Look at his turnover count for 2017 in Super Rugby. I think he plays as he is asked to play, not on some sort of sanctioned whim.
The Wallabies Thread
- Thread starter KOB1987
- Start date
Look at his turnover count for 2017 in Super Rugby. I think he plays as he is asked to play, not on some sort of sanctioned whim.
TSR
Andrew Slack (58)
He's a luxury we can't afford?? Sorry - I don't understand where you are coming from. For years we've pined for more impact from our backrow. Higgers has had the ability, but has been unable to be effective at test level. Surely last night he showed promise that not only could he bring his a game to test level, but he could be both dynamic and handle a high work load.
He won't be a lock-in until he can produce that form against the best, but if he can, surely he would be exactly what we need in a test 8?
Rebels3
Jim Lenehan (48)
Sometimes I think there is way to much emphasis on turnovers by us Aussies. If you look at this years super rugby stats. There is only 2 kiwis in the top 15 turnover winners, one of them is a scrum half as well. We have 8 in that 15! Looking at the stats turnovers won are spread out within their entire team, where as we have a designated fetcher.
There isn't much if any correlation between turnovers and winning.Rebels are number 2 for team turnovers won....
There isn't much if any correlation between turnovers and winning.Rebels are number 2 for team turnovers won....
Spot on. And the Kiwis tend to have many players who are opportunistic - if the chance arises they'll have a go, but more often they're trying to counter-ruck and smash teams back with defence and wait for the errors. Of course, if we neither counter-ruck, nor attempt to get turnovers, then we better have a rock solid defence. Hmmm.
But I'm not going to assume the game plan will be the same for every opponent.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
I've thought about the breakdown quite a bit with Pocock taking a year off, looked at our Super teams and then watched the test yesterday. I still think that fetching is an important part of the game but it's not the only thing. If we're constantly getting penalised for going too hard at the breakdown then it's not really helping, but at the same time if our ball is being slowed down and we're not disrupting their pill it's just as bad.
I think a good fetcher (forget the number on the back for a moment) will be smart about when they get involved and balance the risk/reward of reaching in or hanging back. What we can do consistently, however, is pile bodies through the breakdown in attack and defence and either blow blokes off the ball (with a trailing runner to hit the ball at pace and continue the movement) or go the hard counter ruck when we sense the opposition are a bit isolated. That Tahs did this brilliantly when they won the title and the All Blacks and Poms are both very good at it. Absolutely nothing stopping the Wallabies doing it and I'm surprised a Cheika coached team doesn't do it more.
I think a good fetcher (forget the number on the back for a moment) will be smart about when they get involved and balance the risk/reward of reaching in or hanging back. What we can do consistently, however, is pile bodies through the breakdown in attack and defence and either blow blokes off the ball (with a trailing runner to hit the ball at pace and continue the movement) or go the hard counter ruck when we sense the opposition are a bit isolated. That Tahs did this brilliantly when they won the title and the All Blacks and Poms are both very good at it. Absolutely nothing stopping the Wallabies doing it and I'm surprised a Cheika coached team doesn't do it more.
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
Nah but there's a correlation between scoring tries and winning. Can't scores if you don't have possession - guess what turnovers do?
I think the problem is we rely on one player to do it, when it should be the whole team being opportunitic.
Cheika said something that alarmed me "leave the fetching for those who are good at it" - what a load of crap that is. It should be , leave the fetching for the first person in the ruck! If your the closest to the ruck, then you fetch or counter ruck - make a decision and commit. Don't counter-ruck 100% of the time just cos your not the 7, if there an opportunity, learn to recognise it and bloody take it. If your a 9 or winger - do it!
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Exactly, I have been saying for years that the "hands in the ruck" turn over style is fine if somebody is isolated and the "fetcher" whoever is tasked to do that is there super fast, but with the interpretation of the Law being the tackler must release the tackled player and have daylight that moment is very often not present. The old way that Pocock, Smith, Waugh, Croft, Hodgson got so many turnover of never releasing the player but getting to their feet like lightning is gone. So many NZ turnovers are not won by hands in the ruck, its won by drive past the ball in counter ruck and generally making a mess of the breakdown at chosen times.
Indeed if we look at how so of the team structures were on the EOYT the fetcher 7, or openside blind side flanker system was done away with to a certain extent to a more traditional left and right system.
Joe Blow
John Hipwell (52)
There is always a place for a good well judged pilfer but I reckon going for one at every breakdown is a waste of energy and draws a considerable number of penalties.
