Scrum - Wallabies Vs Wales

[Gnostic]

Seriously? Are you taking the piss? :S


Fairbrother?:lmao: Tilse?! "Superprop" my arse. :-\ Palmer is, to quote fatprop, a potplant.

Stop being such a drama queen. We've got two very good international props who are not 100% in terms of strength and fitness. And you're incredibly quick to slander Ma'afu, yet incapable of putting aside your hatred and realising that he's actually the form aussie tighthead. He'll never be world class, but he's playing very well and our scrum (with a couple of lapses in concentration) essentially held its own all through the tri-nations, with Ma'afu at tighthead. Him and Slipper are currently our two form props, which is also quite remarkable, and a testament to Noriega's skill as a coach, considering how quickly the scrum improved over the winter.

Yet Deans of course is useless and got it all wrong and should be sent back to NZ. Its time you stopped slandering everyone and actually supported your team, instead of bitching.

How about you try some real analysis and actually look critically at the individual performances of players BEFORE you type. Are you capable of it? Your posts over a long period of time say that you are not.

If you actually read what I have posted you will see that I did indeed credit Noriega with Ma'afu's improvement to allow him to gain parity with far better props, but to say he is the form THP in Oz just shows your ignorance. He was at best the third best THP from the Oz S14 teams in overall game performance. In pure scrummaging terms he slips further down the field. If you had taken the time to read what I posted you would have seen that I stated that Ma'afu was selected for a reason. His game style is there to support the plan that Deans wants to institue, just as Bill Young was selected for many years to support the game plan Eddie Jones wanted to play. Their relatively weak scrummaging is largely ignored for the attributes that the selectors want. What I DID state is that the plan as I see is flawed and strong scrummaging sides such as Wales, England, France and Italy will punish a weak scrum and use it as a basis for their game plan. Given the heavy tracks we play on in the NH why play weak scrummagers with field skills which are hampered by the terrain. Why not play the rock solid "Pot Plant" in those conditions who will be able to equal the running prop in the conditions. The fact is that in the squad that was chosen, with Robinson and Alexander not 100% Slipper is the only prop with a modicum of scrummaging ability to compete at the set piece. Hence the whole selection of the squad was flawed relying on the form and fitness of the Bens to come good. Add in two non-scrummaging hookers and you have a potential disaster.

I do not slander and I do support my teams, just not with blind adulation that you and your cheer squad seem to favour.

FP has in previously been critical of my points of view on other aspects of the Wallabies team and management, strange that he supports what I have posted in this case if I was so blind and biased as you seem to think.

 

[PaarlBok]

Look like the Wallisers have confidense now against us for the scrums. Hope Walsh knows his rules because there will be a hell of a lot of action.

Can expect the same from the Poms against your lot.

 

[Groucho]

How about you try some real analysis and actually look critically at the individual performances of players BEFORE you type. Are you capable of it? Your posts over a long period of time say that you are not.

If you actually read what I have posted you will see that I did indeed credit Noriega with Ma'afu's improvement to allow him to gain parity with far better props, but to say he is the form THP in Oz just shows your ignorance. He was at best the third best THP from the Oz S14 teams in overall game performance. In pure scrummaging terms he slips further down the field. If you had taken the time to read what I posted you would have seen that I stated that Ma'afu was selected for a reason. His game style is there to support the plan that Deans wants to institue, just as Bill Young was selected for many years to support the game plan Eddie Jones wanted to play. Their relatively weak scrummaging is largely ignored for the attributes that the selectors want. What I DID state is that the plan as I see is flawed and strong scrummaging sides such as Wales, England, France and Italy will punish a weak scrum and use it as a basis for their game plan. Given the heavy tracks we play on in the NH why play weak scrummagers with field skills which are hampered by the terrain. Why not play the rock solid "Pot Plant" in those conditions who will be able to equal the running prop in the conditions. The fact is that in the squad that was chosen, with Robinson and Alexander not 100% Slipper is the only prop with a modicum of scrummaging ability to compete at the set piece. Hence the whole selection of the squad was flawed relying on the form and fitness of the Bens to come good. Add in two non-scrummaging hookers and you have a potential disaster.

