O
OppO
Guest
Just rewatched the game and with the amount of time that Rocky spent on the wing he could have pitched a tent and lit a fire...
Just rewatched the game and with the amount of time that Rocky spent on the wing he could have pitched a tent and lit a fire...
And? You need loose forwards playing wide if you want any ball security. Our back three are small lads, they can't clear out on their own.
his ball carrying was quite poor last night, probably a result of so long on the sidelines.. but it was concerning nonetheless..
The difference between Higgers and Elsoms ball carry was that Higgers was running at the gaps and hitting them with speed, Elsom seemed to run at the gaps but then stop as the ball is caught and try to change directions, subsequently losing any momentum.
Dont get me wrong, that sort of tactic is not always a bad thing, against bigger and less mobile forwards its actually quite effective at wrongfooting the opposition and making breaks on there inside. But against the All Blacks last night it just wasnt working, there backrow is lighter and more mobile then Australias or South Africas.
No problem with him on the wing, surprisingly he does appear there at the right times.
The concern is his tackling and ball carrying. Neither were effective last night.
And? You need loose forwards playing wide if you want any ball security. Our back three are small lads, they can't clear out on their own.
the main difference between higgers and rocky for mine was rocky got the shit beaten out of him by a rampant NZ defence for an hour then higgers came on with fresh legs and hung around out wide just as much as him but looked better for it.
Rocky should stay for mine, he didnt look great last night but neither did Pocock or Mccalman, they were all contained and contained well. If higgers is coming on, he should go to 8 not 6, we need both of them out there not one of them.
In previous matches, I have been critical of our backs ability to provide any type of effective clean-out or even basic ball security when the ball goes to ground out wide but I felt that did a much better job last night. They need to commit another body or two OR get the ball out of there quickly. Nothing is more frustrating than seeing the ball sitting at the back of the ruck while another back runs in and crouches over the bloody thing and stares at the defensive line. Big forwards love that type of crap and so often we see a late clean-out effort result in a turn over.
Interesting that so many critcize Elsom (and I am not a fan, if any need to be reminded I was one who thought he shouldn't even be selected in the squad let alone as Captain simply on form). No where does anybody question the tactics and team structures that have backrowers waiting out on the wings and front rowers at second receiver. Yes Elsom played up to the standard that he has played at all year, nobody should be surprised by this.
Now we have Vickerman also, who so many lovingly say was effective when he came on the OZ lineout deteriorated and whoopee he contributed to one turnover at the ruck.
The Wallabies this year have been selected by a poor coach and worse assistants who have continuously throughout their reign selected their favourites with complete disregard for form and suitablilty to the task at hand. Said players then get lambasted by all and sundry when they didn't deserve to be in the position in the first place. The easiest examples to quote are Giteau, Chisholm and Brown. McCalman is rapidly becoming that way, Vickerman and Elsom just didn't play enough Rugby this year to deserve a place ON FORM and that is all that matters.
So my point is the players will take the spot that is offerred but the responsibility for their predictable underperformance resides with those whose ineptitude selected them in the first place and then provided them with such shockingly poor tactics to approach the game.