Tahs Vs Chiefs
- Thread starter fatprop
- Start date
- Status
S
steiner
Guest
Thanks Naz, I've come on here to give you some support on the Eddie Jones saga. 
Geez, you don't have faith in the Tahs backs, not even potentially? Gotta differ there. Thus far I don't think they've been well served by the halves, who've got a fair bit of learning to do in terms of setting up plays, therefore I think they should simplify things a bit and move the ball fast and wide on the back of forward surges led by TPN and Palu. Plus Burgess and Beale are good runners, if not yet playmakers, and spreading the oppo defence will help them do this. Anyway we'll see what happens.
Geez, you don't have faith in the Tahs backs, not even potentially? Gotta differ there. Thus far I don't think they've been well served by the halves, who've got a fair bit of learning to do in terms of setting up plays, therefore I think they should simplify things a bit and move the ball fast and wide on the back of forward surges led by TPN and Palu. Plus Burgess and Beale are good runners, if not yet playmakers, and spreading the oppo defence will help them do this. Anyway we'll see what happens.
naza
Alan Cameron (40)
steiner said:Thanks Naz, I've come on here to give you some support on the Eddie Jones saga.
Geez, you don't have faith in the Tahs backs, not even potentially? Gotta differ there. Thus far I don't think they've been well served by the halves, who've got a fair bit of learning to do in terms of setting up plays, therefore I think they should simplify things a bit and move the ball fast and wide on the back of forward surges led by TPN and Palu. Plus Burgess and Beale are good runners, if not yet playmakers, and spreading the oppo defence will help them do this. Anyway we'll see what happens.
Hey, I know you're also dying to see how Eddie would go coaching a rugby league team.
When it comes to the Tah backs, we keep hearing the P word. Potential. The names look good on paper don't they ?
From 10-15, they lack patience. They waste hard won ball in good field position by kicking aimless grubbers. I lost count of the amount of times they threw the ball out the back when tackled. The Chiefs thrive on that sort of loose turnover ball.
All we hear is excuses. 'They didn't have great ball'. Right....so explain the predictable set piece moves they put on. Where's the deception, the skill, the creativity ?
I don't think its too much to ask to expect professional rugby backs to be capable of drawing and passing.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Well, you certainly couldn't argue with the quality of set piece ball they've got. The scrum is bending the Chiefs over a barrel and taking turns to bone the bejeezus out of them.
I think the lack of experience is showing in the backline. I don't know what the criticism of Burgess is about - based on where I'm up to (60th minute) he's putting the ball out well. Had one slip at the back of the scrum but generally good. I think having Tahu out there is not helping Beale - remembering the flyhalf is only 20 and doesn't have anyone really experienced in the backline to take pressure off him. You can hardly ask a league convert to give him that sort of assurance. That's why having Carter there is useful: its a simple option for Beale, it gets yards - it needs a faster back row to make it work properly. I reckon bring Tahu off the bench later in the game to use the space, after Carter runs a few hard lines.
I think the lack of experience is showing in the backline. I don't know what the criticism of Burgess is about - based on where I'm up to (60th minute) he's putting the ball out well. Had one slip at the back of the scrum but generally good. I think having Tahu out there is not helping Beale - remembering the flyhalf is only 20 and doesn't have anyone really experienced in the backline to take pressure off him. You can hardly ask a league convert to give him that sort of assurance. That's why having Carter there is useful: its a simple option for Beale, it gets yards - it needs a faster back row to make it work properly. I reckon bring Tahu off the bench later in the game to use the space, after Carter runs a few hard lines.
S
steiner
Guest
Yep the 10/12 combo hasn't been great, and there's a definite case for having a solid, experienced player like Carter at 12. As well could consider Horne at 12 Tahu at 13, who you'd think would be better there attacking-wise, and he'd be good at bursting on to flat cutout passes from Beale. Tahu being a leaguey is obviously used to attacking with a few less defenders around which he would get at 13.
Horne though, the type of player Wallaby and Waratah supporters dream about coming through the ranks, is good in both positions, and maybe better defensively at 13 than Tahu.
I'd probably continue with Tahu for a few matches, and swap him around a bit at 12 and 13, and see what happened. Let Hickey prove his worth as a backline coach and get him playing well, same as Mick Foley's doing with the forwards!
Horne though, the type of player Wallaby and Waratah supporters dream about coming through the ranks, is good in both positions, and maybe better defensively at 13 than Tahu.
I'd probably continue with Tahu for a few matches, and swap him around a bit at 12 and 13, and see what happened. Let Hickey prove his worth as a backline coach and get him playing well, same as Mick Foley's doing with the forwards!
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Need to blood some of those forwards before the middle of the season though steiner. And so far it looks like no easybeats in this comp...
So I've had time to think about the game, and while there were a few glaring errors, it was mostly a result based on two teams scrapping hard at the breakdown. I groaned at some of the mistakes, especially by the Tahs, and thought that this sort of thing won't keep the turnstiles clicking. But if we keep winning, then who gives a fuck how its done?
