B
Bobby Sands
Guest
Kieran Reid, one of the best tight merchants of backrow play in the world, if not the best, plays a looser game style than Michael Hooper?
You can't make this stuff up.
RC4 - Australia v Argentina
- Thread starter Hawko
- Start date
- Status
Kieran Reid, one of the best tight merchants of backrow play in the world, if not the best, plays a looser game style than Michael Hooper?
You can't make this stuff up.
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
Okay, well if Samu plays in the tram tracks all night, I will be equally surprised. Samu by nature plays a tight game. Let's see what pans out.
Whatever the case, in attack one of our backrowers will be charged with controlling our attacking breakdown on the left edge and another on the right. Whether it is Pocock or Samu on one edge is uncertain as Samu has recently done that middle role (as number 8 last week) but it will quite obviously be one of them. Tui will be on the opposite edge.
The pod arrangements are pretty clear and obvious. The players involved in the respective pods has been mixed up depending on players (particularly who we consider our primary carrier in each of the three man pods).
Defence is clearly far less structured in general play outside of first phase and players move around far more depending on who gets stuck in rucks etc.
Up the Guts
Steve Williams (59)
How are you agreeing with someone that said Hooper only started playing wide under Cheika but simultaneously maintaining that the coach does nothing and it’s Hooper own inclination to play wide.
Bobby Sands, GAGR's own martyr.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Im having flashbacks to zero_cool.
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
Its not complex.
It is his nature to do so, and Cheika must be okay with that. But my assertion is that it is not a directive of our play and I will be very surprised to see Samu or Pocock play in such wide channels.
Do you comprehend?
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
This attitude is a great example of cognitive bias and how it affects logic / decision making.
You would rather the team you support not achieve the desired outcome (to win) so that your logic is re-affirmed (?) rather than a new idea/process that you might not agree with produce the desired outcome.
You tell me which is the more successful/helpful attitude.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
It would be cognitive bias if i wasn't conscious of it.
More of a decision.
But no, it's not about the idea it's about you being arrogant about it. That's why i (almost) want the team to lose. Because i'd like you to have to eat your words after calling everyone on this forum an idiot after spouting inconsistent, pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
Agree.
In short I am saying that the pod structures will be based on the available players not a set mandate, and that neither Samu or Pocock will significant time in a wider channel.
Tui maybe, but he has a very limited role due to mobility. He is almost used like a rugby league backrower on the edge.
If we play like we did against South Africa they might not have to because we really didn't spread the ball. Beale made 11 passes all game and To'omua made 4.
Against New Zealand we did spread the ball a lot and we end up with a lot of breakdowns in those wide channels.
If we do play in those wide channels it will be the prime responsibility of one or Samu and Pocock to control the breakdown on their edge (whoever gets that job). That's not to say they're going to spend all game out there but their job in general play attack is to be close enough that they will be the one that secures our breakdown if we get tackled out there.
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
Derpus to be clear, I don't think anyone of this forum is an idiot... Except for maybe you, and its only relative to rugby, you might be a genius at Soduko for all I know.
Fish can't climb trees etc.
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
Okay, what about this. It is my prediction that Pocock and Samu will both play close to the breakdown all night regardless of whether that breakdown is in the middle or on the edges. They will also both do most of their ball-running close to the breakdown, and not in an outside back channel.
Bobby - the structure you speak of was neatly analysed by Murray Kinsella a while ago. Have a read:
http://www.the42.ie/analysis-australia-1-3-3-1-shape-england-2016-2825557-Jun2016/
Now obviously that's a few years old now, and we probably don't follow the exact same strategy now, but certainly elements of it can still be seen.
.
http://www.the42.ie/analysis-australia-1-3-3-1-shape-england-2016-2825557-Jun2016/
Now obviously that's a few years old now, and we probably don't follow the exact same strategy now, but certainly elements of it can still be seen.
.
I disagree with this when we are in possession. It is two fold. One, we want them out in a wider channel so we can secure our own ball when we are out there (and have a good forward runner to work in with the backs).
The second one is so we don't enable the entire Argie back row to stay close to every breakdown all the time because they don't have to help cover a threat out wide because it is just backs on backs out there.
It's a somewhat different story in defence. They will look for jackalling opportunities when they arise.
Anyway, we'll see what happens.
I'm unsure why you think that it is good to have all our loose forwards hanging close to the breakdown in attack when they are key to exploiting opportunities in wider channels. We shouldn't need their pace to the breakdown in tight to secure our ball because our tight forwards can cover clean outs. Their ball running should be more dangerous out wider where they have a bit more room and can use their passing game.
B
Bobby Sands
Guest
I don't. Think of it like a French left and right flanker. That is how I suggest these two will play.
Obviously isolated forwards/backs in wider channels are excellent opportunities for turnovers.
But this is about being opportunistic and reading the play, not stationed on an outpost in the centres ala Mr Hooper.
- Status