The Wallabies Thread

[TSR]

I'm sorry Michael, good on you for putting out your opinion, but personally I think it is complete bollocks. The only threat that the majority of these guys wouldn't have been successful in the modern game is if the modern Australian development structure managed to strangle the talent out of them.

Almost all of them had to adapt their game several times with the evolution of rugby and were successful in doing so. They weren't given the opportunity to train anywhere near as intensively as the modern player. And, whilst generalisations are always dangerous, they were generally much more adept at reading play and adapting skills to suit.

You're seem to be saying that Bradman couldn't have made it in cricket these days because he played in a time where the game was less athletic.

 

[Viking]

I get your point but most players will be majority one or the other. Some blokes, like Nonu, evolve and become superstars because the acquire additional skills. For me what I don't like in centre pairings are two of the same kind of player with the same skill sets. Far better in my view for them to complement each other.

Nah i disagree there. Look at the Nonu and C.Smith combination. One of the best of all time, both complimented each other.

So what would be better then that combination? In the the future there will probably be 2 players who have the skills of both. That is what we should be working towards.

Big dream i know, but I'm sick of hearing "he's not a ball-player", every player should be a ball-player and the future of rugby is slowly progressing towards that (just look at the skills of many forwards these days).

I know it's a big dream but we should not be emulating the past Nonu/Smith or Horan/Little combinations - we should be striving to up-skill our players so they have the skills of both.

 

[cyclopath]

I'm sorry Michael, good on you for putting out your opinion, but personally I think it is complete bollocks. The only threat that the majority of these guys wouldn't have been successful in the modern game is if the modern Australian development structure managed to strangle the talent out of them.

Almost all of them had to adapt their game several times with the evolution of rugby and were successful in doing so. They weren't given the opportunity to train anywhere near as intensively as the modern player. And, whilst generalisations are always dangerous, they were generally much more adept at reading play and adapting skills to suit.

You're seem to be saying that Bradman couldn't have made it in cricket these days because he played in a time where the game was less athletic.

Spot on. A player like Campese, for example, who many these days like to deride for his "interesting" opinions was in many ways ahead of his time. He played Test rugby for 13-14 years. and according to anyone who played with or coached him, was nothing if not meticulous in his preparation, i.e. professional before his time. As the game became more athletic he bulked up a bit to be able to compete physically and was constantly working on his kicking from hand (I recall reading an interview around 1994 with him to this effect). There were plenty of other examples. With todays money allowing more time to focus on training and preparing for playing, the guys who were great back then would have been so today.

 

[Scrubber2050]

A comment I heard from a top Wallaby who played at that time was that Eales was a great captain, kicker and line out exponent. But he was a bit "soft"

This bloke reckons Eales would not match the physicality now required by top locks in the modern game.

It was an interesting take by one of his team mates.

Different players, different eras but the basics of our game remain the same.

 

[Slim 293]

For a player renowned for his excellent workrate, I would certainly never label Eales as being soft................

 

[RugbyReg]

For a player renowned for his excellent workrate, I would certainly never label Eales as being soft......

agree. Watch his games. He's in everything. And his lineout work was incredible, back before there was lifting. Imagine him being lifted now?

 

[Scrubber2050]

agree. Watch his games. He's in everything. And his lineout work was incredible, back before there was lifting. Imagine him being lifted now?

Interesting isn't it ?

Different perspectives. But the guy wasn't talking about lineouts etc more about physicality.

One from an armchair critic (including ME) and one from a guy who played close to the great one.

I wonder who's perspective is more correct.

 

[Viking]

Interesting isn't it ?

Different perspectives. But the guy wasn't talking about lineouts etc more about physicality.

One from an armchair critic (including ME) and one from a guy who played close to the great one.

I wonder who's perspective is more correct.

Some probably define physicality a bit different too. Personally I wouldn't call Eales physical either, I don't exactly recall him hitting hard in contact. But I would call him tough, really bloody tough.

 

[Slim 293]

It's hard to know their motive for saying that when we don't know who it is............

But aside from his set piece work and leadership, Eales was widely praised for his workrate and strong defence...........

So I call bullshit.

 

[Scrubber2050]

It's hard to know their motive for saying that when we don't know who it is....

But aside from his set piece work and leadership, Eales was widely praised for his workrate and strong defence.....

So I call bullshit.

Call it what you want Slim. Personally I couldn't give a shit, bull or otherwise.

 

[fatprop]

Although I would never had expected to see Eales taking the law into his own hands to sort someone out, whereas Martin Johnson et al .....................

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Eales would absolutely dominate now, as he did back then. With lifting in the lineout I'd be surprised if lost a single one across a season and he'd steal plenty of the opposition pill. People also forget how athletic he was too and he'd be supporting and carrying the ball in the loose a lot. He had a big motor. He's never been a gnarly rock shifter like Bakkies or Retallick but you just make sure that you partner the athletic type lock with the bloke who enjoys the dark places.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Some probably define physicality a bit different too. Personally I wouldn't call Eales physical either, I don't exactly recall him hitting hard in contact. But I would call him tough, really bloody tough.

My old man defined the different kinds of physicality by two broad terms. 'The Tough Guy 'or 'The Hard Man'. Some people have attached negative connotations to those two terms but he didn't mean it that way.

'The Tough Guy' was a player who put their body on the line. Worked his guts out and took what was thrown at him while just getting on with it.

'The Hard Man' was the guy who could dish it out. Generally speaking he always maintained most players were either one or the other but only a few were truly both.

Eales was in his mind very much 'The Tough Guy' but not "the Hard Man'. Not that he needed to be. He was our linchpin leader and we needed him on the field as much as possible. The issue with 'The Hard Man' was even though they often intend to make an impact legally the nature of the beast can lead to spending a bit of time on the wrong end of the ref.

 

[barbarian]

Although I would never had expected to see Eales taking the law into his own hands to sort someone out, whereas Martin Johnson et al .......

Yellow carded in the RWC Final in 99 for punching a Frog off the ball.......

But broadly I agree.
.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Yellow carded in the RWC Final in 99 for punching a Frog off the ball...

But broadly I agree.
.

Slows he had a bit of mongrel, eh

 

[wamberal]

Anybody who doubts Eales' all round ability, go back and have a look at the 1991 RWC, when he chased and tackled one of the English backs from behind to save a probable try in the last few minutes of the game.


Never seen anything like it from a big man before or since, and don't expect to.

 

[Scrubber2050]

I don't

Anybody who doubts Eales' all round ability, go back and have a look at the 1991 RWC, when he chased and tackled one of the English backs from behind to save a probable try in the last few minutes of the game.


Never seen anything like it from a big man before or since, and don't expect to.

I don't think ANYBODY doubts his all round ability

 

[RugbyReg]

Yellow carded in the RWC Final in 99 for punching a Frog off the ball...

But broadly I agree.
.

Eales? Never. Didn't happen.

 

[Sully]

Eales copped crap all through his career for turning up where locks weren't supposed to be back then. In other words he wasn't head down bum up in a ruck. He revolutionised lock play and I remember a few Kiwi locks claiming he was crap at the time because of it. All I know is I thought he was fantastic at the time and wouldn't have swapped him for anyone running around back then. I also thought he retired too early.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

He did rightly get his membership revoked from the International Rugby Forwards' Club when he became a test goal kicker though.

I can't think of any forwards who have been top level goal kickers since. Can anyone?