Scotland v Australia 12Nov16 Saturday

[PeterK]

Then that's obviously a point of difference.

Kicking game to me is the type of 10 (or even 9) man rugby played by French, English and South African teams designed as playing not to lose rather than to win, usually demonstrated by less talented squads.

Kicking for territory in difficult conditions with a couple of quality kickers in the side says Intelligent game, not kicking game. (Something a lot of teams in Australia don't seem to do well from my perspective at any level!)

I know the difference.
If I say kicking game I mean kicking game.

Otherwise I would say 10 man rugby.

The RWC QF wasn't even in the wet but they played a great game keeping Aust pinned in their half to exploit the weakness poor exit kicking. Pocock was missed in the rucks, no ball turned over. Fardy, Hooper, McCalman the back 3.

So 4 lineout options are needed, a good exit strategy long kicking and Pocock to dominate the rucks in the wet.

 

[Viking]

Yes. Everything about his playing history suggests that 5 games in 5 weeks is fine for him. Particularly with a couple of weekends off in the lead-up.

Arnold and Pocock would seem to be the two forwards most prone to breaking down/suffering an injury on a regular basis (without reviewing any stats).

Yes statistically that is true but you just have to look at Hoopers workload and general psychical play to know that what he does is hard on the body.

Sure we'd like to believe that because he hasn't sustained a major injury yet that it won't happen... but at the end of the day he isn't made of steel and he is just skin and bones like every other player on the field.

I don't think its unreasonable to take a precaution or two for one of our best players who's in one of the most demanding positions in rugby, and probably played the most game time already.

 

[Viking]

And is about half speed of Phipps. I also disagree about the better pass, at the start of games Phipps is as good he just fades after 50.

You just have add-up Phipps wayward passes Vs Genia's to know that ain't true. Or even look 2 games previous at Phipps couple of slow-as-snails lobbing passes that put us under pressure.

He was passing good last game though. I'll give him that. Speed of service was also very good but Genia this season isn't too far off the mark - certainly not twice as slow as you made out.

I wouldn't be unhappy if Phipps started but when comparing the two, currently, Genia is miles ahead.

 

[PeterK]

Cheika does not rotate players as a rule. He sticks once he has found what he is looking for.
Look at the tahs he played the same players week in week out.

He does the same at the wallabies.
Mainly injuries and unavailability cause him to change.

The exceptions have been the locks whilst he was searching for his best lock combo, and the 12 position.

He will run the same players as much as possible.

So with that in mind he will play Pooper and the question is whether Mumm or Fardy is on the bench.
He will also probably start Genia.

 

[amirite]

Where does this idea Scotland are a particularly good lineout team come from? Or that they're a particularly deft kicking team.

Visser and Seymour are not kick first wingers, and they're more likely to start Wilson than Strauss (who's not a noted jumper) - leaving them with 3 jumpers.

Did we watch the 6 nations? This is not a grinding Scottish team of old.

 

[Twoilms]

In reality Cooper's error rate is lower then Foley's. Posters needs to start avoiding preconceived ideas.

Not that Cooper isn't prone to errors himself. But slightly better still then Foley.

This year, though. Over the course of their careers Cooper has proven far more error/panic prone.

Foley has dropped the ball (figuratively) this year though. So many mistakes. Those two intercepts against South Africa. Jeez

 

[Train Without a Station]

Twolims by that logic you could say that over the course of their careers that Cooper has proven a far better player.

While he was winning MOTM awards and making errors at test level, Foley was doing that at Shute Shield level.

But the fact is what happened 5 years ago isn't entirely relevant today unless it forms some part of a trend. Is Foley less error prone because he wasn't good enough to be selected and tested at test level 5 years ago?

The fact is that Cooper's "proven error/panic proneness" pre-dates Foley being a regular Super Rugby starter.

Hence why it's considered a preconceived idea.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's like deja vu all over again.

 

[PeterK]

Where does this idea Scotland are a particularly good lineout team come from? Or that they're a particularly deft kicking team.

Visser and Seymour are not kick first wingers, and they're more likely to start Wilson than Strauss (who's not a noted jumper) - leaving them with 3 jumpers.

Did we watch the 6 nations? This is not a grinding Scottish team of old.

I did. I saw how they played tight and kicked for the line against Engalnd in the wet.

They have a very good lineout.

Denton no 8 is 196 cm.
No 6 Hardie is 190 cm

Yes they run their backline , they have a a good attack with Hogg, Bennett etc, against Wales under the roof.

 

[Twoilms]

This feels like the beginning of a journey to a place i fear to go.

