• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

The Wallabies Thread

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
All the angst about winning turnovers and gaining possession.

How many tests have the Wallabies lost now where they have actually dominated possession and territory? Against the Scots, turnovers won were not the problem. Possession was not the problem. So the whole debate about Hooper and fetching was redundant, even though he won three on Saturday, just to prove the fallacy that we need a "fetcher".
 

Joe King

Dave Cowper (27)

Good to see someone starting to talk about the real issues.

From my observation, it just seems like NZ are playing a different game. Even their u20s are miles ahead.

Yes, they are good in all facets of play. But a couple of areas stand out for me.

1. The simple draw and pass: taking it to the line, drawing in defenders and thus creating space for a support player. And here they work hard at the offload. Nothing silly if the pass isn't on. But always looking for it; always trying to create it by drawing in defenders and getting the ball away.

This aspect of their game really shines in broken play and counter-attack. They seem to be able to create more inches than any other team. Both their forwards and backs work hard at. I guess with 15 defenders on the field, this is the only real way to get through. And isn't it such a pretty game to watch? Who knew?! The most effective way to win is also the most entertaining way to play.

2. Supporting the man with the ball. Being in space to receive the pass. And always expecting it.
 

mark_s

Chilla Wilson (44)
I think most nations are playing a different game to us. Our attack seems like its from the Rod Macqueen era - based on structure and high phase counts. But defences have improved massively so the leading nations are now trying to score points either before the defence has been set (i.e. broken play) or from lineout/scrum plays where its still possible to get a mis-match or from pressuring the other team into mistakes. We are still thinking that having more rucks in attack will lead to more points.

One example is the kick chase. For us, kicking is about gaining some territory and our chase ambles down field. We aren't in a position to use the ball effectively even if we do regain it. Other teams see kick chase as a great opportunity to apply pressure, get front foot ball in unstructured play and the team is putting the effort in to be there when it happens.

What about on the weekend when Hooper makes a massive break downfield. No Aus players are within cooee. Hooper isn't that fast - I think it just reflects an out-dated mindset that its about controlling the ball and racking up the phases and we will eventually score.
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
Yeah, I have a feeling that we might see a line in the sand drawn here. The fact is that a lot of journos are talking about these issues now and the coaches would have to be reading the articles. Both Larkham and Grey need to reconsider their strategies/structures and Cheika the overall game plan, we have become too predictable.

We won't see anything dramatic v Italy this weekend though, if anything we'll take a step back. As I said in the match thread all we really needed to do to beat Scotland with the lineup we sent out was to execute the basics effectively. The kinds of thing Joe King is talking about above. The loss could actually be a blessing in disguise.
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
One example is the kick chase. For us, kicking is about gaining some territory and our chase ambles down field. We aren't in a position to use the ball effectively even if we do regain it. Other teams see kick chase as a great opportunity to apply pressure, get front foot ball in unstructured play and the team is putting the effort in to be there when it happens.

Can we add effort to support the ball receiver from a kick as well, all the Kiwis are drilled to get back and be a support option, two wide passes and then that attacker decides whether to continue or kick. Our guys have run 15-20m forward to see a support player

What about on the weekend when Hooper makes a massive break downfield. No Aus players are within cooee. Hooper isn't that fast - I think it just reflects an out-dated mindset that its about controlling the ball and racking up the phases and we will eventually score.

Yep, not enough effort to get up and be available, too many units are working out how to star in the next play instead of getting that ball cleanly presented to the 9
 

dru

David Wilson (68)
All the angst about winning turnovers and gaining possession.

How many tests have the Wallabies lost now where they have actually dominated possession and territory? Against the Scots, turnovers won were not the problem. Possession was not the problem. So the whole debate about Hooper and fetching was redundant, even though he won three on Saturday, just to prove the fallacy that we need a "fetcher".

Stats back you up, enjoy your triumph.

I know your post is to the generic "Hooper and fetching" protagonists (?) rather than anyone specific, but from my perspective:
a) it matters not how the ball is recovered, as long as it is;
b) if the plan is to recover by driving through the ruck, lets do it?
c) never really had the chance against Scotland to prove/fail on ball recovery through the rucks due to the very high possession stats.
d) that sounds good, but is it so? Scot game plan involved returning the ball through kicks as they wer not worried by either the Aus line out or our ability to exit
e) for me our fundamental fail was through the pigs in tight in attack - ie the attack rucks. If our ruck strength was poor in attack why imagine it would have been better in defence?

Hooper is not really the question here and right now he is the right 7 anyway. Talk of Pocock or LFG is simply fantasy at the moment, and longer term he is being groomed for greatness. I have dealt with this and support your view that the Hooper detractors probably need to move on.

Nothing there changes the balance (or absence thereof) in the back row or our jumping performance.

EDIT: I would humbly suggest that little has changed and once we resolve our ability to break the gain line (or play a lessor team), and our halves/playmakers have a better oportunity to express themselves (more risk ball, more lost ball, more need to recover possession), the issue wont so much re-appear as we recognise it never went away.

Unless something changes.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
What about on the weekend when Hooper makes a massive break downfield. No Aus players are within cooee. Hooper isn't that fast - I think it just reflects an out-dated mindset that its about controlling the ball and racking up the phases and we will eventually score.