Our back row on the weekend was not balanced. If Pocock was at 7 it would have been more so. Higgers and Hanigan are pretty similar players. Hopefully we see Timani given a start this weekend.
I would like to see Timani, Hooper and Higgers with Hardwick on the bench. He offered a lot of energy when he came on but jeez he is small for a backrower! He is a 7 only although he can do well late in a test elsewhere in back row as we saw on the weekend.
Our back row on the weekend was not balanced. If Pocock was at 7 it would have been more so. Higgers and Hanigan are pretty similar players. Hopefully we see Timani given a start this weekend.
I would like to see Timani, Hooper and Higgers with Hardwick on the bench. He offered a lot of energy when he came on but jeez he is small for a backrower! He is a 7 only although he can do well late in a test elsewhere in back row as we saw on the weekend.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
dillyboy
Colin Windon (37)
Not necessarily - look at the Reds.....
We've lost a few this season after outscoring them in trys
Joe Blow
John Hipwell (52)
What would you have had him do differently?
Cheika seemed pretty chuffed with his game and he has never been a fan
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
If fetching is relatively unimportant as some posters say, then we should fuck off Pocock and save a shitload of money.
Poey is a good tackler, not great, a shit runner of the ball, doesn't cover defend to a high standard, average jumper and OK scrummager. What Poey brings for me is being on the ball and the pressure that brings to bear.
Turnovers for me are an important aspect of the game
Poey is a good tackler, not great, a shit runner of the ball, doesn't cover defend to a high standard, average jumper and OK scrummager. What Poey brings for me is being on the ball and the pressure that brings to bear.
Turnovers for me are an important aspect of the game
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Whilst I said "fetching" hand in the ruck play is somewhat overrated making a mess of the breakdown for the opposition, making them commit more players to the cleanout is essential, while at the same time minimising ones own contribution to the breakdown in numbers. That is where Pocock is good, he is able to survive the initial cleanout quite often and commits more to the ruck. Latudoes the same.
The much maligned Skelton also without hands in the ruck also upsets opposition breakdowns. The breakdown once counter ruck is exhausted if it is an option is not about the ball so much as commitment of numbers from both sides, whoever can ensure clean(or fast)/messy(or slow) with the least numbers wins.
Not necessarily - look at the Reds...
We've lost a few this season after outscoring them in trys
Indeed. The Reds and Tahs have scored a heap of tries, but given away far more.
Pilfering is not unimportant at all, but it does not ned to be ascribed to an individual per se. If we look at more successful teams, the change in style is clear. Multiple players can do it, when an opportune time presents itself.
I also certainly don't think Pocock is anything like a "one trick pony" and he adds a whole lot more to a team. I don't subscribe to a rote view that we must have a specific pilferer to function.
I also certainly don't think Pocock is anything like a "one trick pony" and he adds a whole lot more to a team. I don't subscribe to a rote view that we must have a specific pilferer to function.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Agree. Just dont think the issue is Higgers who I think is doing his job.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Spot on. And the Kiwis tend to have many players who are opportunistic - if the chance arises they'll have a go, but more often they're trying to counter-ruck and smash teams back with defence and wait for the errors. Of course, if we neither counter-ruck, nor attempt to get turnovers, then we better have a rock solid defence. Hmmm.
But I'm not going to assume the game plan will be the same for every opponent.
Oh for goodness sake.
Let's reframe the same topic then. We need to regain possession. Its everyones responsibility but the focus is necessarily on the forwards. There are three obvious ways to do it:
Firstly by fetching. Secondly through the ruck. NEITHER of which we are doing with consistency. Do both or pick one, but do neither leaves you with the third.
Thirdly: wait for them to drop it. Not much of a strategy in my mind, but if we are happy with it, I'd suggest we did OK against Fiji.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Let me add to this. Trying to "Kiwi-ise" the Wallabies (or our Soup teams) doesnt seem very successful. To me anyway.
But if that is where you wish to start, consider the differences between a 2-4-2 structure and a 1-3-3-1 structure.
Aping the Kiwis in forward approach to rucks would surely start there.
But if that is where you wish to start, consider the differences between a 2-4-2 structure and a 1-3-3-1 structure.
Aping the Kiwis in forward approach to rucks would surely start there.
Well we've played one game, and even Cheika said he would have liked to see a few more turnovers. So I wouldn't get too carried away.
I'd suggest that the third tactic is to wait, but for two things - a mistake by the opposition, or a winnable breakdown. That was the Wallabies tactic on Saturday. It may not be going forward, very hard to make sweeping udgements after game one.
.