Ignoto
Peter Sullivan (51)
Maybe we're taking a leaf out of the Hurricanes books and just scoring more tries. With more shots on goal, Stewart is bound to convert more??
Reds 2019
- Thread starter RugbyReg
- Start date
Maybe we're taking a leaf out of the Hurricanes books and just scoring more tries. With more shots on goal, Stewart is bound to convert more??
Waterboyrugby
Herbert Moran (7)
Right you are Reg, throw in Leinster in that mix as well. It must be more driven by Thorn because the Reds have churned/burned through a lot of prospects before him, and Thorn coached a lot of this crop at u20s.
With one of (if not the largest) player pools in the country, the Reds should have this approach as a default setting. By nature, they should be a 'retention' based team, producing to replace from below, rather than building a roster by market recruitment. The Reds feeder system is actually much larger than the Crusaders, they have to scout across the country to fill most of their academy.
They do however bring them in young and indoctrinate them in Crusaders ways. You would be surprised how many are not from there - Jack Goodhue (Auckland), Sam Whitelock (Fielding), Scott Barrett (Taranaki). Their depth chart planning extends years ahead, and only when an unexpected roster spot opens by an academy prospect not working out/experienced member abruptly leaving, do they go to market.
The cohesion factor is very important but not the only piece of the puzzle. Both Leinster and Crusaders have evolved and kept on top of the game from a tactical standpoint. As a coach, where are Thorn's tactical philosophies coming from? Since he retired as a player, the game has evolved dramatically.
Thorn's done a reasonable job of implementing some things like a visible 1-3-3-1 pattern, but this is already outdated and the Reds version is still very, very basic. A heavy forward-carry system he doesn't yet have the cattle for (physically young pack).
Aussie Rugby as a whole is still plagued by unnecessary territorial kicking. The game is just not played that way anymore, only exit kicking or contestable kicking is used by top teams, the rest of the time you use a system to retain possession, build phases and pressure, either break them or earn penalties down the field. This is one thing that Aussie teams struggle with. It seems a skill problem, a conditioning problem and possibly an IQ problem.
The top club teams globally, Crusaders, Leinster, Saracens have all dropped down to variations of a one-pod pattern, play much more expansive possession-based rugby due to favourable ruck laws, and have superior skills and conditioning (Look at Will Skelton's transformation) to play that way. Having said that, the first Aussie team to adapt and build a team that plays in this manner will dominate the Aussie conference for years before the rest catch up.
With Thorn being an inexperienced coach, he is still learning on the job. There is also only so much he can do. If he actually did come in and turned them into world-beaters it would indicate that the whole organisation is fine, but everyone knows that's not the case.
Just checked his NRC stats and he kicked 32 from 47 for 68% which is not what we need from Super standard.
A couple of things to consider though, his worse game was v the Force in the semi when he missed four conversion attempts, but that was in wet and windy conditions on the GC when the first three or four early tries were all out wide.
He also didn't attempt any penalty shots (often easier targets) until that same game and kicked both of his attempts.
He definitely needs to lift his game, which should come with the new Reds kicking coach, but 6 from 8 v the Drua and 5 from 6 v the Force (both prelim rounds) show he has some potential.
A couple of things to consider though, his worse game was v the Force in the semi when he missed four conversion attempts, but that was in wet and windy conditions on the GC when the first three or four early tries were all out wide.
He also didn't attempt any penalty shots (often easier targets) until that same game and kicked both of his attempts.
He definitely needs to lift his game, which should come with the new Reds kicking coach, but 6 from 8 v the Drua and 5 from 6 v the Force (both prelim rounds) show he has some potential.
dru
David Wilson (68)
From your link:
"GAIN LINE Analytics places a strong focus on data analysis and quantitative research"
I'd love to see some evidence of this happening at the Reds. Since Link/Fowler, anyway.
@Waterboy - I do understand that 1-3-3-1 is old hat now and not necessarily where the innovators are working. But I don't accept that the Irish/Leinster system of not doing tactical kicking and looking to long possession is necessarily "the new black". Certainly it works for the Irish who have shown that it can challenge the Kiwis. But it is not the only way.
