The Wallabies Thread

[Bobby Sands]

I would say the first step towards solving the problem is accepting that changing a couple of positions isn’t going to improve the Wallabies. If there were better 10s than Foley they’d be in the side, if there was a better backrow combination we’d have it in place.

This is some seriously misguided, counter-intuitive logic.

 

[Bobby Sands]

Sorry, but this just isn't correct. You are effectively saying that Chieka's selections are perfect and that without 23 new stud players, there is no way in which we might improve. That is a pretty big call, given that we've been facing the same structural problems for rugby's entire existence as a pro sport, and Chieka hsa the equal worst record of the lot of them.

Can people imagine if Greg smith been given the same latitude as Chieka, and had 5 years to figure out what to do instead of 1? We'd never have seen McQueen's bold moves (like playing a fullback at 10) and we'd quite possibly be sitting here talking about a 25 year Bledisloe drought instead of a 15 year one. McQueen didn't get a whole new generation of players, he basically had the same group of players to pick from that Smith did.

Forums weren't a thing then, but the attitudes were the same in 1997, in the shadows of an unsuccessful 1995 campaign and 3rd place in the 1996 and 1997 tri nations. We don't have the cattle. The stars from 1991 have all gone/are injured and we are doing the best we can with the players available. All the promising young players go to league. Deckchairs on the titanic and all that.

This.

 

[Up the Guts]

This is some seriously misguided, counter-intuitive logic.

You can't just drop those sorts criticisms without explaining them, in what way was what I said misguided and counterintuitive?

 

[Derpus]

You can't just drop those sorts criticisms without explaining them, in what way was what I said misguided and counterintuitive?

It's counter-intutive because he likes Quade Cooper and doesn't like Hooper and the only thing holding us back is Cheika's insistence on picking them.

By god, if we didn't pick them we'd be 16 years up in the Bled!

Can you imagine how good our set piece would have been in Bled 1 if we had of picked Liam Gill and Quade Cooper?

 

[Lorenzo]

It's counter intuitive because it's saying that the side can't be improved at all with different selections (at 10 or 6-8, anyway), which is pretty fucking dumb when you are 42.1% in your last two seasons. Maybe the coach can improve the result by selecting different players? It's not like we are the top of the marginal returns scale.

 

[Lorenzo]

It's counter-intutive because he likes Quade Cooper and doesn't like Hooper and the only thing holding us back is Cheika's insistence on picking them.

By god, if we didn't pick them we'd be 16 years up in the Bled!

Can you imagine how good our set piece would have been in Bled 1 if we had of picked Liam Gill and Quade Cooper?

Yeah we might have been pumped by 20+ in both tests! Oh wait

 

[Derpus]

It's counter intuitive because it's saying that the side can't be improved at all with different selections (at 10 or 6-8, anyway), which is pretty fucking dumb when you are 42.1% in your last two seasons. Maybe the coach can improve by selecting different players? It's not like we are the top of the marginal returns scale.

It's not counter-intuitive. His opinion is that the side can't be improved by selections - we put out our best team available. But his point is also that any improvements that could in theory be made, if you disagreed with some of the marginal calls around the team, would be so small as to be meaningless. With this i agree.

 

[Lorenzo]

It's not counter-intuitive. His opinion is that the side can't be improved by selections - we put out our best team available. But his point is also that any improvements that could in theory be made, if you disagreed with some of the marginal calls around the team, would be so small as to be meaningless. With this i agree.

Then you both need to see a doctor.

 

[Derpus]

Then you both need to see a doctor.

Nah man, you do, if you think picking one or two different players is suddenly going to change the quality of all of them.

 

[Lorenzo]

We don't need to (and can't, clearly) change the quality of all of them, we need to swap out a small number of them, and change how we use (most of the rest of) them and the ball.

 

[Up the Guts]

It's counter intuitive because it's saying that the side can't be improved at all with different selections (at 10 or 6-8, anyway), which is pretty fucking dumb when you are 42.1% in your last two seasons. Maybe the coach can improve by selecting different players? It's not like we are the top of the marginal returns scale.

We're at 42.1% because the general quality of our players is just not that good and nor are the structures they are using -- that is not a counterintuitive statement. It's exactly the same as saying the Sunwolves have a very low win rate in Super because the general quality of their players is below the rest of the competition sides and changing a couple of positions for them is not going to help them improve their win rate in any meaningful way.

Edit: anyway, I can't see your position changing and won't bother going round in circles trying to convince you otherwise.

 

[Bobby Sands]

I would say the first step towards solving the problem is accepting that changing a couple of positions isn’t going to improve the Wallabies. If there were better 10s than Foley they’d be in the side, if there was a better backrow combination we’d have it in place.

