Chisholm on his attitude and approach following what he described as a ''fairly in-depth'' meeting.

The coach had long been a fan of Chisholm's but wasn't convinced he was playing the correct role of a lock.

''I asked him what he thought a second-rower should be doing,'' Friend said.

''We were similar in the fact he's got to win his scrum and lineout but a little dissimilar that he wanted to run the football, as I'd much prefer a second-rower to be cleaning rucks out.

''To his credit he changed his style, he got in and did the harder stuff.''That doesn't mean he can't run with the footy you still saw him run an 80m try in against Wales so if he's going into a ruck and the ball pops up, by all means run but let's use his bulk and use his physicality and make himself legally damage opposition.

 

[cyclopath]

All well and good, but only makes sense if he does all the gritty stuff well. My point was, and is, why not use good attributes a player possesses, rather then try to get players fulfilling a role they are poor at? Some of our "preferred" ball carriers never seem to get anywhere (Pocock, Robinson at times, Alexander).
Anyway, must agree to disagree.

 

[Henry]

Don't think Hynes had a very good game. Providing Berrick is still injured for the poms, backline should be...
9. Genia
10. Cooper
11. Mitchell
12. Giteau
13. Ashley Cooper
14. Ioane
15. O'Conner


With 20 to go last night it was obvious our attack wasn't getting anywhere, Deans should have put Cooper and Mitchell on... No use leaving them on the bench. Would have provided some much needed spark.

 

[fatprop]

All well and good, but only makes sense if he does all the gritty stuff well. My point was, and is, why not use good attributes a player possesses, rather then try to get players fulfilling a role they are poor at? Some of our "preferred" ball carriers never seem to get anywhere (Pocock, Robinson at times, Alexander).
Anyway, must agree to disagree.

If he isn't doing the "gritty" stuff, we find another lock

Don't think Hynes had a very good game. Providing Berrick is still injured for the poms, backline should be...
9. Genia
10. Cooper
11. Mitchell
12. Giteau
13. Ashley Cooper
14. Ioane
15. O'Conner


With 20 to go last night it was obvious our attack wasn't getting anywhere, Deans should have put Cooper and Mitchell on... No use leaving them on the bench. Would have provided some much needed spark.

O'Conner can't seriously be considered again, can he :nta:

 

[Ishmael]

All well and good, but only makes sense if he does all the gritty stuff well. My point was, and is, why not use good attributes a player possesses, rather then try to get players fulfilling a role they are poor at? Some of our "preferred" ball carriers never seem to get anywhere (Pocock, Robinson at times, Alexander).
Anyway, must agree to disagree.

A lock's primary job around the park is securing the ball at the ruck. They have the size and power to do this extremely effectively. As a general rule the best ball runners are in the back row and sometimes one or two in the front row such as TPN. Even a good ball-running lock generally doesn't make as many metres as a back-row forward will. They're just too easy to bring down. Their greatest asset is securing ball and if they're carrying then they aren't securing.

Anyway, I'm curious as to why people would be dropping Horwill. I thought he played very well last night, lineouts excluded. I'd be starting with him and Mumm with Mumm calling the lineouts.

Also, as good as Pocock was, Smith was a demon when he came on. Palu was top notch while he lasted as well. Do we go the same way again or put Pocock on the bench this time? Hard call.

Also, this:

Hynes let in the first try. I didn't think his performance was great.

is wrong IMO. Hynes took his man while Cross didn't trust him, went in to take the already tackled player and ended up taking nobody, allowing Smith through.

edit - just realised that's the second try I'm talking about. With the first try, by the time it got to Hynes there was nothing much to be done IMO.

Is Mortlock back for this game by the way? Not sure what the original prognosis was.

 

[cyclopath]

OK, I do actually understand what coaching 101 tells us the locks should do.
My concern is that we seem to lack good ball-runners, and the one that was getting over the advantage line seems incapable of holding the ball.
IF Deans and co want to play Chisolm, AND he can actually run the ball, why not use it? Get someone else to do more securing, hell, a bit of lateral thinking may not go astray. Why can't we be a bit different? The current state of affairs seems not to work so well.
Anyway, 'nuff said.

 

[TOCC]

i thought Hynes actually had a quite good game, the noticeable difference(in first half at least) was his added presence and workrate at things like rucks, Turner and Mitchell might be better finishers, but Hynes has a higher workrate, Turner and Mitchell are practically ineffective at a ruck, if the outside centre was tackled both those players would provided next to no resistance in preventing a turnover. Hynes on the other hand is quite physical and rarely lets this happen.

 

[Scarfman]

Good point TOCC, but still ...