I do not slander and I do support my teams, just not with blind adulation that you and your cheer squad seem to favour.

FP has in previously been critical of my points of view on other aspects of the Wallabies team and management, strange that he supports what I have posted in this case if I was so blind and biased as you seem to think.

I think the problem, Gnostic, is that there is a 'perception' that for you, every job requires just one tool, and that tool is Robbie Deans.

 

[Bruce Ross]

1984 Grand Slam tour at Cardiff Arms park.
Rodriguez, Lawton and McIntyre in the front row.
Horse Williams and Cutler in the 2nd row.

The thing I love about that try is that the Wallabies were going nuts and jumping up and down about scoring a pushover try at the Arms Park but Rodriguez turned around and jogged back to half way as if nothing had happened. He's the man!

Doesn't it say a lot about Australian scrummaging that we're still dining out on a single pushover try 26 years ago?

Looking at the video of the match which is posted later in the thread, one thing that stands out was that the No. 8, Steve Tuynman, was not really giving much weight. His shoulders were up on the second rowers' hips rather than under their arses, his own arse was much higher than his shoulders and his legs were almost straight, meaning that he couldn't really deliver effective force. The rest of the pack seemed to be in exemplary body position and were able to deliver serious grunt functioning as basically a seven man unit.

That was probably the zenith of Australian scrummaging; and it occurred a quarter of a century ago. It's about time we stopped deluding ourselves. In the main we are very poor scrummagers. Unitl we learn to respect the scrum and put eight forwards on the park who have the strength, technique and determination to dominate in that contest we will remain so.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

With respect Bruce, even though we've not had a pushover try like that since, our good teams in the intervening years have had good and at least very solid scrums. Dwyer's team had Link, Daly and Kearns, while MacQueen had guys like Blades, Foley and Harry in the front row. Added to that, quality locks like Eales, Waugh, Giffin and McCall. All very good operators and well coached. There is no reason to think we couldn't be that good again, so long as the focus is put on the set pieces and the talent identification works as it should.

I think there is the temptation to look at current performances and forget about the good things that have occurred, even as recently as a year ago. Our pack pretty much demolished or broke even with all comers in the EOYT in 2009, especially in the scrum. I personally think the guys we have coming through are a pretty talented bunch and with the right coaching will be very good players in the future. I'm thinking of guys like Slipper, Simmons, Douglas, as well as looking forward to Alexander, Robinson and TPN being back to full form and fitness. That's a pretty solid looking group right there.

 

[Nusadan]

Import some Argies props is another option! Has worked well in the past...

 

[Hodgy]

I wouldn't claim to be an expert but I don't think they practice enough against other decent scrums in training - that might be as a result of having a lack of top class props to practice against, if there's one thing kicking around at all levels in the English game, its the fat prop who can scrum but can barely walk. They set up ok, but they don't cope when angles change, the locks split, the back row don't push and hold the scrum together, its usually the second shove which kills them. I also don't think they spend long enough holding a squeeze when using a scrum machine, the longer a scrum goes without moving, the more you're expecting the aussies to suddenly go backwards. Plus, I just don't think they take it seriously enough in practice, in staying focussed every single time they pack down - they switch off in some scrums.

 

[Brumbieman]

How about you try some real analysis and actually look critically at the individual performances of players BEFORE you type. Are you capable of it? Your posts over a long period of time say that you are not.

