Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
According to Quade Cooper, the Wallabies didn't have any momentum?
- Status
According to Quade Cooper, the Wallabies didn't have any momentum?
U
Utility Back
Guest
My first post since before the game,
Grrr i bloody knew it, call me superstitious, but there was just way to much over confidence leading into this game, and maybe the same can be said for the wallaz.
The Irish were just unreal, they were truly on fire in just about everything. They had the game plan, structure, and the execution, all topped with supreme determination the wallaz did not meet. POC and BOD just lead brilliantly.
I'd like to think that Poey and Moore could have maid a difference, Moore at the line out alone. I was thinking before the game that perhaps Fainga'a should start over Nau, at least he should have been brought off earlier as he just didn't seem to have the fitness for that long. In general Robbies use of the bench was the worst I've seen in a long time. We have some pretty effective players on that bench and they just weren't getting used til far to late when they could have made a difference earlier.
Im not sure why it seems to be the way that if the ball is available at the back of a scrum, they allow the scrum to keep going until the scrum falls over in some way so that the referee has to blame someone for the collapse of a scrum that's really already over. Unless one scrum is truly pushing the other backwards IMO it should be similar to a maul and 'Use it'. This is not a knee jerk reaction to this game, i've felt this way about any match i've seen when an available ball goes unused, apologies to scrum enthusiasts but that's the way i see the game.
The Irish were absolute genius's with their tact to hold the player up and force a maul. Of course as soon as it as called a maul, they allowed the incoming aussies to knock them over, and as it was not a ruck were allowed to kill the ball by not releasing and lying all over it, and stop the aussies from getting it back. Good on Ireland for using basically what i see as a 'loop hole' in the game, as i have never seen it really used with such a planned intention.
Why is it a 'loop hole' I'm glad you asked! (I'm sure it gives me a chance to upset some of you further!
) Because most facets of the game are about a fair contest for possession and this is one which truly doesn't allow for it. At the ruck we have a thousand rules such as side entry, on the feet, rolling away, so that teams compete for the ball 'fairly', as soon as you force a maul on defensive terms, than allow oncoming forwards to knock you over, all of a sudden there is no need to roll away, or release the player, because its not a tackle or a ruck, it's a collapsed maul. All you have to do is make sure the team can't get it back and you have a penalty! I'm not angry Ire did this, its in the rules (point me out if i'm incorrect about some of this) and they executed it brilliantly. I do feel however it goes against the nature of the game, as any side that might do this (and it's not necessarily easy) is trying to kill the ball more than contest for it, so IMO, is maybe something that should be looked at. And either way, after the 2nd time AT LEAST, McCabe should have lowered his bloody body height.
So for further games, id like to see a centre pairing of Barnes and horne, as they both bring the defensive capabilities as well as more attacking options. Some have said horne hasn't played well for the wallaz, i disagree, and i think he's absolute gun. Also give sharpie a run, and Robbie should have brought over Beau Rob, instead of phibbs.
End rant.
Grrr i bloody knew it, call me superstitious, but there was just way to much over confidence leading into this game, and maybe the same can be said for the wallaz.
The Irish were just unreal, they were truly on fire in just about everything. They had the game plan, structure, and the execution, all topped with supreme determination the wallaz did not meet. POC and BOD just lead brilliantly.
I'd like to think that Poey and Moore could have maid a difference, Moore at the line out alone. I was thinking before the game that perhaps Fainga'a should start over Nau, at least he should have been brought off earlier as he just didn't seem to have the fitness for that long. In general Robbies use of the bench was the worst I've seen in a long time. We have some pretty effective players on that bench and they just weren't getting used til far to late when they could have made a difference earlier.
Im not sure why it seems to be the way that if the ball is available at the back of a scrum, they allow the scrum to keep going until the scrum falls over in some way so that the referee has to blame someone for the collapse of a scrum that's really already over. Unless one scrum is truly pushing the other backwards IMO it should be similar to a maul and 'Use it'. This is not a knee jerk reaction to this game, i've felt this way about any match i've seen when an available ball goes unused, apologies to scrum enthusiasts but that's the way i see the game.