I will stick up for them a bit on this one. Hooper somehow emerged from the front of a maul, in which all of our forwards were committed. Our backline was fanned across the field as you would expect.

It took a few seconds for anyone to even realise Hooper was clear, and at that point all of the pigs were still bound to the maul 20m behind him.

Hooper actually should have just hoofed it downfield when he realised he had no support.
.
 

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
yeah, thanks Hugh. many people (here and elsewhere) bring that up as an example of why we were poor. But he just completely appeared at the other side of the maul and was away. It wasn't a line break as some are insisting.
 

mark_s

Chilla Wilson (44)
It took a few seconds for anyone to even realise Hooper was clear, and at that point all of the pigs were still bound to the maul 20m behind him.

Not the Scots, they had to turn and chase (dis-engage from the maul) and still beat us there.

In any event, I'm not criticising any particular players or their effort. I think our game plan is based around structure and phase play for our point scoring opportunities. Other teams are looking for unstructured opportunities (and the other things I mentioned) given how good the defences are now.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Not the Scots, they had to turn and chase (dis-engage from the maul) and still beat us there.

In any event, I'm not criticising any particular players or their effort. I think our game plan is based around structure and phase play for our point scoring opportunities. Other teams are looking for unstructured opportunities (and the other things I mentioned) given how good the defences are now.

Well, he kinda ran into their defensive line, which I would expect to be closer than our pack. ;) As Barbarian said, hoof it!
It was a pretty uncommon situation, so I'm not sure that one is a reason to critique the forwards.
 

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
Not the Scots, they had to turn and chase (dis-engage from the maul) and still beat us there.

In any event, I'm not criticising any particular players or their effort. I think our game plan is based around structure and phase play for our point scoring opportunities. Other teams are looking for unstructured opportunities (and the other things I mentioned) given how good the defences are now.

wasn't he tackled by the fullback and wings?
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
I think if one of the ABs had done what Hooper did, there would have been a far quicker reaction and a better effort to get there.

They are the standard all teams are judged
 

upthereds#!

Peter Johnson (47)
With Toby Smith heading back to NZ, I really think one of our developing super THPs needs some experience at LHP

Got Tupou, Lomax, Vui and Ainsley down the development line at THP behind Kepu & Ala'alatoa

Got Sio, Slipper and Robertson at LHP - who is down that development line? Faagase and Saaga?

Will Mayhew stick around and become something more? or just not at that level and won't be.

At THP you also have Talakai, Taavao, Lolohea and Faulkner all with plenty of years ahead of them, whereas at LHP it's Ryan, Cowan and Daley...
 

tragic

John Solomon (38)
I think if one of the ABs had done what Hooper did, there would have been a far quicker reaction and a better effort to get there.

They are the standard all teams are judged

They would also have grabbed a teammate or communicated what they were about to do rather than bolt like a startled horse and take the entire team by surprise.
They're good but they're not mind readers.
Hooper was as much to blame as the support players.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
They would also have grabbed a teammate or communicated what they were about to do rather than bolt like a startled horse and take the entire team by surprise.
They're good but they're not mind readers.
Hooper was as much to blame as the support players.

Oh, come on. I know people like to bash Hooper but this is just silly. By all means critique that he didn't kick it down field, but to knock him for making a break??
 

tragic

John Solomon (38)
Oh, come on. I know people like to bash Hooper but this is just silly. By all means critique that he didn't kick it down field, but to knock him for making a break??
Obviously not a forward cyclo.
I'm not bashing hooper - he had a good game and was one of the best forwards on the park.
But you don't take off from a maul on your own when everyone has their heads down expecting the ball to go to the backs. You're asking to get isolated. It's lesson 101 of forward play. Always take someone with you.
I don't believe the ABs would have done any better under the circumstances.
 

Forcefield

Ken Catchpole (46)
With Toby Smith heading back to NZ, I really think one of our developing super THPs needs some experience at LHP

Got Tupou, Lomax, Vui and Ainsley down the development line at THP behind Kepu & Ala'alatoa

Got Sio, Slipper and Robertson at LHP - who is down that development line? Faagase and Saaga?

Will Mayhew stick around and become something more? or just not at that level and won't be.

At THP you also have Talakai, Taavao, Lolohea and Faulkner all with plenty of years ahead of them, whereas at LHP it's Ryan, Cowan and Daley.


Faulkner was originally a LHP and was converted by Foley. If the Force survive and if Ben Daley were to leave, they might do well to return him there. I don't think Faulkner will play for the Wallabies again as a tighthead.
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
It will be fascinating to see which choice Chubby makes between consolidating and rebuilding.


IMHO, we need to do some rebuilding, we cannot win consistently with our current generation of locks and wingers.

We need at least one winger with a lot of toe, and we need two locks who are big, safe in the set-pieces, and aggressive in both attack and defence.


That means rolling the dice a bit and throwing some of our young prospects into the cauldron of international rugby.
This is gold. Wam, you know we love you.

He's right, and he's been found to be right. For reference, this post was at the head of this thread, so nearly 2 years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Christian Lealiifano Played for the Brumbies off the bench in Singapore last night.
This is the most positive thing, on many levels, to happen in oz rugby for a fair while.
He would provide some great midfield options going forward and if he regains his pre-illness form he will offer some real competition for two spots.
 
Top