jason
Sydney Middleton (9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLC5U6Qi6oE#t=6m14s
6:14 - Quade Cooper - huge hit. Who'd have thought?
6:14 - Quade Cooper - huge hit. Who'd have thought?
Quade Cooper
- Thread starter waratahjesus
- Start date
- Status
Cutter
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Spook said:
Check how many times Gits did something positive, particularly from set piece ball, while standing at 1st receiver. Anything positive was generated by Cooper. Then analyse how many times Gits got the ball within 30metres of the England line at 1st receiver and how many times he went himself. He did a better job than the English forwards of restricting the possession of the Oz backs in an attacking position.
S
Spook
Guest
Cuts, I have watched the game a few times and agree he made a poor decision by backing himself at least once. However, he wasn't the one who left three tries behind: Robinson, Ioane, and Elsom all were guilty of blowing tries by not passing. Giteau not once did that.
Cutter
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Spook you've almost convinced me I'm being too harsh on Giteau and, to some degree, I am. However he is our vice captain, senior back and, as the 10, is expected to control the game. He didnt do that, Cooper did it. Unless his form improves, assuming everyone else maintains form and when Barnes is fit, Gits may struggle to make the starting XV.
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
woah big call saying gits will struggle to make the starting 15. As a 10 yes. But i think he will always have a place at 12. Berrick n Quade may have to fight for 10 next year. If quade continues good form that is. Only played one good game. But lets hope his form continues cos he does offer more in attack then berrick.
S
Spook
Guest
Cutter said:
Competition is always good Cuts and that may well be the case. To'omua of course will displace Barnes as well
James Buchanan
Trevor Allan (34)
Spook said:Competition is always good Cuts and that may well be the case. To'omua of course will displace Barnes as well
Its still entirely speculative and based on potential, but a backline of To'omua, Cooper and Ioane does give me a special little tingle.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
RE Stats...the problem I have with statistics is the huge variance between different gatherers in the similar stats like rucks, tackles, missed tackles, etc.
This is highlighted by the Fox Sports stats and the English stats - the Fox Sports stats had the English missing about 10 tackles in the first half to Australia's 2 or 3, whereas the English stats had the English missing 2 (!) tackles to Australia's 3. I found that funny, because at the time I could recall directly the English falling at least 3 tackles in the first half - hell, I think Hynes shed two in one run.
This is highlighted by the Fox Sports stats and the English stats - the Fox Sports stats had the English missing about 10 tackles in the first half to Australia's 2 or 3, whereas the English stats had the English missing 2 (!) tackles to Australia's 3. I found that funny, because at the time I could recall directly the English falling at least 3 tackles in the first half - hell, I think Hynes shed two in one run.
Newb
Trevor Allan (34)
jason said:
maybe i'm an idiot, but i wanted to say that i thoroughly enjoyed the pommy commentators in this vid. to me they seemed enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and fairly unbiased if not favoring australia. i've heard them in clips before for heineken cup games, but this was the first time i listened to them for a whole game. i wouldn't mind hearing them call every game i ever watch. the NZ bastards can fark off (no offense to other NZers, just the commentators).
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
I couldn't stand TV commentators Miles Harrison and Stuart Barnes when England were in their pomp, especially Harrison, who seemed to bray every time the Poms did something average or better. Maybe it's because the Poms aren't so good these days even when they're all fit, or maybe I have gotten used to them, but I enjoy them now.
Barnes' instant analysis is one of the best in the business and Harrison does more homework than your average lead commentator. They would have been hard to take if England won though.
Another Pom commentator I like is Will Greenwood. He was tops in that Bok game last Friday against Leicester and looks like he has got another career going very well.
But I digress - the subject of the thread: Quade Cooper, or now what it has morphed into: Cooper/Giteau?
When Barnes performed superbly against Wales in the RWC at 10 with Giteau at 12 I thought that we had the best of both worlds and a combination that could take us forward for a few years. Sure, thought I, Barnes stood a bit too deep, but that could be fixed.
When Deans came on board he would keep them there, wouldn't he? But he didn't, and when the 10. Giteau, 12. Barnes combo worked so well at the Sydney Blesdisloe last year, I had a very strange thought: that I might be wrong. Barnes was hurt soon after and again later at the very beginning of the European leg of the 2008 EOYT. This meant that Giteau performed most of last year at 10 and whilst doing so was judged one of the top handful of players for 2008.