The Irish were absolute genius's with their tact to hold the player up and force a maul. Of course as soon as it as called a maul, they allowed the incoming aussies to knock them over, and as it was not a ruck were allowed to kill the ball by not releasing and lying all over it, and stop the aussies from getting it back. Good on Ireland for using basically what i see as a 'loop hole' in the game, as i have never seen it really used with such a planned intention.
Why is it a 'loop hole' I'm glad you asked! (I'm sure it gives me a chance to upset some of you further!
) Because most facets of the game are about a fair contest for possession and this is one which truly doesn't allow for it. At the ruck we have a thousand rules such as side entry, on the feet, rolling away, so that teams compete for the ball 'fairly', as soon as you force a maul on defensive terms, than allow oncoming forwards to knock you over, all of a sudden there is no need to roll away, or release the player, because its not a tackle or a ruck, it's a collapsed maul. All you have to do is make sure the team can't get it back and you have a penalty! I'm not angry Ire did this, its in the rules (point me out if i'm incorrect about some of this) and they executed it brilliantly. I do feel however it goes against the nature of the game, as any side that might do this (and it's not necessarily easy) is trying to kill the ball more than contest for it, so IMO, is maybe something that should be looked at. And either way, after the 2nd time AT LEAST, McCabe should have lowered his bloody body height.So for further games, id like to see a centre pairing of Barnes and horne, as they both bring the defensive capabilities as well as more attacking options. Some have said horne hasn't played well for the wallaz, i disagree, and i think he's absolute gun. Also give sharpie a run, and Robbie should have brought over Beau Rob, instead of phibbs.
End rant.
He isn't crap, but like a number of Aus players his bad technique let him down. Other sides have just gang tackled the guy and smashed him. Kiss on the other hand targeted his upright running style and lack of attacking options and went in the hold him up and get the turnover - very smart play
The Irish were very smart across the field, they made Cooper field shorter kicks where he could be smashed or at least be put under pressure.
At the scrum they kept building pressure when Aus was used to SH sides filling it out by that time, the Irish kept grinding as our backrow became Meerkats wondering where the ball was.
S
shesthefastest
Guest
I think it's become very clear, particularly in the last 2 World Cups, that the teams that progress the furthest generally play a style of rugby which ought to be labelled 'World Cup Rugby', which is based almost entirely on solid foundations. This entails having mentally tough, veteran leaders in key areas of their side, an excellent set-piece (scrum and lineout), a well thought-out kicking game and an extremely physical, committed and organised defensive structure. That's it. Nothing else. Any additional talents or skills, such as creative attacking back-play, are nothing more than a bonus. It's amazingly effective when this international tournament comes around every 4 years. Examples of this successful approach include South Africa in '95, England in '03 and Argentina, England and South Africa in '07.
Regardless of whether spectators find this brand of rugby attractive and exciting, which for the large part they don't, its success simply cannot be denied. Australia in particular seem to have been the victims, notably in the '07 quarter-final against England and again, yesterday, against Ireland in Auckland. On both occasions they've tried to play a brand of exciting expansive rugby, which is both admirable and naive in equal measure, that has flopped spectacularly in the face of passionate, disciplined and determined Northern Hemisphere sides. The root of both these defeats stem from a lack of clear decision makers in the face of the very unique pressures of World Cup, a trait that has been New Zealand's undoing on many occasions. Incidentally, it would be appear to be the first time in the history of the tournament, that Ireland have successfully adopted 'World Cup Rugby' as their chosen style for the tournament and it appears to be bearing fruit immediately.
