Springboks v Wallabies - Sunday 2 October 1am AEST - Loftus Versfeld

[cyclopath]

It wasn't a lack of support runners actually.

2 examples stuck out in my mind in the game. The first one was Simmons took the ball near the try line. He had Coleman and Mumm as support runners. As soon as Simmons got the ball he was tackled, and as he had no momentum he was driven back. Both Coleman and Mumm overshot and ran straight past him rather than latching, or driving on the tacklers.

Coleman attempted to double back but unfortunately it was too late.

Another was Hooper having Moore and another in support late in the game. He made a half break but was mowed down. The support dropped off completely due to him making an extra 5 meters and were not there in time to secure possession.

The support is there but it's seemingly not smart enough, and not aware of the ball runner enough to make the right decisions and put themselves in the right position. I'd wager there are examples of this for every single player during the game which makes me think it's a coaching issue.

It was sometimes, and, to be honest, if the support runners are there (and they were not always) but miss the cleanout or do it totally ineffectively, that is lack of support for the ball runner.
But you're right in that the execution of the support play is poor. Coaches have to take the rap, but seriously, if a lock / back rower at this level doesn't know how to clean out with some effect, that also reflects poorly on the player. Really no excuse for players at the top level being so inaccurate.

 

[wamberal]

I suppose every weakness is a "coaching issue".


Which coaches should we blame? We could probably start at under-10s and go up from there.

 

[Pusser]

That's all well and good.
...

I believe we have the players so it's unfair or unnecessary to blame Chek for our playing stock.

...

I do not agree we have the players. When Deans was coach, he wanted the players to play what was in front of them. He was not a great success because unlike NZ players, the Aussie ones are not up to it. See how the All Blacks are so quick to see what is happening and how when an unexpected break or turnover occurs there is always support. When a Wallaby makes a break he is generally unsupported. It is more than skill it is vision and I am not sure that can be coached in the short term.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Wamberal the way I see it if one or two player is doing it, it's a player issue.

If every player is doing it, it's a coaching issue. Either because it's a result of what they are told to do, or they are not being trained/reprimanded/told not to do it.

The fact that the supporters are so close on the set up means as soon as the runner doesn't dominate contact, they overrun it.

If they are playing flat, they are more likely to catch the ball and be tackled immediately. When that happens they are less likely to dominate the contact.

If they are being told to set up flat the coaches need to be coaching the players on latching and driving the tackler before he brings the tackle to ground, rather than going for the back hit on the ground.

 

[Quick Hands]

Nothing has changed in this area. Coetze needed a win desperately especially at Lftus. It was an excuse for retrograde coaching and selections. Understandable, impressive even, but retrograde.

Unfortunately, this could apply to us bringing old blokes back from Europe as well.

 

[Quick Hands]

But Kenny Powers stats mean nothing if you don't know what they represent.

I can say confidently that Cooper's statistics are dragged down because he was used as a part time option 2008-2012.

Since Foley was used as a full time kicker in 2014, he has kicked at 75%.

Interesting he kicks at 75% across his Super Rugby career (78% in 2014, 69% in 2015, 78% in 2016) and therefore the same across his test career. He seems to have a good series, and then a bad series and it all evens out at 75%.

It's not like any single seasons are dragging Foley down because he came out at around the same last year across his career too.

Most importantly, when you look at Foley's conversions, his percentage drops. Meaning when he doesn't have the choice to decline harder kicks, he doesn't kick as well and his penalties are holding his percentage up. For Cooper it's actually the opposite, he kicks higher on conversions, but his attempts for penalties are what drags him down as he attempts a slightly longer range.

Since Cooper was used as a first choice kicking option regularly in 2013 he kicks at around 72%.

3% is hardly enough of a disparity to justify selections on.

Is Cooper not a goal kicking option because he kicked poor over 4 seasons ago?

Sure if there two of them are on the park you go with the guy who's been most recently doing it and is likely to his 3 more shots out of 100, but you don't base the team on it.

