Super Rugby Round 10, Brumbies vs Jaguares - Sunday 22 April 2018

[Quick Hands]

Lol fair enough IS, but I not sure just having a trans tasman comp will make your players all that much better without some very dsatic chabges to players etc attitudes.

What is happening on the field is a reflection of what has happened off the field in the past 20 years. All the nepotism, cronyism and jobs for the boys has finally caught up to the game. It was always going to happen, just that the speed of the decline since RWC 2015 has caught some by surprise, but it's been building for a while and a few of us have been predicting it for some time. As long as the game is run the way it is, it will continue to decline here.

 

[wamberal]

Keep predicting it, QH. I have to say that it would not matter what we do, the trend is there. With all due respect, you are a bit like somebody blaming the rooster for the sunrise.


The downwards trend might have been slowed a bit, but it is now pretty obvious that our little sport just cannot compete effectively in the Australian marketplace with the two homegrown, home governed, codes.


There are far, far more opportunities at much earlier ages, for kids to earn money in the NRL in particular than there is in our game.


The state schools system has changed enormously, much less emphasis on sport in general. That is nobody's fault, it is just the way it is.


A bit like the sunrise.

 

[Quick Hands]

Keep predicting it, QH. I have to say that it would not matter what we do, the trend is there. With all due respect, you are a bit like somebody blaming the rooster for the sunrise.


The downwards trend might have been slowed a bit, but it is now pretty obvious that our little sport just cannot compete effectively in the Australian marketplace with the two homegrown, home governed, codes.


There are far, far more opportunities at much earlier ages, for kids to earn money in the NRL in particular than there is in our game.


The state schools system has changed enormously, much less emphasis on sport in general. That is nobody's fault, it is just the way it is.


A bit like the sunrise.

Still beating the drum that none of this decline is down to poor management and/or poor decisions I see.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Dan54 is right in that there doesn't seem to be a lot of joy in the way the four Aus franchises are playing atm. Why would there be, when they are consistently losing? But seriously, they all seem to be much too rigid in their game plans and the players are perhaps fearful of doing anything outside the set plan. I know that McKellar is saying that he wants the Brumbies to play more on instinct and to play what's in front of them, but in reality the plan is still very regimented. While they are more willing to throw the ball wide earlier in phase play, they immediately revert to a one-off forward runner at the next phase, and it is clearly obvious who that runner will be. It is an easy ploy to defend, and rarely does the forward runner make it to the gain line. Then, after perhaps three or four cycles of this play, the usual and preferred action is kick the ball away. If it is a long kick, it is usually poorly directed, and if it is a bomb then it won't be contested by any of the chasers. We see too often that the option is to kick from even good field position for using the ball in hand more.

I cannot see at this stage any evidence at all that any of the franchise coaching staff are contributing positively to our game. And the same goes for the national set up as well. The situation is now very disheartening, and will probably only get worse as the season progresses.

 

[Strewthcobber]

It's interesting BR, from the Reds perspective at least, I think they have the opposite problem.

They aren't setting up with a modern attacking system, which when followed produces those mismatches that allow you to play more expansively.

I said it before, but the chiefs hooker scoring on the wing which bewildered the commentator has been a feature of kiwi play for years producong width and mismatches elsewhere - why aren't we trying these systems, or other innovations? Even NH coaches are using them.

We are playing rugby from 2010 when the kiwis are way off into the future

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[RedsHappy]

Dan54 is right in that there doesn't seem to be a lot of joy in the way the four Aus franchises are playing atm. Why would there be, when they are consistently losing? But seriously, they all seem to be much too rigid in their game plans and the players are perhaps fearful of doing anything outside the set plan. I know that McKellar is saying that he wants the Brumbies to play more on instinct and to play what's in front of them, but in reality the plan is still very regimented. While they are more willing to throw the ball wide earlier in phase play, they immediately revert to a one-off forward runner at the next phase, and it is clearly obvious who that runner will be. It is an easy ploy to defend, and rarely does the forward runner make it to the gain line. Then, after perhaps three or four cycles of this play, the usual and preferred action is kick the ball away. If it is a long kick, it is usually poorly directed, and if it is a bomb then it won't be contested by any of the chasers. We see too often that the option is to kick from even good field position for using the ball in hand more.

I cannot see at this stage any evidence at all that any of the franchise coaching staff are contributing positively to our game. And the same goes for the national set up as well. The situation is now very disheartening, and will probably only get worse as the season progresses.

Just to this good point BR, do you note how more or less all the Aust Super HCs are now bit by bit turning to blame their players/teams/highlighting their deficiencies/mistakes rather than taking direct responsibility themselves. This is the new dark omen that _always_ marks a point of further decline to come in team morale and playing excellence. It also marks a point when HCs indicate indirectly that they are not coping well with the demands of their job.

 

[RedsHappy]

It's interesting BR, from the Reds perspective at least, I think they have the opposite problem.

They aren't setting up with a modern attacking system, which when followed produces those mismatches that allow you to play more expansively.

I said it before, but the chiefs hooker scoring on the wing which bewildered the commentator has been a feature of kiwi play for years producong width and mismatches elsewhere - why aren't we trying these systems, or other innovations? Even NH coaches are using them.

We are playing rugby from 2010 when the kiwis are way off into the future

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

P Carozza as Reds Attack AC is just totally, and I mean totally, out of his depth.

It was an appalling, super high risk choice in all the circumstances to ever appoint him in any Reds coaching capacity. He had zero relevant and appropriate credentials.

 

[Quick Hands]

P Carozza as Reds Attack AC is just totally, and I mean totally, out of his depth.

It was an appalling, super high risk choice in all the circumstances to ever appoint him in any Reds coaching capacity. He had zero relevant and appropriate credentials.

Unfortunately, this never stops RA or state RUs from appointing people: R. Graham, P McCutcheon, M. Foley, C. Hickey. S. Larkham et al.

The Brumbies attack seems to still be suffering from Larkham's handiwork - he who is Wallabies attack coach and the annointed successor to MC.

I point out again that E. McKenzie took the Waratahs to the final which they lost 12-20 IIRC in 2008. He was sacked at the end of the season and replaced by C. Hickey who had zero experience in professional rugby.

 

[Gnostic]

Unfortunately, this never stops RA or state RUs from appointing people: R. Graham, P McCutcheon, M. Foley, C. Hickey. S. Larkham et al.



The Brumbies attack seems to still be suffering from Larkham's handiwork - he who is Wallabies attack coach and the annointed successor to MC.



I point out again that E. McKenzie took the Waratahs to the final which they lost 12-20 IIRC in 2008. He was sacked at the end of the season and replaced by C. Hickey who had zero experience in professional rugby.

Mind you in defence going to the final playing % dire as shit rugby was where Link failed. He had played the same game since taking over the Tahs and just did not build anything positive, and despite achieving consistent "results" the fan base kept declining because the rugby was pretty poor in terms of skills.

Just to that point, is it a factor of Super Rugby coaches, or the fact that the development pathway is so poor that the skills execution and in many cases the skills ability is so poor? I think mainly the first point, which is exacerbated by the contracting system which means a player has too much invested in them to drop them once they make Pro ranks (eg Beale, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Phipps, etc) even Folau knows that if he isn't injured he will be selected. This makes the players complacent and arrogant and in all likelihood unreceptive to training and coaching.

Then we get to the Super coaching, now it was pointed out to me early on in my GAGR posting that I was pushing shit up hill decrying the lack of skills at Super level because the SUper coaches do not have the time to address these fundamentals, and to a large degree that is true and hence the players with the severe flaws are selected and the game plan is dumbed down to their level. SO the percentage play at the Tahs under Link and even worse under Hickey/Foley and now the Brumbies and Reds suffer from the same issues, partly because neither coach has the skills to coach anything different and partly because if they truly want to win they have to try something that the players with the limited skills execution abilities can do and remain competitive. Hence Quade gets dropped because the mistake % far outweighs the potential gains under such an assessment. Pity for him winning is not everything, how you win matters just as much, just look back my reasoning in the first paragraph.

 

[Quick Hands]

Mind you in defence going to the final playing % dire as shit rugby was where Link failed. He had played the same game since taking over the Tahs and just did not build anything positive, and despite achieving consistent "results" the fan base kept declining because the rugby was pretty poor in terms of skills.

Think you'll find that the decline was greatest under Hickey and crowd figures during Linnk's time in charge were fairly stable.

My main point being that a successful coach was sacked and replaced by a person who had no professional rugby experience and as it turned out employed a dire style of rugby, which was also unsuccessful. Think you might have Link and Hickey mixed up.

But I am in complete agreement re the general lack of basic skills in Australian players compared to other tier 1 nations. (As any viewing of NH rugby would attest - Kurtley Beale returned from the UK and improved player)

 

[Ulrich]

Just to this good point BR, do you note how more or less all the Aust Super HCs are now bit by bit turning to blame their players/teams/highlighting their deficiencies/mistakes rather than taking direct responsibility themselves. This is the new dark omen that _always_ marks a point of further decline to come in team morale and playing excellence. It also marks a point when HCs indicate indirectly that they are not coping well with the demands of their job.

Same happening at the Sharks and Stormers.

As for skills, I don't buy that Aussie players don't possess skills - rather, I don't think it is trained enough. A pre-season and a currie cup with the Bulls and they look like Kiwis thanks to Mitchell. The Sharks did every training drill with a ball in hand in pre-season and suddenly they look different as well.

I think it just needs to be trained and it possibly is, but perhaps not enough.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Ulrich, I agree that it looks like the players' skills aren't trained enough. Pre-season training seems to be geared mainly towards fitness and there is probably little or no time given to individual skills for individual players. Maybe two or sometimes three trial matches are used to hone some skills, but even then, many of the top notch players are rested from those.

I wonder if the whole Super and domestic competition seasons are arse about. Seems to me that a better arrangement might be to run the Currie Cup/Mitre 10/NRC before the Super season with selection for the various super teams to rely more on demonstrated skills for the positions in those domestic competitions. Unfortunately, can't see any of the respective national unions agreeing to such a radical change (and there might be good reasons not to).

 

[Ulrich]

As it is the Currie Cup is used as a development competition instead of the fully fledged pinnacle of SA Rugby it used to be since most Springboks are not available during the competition so unions use the Currie Cup to blood players for the upcoming tournament and to establish defense & attack patterns etc. It doesn't help that the teams play each other twice during Super Rugby anyway.

I think the Mitre 10 is probably a bit different in NZ as today it is most definitely a stronger competition than the Currie Cup.