Regardless of whether spectators find this brand of rugby attractive and exciting, which for the large part they don't, its success simply cannot be denied. Australia in particular seem to have been the victims, notably in the '07 quarter-final against England and again, yesterday, against Ireland in Auckland. On both occasions they've tried to play a brand of exciting expansive rugby, which is both admirable and naive in equal measure, that has flopped spectacularly in the face of passionate, disciplined and determined Northern Hemisphere sides. The root of both these defeats stem from a lack of clear decision makers in the face of the very unique pressures of World Cup, a trait that has been New Zealand's undoing on many occasions. Incidentally, it would be appear to be the first time in the history of the tournament, that Ireland have successfully adopted 'World Cup Rugby' as their chosen style for the tournament and it appears to be bearing fruit immediately.
chasmac
Dave Cowper (27)
I've heard comments that the ref was the main problem with the Aussie scrum. I disagree, I thought both our props were dominated and that virtually all of the penalties were warranted. I found it very frustrating however that the ref allowed the Irish front row to fake injuries for the entire 80 mins given that they were winning the contest up front. Irish dictated the tempo.
The breakdown battle was won by the Irish, they were brilliant and I think would have beaten any team on the night. Our forwards dictated terms against Italy in the 2nd half and against the AB's in the first half of the Tri nations final. (AB's were missing Kaino and Whitelock misfired).
Our backline struggled without front foot possessions. I would dearly love to see them attempt some set plays off first phase possession that test the defense more one on one.
I've got more to say but bugger it, I would only be repeating what has already been raised.
Is Beau pulling beers in some bloody Irish pub in Auckland ?
The breakdown battle was won by the Irish, they were brilliant and I think would have beaten any team on the night. Our forwards dictated terms against Italy in the 2nd half and against the AB's in the first half of the Tri nations final. (AB's were missing Kaino and Whitelock misfired).
Our backline struggled without front foot possessions. I would dearly love to see them attempt some set plays off first phase possession that test the defense more one on one.
I've got more to say but bugger it, I would only be repeating what has already been raised.
Is Beau pulling beers in some bloody Irish pub in Auckland ?
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
BR, key observation there. I am aghast when observers - after the latest version no 12 of Wallaby lapse in forwards' attitude, intensity and application - take recourse to a kind of all-embracing critique of Australian forwards and rugby in general and it's almost as though we should shut the tent down and leave Test rugby as it will always be like this.
But there's no evidence to support that brand of negativity. You note correctly that if you study even 2011's S15 top Aus teams, the Reds and Tahs, there was powerful evidence that Aus forwards can consistently turn up with the required skill and intensity. The Tahs' forwards were, in general, particularly good and highly competitive in most games against the best opposition, they rarely played meekly if ever. Reds' scrum was a B-grade endeavour (not through want of trying, more an issue of experience and front row talent), but the Reds forwards in general played skilfully and with high application and set the platform for Genia again and again, and this against the best the Saffers and NZ put up against them. Then we have the Wallabies' forwards' performances in Durban and Brisbane this year. Then take the fact that Link took the rabble of a group of Reds' forwards as they were in 2008-9, and, within a season or two turned them into big contributors to an S15 Finals win; if Aus rugby just turned out a line of poor quality forwards year after year, this couldn't happen.
But notably, our Wallaby forwards - and team - tends to only rise to the occasion after poor, highly embarrassing performances just as occurred in Sydney and Auckland in this year's pre WC Tests. That's partly why I jokingly call them 'the secret masochists'.
So IMO the Wallabies' forwards lapses into meekness and a lost mindset is far more about attitude, team culture and the right spirit of belief. (Plus btw wacky, high-risk selection stupidities like no proper back up 7 and the unjustified McCalman love, and then barely no bench use of Higgers, what a way to grossly unbalance a back 3 and ask for big trouble!) Something is simply wrong - and remains unfixed - inside this team's collective head.
DPK
Peter Sullivan (51)
RH, the SupeRugby performances are in some ways an accurate prediction of how the Wallabies forwards should perform, but they're not perfectly analogous. There is a definite step up from the Super level to Test level.