In short, if people like Quade they can use statistics to support their cause and if they like Foley they can do the same. Take it away Mark Twain:

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

 

[Train Without a Station]

Well look at it this way QH.

To determine that Foley is a vastly superior kicker you have to consider Quade's career prior to Foley becoming a Super Rugby goal kicker, equally to the last 4 seasons of his career.

I don't agree with cherry picking statistic samples, but surely dating back to the start 2013 is a good and accurate sample to reflect current ability.

Is Foley a better kicker because of the fact that when Cooper was missing shots in tests and Super Rugby, Foley was playing Shute Shield?

 

[Viking]

In short, if people like Quade they can use statistics to support their cause and if they like Foley they can do the same. Take it away Mark Twain:

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

This is why I hate statistics.

Example:
On the front page it says DHP "missed a couple of tackles" like it is a huge negative- but those tackles he missed he was actually chasing a kick-off, whilst he didn't succeed in the tackle he succeeded in putting pressure on the receiver which is actually the goal, so I don't see those misses as a negative (more of a neutral).

Compared to his previous games where his missed tackles were simple 1 v 1's and directly led to tries. Huge negative.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Seb it comes down to how you consider them too.

If one or two either way can cause a massive variance in the perception then it needs to be really be taken with a grain of salt.

The larger the sample size, the better picture it paints of performance over a period.

But as I note above, you have to consider relevance of when the statistic was compiled and trends that occur (spikes and drops).

 

[Kenny Powers]

In short, if people like Quade they can use statistics to support their cause and if they like Foley they can do the same. Take it away Mark Twain:

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Agree statistics can be very misleading, they don't measure impact of tackle, the difficulty, were the run metres thru heavy traffic or from a kick return etc

When it comes to one statistic 'yellow cards' you would expect that to be topped by a loose forward. You would also not expect that player to necessarily be the best under pressure, the cool head who can control himself and organise other players on the field, run the attack.

For Australia that all time statistic is topped by Quade Cooper. Take it away Forrest Gump:

Stupid is as stupid does

 

[Train Without a Station]

I see. I thought this was about goal kicking.

Clearly that little segway has shown it's about anything that can paint Quade in a negative light, to support a view that he should not be selected.

Very clever to start out talking about goal kicking to make it sound like an objective discussion about the game and team necessities, not about a specific player.

 

[notapatrioticboneinme]

Wish someone (Eales?) would take coleman and douglas aside and talk about timing one's run. Coleman would be dynamic, douglas obviously less so.

 

[PaarlBok]

Was pleasantly surprise with the Boks winning this one. Thanks to our tight five who played brilliantly. Hopefull AC will start Jaco Kriel from now on.

 

[dru]

There is a presumption by many that if we ditch the double-10 that Quade stays and Foley misses out. I'm not convinced that Cheika necessarily sees it that way.

Kicking has surely been shown to not be a necessary differentiator between the two. Surely - the team can work around this.

In the mean time the unorthodox double-10 gets stronger.

I am not at all convinced of disbanding it at this stage. Both are adding greatly, sum of the two is better than its parts. And so far the expected negatives have largely been contained. We lose a big bopper at 12 but we gain playmaking.

Guys complaining that Cooper hasnt involved Folau should look to a) Folau at first reciever geing supported by Quade; and b) Folau of Foley, a supposedly developed relationship.

I think those thinking Quade would be better without Foley are dreaming. Vice Verca.

Talk about Quade passing forward/in front of the player is a bit like the line out argument (who to blame the thrower or the jumper). Same argument applies to Phipps I think.

Its working surprisingly well. Shakey start but firming up. Much like the whole team.

 

[dru]

Was pleasantly surprise with the Boks winning this one. Thanks to our tight five who played brilliantly. Hopefull AC will start Jaco Kriel from now on.

Kriel looked damnably good on the wing! Hougaard can return to 9.