[edit] Thank fuck the Chiefs took Leonard out of halfback. I was glad to see the back of him because Morland has talent but isn't as abrasive.
So I've had time to think about the game, and while there were a few glaring errors, it was mostly a result based on two teams scrapping hard at the breakdown. I groaned at some of the mistakes, especially by the Tahs, and thought that this sort of thing won't keep the turnstiles clicking. But if we keep winning, then who gives a fuck how its done?
[edit] Thank fuck the Chiefs took Leonard out of halfback. I was glad to see the back of him because Morland has talent but isn't as abrasive.
S
steiner
Guest
Noddy said:
Sorry about that, meant Hickey......fixed it
mark_s
Chilla Wilson (44)
My thoughts (late I know):
- it was a very frustrating game to watch as there was little rugby actually played after the first 20 mins. Was very stop start with lots of poor passing, dropped ball and poor tactics. My hand is still sore from slapping the metal bar in front of my seat everytime the tahs duffed it. I reckon a few fights would have broken out in this game in the old days as the players looked frustrated as hell.
- while dominant, the tahs scrum didn't really provide us with any advantage. Was it because of the new law allowing the half back to tackle number 8 or were we just so excited at actually beating a team in a scrum we forgot about delivering quality ball? BTW what happened in that scrum when Baxter shot up backwards over his second rower? IT was on the otherside of the field to me so I didn't see what lead to it.
- It's pretty hard to judge our line out on that performance. The chiefs hookers couldn't throw straight, and they knew it which made it all the worse for them.
- Both backlines were receiving slow ball and didn't know what to do with it. Easy to criticise Beale but Donald didn't do any better. In hindsight, Beale's wobbly field goal was well taken. The game may have opened up if he had of taken another one (or kicked all his goals) as the Cheifs would have had to play some more open rugby.
- We were very lucky Leonard was taken off. He was best on park by some margin. With 20mins to go I thought a bit of individual brilliance would win it for either team but I couldn't see who it would be for the Chiefs once Leonard was subbed. (BTW - I thought sitivatu looked lacklustre).
- Burgess was ok for us but Sheehan should have started as it was his sort of game with lots of physical confrontation around the ruck.
- I thought SNK was our best back!
- All in all, both teams looked like they had played their best game last week and didn't have enough in the tank to back up 6 days later. Hard to understand really.
- it was a very frustrating game to watch as there was little rugby actually played after the first 20 mins. Was very stop start with lots of poor passing, dropped ball and poor tactics. My hand is still sore from slapping the metal bar in front of my seat everytime the tahs duffed it. I reckon a few fights would have broken out in this game in the old days as the players looked frustrated as hell.
- while dominant, the tahs scrum didn't really provide us with any advantage. Was it because of the new law allowing the half back to tackle number 8 or were we just so excited at actually beating a team in a scrum we forgot about delivering quality ball? BTW what happened in that scrum when Baxter shot up backwards over his second rower? IT was on the otherside of the field to me so I didn't see what lead to it.
- It's pretty hard to judge our line out on that performance. The chiefs hookers couldn't throw straight, and they knew it which made it all the worse for them.
- Both backlines were receiving slow ball and didn't know what to do with it. Easy to criticise Beale but Donald didn't do any better. In hindsight, Beale's wobbly field goal was well taken. The game may have opened up if he had of taken another one (or kicked all his goals) as the Cheifs would have had to play some more open rugby.
- We were very lucky Leonard was taken off. He was best on park by some margin. With 20mins to go I thought a bit of individual brilliance would win it for either team but I couldn't see who it would be for the Chiefs once Leonard was subbed. (BTW - I thought sitivatu looked lacklustre).
- Burgess was ok for us but Sheehan should have started as it was his sort of game with lots of physical confrontation around the ruck.
- I thought SNK was our best back!
- All in all, both teams looked like they had played their best game last week and didn't have enough in the tank to back up 6 days later. Hard to understand really.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
mark_s,
Good post. I was going to write one when I got back from the game about the game being won by the least crap team, but was too pissed off to post it on an Oz rugby forum.
It was a close run thing but the Chiefs scrum and lineout got them over the line in the crapfest.
Agree on every point you mention though am not sure about the point about Burgess. He took some bombs that others didn't seem to be interested in. But Sheehan would have done well in that game - no doubt about it.
Agreed: the replacement of Leonard, clearly the most dangerous player on the park before the MOTM was even mentioned, was a bonus for the Tahs, as was the knock-on by Sivi over the line, and partly due to an early tackle IMO.
What is it with Kiwi coaches? This week it was Leonard taken off before his time and last week Nonu was taken off just as he seemed to be getting past the New Age Nonu stage of the game.
The Tahs had better get their act together. They have had a lot of luck in their two games. Dickinson brought them home at the Cake Tin by not giving cards to folks and in both games the two Kiwi sides were short of several notable All Blacks.