While your single pod is working in places such as Ireland, the Kiwis are pushing more fluidity of the pod system and independence in decision making behind the pods. The Aus 1-3-3-1 system seems to put our strength against the opposition's strength and we are not always stronger. Kiwi decision making seems to put the point of a pod at a point of defensive weakness looking for opportunity to break the gain line a little, or to off load.
Then in behind the pods there is further decision making as to how and when the back line is engaged. Often with focus at the counter. There are some pre-programmed processes in this (often after true data analysis and quantitive research looking for opposition weaknesses and how to exploit them) but much seems to be left to decision making on the field.
Our D at WB level still features the barn dance - Thorn controls this by pushing all 23 to the D job and getting behind it without a dance. It avoids the weakness of the WBs but at the loss of protecting your playmakers and getting your best creativity on the field. Strengths and weaknesses in both approaches.
The Kiwis have a dance with the pod system. Fluidly moving between 1-3-3-1 and 2-4-2 depending on field position and how established the backs line attacking structure is at the time. [Edit: that's your single pod v 1-3-3-1 and the world's best team working both with creativity]
The Irish system is not the only way forward, and on a personal basis it is as boring as bat shit. And yes even a win can be that boring.
Really hoping that Thorn and his new assistants do not go there - but alas I think you are right in that it is likely to be attractive to Thorn.
hammertimethere
Trevor Allan (34)
Sam Greene would have been worth a look if available. He's played some great games for Toyota in the Top League at 10 and 15 (has been switching around to accomodate Christian Leali'ifanos presence). Very solid off the boot and tee, good vision, good speed, short and long passing and improved defence. He was pretty decent though pretty immature when he was sent packing from Ballymore but he's a fair bit better now.
Not sure if he would have fit the budget. I assume he is on an ok wicket in Tokyo.
Not sure if he would have fit the budget. I assume he is on an ok wicket in Tokyo.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
It was a mid week game played at Gosford in miserable, wet conditions. Can remember it because I was there. Our A team lost, and played pretty badly in that loss to boot.
Quick google confirms my memory:
http://www.espn.com.au/rugby/story/_/id/15296958/polota-nau-blow-rocks-wallabies
Beer Baron
Phil Hardcastle (33)
Agreed - but i do wonder how he would fit. He is use to playing a certain style with people who know where to be on instinct it seems. Would take a while to work that out i would have thought. Would he have been cover at 10?
dru
David Wilson (68)
Bugger. A bit of a knee jerk reaction but with our flagging national fly half stocks I almost understand it.
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
That's bloody disappointing.
Any idea how long they were talking to him for and how RA killed the deal? I understand the need for national oversight on the super squads but the setup should be clear enough that it never gets to the point - if the signing was always going to be blocked they shouldn't have bothered talking to him. Either RA haven't set down clear contracting restrictions or the reds have ignored them.
Jimmy_Crouch
Peter Johnson (47)
Kind of like the rebels new 10
RoffsChoice
Jim Lenehan (48)
So RA were fine with three of the five teams in 2017 had a foreign flyhalf (Hawera at the Brumbies, Grant at the Force, Garden-Bachop and Volavola at the Rebels), but won't let you guys have a talented backup? Jeez, the first-choice 10s around the country are Australia-eligible anyway (Foley, Lealiifano, Cooper/To'omua). As Derpus says, blocking this doesn't magically make a talented Australian appear in the gap.
Are there any foreign marquees anymore? Don’t think anyone has one do they now that Hendrik Tui and Mafi are gone. There’s only really development players like the Smiths, Daugunu and Harewa.
If that’s the policy I’m not totally against it I guess.
Although the information I’ve just received is that Cheika nixed it because, with Fiji being in our RWC pool he didn’t want to give them a leg up.
If that’s the policy I’m not totally against it I guess.
Although the information I’ve just received is that Cheika nixed it because, with Fiji being in our RWC pool he didn’t want to give them a leg up.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Yeesh, we know the Wallabies are shit but at least pretend to be confident.
southsider
Arch Winning (36)
It sucks but I do agree with it. We have to stop the rot, part of that is giving one more Aussie the chance of developing in a professional environment