 

[bigmac]

The backs were poor at times, so I agree. So too the forwards. Sure, we won enough possession to win the game, and yes, the attack was too easily shut down by the pretty good SA defence. The attack didn't do enough, and that's on both backs and forwards (in this day and age, they all have to know how to attack - witness the offload game of the All Blacks, for instance).
But the area of critical weakness that stood out for me last night was the woeful level of support for the ball runner / carrier. Good attacking forays snuffed by a turnover where the Wallabies showed ineffectual presence on their attacking ball. They don't seem to attack with a plan, a common purpose.
Cheika worked a plan at the Waratahs with pods of forwards working as a unit, with ball runners supported by players on their hip ready to add drive or cleanout. It doesn't happen at the Wallabies, but it does happen with the All Blacks. So is the plan flawed? For the Wallabies, yes. Either the players are just not there, or they can't do what is wanted, and thus for these players, it is flawed. For me it's a coaching and player issue. I don't think the model is flawed, but clearly they can't do it at the moment. So the coaching staff should adapt. They aren't.
This game pissed me off. They should have been able to win it reasonably comfortably, with all due respect to the Sprinbokke, who were just a bit less mediocre than us. That said, the Bokke deserved the win, which is a damning indictment on the Wallabies. Chance to make some history pissed away.

The lack of support play was unbelievable at times. Sometimes it was there but more often than not we make a break and noone to back up or even to push in the maul which we then lost. School boy stuff.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[bigmac]

Wish someone (Eales?) would take coleman and douglas aside and talk about timing one's run. Coleman would be dynamic, douglas obviously less so.

Coleman has great potential as the hard man we need. Def worth persevering with.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[bigmac]

It was sometimes, and, to be honest, if the support runners are there (and they were not always) but miss the cleanout or do it totally ineffectively, that is lack of support for the ball runner.
But you're right in that the execution of the support play is poor. Coaches have to take the rap, but seriously, if a lock / back rower at this level doesn't know how to clean out with some effect, that also reflects poorly on the player. Really no excuse for players at the top level being so inaccurate.

My concern was the lack of support players at key moments to keep an attack going, take a pass or push in a maul with some mauls turnovers lost at crucial times. This all adds up to several lost try scoring opportunities.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

Well look at it this way QH.

To determine that Foley is a vastly superior kicker you have to consider Quade's career prior to Foley becoming a Super Rugby goal kicker, equally to the last 4 seasons of his career.

I don't agree with cherry picking statistic samples, but surely dating back to the start 2013 is a good and accurate sample to reflect current ability.

Is Foley a better kicker because of the fact that when Cooper was missing shots in tests and Super Rugby, Foley was playing Shute Shield?

I honestly don't know who is the better kicker and I'm not sure that it's a question which can be answered by the available statistics. People's views on this are often coloured by emotion.

I'd say that both of them are capable of matchwinning goal kicking performances and both are also capable of really poor kicking displays.

Since he's been back, Quade has played pretty well in general play, certainly better than Foley was playing in the games immediately before. I also think that last Saturday was his worst game back in the Wallabies. The tell tale sign with Quade is when he begins running backwards at 45 degrees and throws a forward pass. This occurred 3 or 4 times in Pretoria (I'm not suggesting that he be dropped for it, just pointing it out).

12 months ago Foley and Phipps were the best in their position and were rightly selected IMO. At the moment Cooper and Genia are playing better and deserve to be picked. In fact Genia was our best player on Saturday IMO. He's all but eliminated the skip steps from his passing action. Almost every pass was straight off the ground and where a step was needed then and only then did he take one (and only one).

 

[dru]

Unfortunately, this could apply to us bringing old blokes back from Europe as well.

Absolutely. In this case though Coetze was bringing back an old folrmula, old game plan. So old he had to dig back in time with the Euro players who have been away a while.

OK that's a touch of exageration, you get the thought though I'm sure.