 

[fatprop]

OK, I do actually understand what coaching 101 tells us the locks should do.
My concern is that we seem to lack good ball-runners, and the one that was getting over the advantage line seems incapable of holding the ball.
IF Deans and co want to play Chisolm, AND he can actually run the ball, why not use it? Get someone else to do more securing, hell, a bit of lateral thinking may not go astray. Why can't we be a bit different? The current state of affairs seems not to work so well.
Anyway, 'nuff said.

I appreciate that, but if Chis is used as a runner, which backrower will be designated to do the tight work or do we run with less workers?

 

[disco]

Oconnor is a little bitch he should spend the rest of the tour pumping iron & playing with the mid week dirt trackers.

My 22 for the Poms.

1.Robinson
2.TPN
3.Alexander
4.Mumm
5.Horwill
6.Elsom
7.Pocock
8.palu
9.Genia
10.Cooper or To'omua
11.Ioane
12.Giteau
13.AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
14.Hynes
15. Drew Mitchell

16. Moore 17.Kepu 18.Chiz 19.Smith 20. Burgess 21 To'omua/Cooper 22.Turner

Gits isn't a flyhalves arsehole he had another kick charged down last night, his best moves of the night was when he ran at the line either with a show & go or an inside ball & we did look dangerous but we would look even more dangerous once pass wider with less cover defence.

 

[fatprop]

Gits looks best when running at the line, he can do that best from 12.

Cooper is the next best 10, give him a run.

 

[Pfitzy]

Oconnor is a little bitch he should spend the rest of the tour pumping iron

I'd rather he didn't. Being fast and slippery is something we lack in our back three.

 

[junior]

Oconnor is a little bitch he should spend the rest of the tour pumping iron

I'd rather he didn't. Being fast and slippery is something we lack in our back three.

Diggers is lightning and hard as fuck to hang onto.

 

[Pfitzy]

Yep. That suits him because his body type has developed that way. Rabbit is younger, and less developed. Him doing gym junkie crap would be less beneficial than keeping up his fitness and flexibility to do what he does.

 

[Blue]

OK, I do actually understand what coaching 101 tells us the locks should do.
My concern is that we seem to lack good ball-runners, and the one that was getting over the advantage line seems incapable of holding the ball.
IF Deans and co want to play Chisolm, AND he can actually run the ball, why not use it? Get someone else to do more securing, hell, a bit of lateral thinking may not go astray. Why can't we be a bit different? The current state of affairs seems not to work so well.
Anyway, 'nuff said.

Because of the nature of the breakdown and the need for the big bodies to play towards the breakdown point. I don't see many locks carrying ball these days except maybne Danie Rossouw late in the game s a sub.

My 2c anyhow.

 

[Scarfman]

Yeah, agreed. Sorry Cyclo, I love you like a brother, but I think locks need to work in tight, with just the occasional run of 3m through the ruck.

 

[Gagger]

Bringing us back to reality from Dingo's point of view, Gits will be staying at 10 and QC (Quade Cooper) will be in the bench.

Our only realistic hope for change - and I don't know why the fuck he didn't do this last week - is to put JO'C at 12 and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) back to 15.

You get the fast feet with an offload in the midfield and someone who can catch, stay on their feet, tackle and counter-attack at 15.

But who would want that?

 

[mark_s]

Bringing us back to reality from Dingo's point of view, Gits will be staying at 10 and QC (Quade Cooper) will be in the bench.

Our only realistic hope for change - and I don't know why the fuck he didn't do this last week - is to put JO'C at 12 and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) back to 15.

You get the fast feet with an offload in the midfield and someone who can catch, stay on their feet, tackle and counter-attack at 15.

But who would want that?

AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) played most of the 2nd half at 15 and JOC (James O'Connor) played most of the 2nd half at 12 in Tokyo.

I would like to see Mumm start, not because I am sure he will do better than Horwill because our 2nd rowers need a shake up. Move Giteau to 12 or bring Cooper in at 12 and let them swap during the game. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) to 13. JOC (James O'Connor) to stay at 15. Despite his very good game in Tokyo, Smith to come back in for Pocock. This gives something like this:

1. Robinson
2. TPN
3. Alexander
4. Chisholm
5. Mumm
6. Elsom
7. Smith
8. Palu
9. Genia
10. Giteau/Cooper
11. Hynes
12. Cooper/Giteau
13. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
14. Ioane (PA I may have the wingers the wrong way round but they will sort it out)
15. JOC (James O'Connor)

Res
Dunning
Moore
Horwill
Pocock
Burgess
Mitchell
Cross