Reds v Waratahs, round 19 2014

[tranquility]

Explain to me the causal link between the Waratahs and the Wallabies winning?

As the layman that I am, I ask you, obviously a very educated and patient man.

So far I am up to, Wallabies winning more = more money.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I would have thought the causal link was obvious: there are always more Tahs in the wallabies than anyone else.

 

[Quick Hands]

By this, I take it you mean stack one of our sides and have the rest of our sides cross their finger's that the great blue side will bring prosperity and save the rest of us?

You talk as if the Waratahs have been dominating Super Rugby with some sort of stacked side for some time. The truth is quite the opposite. At various times in the past decade the Brumbies and the Reds have each been the dominant team in Australia and no one from the Waratahs seemed to have found some sort of pro Brumbies or pro Reds comspiracy to stack players into one dominant team.

The Waratahs failed for years because of poor admin and poor coaching - the coaching part has been fixed and the worst aspects of the admin have been pulled into line. The result has been a more successful team on the field. The Reds seem to be now experiencing some of this poor admin and coaching, which when coupled with injuries has led to a less that successful season.

I just think it's sad that there are rugby fans who would like to see Australian teams lose - but you're entitlted to your view. Thankfully it's a view which fewer and fewer rugby fans subscribe to.

 

[Pfitzy]

Explain to me the causal link between the Waratahs and the Wallabies winning?

I honestly don't think I can. I've tried to, several times - i think even a quick straw poll of the participants of this thread would probably agree (even those who don't support NSW). Maybe it isn't even possible for you to comprehend behind your little rage mask?

You seem to be focused on your petty hatred of NSW, to the point where nothing will satisfy you except a personal admission by Bill Pulver that it's all a NSW plot with the aim of destroying anything that gets in their way.

As a Reds supporter you should probably sit down and have a think about the contract values of your players, and the lengths to which the ARU has been railroaded to make sure that elements of that list gets financially rewarded.

And this isn't even focusing on the fact that NSW supplies the bulk of Super Rugby players in Australia.

 

[Ruggo]

Strange that you'd prefer a NZ or a SAF team to win ahead of another Australian team. I thought we'd moved beyond that thinking in Australian rugby - clearly not.

Waratah supporters have had plenty of opportunity watching other Aussie teams in super finals and I can't ever recall any Waratah supporter that I know hoping that a NZ or SAF team would beat the Brumbies or Reds in super semis or finals.

I don't really agree with that nationalist sentiment either. I don't dislike any Australian team but I don't view view super rugby through the prism of three nations but that of 15 provinces. I respect other peoples right to see it differently and it only fair they do the same in return.

I think the argument of the Tahs being kissed on the dick was fair up until a few years ago but things seemed to have changed. They looked to be feeding from their own paddock with smart recruitment, with a bit of forward vision might I add.

The past is the past and what's done is done. Time to look at the future moving forward.

Shit, if we keep clinging to the past we are just opening the door for annoying Brumby fans to come out and say "I don't know what your bitching about, we made Australia's most competitive side out of your scraps". I don't think anybody at the end of the day wants to be subjected to that.

 

[Ruggo]

That's because I'm a balanced and reasonable person and you're the rugby fan equivalent of jihad extremist.

Are you George Brandis? That sort of statement sure makes you sound like him.

 

[Scotty]

I don't think this is likely. I don't think players have any desire to put themselves in a dangerous position just so they have a chance of winning a penalty or a card. These things are split second actions and if we're looking at this specific incident, it seemed like Beale's position in contact was a result of him trying to get his pass away, not because he tried to do make contact with the defender in any particular way.

I don't think Johnson did make a normal everyday tackle. He made a tackle that due to the defender being in a slightly bad position ended up flipping upside down.

The message should be pretty clear by now. The defender has an obligation not to put the player they are tackling in a dangerous position regardless of what happens.

The mitigating factor that Beale was slightly off the ground when contact was made meant that the referee went with a yellow card rather than a red card.

This has been the single most active area of the IRB in cracking down on dangerous play. I don't see it going in the other direction and if the situation repeated itself, the defender would be in trouble again.

Beale certainly didn't mean to do it - buy mark my words there will be players that are willing to put their safety at risk to get a key opposition player carded.

Physics dictated that Beale was always going to end up in that position once he jumped before contact. The only possible way to stop it would be for the tackler to somehow apply a downward force in the tackle. Imagine the vector diagram.

We can't have rules that simply ignore the laws of physics.

 

[Pfitzy]

Instinctively, jumping into the air for a contact is ludicrous because once you lose ground contact, you lose any ability drive force. Not many players will take the time to do that deliberately as it fights several years of training about how you take contact.