Ok, to reply to your question how this logic is flawed.

Solving a Problem - w/ Up The Guts
Step 1: Accept that changing a couple of positions isn't going to change the outcome (improve Wallabies).

*********

It would be reasonable to deduct that this formula suggests that whatever the selection process, the outcome will be the same, so we should not bother changing players.

In any equation, mathematical, or otherwise any small adjustment to the first half of the sequence will radically change the second half of the sequence and as such the equation is different.

The first half of the sequence in this situation is preparation, tactics & selection. While the selection is not the is not the only ingredient here, we can all agree that the "cattle" that are put out have a significant amount of impact on the outcome of the event.

Changing even 2/15 players from the XV is a 13.3% change of combination (left side sequence) that could be reasonably expected to impact the right side of the equation (outcome) with some level of variance (either positive or negative). This does not even factor in the individual changes of combination that would be a much higher %.

Ie; if To'omua started at 10 he would have a direct and new combination with Genia & Kurtley that creates even more change than the individual selection % (of 13.3) suggests. These are human beings acting collaboratively, the network effect that changes the functionality of the chain (in this case it would be a backline).

To suggest that no difference in selection (not to mention tactics or other factors of preparation) could ever alter the right side of the sequence (the equation) is meek and defeatist.

Also note, that this is not about changing a few positions and getting the win. It is about changing the mechanics to improve by degrees, that allows us to continue to develop until we get the desired outcome (the win).

We can't be happy with the existing team and process if it is not working, especially when no other selections have been tried. This is counter-intuitive logic.

We much keep adjusting the formula until we get the desired result.

That is what all businesses, sports teams, and any collaborative group exercise is attempting to do.

To not adjust and adapt is to plateau, and to plateau is to die. The Wallabies are currently dying if we do not introduce change of process (selection included) to break the circuit and change the equation.

 

[Up the Guts]

Ok, to reply to your question how this logic is flawed.

Solving a Problem - w/ Up The Guts
Step 1: Accept that changing a couple of positions isn't going to change the outcome (improve Wallabies).

*********

It would be reasonable to deduct that this formula suggests that whatever the selection process, the outcome will be the same, so we should not bother changing players.

In any equation, mathematical, or otherwise any small adjustment to the first half of the sequence will radically change the second half of the sequence and as such the equation is different.

The first half of the sequence in this situation is preparation, tactics & selection. While the selection is not the is not the only ingredient here, we can all agree that the "cattle" that are put out have a significant amount of impact on the outcome of the event.

Changing even 2/15 players from the XV is a 13.3% change of combination (left side sequence) that could be reasonably expected to impact the right side of the equation (outcome) with some level of variance (either positive or negative). This does not even factor in the individual changes of combination that would be a much higher %.

Ie; if To'omua started at 10 he would have a direct and new combination with Genia & Kurtley that creates even more change than the individual selection % (of 13.3) suggests. These are human beings acting collaboratively, the network effect that changes the functionality of the chain (in this case it would be a backline).

To suggest that no difference in selection (not to mention tactics or other factors of preparation) could ever alter the right side of the sequence (the equation) is meek and defeatist.

Also note, that this is not about changing a few positions and getting the win. It is about changing the mechanics to improve by degrees, that allows us to continue to develop until we get the desired outcome (the win).

We can't be happy with the existing team and process if it is not working, especially when no other selections have been tried. This is counter-intuitive logic.

We much keep adjusting the formula until we get the desired result.

That is what all businesses, sports teams, and any collaborative group exercise is attempting to do.

To not adjust and adapt is to plateau, and to plateau is to die. The Wallabies are currently dying if we do not introduce change of process (selection included) to break the circuit and change the equation.

Changing the variables in the equation doesn't do anything if the variables all have the same value.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Cheika has capped 46 different players and given 13 their debut in the last 12 months


Include the June tests last year and it's 54 and 21

 

[Aurelius]

We're at 42.1% because the general quality of our players is just not that good and nor are the structures they are using -- that is not a counterintuitive statement. It's exactly the same as saying the Sunwolves have a very low win rate in Super because the general quality of their players is below the rest of the competition sides and changing a couple of positions for them is not going to help them improve their win rate in any meaningful way.

Edit: anyway, I can't see your position changing and won't bother going round in circles trying to convince you otherwise.

It really does beggar belief that in a country of 25 million people we can't find two or three dozen who are capable of playing at a level that's competitive with the All Blacks.

 

[Strewthcobber]

It really does beggar belief that in a country of 25 million people we can't find two or three dozen who are capable of playing at a level that's competitive with the All Blacks.

To be fair, there's much larger countries that are just as uncompetitive.