People outside of Oz were saying how good he was as a flyhalf but we Aussies could see that his relentless quest for the outside break was ill-suited to a man with 10 on his jersey, and dare I say it: did not have the blinding pace of 5 years before to achieve it as often.
Sure, he did it in the Super14, but even there you did not see from him the golden ball before he broke the line, that enabled outsiders to make the break instead of him. Maybe that is acceptable in the Super14, as it is for the best boy in the Under 9s: to get the pill all the time and make all the breaks, but it doesn't work in the big test matches. There the best 10s shine partly because they have the ability to facilitate the work of others.
And opponents have worked him out too. They know he runs too often, and the pity is, as many have indicated: running too much as a 12 is not as bad as doing it as a 10 - and one out suits his game better too, especially against plodding crash ballers.
Don't get me wrong: he's done some wonderful Horan-like things in the last two years, both with and without the ball, but Horan was an inside centre. And let there not be any talk of leaving him out of a Wallaby team, except to have a break.
But with Barnes always crocked you can't argue against Gits at 10 on a Grand Slam tour. Cooper is the flavour of the week and good on him. Few on this forum would have seen him earlier than I have and not many would have said give the guy a break when he stuffed up in the Super 14 as many times - in fact I say that about any good schoolboy player for a few years. It's not their fault they are learning on the job.
Lets see how he goes: if he goes OK against Ireland at 12 let's play him at 10 the following weekend against Scotland, win or lose at Croke Park. Hopefully Gits will be up to play in that game too, so we can see the combination, though he would probably deserve a break on the bench.
But I wouldn't play Cooper at 10 and Giteau at 12 against Ireland, the 2009 6N Grand Slammers - a Grand Slam that included France.
Barnes' instant analysis is one of the best in the business and Harrison does more homework than your average lead commentator. They would have been hard to take if England won though.
Another Pom commentator I like is Will Greenwood. He was tops in that Bok game last Friday against Leicester and looks like he has got another career going very well.
But I digress - the subject of the thread: Quade Cooper, or now what it has morphed into: Cooper/Giteau?
When Barnes performed superbly against Wales in the RWC at 10 with Giteau at 12 I thought that we had the best of both worlds and a combination that could take us forward for a few years. Sure, thought I, Barnes stood a bit too deep, but that could be fixed.
When Deans came on board he would keep them there, wouldn't he? But he didn't, and when the 10. Giteau, 12. Barnes combo worked so well at the Sydney Blesdisloe last year, I had a very strange thought: that I might be wrong. Barnes was hurt soon after and again later at the very beginning of the European leg of the 2008 EOYT. This meant that Giteau performed most of last year at 10 and whilst doing so was judged one of the top handful of players for 2008.
People outside of Oz were saying how good he was as a flyhalf but we Aussies could see that his relentless quest for the outside break was ill-suited to a man with 10 on his jersey, and dare I say it: did not have the blinding pace of 5 years before to achieve it as often.
Sure, he did it in the Super14, but even there you did not see from him the golden ball before he broke the line, that enabled outsiders to make the break instead of him. Maybe that is acceptable in the Super14, as it is for the best boy in the Under 9s: to get the pill all the time and make all the breaks, but it doesn't work in the big test matches. There the best 10s shine partly because they have the ability to facilitate the work of others.
And opponents have worked him out too. They know he runs too often, and the pity is, as many have indicated: running too much as a 12 is not as bad as doing it as a 10 - and one out suits his game better too, especially against plodding crash ballers.
Don't get me wrong: he's done some wonderful Horan-like things in the last two years, both with and without the ball, but Horan was an inside centre. And let there not be any talk of leaving him out of a Wallaby team, except to have a break.
But with Barnes always crocked you can't argue against Gits at 10 on a Grand Slam tour. Cooper is the flavour of the week and good on him. Few on this forum would have seen him earlier than I have and not many would have said give the guy a break when he stuffed up in the Super 14 as many times - in fact I say that about any good schoolboy player for a few years. It's not their fault they are learning on the job.