If you actually read what I have posted you will see that I did indeed credit Noriega with Ma'afu's improvement to allow him to gain parity with far better props, but to say he is the form THP in Oz just shows your ignorance. He was at best the third best THP from the Oz S14 teams in overall game performance. In pure scrummaging terms he slips further down the field. If you had taken the time to read what I posted you would have seen that I stated that Ma'afu was selected for a reason. His game style is there to support the plan that Deans wants to institue, just as Bill Young was selected for many years to support the game plan Eddie Jones wanted to play. Their relatively weak scrummaging is largely ignored for the attributes that the selectors want. What I DID state is that the plan as I see is flawed and strong scrummaging sides such as Wales, England, France and Italy will punish a weak scrum and use it as a basis for their game plan. Given the heavy tracks we play on in the NH why play weak scrummagers with field skills which are hampered by the terrain. Why not play the rock solid "Pot Plant" in those conditions who will be able to equal the running prop in the conditions. The fact is that in the squad that was chosen, with Robinson and Alexander not 100% Slipper is the only prop with a modicum of scrummaging ability to compete at the set piece. Hence the whole selection of the squad was flawed relying on the form and fitness of the Bens to come good. Add in two non-scrummaging hookers and you have a potential disaster.

I do not slander and I do support my teams, just not with blind adulation that you and your cheer squad seem to favour.

FP has in previously been critical of my points of view on other aspects of the Wallabies team and management, strange that he supports what I have posted in this case if I was so blind and biased as you seem to think.

Scrums, whilst being visible, and an easy target for someone looking for a weak point to write a news article about, make up about 15% of all restarts. Lineouts make up much bigger percentage. I'm sure that, along with their work around the park, lifting ability in the lineouts is a big consideration in who gets picked in the front row.

You're also judging our props by their Super 14 form. Try as you might to ignore it, but the Brumbies scrum held up this year. The Reds were also very dominant, which according to you shouldn't have happened, as they had a "non scrummaging hooker'' forming a vital cog in the 'tripod' that demolished the Bulls, Stormers, Crusaders and Sharks, 4 very good scrummaging units.

RE Ma'afu. 3rd best in the Super 14, yes. But the fact remains that he, under the tuition of Deans and Noriega, has become a very serviceable prop who has improved dramatically since his debut, to the point where the Wallaby scrum was more stable with him in it. Do I think he's going to become the next Carl Hayman? Of course not. He wont even be better than Alexander. But he is now a very serviceable prop who can play in one of the most demanding positions in rugby, against the 1st and 3rd ranked teams in the world, and come out on par. If that's not building depth, then I don't know what is. Especially when you add Slipper into the picture. By all accounts, the scrum, with Slipper and Ma'afu, held up very well against leicester, who were expected to scrum them into the ground.

My analysis is that Deans and Noriega have clearly made some very good choices, and have developed two more props up to international level. And thats even before we add the other 5 men in the scrum into the picture.

Gaggers analysis was spot on. The Welsh wheeled the scrum up on the loosehead side, and then had the tighthead prop angle back in. He wasn't penalised for boring in, because his body angle was parallel to the touch lines, so when the flanker and 2nd row then put on their shove, they drove the tighthead straight in at Fainga'a, which splintered our front row and pushed everyone sideways. That is just a technical issue that Noriega will sort out.


And RE "How about you try some real analysis and actually look critically at the individual performances of players BEFORE you type. Are you capable of it? Your posts over a long period of time say that you are not"

Do elaborate. With some examples, because i'm not entirely sure what your point is.

 

[Bullrush]

I hope the Wallabies persist with Ma'afu (and Fainga'a) and keep playing them.

Almost nothing makes me happier than seeing those two names on the forward pack list whenever the ABs play the Wallabies.

 

[Bruce Ross]

With respect Bruce, even though we've not had a pushover try like that since, our good teams in the intervening years have had good and at least very solid scrums. Dwyer's team had Link, Daly and Kearns, while MacQueen had guys like Blades, Foley and Harry in the front row. Added to that, quality locks like Eales, Waugh, Giffin and McCall. All very good operators and well coached. There is no reason to think we couldn't be that good again, so long as the focus is put on the set pieces and the talent identification works as it should.

I think there is the temptation to look at current performances and forget about the good things that have occurred, even as recently as a year ago. Our pack pretty much demolished or broke even with all comers in the EOYT in 2009, especially in the scrum. I personally think the guys we have coming through are a pretty talented bunch and with the right coaching will be very good players in the future. I'm thinking of guys like Slipper, Simmons, Douglas, as well as looking forward to Alexander, Robinson and TPN being back to full form and fitness. That's a pretty solid looking group right there.

I am in agreement with you, Hornet, that the players you mention were outstanding scrummagers, but I think that reinforces my point. Over the decades, at a couple of points in time you had the coming together of players who had learnt and really respected the craft, but what about the long years of drought in between?

With regard to the present generation of players our ranks seem thin in terms of players who can step up at international level and right now acquit themselves well. From time to time we are capable of holding our own, and very occasionally we surprise ourselves and our opponents by actually dominating in a match. But the general situation seems to be one of having to make excuses because key players are injured, or just at present that they are just coming back from injury. There is no consistency of good performance; there is certainly not enough depth in our stock of matured playing talent.

I agree that there are "a pretty talented bunch [who] with the right coaching [would] be very good players in the future." However my view of what is "right" in coaching includes a philosophy that all eight players share responsibility for scrum performance and that we should never be deficient in strength and power.

I wouldn't claim to be an expert but I don't think they practice enough against other decent scrums in training - that might be as a result of having a lack of top class props to practice against, if there's one thing kicking around at all levels in the English game, its the fat prop who can scrum but can barely walk. They set up ok, but they don't cope when angles change, the locks split, the back row don't push and hold the scrum together, its usually the second shove which kills them. I also don't think they spend long enough holding a squeeze when using a scrum machine, the longer a scrum goes without moving, the more you're expecting the aussies to suddenly go backwards. Plus, I just don't think they take it seriously enough in practice, in staying focussed every single time they pack down - they switch off in some scrums.

An excellent post, Hodgy. However I would add to your statement: "I don't think they practice enough against other decent scrums in training" the thought that "they don't play enough against other decent scrums in games". Good scrums and scrummagers are developed by hard scrummaging every week. My impression is that is what occurs in other countries as players come through the club system; it is not typical of Australian rugby.

Not for the first time I make the point that we do not really take pride in the quality of our scrummaging and we do not take pride in superior strength.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I am in agreement with you, Hornet, that the players you mention were outstanding scrummagers, but I think that reinforces my point. Over the decades, at a couple of points in time you had the coming together of players who had learnt and really respected the craft, but what about the long years of drought in between?

With regard to the present generation of players our ranks seem thin in terms of players who can step up at international level and right now acquit themselves well. From time to time we are capable of holding our own, and very occasionally we surprise ourselves and our opponents by actually dominating in a match. But the general situation seems to be one of having to make excuses because key players are injured, or just at present that they are just coming back from injury. There is no consistency of good performance; there is certainly not enough depth in our stock of matured playing talent.

I agree that there are "a pretty talented bunch [who] with the right coaching [would] be very good players in the future." However my view of what is "right" in coaching includes a philosophy that all eight players share responsibility for scrum performance and that we should never be deficient in strength and power.

With respect to all eight players taking responsibility, I absolutely agree.

In terms of the playing stocks of the past, a lot of those guys played for Australia for many years, meaning that we had solid set pieces pretty much throughout the 90's and up until about 2002 I reckon. The real issue was the style of game Eddie Jones was wanting play and it seemed that he saw the set piece as an inconvenience. The fact that we got routinely belted in that area didn't seem to worry him, though I have suspicion that it was due to stubbornness or being pig headed on his part.

I think the current generation are on a pretty steep learning curve, but will also benefit from the current challenges they face. We just have to identify the good ones, train them up and trust them to do the job. We've done it in the backs (which is paying dividends) and now it's time to do it in the pigs.

 

[Scotty]

And RE "How about you try some real analysis and actually look critically at the individual performances of players BEFORE you type. Are you capable of it? Your posts over a long period of time say that you are not"

Do elaborate. With some examples, because i'm not entirely sure what your point is.

That is pretty funny, considering you just made your 10th post!?