They really are remarkable

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Lorenzo]

Chieka's using players at about the same rate (over the last year) as the All Blacks. 46 for us and 45 for them (England 45 and Ireland 47).

I don't think this is a particularly useful metric anyway, or at least it doesn't look it, given that the team on 43% and the team on 92% have used almost the same number of players. It also doesn't tell you anything about who is starting and what positions people are playing and who they are playing them with.

Maybe we should look at the constants over that period? Beale has started all of those tests. Maybe his one piece of successful flashy play every 5 tests doesn't quite make up for the several missed tackles in every test? Maybe our D would instantly be better if To'omua played 12 outside of Foley?

Or maybe bringing in an excellent defender for a shit one would make no difference at all. Sure.

 

[Aurelius]

Yeah, if there's a sporting equivalent anywhere in the world, you'd have to say it's the Chinese diving squad. You can beat them, but pretty much everything has to go right for you.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Cheika has introduced quite a few new players over the years, but apart from some who really have proven to be not quite to standard, it is the three or four that he persists with despite every loss along the way that is our biggest problem.

Foley/Beale are liabilities in defense, and seeing that that is the area we are consistently outplayed and at a disadvantage against teams like NZ, Ireland, England etc, it is long overdue for some replacements to be given opportunity. They don't have to have the attacking qualities of Beale but just need to be more solid and reliable in defense than those two. It will make a positive difference.

The Pooper leaves us short for forward power. We are from time to time found out at lineout time, like Bledisloe 1, and are a player short at breakdown time. Even with 8 on his back, Pocock plays as the No 7, but nobody really knows what role Hooper plays. It is not No 8, because a No 8 would be more involved in tight and in the tough stuff. Hooper does not fulfil a traditional role at all within the XV. Timu at the back would help to reinstate a full 8-man forward pack, and he will go ok until someone better (Naisarani, Valetini?) comes along.

Rob Simmons is a lineout general - just ask all the Tahs fans here who think he's the answer to the Wallabies set piece problems. His impact at the lineout does not compensate for his lack of impact in every other facet of the game. Bledisloe 2 shows that we can hold our own against the ABs' lineout when Rob isn't on the field.

Change those four players now, and I'd guarantee the team's defensive capabilities will immediately improve and the scorelines will be much closer against the ABs and more than likely on the right side of the ledger against other teams.

It is just disingenuous to claim that making deserved changes won't make a difference.

 

[Up the Guts]

Cheika has introduced quite a few new players over the years, but apart from some who really have proven to be not quite to standard, it is the three or four that he persists with despite every loss along the way that is our biggest problem.

Foley/Beale are liabilities in defense, and seeing that that is the area we are consistently outplayed and at a disadvantage against teams like NZ, Ireland, England etc, it is long overdue for some replacements to be given opportunity. They don't have to have the attacking qualities of Beale but just need to be more solid and reliable in defense than those two. It will make a positive difference.

We didn't lose to Ireland because of poor midfield defence and when we lost to England on the EOYT Beale wasn't playing in the centres so there's no evidence to suggest a stodgy midfield that is more solid in defence is going to equip us any better against NH teams. We're also not going to beat the ABs without scoring points and by your own concession Beale and Foley are better attacking players than the current alternatives. Anyhow, the majority of NZ's tries didn't come by busting apart our frontline defence like they did in Bledislode 1 last year so I don't see any dividend in strengthening that area at the expense of weakening our attack.

The Pooper leaves us short for forward power. We are from time to time found out at lineout time, like Bledisloe 1, and are a player short at breakdown time. Even with 8 on his back, Pocock plays as the No 7, but nobody really knows what role Hooper plays. It is not No 8, because a No 8 would be more involved in tight and in the tough stuff. Hooper does not fulfil a traditional role at all within the XV. Timu at the back would help to reinstate a full 8-man forward pack, and he will go ok until someone better (Naisarani, Valetini?) comes along.

We conceded 7 tries off turnover ball against NZ and you want to replace our fastest forward, Hooper, with a much heavier body like Timu? Have a look over at the Roar where some excellent analysis has been done to show that the problem on the weekend was not the Pooper but playing Tui at 6 because he was another big body that was too slow around the park. I see a lot of potential in Naisarani, Valetini, and Dempsey and am more than happy to dismantle the Pooper when they're available and have proven themselves but until we have genuine options in these positions we don't have anyone stronger to play.

Rob Simmons is a lineout general - just ask all the Tahs fans here who think he's the answer to the Wallabies set piece problems. His impact at the lineout does not compensate for his lack of impact in every other facet of the game. Bledisloe 2 shows that we can hold our own against the ABs' lineout when Rob isn't on the field.

Who are we subbing Simmons out for? I would prefer Rodda dropped for Arnold and Simmons to remain on the bench as the backup lineout caller.