The only instance I could think of it happening regularly would be like when those grid iron dudes jump over someone attempting a cannonball tackle.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Shit, you blokes need to settle this in a UFC bout - winner takes all

 

[Braveheart81]

If the money was spread evenly, Super Rugby teams would focus on what is their need. Every team needs a good 9 and 10 for example. Additional funds being spend on 5 halfbacks and 5 flyhalfs does not benefit the Wallabies. The Waratahs and Reds have show that Super Rugby success can be achieved with an inferior set piece. How would we be if every team overpaid their 7 to keep them because most are one of the best players in the team, yet didn't throw enough money at the top tight forwards to keep them?

You talk as if the Waratahs have been dominating Super Rugby with some sort of stacked side for some time. The truth is quite the opposite. At various times in the past decade the Brumbies and the Reds have each been the dominant team in Australia and no one from the Waratahs seemed to have found some sort of pro Brumbies or pro Reds comspiracy to stack players into one dominant team.

I think these two posts give a good indication of why the top ups need to be independent of the Super Rugby teams. They have entirely different aims.

A couple of years ago the Waratahs had a lot of Wallabies but they were a very average team. In the key positions of 7, 9, 10 we had Chris Alcock, Brendan McKibbin/Sarel Pretorius and Daniel Halangahu/Berrick Barnes who are all either run of the mill players or were severely out of form (Pretorius) or injured (Barnes). Of course that team should have done better but it was severely limited because it was weak in the most important positions.

If all the money is focused on Super Rugby, we end up like the NRL where all the money is spent on the key positions because they make the most difference to a side. It would be hugely detrimental to the Wallabies and some of the highest paid players in Australian rugby wouldn't even make the Wallaby squad.

Surely if they are being payed an extra denomination by the central bank of Aus rugby, they can be placed wherever the ARU deems the most need. Not dissimilar to the thinking of the draft. Surely the fact that a player wants to play in "insert city" is not enough to say well that's the best we can do. Right now we need to be spending as much money as possible in Perth, which is actually taking to the game and developing players. Not to mention getting crowds.

What if Sean McMahon wants to do a Michael Hooper and come home and play for Brothers? He will be the next captain of the Rebels, but do we just say, well he wanted to come home.. We produced him, tough biscuits.

If the answer to this is yes, which undoubtedly it would be if it was a NSW player, then we are stuffed.

I doubt the ARU will ever go down a draft route. There would be too much backlash considering that most of the players come from two places and the bulk of those players want to play in Sydney or Brisbane if they can get a contract.

If Sean McMahon wants to go back to Brisbane, he's free to. Just like he was free to leave Brisbane and sign with Melbourne for a better opportunity. The best players will always be able to dictate where they play and once McMahon gets himself into that situation he'll probably be able to as well. It has nothing to do with who produced him. It all depends on where the player wants to play and whether that side will offer him an adequate contract.

As we see every single season, players move around the country looking for better opportunities. Players who are more established generally move either for more money or to play for the team they really want to play for.

 

[Braveheart81]

Out of all the suggestions, I think a version of the AFL cost of living allowance would be best (except it has nothing to do with cost of living). Apply a 10% increase to every contract at the Force and Rebels so they are more competitive in player recruitment.

 

[Pfitzy]

Out of all the suggestions, I think a version of the AFL cost of living allowance would be best (except it has nothing to do with cost of living). Apply a 10% increase to every contract at the Force and Rebels so they are more competitive in player recruitment.

Probably need to extend that nationally and weight it appropriately, with the following schemes in place:

Brumbies: COLIST (Cost Of Living In Small Towns)

Rebels: COLNIAB (Cost Of Living Near Insufferable Afl Bogans)

Force: COLTOMFAE (Cost of Living Thousands Of Miles From Anywhere Else)

Reds: COPWUC (Cost Of Playing With Useless Coaches)

Sydney: COTPS (Cost Of Tall Poppy Syndrome)

 

[Brumby Runner]

It was an improvement on the previous week for the Reds. And was probably in the top half of performances from the Reds' pack this year. Put it this way, it was miles ahead of the first game, where the Tahs pack blew the Reds away in everything but the lineout and the scrum (until Daley came on after 45 minutes, then the Tahs blew away the Reds there too).

The Reds had about 5.5 minutes in the Tahs' 22, compared to the Tahs' 1.5 minutes in the Reds. All bar one Tahs try was long range. I'd say that the Reds' forwards' biggest blemish was not being able to score from all that time in the Tahs' 22, but then again Beale and Lance created the Tahs close range try. The fact the Reds spent so long in the Tahs' 22 was because their pack went well, but obviously they came up short on scoring.