But one thing I am loving with the joy of an old-timer who has longed for it : a dominant Waratahs scrum. It has been pretty damn good in recent years but I have barely ever seen a dominant one before and this new thing is wonderful in my eyes. Sure the Brumbies scrum in the trial was no great shakes and nor was the Canes scrum - and the Clan's front row was the top of the crap parade - but still, it warmed the cockles of the heart.
Good post. I was going to write one when I got back from the game about the game being won by the least crap team, but was too pissed off to post it on an Oz rugby forum.
It was a close run thing but the Chiefs scrum and lineout got them over the line in the crapfest.
Agree on every point you mention though am not sure about the point about Burgess. He took some bombs that others didn't seem to be interested in. But Sheehan would have done well in that game - no doubt about it.
Agreed: the replacement of Leonard, clearly the most dangerous player on the park before the MOTM was even mentioned, was a bonus for the Tahs, as was the knock-on by Sivi over the line, and partly due to an early tackle IMO.
What is it with Kiwi coaches? This week it was Leonard taken off before his time and last week Nonu was taken off just as he seemed to be getting past the New Age Nonu stage of the game.
The Tahs had better get their act together. They have had a lot of luck in their two games. Dickinson brought them home at the Cake Tin by not giving cards to folks and in both games the two Kiwi sides were short of several notable All Blacks.
But one thing I am loving with the joy of an old-timer who has longed for it : a dominant Waratahs scrum. It has been pretty damn good in recent years but I have barely ever seen a dominant one before and this new thing is wonderful in my eyes. Sure the Brumbies scrum in the trial was no great shakes and nor was the Canes scrum - and the Clan's front row was the top of the crap parade - but still, it warmed the cockles of the heart.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Exactly so, neither reserve prop, Tilse or Palmer, got a run in the 2 games , that I can remember.
At least Tilse got a run in the curtain raiser on friday night.
The scrums with Tilse and Palmer in them looked decent in the Fijian and Brumbies trials though.
Perhaps Hickey has been waiting for a game with a big lead in the second half.
At least Tilse got a run in the curtain raiser on friday night.
The scrums with Tilse and Palmer in them looked decent in the Fijian and Brumbies trials though.
Perhaps Hickey has been waiting for a game with a big lead in the second half.
naza
Alan Cameron (40)
mark_s said:
I'm glad someone else is on the bandwagon about one of my pet gripes. Why is the #8 allowed to be tackled effectively before they have possession of the ball ? Refs are allowing halfbacks to get away with murder and its completely undermined the defensive line being 5 metres back at scrum time.
the gambler
Dave Cowper (27)
Any decent halfback should be able to jump on a number 8 as soon as he has his hands on the ball. Whether he is strong enough to fully stop the number 8 may be a different story but he should be able to at least slow him down.
Thus I would look at having one of your bigger quicker backs, in the Tahs case Tahu, feed the ball and in turn take a pop up from the number 8 and head straight for the opposition 10. Either that or heaven forbid not use a back row move and just spin the ball to the backs in a man on man situation. Yes the new 5m means back row moves are now slightly more effective, but I reckon backs moves would be even more effective now than they were before.
Was SNK's try against the Canes off a scrum or a lineout?? If it was a lineout the same move could have been used off a scrum and shows backs when they have to make a decision on who and when to tackle often get it wrong.
Thus I would look at having one of your bigger quicker backs, in the Tahs case Tahu, feed the ball and in turn take a pop up from the number 8 and head straight for the opposition 10. Either that or heaven forbid not use a back row move and just spin the ball to the backs in a man on man situation. Yes the new 5m means back row moves are now slightly more effective, but I reckon backs moves would be even more effective now than they were before.
Was SNK's try against the Canes off a scrum or a lineout?? If it was a lineout the same move could have been used off a scrum and shows backs when they have to make a decision on who and when to tackle often get it wrong.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
SNK's try was off a lineout I think? Or a ruck on the right hand side of the field? Gees, can't remember now.
Anyway, my biggest gripe is half backs being allowed to kick or knock the ball just as the number 8 tries to pick it up. Halfbacks who are good at it make is nearly impossible for the number 8 to pick up the ball. Kicking the ball is dangerous in itself - did anyone else notice the completely ridiculous kick the Crusaders halfback (I think) tried on the Brumbies halfback (I think)? The guy had the ball in his hands at waist height already, and his opposition kicked at it. And got away with it. Crazy.
Anyway, my biggest gripe is half backs being allowed to kick or knock the ball just as the number 8 tries to pick it up. Halfbacks who are good at it make is nearly impossible for the number 8 to pick up the ball. Kicking the ball is dangerous in itself - did anyone else notice the completely ridiculous kick the Crusaders halfback (I think) tried on the Brumbies halfback (I think)? The guy had the ball in his hands at waist height already, and his opposition kicked at it. And got away with it. Crazy.
- Status