Lets see how he goes: if he goes OK against Ireland at 12 let's play him at 10 the following weekend against Scotland, win or lose at Croke Park. Hopefully Gits will be up to play in that game too, so we can see the combination, though he would probably deserve a break on the bench.
But I wouldn't play Cooper at 10 and Giteau at 12 against Ireland, the 2009 6N Grand Slammers - a Grand Slam that included France.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
I was trawling the net, as you do, and noticed that somebdy had given these marks for Quade, out of 10:
Quade Cooper 5/10
Club Queensland Reds Caps 8
Frankly there were periods when he looked accomplished and other periods when he was a little boy lost. Nothing pyrotechnic here
Gits got 8/10
A bit harsh on Quade, I thought.
Quade Cooper 5/10
Club Queensland Reds Caps 8
Frankly there were periods when he looked accomplished and other periods when he was a little boy lost. Nothing pyrotechnic here
Gits got 8/10
A bit harsh on Quade, I thought.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
Lee,
I don't think your comment about not player Cooper at 10 against the Irish makes any sense. He played at least 50% of the game at first receiver against the Poms, kicking anytime it suited to have a right footer and defended there as well. Fact is our attack looked a lot more dangerous with Cooper getting the ball first than with Giteau, however I agree that Giteau should also take some of the work at 10 to ensure Cooper doesn't overplay his hand.
Doesn't matter which number they have on their back, but long term Cooper should have 10, and this week he should be getting the ball first in most attacking situations.
I don't think your comment about not player Cooper at 10 against the Irish makes any sense. He played at least 50% of the game at first receiver against the Poms, kicking anytime it suited to have a right footer and defended there as well. Fact is our attack looked a lot more dangerous with Cooper getting the ball first than with Giteau, however I agree that Giteau should also take some of the work at 10 to ensure Cooper doesn't overplay his hand.
Doesn't matter which number they have on their back, but long term Cooper should have 10, and this week he should be getting the ball first in most attacking situations.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Scotty,
Fair enough. I was talking more about the set piece but I'll have to check my replay as to how many times he played 1st receiver at those times.
Yeah, ideally you want your team to have two prime receivers either side of the ruck, tackle or maul if circumstances permit and ideally, like Quade and Gits, one a LF kicker and the other a RF kicker. Since backlines run dead straight only in the movies the RF kicker should be on the RH side of the ruck, or whatever it is, since play will usually drift towards the RH touchline if there is enough width in the field left - and the LF kicker on the other side.
And if you have to clear the ball from the 22 and you're running diagonally left away from tacklers you want the LF kicker to get the ball. It's bloody hard for a RF kicker to do that on the run - and vice versa for the other way.
But I digress - whatever - ideally you would have two receivers and I thought that Quade did a grand job on Saturday night as one of them - and was a lot better than 5 out of 10. I thought he was a solid 7.
I still want Gits to be 10 against Ireland though and not having Wallace and co. coming at Quade - and against Wales too. Let's see Quade at 10 in the Super14 for a season first.
Perhaps the defection of Barnes to the Tahs will serve Oz rugby well.
Fair enough. I was talking more about the set piece but I'll have to check my replay as to how many times he played 1st receiver at those times.
Yeah, ideally you want your team to have two prime receivers either side of the ruck, tackle or maul if circumstances permit and ideally, like Quade and Gits, one a LF kicker and the other a RF kicker. Since backlines run dead straight only in the movies the RF kicker should be on the RH side of the ruck, or whatever it is, since play will usually drift towards the RH touchline if there is enough width in the field left - and the LF kicker on the other side.
And if you have to clear the ball from the 22 and you're running diagonally left away from tacklers you want the LF kicker to get the ball. It's bloody hard for a RF kicker to do that on the run - and vice versa for the other way.
But I digress - whatever - ideally you would have two receivers and I thought that Quade did a grand job on Saturday night as one of them - and was a lot better than 5 out of 10. I thought he was a solid 7.
I still want Gits to be 10 against Ireland though and not having Wallace and co. coming at Quade - and against Wales too. Let's see Quade at 10 in the Super14 for a season first.
Perhaps the defection of Barnes to the Tahs will serve Oz rugby well.