If you were taking a pack and as whole form that game, it's be the Reds. The Tahs backs were just that much better. Phipps, Beale, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) in particular. The only back I'd even consider close to making a combined team based alone on performance from that game would be Davies, whereas I'd probably take half or more of the Reds' pack (props, locks for starters).

The Tahs' execution and linking play was just fantastic to watch. With less chances they created and finished much more. The fact that the team can have a bit of an off night, be beaten and in the set piece and still win by 31 points is amazing (well, testamount to how well the Tahs are going this year and how badly the Reds are going).

I have a slightly different take on the Reds' inability to score after being in the 22 for so long as compared with the Tahs. The problem for the Reds imo was that they kept the ball in the forwards in the main and couldn't get over the line because the Tahs' forwards dominated them in ruck and maul situations. On the other hand, as you pointed out, the Tahs' backs got the ball when they were in the 22 and scored. Different tactics and game plan and the Tahs were much more effective. Only place where the Reds forwards were significantly on top was the lineout and even there it pretty well evened out when Chapman came on in the second half.
Other sides as well as the Reds tend to keep the ball in the forwards when they are in good attacking situations much to the detriment of the spectacle. This is precisely where the backs' skills are meant to be on show.

 

[Brumby Runner]

If Skelton is good enough they can target him all they want, and he will be able to take it. Or they will have to give him so much attention it will open up opportunities for other players.

If is the question. The success of one game against France, or lack of (by lack of I mean he just played satisfactory - not badly by any stretch) in one game against the Reds doesn't do anything to answer this question so let's not jump to conclusions either way.

People also seem to be forgetting his impact and influence on the game against the Brumbies. Often attracting multiple defenders and most commentators attributed his near presence to Foley's try.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Sure, and this is the position I too hold.

My original point, was that it doesn't both me - but to not compare the success of the Waratahs recruitment drives to the other franchhises as we are clearly not playing a game where the rules are the same.

It is what it is, but I said not to insult the intelligence of people on here or yourself by suggesting otherwise. (I am not directing this at you Cyclo, I just can't be bothered rewriting this to make it universal.)

I will be going for the Brumbies and whoever is playing the Tahs. Looking forward to a great finals series.

Ah shit. Kiss of death there.

 

[Sully]

Perception is a big part of it. As an example I'll quote two recent cases.
1. Israel Folau. aru has no money, is reducing top ups. Folau is an ex NRL and kangaroo playing AFL poorly. Has never played Rugby. Gets a top up.
2. Karmichael Hunt. aru has no money, is reducing top ups. Folau is an ex NRL and kangaroo playing AFL better the Folau and has rugby at a high level before. ARU clearly states there is no top up available.
Folau is a waratah. Hunt is chased by the Reds.
What the difference between the two? How would you justify one top up and not the other?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

Perception is a big part of it. As an example I'll quote two recent cases.
1. Israel Folau. aru has no money, is reducing top ups. Folau is an ex NRL and kangaroo playing AFL poorly. Has never played Rugby. Gets a top up.
2. Karmichael Hunt. aru has no money, is reducing top ups. Folau is an ex NRL and kangaroo playing AFL better the Folau and has rugby at a high level before. ARU clearly states there is no top up available.
Folau is a waratah. Hunt is chased by the Reds.
What the difference between the two? How would you justify one top up and not the other?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Do you not think the situation might have been reversed if they had been the other way around?

The recruitment of Folau means that the ARU can't throw big money to recruit another player whose best position could also be fullback.

The ARU has also exhausted much or all of their available 3rd party opportunities (mostly through Foxsports/RugbyHQ) with Folau and before that Cooper.

The Folau deal was finalised prior to Pulver taking over. There is also the potential that if it had happened after he came in with the need and drive to cut costs, the ARU wouldn't have done the deal.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I can cop the Hunt no top up call. Simply because if he came before Folau it would have come to fruition in my opinion. We already have a marquee fullback, and therefore his value to the ARU is less.

 

[TahDan]

I would always prefer a NZ team or a SA side over the Waratahs. I think they are the worst rugby club in the world. This opinion has nothing to do with their play on the field.

There is no "we" between me and yourself. I very rarely agree with anything you say or the tone you say it in. It is just coincidence that we support the same team.

Go Brumbies.

You're free to hold that view, however strange it may be, but after the League Origin series and seeing the absolutely hilarious trash your Courier Mail put out, I have to say that you lot sure make the worst winners and losers in Australian sport.

The fact that the Courier Mail had to dedicate the whole front section of their paper to explaining why Queenslanders are still winners thanks to the "weather and lifestyle" after origin 2 was just pathetic beyond belief...

It's a good thing they don't pay as much attention to union or we'd be subjected to it all over again.

 

[Sully]

The courier mail is what we loosely call a newspaper. It's not Queensland

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk