T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Mate if Michael Gunn's not a better option than Michael Hooper than we'll fucking take up daylight savings!
Springboks vs Wallabies @ Newlands 27/9/2014
- Thread starter PaarlBok
- Start date
- Status
Mate if Michael Gunn's not a better option than Michael Hooper than we'll fucking take up daylight savings!
Biffo
Ken Catchpole (46)
Ulrich
Nev Cottrell (35)
Sometimes I think it could be better for a player to join the national squad even if a player does not play. Clubs and unions are known to hastily return players which often causes injury all over again.
At least that's the impression I got from my own local team until they had a change of policy that started this season.
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
On Hoopers captaincy, my main criticism of him is he seems to not engage with the ref enough. He lets the ref come to him.
It's probably his naughty #7 mind set, trying to be invisible to the ref.
His decision making in regards to penalties and kicks for touch I suspect is largely following a set script layed out for him by Ewen.
It's probably his naughty #7 mind set, trying to be invisible to the ref.
His decision making in regards to penalties and kicks for touch I suspect is largely following a set script layed out for him by Ewen.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
In my experience at least, banging on in the referees ear all game can sometimes lead to getting him off-side.
Fair comment though. It's a bit of a balance you need to achieve.
D
daz
Guest
Ok. I've been keeping this quiet but the time has come to out myself.
Am I the only one, right now, who feels completely apathetic with the Wallabies?
I can barely scrape together any interest in our national team.
Has the NRC spoiled me for "have a red hot go" rugby? Or am I sick of hearing the constant beat ups around the Wallabies, only to find they have bigger mouths than ability?
Or have I realised that after the last 10 years or so, this is really as good as the Wallabies can be, and there is no hope of cracking #1, or winning Old Bill again; let alone touching the Bledisloe.
Am I alone in this pit of despair?
Am I the only one, right now, who feels completely apathetic with the Wallabies?
I can barely scrape together any interest in our national team.
Has the NRC spoiled me for "have a red hot go" rugby? Or am I sick of hearing the constant beat ups around the Wallabies, only to find they have bigger mouths than ability?
Or have I realised that after the last 10 years or so, this is really as good as the Wallabies can be, and there is no hope of cracking #1, or winning Old Bill again; let alone touching the Bledisloe.
Am I alone in this pit of despair?
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
Except that Hooper doesn't play out wide. He plays a fast game on the fringes of the breakdown. Many of his attacking runs are through dense peripheral traffic. He then loops round and backs up out wide, certainly. Precisely as George Smith did. How often did we see Smith popping up in the 13 channel, having worked his arse off to get there? Hooper does the same.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Sometimes I think people's expectations are too high of the Wallabies. Do France, Ireland, Wales (where rugby is very popular and successful) lose interest because their teams always lose to the top 3 and will never be #1? Nope. I think they understand their place in world rugby and accept it.
Fact is rugby doesn't have the popularity here to give us the best athletes like NZ, England and SA do. We overachieve for sure in my opinion. There's a reason we won our 2 World Cups pre and barely post-professionalism because we were the most professional team due to the AFL/NRL professionalism. Now that everyone is on an even level, we're not able to compete.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
I can understand that years of disappointment has taken their toll.
But if things like 7 wins on the trot and consistent ability to defeat teams ranked lower than 4 (We are yet to lose a single one of them under Link, let alone multiple) does not give you confidence that we are improving as a team and moving towards where we need to be, not moving further away from it then I don't exactly know what to say. Maybe you'd be better following the Kangaroos where they are never challenged.
But if things like 7 wins on the trot and consistent ability to defeat teams ranked lower than 4 (We are yet to lose a single one of them under Link, let alone multiple) does not give you confidence that we are improving as a team and moving towards where we need to be, not moving further away from it then I don't exactly know what to say. Maybe you'd be better following the Kangaroos where they are never challenged.
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
Whatever style he plays it certainly isn't the same as what we are use to in Pocock and Hodgson. I think If required to play that style it would require a massive shift in mind-set as he is so accustomed to playing his current style. It's not as simple as just directing him to play the breakdown more and expecting him to turn into Pocock. Habits are hard to change.
And he certainly doesn't compare to George Smith just yet.
There's definitely a mentality where people see our place as being higher than it actually is and then discount history.
Each year we embark on the EOYT and people suggest that we should win all four tests or that three out of four is the pass mark.
That flies in the face of history where very, very rarely have we won three of the four tests let alone winning everything.
Each year we embark on the EOYT and people suggest that we should win all four tests or that three out of four is the pass mark.
That flies in the face of history where very, very rarely have we won three of the four tests let alone winning everything.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
I think that's a fair expectation though BH, because at most we only ever face 1 team ranked higher than us so we fairly should be expected to defeat lower ranked teams.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
But the fact is we won 4/5 on the EOYT and have lost 1 game all year. How can anybody say we are performing poorly?
Then you throw in being the away team and we're suddenly not red hot favourites based on our ranking.
At home against the Springboks we were favourites with the bookies. Away, we're paying $3.50 which makes us fairly long outsiders in a two horse race.
We should be expected to beat lower ranked teams but when you play three or four of them (and they're away games), probability would tell you that you'll probably lose one of them.
There seems to be a perception that the Wallabies aren't as good as they used to be but that winning three out of four on an EOYT is a pass mark for the current team. Historically, that would be a very successful tour which the perceived better Wallaby teams of the past mostly struggled to achieve.
D
daz
Guest
I did try that once, as a social experiment.
But about 30 seconds after kick-off I threw up a little bit in my mouth and had to turn the TV off before I went into total anaphylactic shock.
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
No-one can.
But we can say we performed poorly in our 50+ loss to the All Blacks. Very poorly. You can argue it's only one game but it was a bloody embarrassing loss.
D
daz
Guest
I'm not saying that at all. I fully agree with, and delight in, the fact that with only a few little hiccups along the journey (Samoa at Newcastle? Scotland?) we are actually a pretty consistent team.
I admit to just a little bit of shit-stirring in my original post, but the truth is that while we are all happy to accept our win/loss ratio against every team based below us, we are also pretty accepting of the fact that it's ok we haven't fondled the Bled for 14 years, regardless of the noise the players and media make before the contest.
It's not the consistency I am worried about; it's the fact that when we say the Wallabies are "improving", what we really mean is we are more likely to beat teams ranked lower than #4 on tour.
- Status