 

[biggsy]

I've got Coleman and Arnold fever.

 

[Scrubber2050]

I've got Coleman and Arnold fever.

I'll get the fever once I see them dominate Ireland and England. To me, it's just a wee too early, but it;s looking good

 

[Highlander35]

Where does this idea Scotland are a particularly good lineout team come from? Or that they're a particularly deft kicking team.

Visser and Seymour are not kick first wingers, and they're more likely to start Wilson than Strauss (who's not a noted jumper) - leaving them with 3 jumpers .

Did we watch the 6 nations? This is not a grinding Scottish team of old.

Eh. I get where they're coming from. Laidlaw is an excellent kick. As are Hoggys torps. While the Grays and Gilchrist are both good at pressuring the opposition lineout into poorer decisions with their defensive positioning and movement, even if that doesn't result in steals.

Back 3 and Russell will certainly look to run it back hard if we get a kicking battle. As will Bennett if he plays.

As I've said elsewhere, don't be stupid and you'll win. Pressure Ford's hooking, don't seek dominance before the referee had had a chance to see that. Reduce the opportunity Hogg has to run. Keep things tight, send the locks, Timani and Kuridrani up the middle, the tackles will be made, but so will the meters. Don't give intercept opportunities to Bennett, Seymour and Visser by throwing it wide when it's not on or earned. Kick the penalties and conversions. Knowing we should hit ours gives a psych boost even if we're 2 or 3 tries down.

 

[Twoilms]

Speaking of Coleman and Arnold at 25 and 26 respectively they aren't as young as i thought they were.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Surely if we are playing the safe option then that is Cooper.

Lower error rate. Better territory kicking game.

As if foley should not start after his man of the match performance. People need to put aside personal opinions when a player proves them wrong...just saying...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Disagree strongly.

Wales had a weak lineout , lost their linout organiser, and Warburton a genuine lineout option.

So against weak lineouts sure.

Scotland has a very strong lineout, and play a kicking game. Remeber Highlanders Tahs? Eng, NZ nad SA exploiting Pooper because they have strong lineouts.

Have we learned nothing yet from our failures?

Even more so it will be in the wet. Time to focus on set piece, kicking, the breakdown and not running the ball.

Against Scotland I would play mumm or fardy for better line out option


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pfitzy]

Pfitzy, I consider errors to be things like charge downs, intercepts, missed touch finders and handling errors (though Foley's greater frequency in this it's so marginal that I wouldn't consider it by itself).

What do you consider a lower error rate to mean?

Something that Cooper does not possess.

There are some posters who generously forget Foley's errors with the boot in particular. I am not one of them. It is an area that needs serious work, and in the likely conditions this weekend, I suspect that he will start, but Genia and/or Cooper will be involved in the game sooner rather than later if Foley can't step up on the territory kicking.

However, to suggest Cooper is somehow better in terms of errors is to remove oneself utterly from the facts: his renewed tendency to shirk effective contact (with or without the ball) is a big part of that, as well as his option taking transferring pressure to the players he is responsible for directing.

At this point, you can't say one is clearly better than the other. They've both been given opportunities, and for better or worse, Foley is part of an effective halves combination in a winning team. Sucks for Cooper that he hasn't had the kind of forward momentum in the games he started this year, but that's rugby.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Nutter,

I was just merely saying that if your logic is picking the safe option due to weather, you pick the player that makes less errors and has a better kicking game.

I'm just a little sick of creative logic that only applies when it suits. Apparently for the Bled is was perfectly acceptable to go with combinations at 9/10 regardless of prior recent performance.

Now with Genia back who's saying we need to maintain the combinations? Now some of the same people are saying we need to build new combinations.

But I will say my view is that we overrate the Wales win at our peril. Look at our 12 in a row wins and probably half of them have either Cooper, Foley or Barnes as MOTM. Each of those years we've either gone on to, or in matches prior struggled against better packs like England when the pressure has been put on. This win against Wales is just more of the same with them probably weaker than ever based on results and availability.

If Foley was the best option before last weekend, based on everything we've seen in 2016, then fair enough.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Pfitzy,

I can only assume you mean transferring pressure such as in this video here around the 45min mark on the game clock:

- when there is a pass to nobody on attack and intercepted.

- when the flyhalf takes the ball, drifts aimlessly sideways and then passes to a player to get tackled 5m further back.

Are those the types of things you mean?

 

[KOB1987]

But it's no coincidence that coincided with front foot ball enabling time and space to attack direct..

Does that mean it's not a coincidence that it's a coincidence?