Also, I think some of those lapses can be attributed to the quality of the opposition we play. Not in Saturdays game, however.
Also, I think some of those lapses can be attributed to the quality of the opposition we play. Not in Saturdays game, however.
Country Kid
Chris McKivat (8)
Thanks Nusadan
Re: the Samoa v Wallabies game.
The game plan of the Samoan team was to hit hard in the tackle/contact as often as possible - when the Wallabies kicked for touch rather than kicked for goal, they played into the Samoan game plan. In that game the kicking penalty goals and accumulating points was the way to defuse the Samoan game plan.
the idea is to - within reason and depending on the game dynamics - do the opposite of what the opposition hope you will do
Re: the Samoa v Wallabies game.
The game plan of the Samoan team was to hit hard in the tackle/contact as often as possible - when the Wallabies kicked for touch rather than kicked for goal, they played into the Samoan game plan. In that game the kicking penalty goals and accumulating points was the way to defuse the Samoan game plan.
the idea is to - within reason and depending on the game dynamics - do the opposite of what the opposition hope you will do
Given the number of wet games we've had and are likely to have at this World Cup, having Barnes at 12 who can kick well seems like a logical choice.
We could have certainly played a better field position game against Ireland.
We could have certainly played a better field position game against Ireland.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
I would buy the 'but Test rugby is so very different' line for explaining our Wallabies' forwards' maddening inconsistencies if, well, they weren't inconsistent, they were just more or more always this bad and meek. That evenness of mediocrity would point to predominant issues of intrinsic poor capability, not issues of coaching, technique, mindset, attitude and belief.
But the fact is we can go from a shocking defeat by Samoa and a headless capitulation to the ABs in Bled 1, to a dramatic uplift in virtually ever single Test-level attribute of forwards play literally only two Tests later in Brisbane (and we can hardly argue that the ABs have a poor forwards game and skill level). So, just as Bullrush said, the capability is manifestly there actually and potentially; what is missing is the essential ingredient in every sports team that truly earns repeated dominance, namely, the mentality and culture to do what is essential on virtually every occasion.
Country Kid
Chris McKivat (8)
Thats the problem - QC (Quade Cooper) and others didn't read ebbs and flows of the game as it unfolded. It is hard I know - but someone (coach or player) needs to do it. They are all full time pros
Barnes/AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) please.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I know. Ignoring form in the meantime.
TheSwearingBear
Frank Row (1)
Well at least now we have the opportunity to knock off the All Blacks in the semis. Won't they love that in the shaky isles?
A
antipodean
Guest
Both teams have to get there first.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Guys, just re BB. Aren't we falling into the unjustified optimism trap re all these 'just returning' players? We have watched Rocky take, what, 4-5 Tests to get back to 'acceptable but not stellar' form (and he went downhill v Ireland). TPN: he was a shadow of his 2011 Tahs best form on Saturday and his old throwing problems returned, yes?
The point being: won't it take BB and Drew etc at least 2-3 Tests to (hopefully) get back to a level that's equal to the best we've seen from them in the last two years? Are there not potentially some echoes of 1995 here?
Or are you saying the downside risks of sticking with McCabe at 12 is simply greater than that of having BB back and waiting for him to recover Test match fitness?
I think we have to try something different. If our forwards get beaten and we have to make do with backfoot ball, McCabe and Fainga'a offer nothing. We're left looking for miracle plays from QC (Quade Cooper) and KB (Kurtley Beale).
Having a 12 who can direct the game better and play far better territory gives us something better than the crash ball that just doesn't work if our forwards are going backwards.
We need to be able to still compete if our forwards are being outplayed.
Having a 12 who can direct the game better and play far better territory gives us something better than the crash ball that just doesn't work if our forwards are going backwards.
We need to be able to still compete if our forwards are being outplayed.
- Status