 

[Jnor]

That was a quote from Gnostic's previous post, reckon Reddy needs to step up in the argument stakes if he wants to challenge for next years awards...

 

[Bruce Ross]

That was a quote from Gnostic's previous post, reckon Reddy needs to step up in the argument stakes if he wants to challenge for next years awards...

Is there any chance that the protagonists could agree to disagree? My reaction when I notice personal criticism taking over from vigorous debate is to move on to the next post. Just like in this case where I now have no idea what the boys are getting agitated over.

 

[JJJ]

 

[Scarfman]

Rule 10, my favourite!

 

[Lee Grant]

Good scrums and scrummagers are developed by hard scrummaging every week. My impression is that is what occurs in other countries as players come through the club system; it is not typical of Australian rugby.

Spot on there Bruce. One problem we have in Sydney and, I suppose that it's the same in Brisbane rugby too, is that only half of the 12 teams every year have a decent scrum, and some would say that is being kind.

If it is being kind it follows that more often than not strong teams don't have a decent weekly scrum contest and it also follows that it does no good for the progress of potentially good scrummagers in weaker teams either.

One of the advantages of the ARC was that players got to play with better players and against better players on a regular basis, albeit for a short time. With 3 or 4 years of that under their belts and the best coaches rising to the top in that time we would see better scrummaging contests than we are seeing now below the Super level.

The scrummaging of the players involved would improve and we would also be able to assess players better before they got to Super rugby. Too often we have seen players get on the park in Super rugby after an injury or two to others, only to find out their limitations.

Super squads do their best to give pro academy spots and rookie contracts to the most deserving players but there would be nothing like an Oz version of the NPC or Currie Cup to grade them before the spots are offered.

The other alternative is to have more Sydney University type teams. 6 in Sydney would be nice, but how do you do that?

 

[Bruce Ross]

The other alternative is to have more Sydney University type teams. 6 in Sydney would be nice, but how do you do that?

I am sure it can be done, LG, but it takes leadership, time and a huge amount of effort. You would need a somewhat different model for each club to take advantage of their strengths and resources.

Just to give you some indication of where the bar is now, over 50 Sydney Uni players, Grade and Colts, have just completed their first week of off-season training in the EDS program. That does not include the 30 odd players in Super programs nor the 5 or so in the Aussie Sevens squad.

The players have committed to 5 training sessions per week.

 

[Scotty]

That was a quote from Gnostic's previous post, reckon Reddy needs to step up in the argument stakes if he wants to challenge for next years awards...

I know, he was having a go at someone for doing something 'over a long period of time', despite him only posting 9 times previously!

 

[Scotty]

Spot on there Bruce. One problem we have in Sydney and, I suppose that it's the same in Brisbane rugby too, is that only half of the 12 teams every year have a decent scrum, and some would say that is being kind.

If it is being kind it follows that more often than not strong teams don't have a decent weekly scrum contest and it also follows that it does no good for the progress of potentially good scrummagers in weaker teams either.

One of the advantages of the ARC was that players got to play with better players and against better players on a regular basis, albeit for a short time. With 3 or 4 years of that under their belts and the best coaches rising to the top in that time we would see better scrummaging contests than we are seeing now below the Super level.

The scrummaging of the players involved would improve and we would also be able to assess players better before they got to Super rugby. Too often we have seen players get on the park in Super rugby after an injury or two to others, only to find out their limitations.

Super squads do their best to give pro academy spots and rookie contracts to the most deserving players but there would be nothing like an Oz version of the NPC or Currie Cup to grade them before the spots are offered.

The other alternative is to have more Sydney University type teams. 6 in Sydney would be nice, but how do you do that?

I'd like to see the ARU fund under 20s teams in each of the S15 setups. Compared to league, union is a long way behind in early development of players. Promising young rugby players don't have enough exposure to professional setups and competive games, apart from the 7s program (which isn't going to help any tight forwards) and academies (which aren't obviously restricted to under 20s).