Cutter
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I'm with Scotty on this one. Cooper spent most of the match at 10. Gits touches at 10 weren't outstanding, particularly in the attacking zone. If Ireland play Wallace and O'Gara as the 12/10, and assuming we will have forwards covering their forwards running at our 10/12, I would be more than happy for Cooper to start at 10 and Gits 12.
Lee - my point about dropping Gits is that, based purely on current form, he isnt playing as well as either Cooper or Barnes before his injury. Therefore, based purely on form, if Barnes was fit, Gits may struggle to make the starting XV. We both know that teams are never picked purely on form but Cooper and Barnes are developing and an extended dip in form for Gits might see a genuine challenge thrown up. Add to this the quandary that Andy Friend faces as to where Gits should play at the Brumbies and things might get interesting.
Lee - my point about dropping Gits is that, based purely on current form, he isnt playing as well as either Cooper or Barnes before his injury. Therefore, based purely on form, if Barnes was fit, Gits may struggle to make the starting XV. We both know that teams are never picked purely on form but Cooper and Barnes are developing and an extended dip in form for Gits might see a genuine challenge thrown up. Add to this the quandary that Andy Friend faces as to where Gits should play at the Brumbies and things might get interesting.
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
well sounds like we have a bit of depth in the number 10 jersy now, Gits, Barnes and Cooper all fighting for it. Deans must be doing something right then. All we need is a specialised fullback and then AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) n digby can fight over number 13.
Quade vs barnes
Gits
Digby
Quade vs barnes
Gits
Digby
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Yeah it's good to see a bit of apparent depth and with To'omua getting a bit of exposure with WP and the Wallaby squad there is another in the cupboard.
It's just a pity that he may be 3rd string with the Brumbies in 2010. Then there's always Lealiifano who had some good games at 10 in the S14 this year. He and Beale could emerge in 2010 as valuable utility depth for Oz down the track and cover flyhalf as one of their bench jobs.
I think all we need now is a bit of time. To'omua is still a teenager but Beale is 20 now and Cooper 9 months older.
The other thing we need to underwrite our depth at flyhalf is for Barnes to stay healthy, but it may be too much to hope for. But if he doesn't improve in that department there is now hope that the younger guns will cover OK.
With that area hopeful and the stocks of players in all front row positions looking better than for a while (the lack of talk of about Alexander as THP from doubters like yours truly is deafening), we now need to look at the 2nd row. This EOYT could be a good career move for the absent Nathan Sharpe, but seriously folks: we need another lineout specialist to emerge.
Another bruiser no. 8 would be good too and let's all hope that Fitzpatrick gets a chance in 2010 to show that he is a valid hooker candidate in a year or two.
A new fullback would be good also. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) is a champ in that he is as brave as a bull and can cover a lot of positions. He is our best no. 15 but we need a better kicker from hand at the back. When we do we can talk about AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Diggers forming depth at 13 to replace Mortlock.
This is a thread about Quade Cooper? I have digressed. :-[
It's just a pity that he may be 3rd string with the Brumbies in 2010. Then there's always Lealiifano who had some good games at 10 in the S14 this year. He and Beale could emerge in 2010 as valuable utility depth for Oz down the track and cover flyhalf as one of their bench jobs.
I think all we need now is a bit of time. To'omua is still a teenager but Beale is 20 now and Cooper 9 months older.
The other thing we need to underwrite our depth at flyhalf is for Barnes to stay healthy, but it may be too much to hope for. But if he doesn't improve in that department there is now hope that the younger guns will cover OK.
With that area hopeful and the stocks of players in all front row positions looking better than for a while (the lack of talk of about Alexander as THP from doubters like yours truly is deafening), we now need to look at the 2nd row. This EOYT could be a good career move for the absent Nathan Sharpe, but seriously folks: we need another lineout specialist to emerge.
Another bruiser no. 8 would be good too and let's all hope that Fitzpatrick gets a chance in 2010 to show that he is a valid hooker candidate in a year or two.
A new fullback would be good also. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) is a champ in that he is as brave as a bull and can cover a lot of positions. He is our best no. 15 but we need a better kicker from hand at the back. When we do we can talk about AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Diggers forming depth at 13 to replace Mortlock.
This is a thread about Quade Cooper? I have digressed. :-[
- Status