The Wallabies Thread

[Derpus]

Everyone fan and juorno watching the half time spray from Cheika, and the second half reversal automatically and rather simplisticly draw the conclusion that one lead to the other. Yet 2 quotes after the game by players, Foley “ ive had him for a while, so I have been on the end of a few of them” and DHP “ obviously there were some stern words, from Cheik which we’re use to”.
Watch the tape of the dressing room again but focus on the players not Cheika. There is no fear or motivation there. Cheika motivation can’t claim that win. As the players said themselves they have heard it before from Cheika. If it didn’t help in the previous games lost why now? The Wallabies went out and threw the game plan out the window and just played thier roles. Foley kicking in distance immeasurably assisted by altitude, played simple straight direct rugby, and Argentina missed thier general at 10.
Glad they won and glad they discovered basic rugby. But to say that Cheika has them back on track or that his role was the catalyst for the revival is wishful thinking.

Salta is 1,152 m above sea level. Is that enough to affect the ball? It's not terribly high.

 

[The Snout]

The second half turn around means nothing. This team is up and down and comes across as thinking too much about what they should be doing or not knowing rather than the doing of it.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Salta is 1,152 m above sea level. Is that enough to affect the ball? It's not terribly high.

The NFL benchmark is 10% further in Denver at mile-high stadium (1610m)

 

[Derpus]

The NFL benchmark is 10% further in Denver at mile-high stadium (1610m)

So if it's a direct correlation (which it probably isn't), you are looking at roughly an extra 7%. If Foley's average kick is 35m he only gets an extra 2.45 metres.

Maybe he just kicked good?

 

[Strewthcobber]

So if it's a direct correlation (which it probably isn't), you are looking at roughly an extra 7%. If Foley's average kick is 35m he only gets an extra 2.45 metres.

Maybe he just kicked good?

Probably. Bit of time with the skills coach?

How good was it kicking 7/7 too! Going up by 7 instead of 5 make such a difference

 

[barbarian]

Foley had one kick from the dead ball line that he put almost to halfway. Was the best kick I think I've seen from him, as he was under pressure too.

 

[wamberal]

Probably. Bit of time with the skills coach?

How good was it kicking 7/7 too! Going up by 7 instead of 5 make such a difference

That is probably the most depressing observation I have ever read. How long has Foley been our first choice fly half, and also our first coach kicker, out of hand, and from the spot? And now, finally, after all that time, he has finally learned how to kick?

 

[dru]

The NFL benchmark is 10% further in Denver at mile-high stadium (1610m)

That is interesting. Our benchmark though would be Jo'Berg (1753m) or Pretoria (1339m) - so similar. I would have guessed considerably more than +10% at both those venues.

 

[Derpus]

That is probably the most depressing observation I have ever read. How long has Foley been our first choice fly half, and also our first coach kicker, out of hand, and from the spot? And now, finally, after all that time, he has finally learned how to kick?

He's always been able to kick for the sticks, but would sometimes lose the plot. I don't think anything has really changed. He went a streak of 27 straight or some such, and then randomly had a mare and missed 4-5 in a row.

You are easily depressed.

 

[Lorenzo]

Foley and Beale both benefited materially from both the altitude and the relatively hard deck.

 

[Lorenzo]

That is interesting. Our benchmark though would be Jo'Berg (1753m) or Pretoria (1339m) - so similar. I would have guessed considerably more than +10% at both those venues.

There's a couple of interesting things. Firstly, a gilbert is larger volumetrically than an NFL ball. More surface area means more resistance and therefore more gains as the resistance is diminished.

The other thing is that NFL kickers face greater trajectory constraints than rugby players do. They aren't allowed to use a tee for shots at goal, and they are already up against a field goal blocking unit that prevents them from lowering the trajectory.

 

[RoffsChoice]

Cheika is likely to need one of his "two-siders" - like Sekope Kepu and Allan Ala'alatoa - to play in the no.1 jersey on the Spring Tour.

Source: http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2018/10/09/wallabies-robertson-injury

If only we could pick a reserve for either side! If only there were two props on the bench!
Crazy talk, I know.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Everyone fan and juorno watching the half time spray from Cheika, and the second half reversal automatically and rather simplisticly draw the conclusion that one lead to the other. Yet 2 quotes after the game by players, Foley “ ive had him for a while, so I have been on the end of a few of them” and DHP “ obviously there were some stern words, from Cheik which we’re use to”.
Watch the tape of the dressing room again but focus on the players not Cheika. There is no fear or motivation there. Cheika motivation can’t claim that win. As the players said themselves they have heard it before from Cheika. If it didn’t help in the previous games lost why now? The Wallabies went out and threw the game plan out the window and just played thier roles. Foley kicking in distance immeasurably assisted by altitude, played simple straight direct rugby, and Argentina missed thier general at 10.
Glad they won and glad they discovered basic rugby. But to say that Cheika has them back on track or that his role was the catalyst for the revival is wishful thinking.

Tend to agree it wasn't the spray that got them going in the right direction after half time. For me it was change in their attacking shape and reversion to a simpler more direct game. Fewer miracle balls and more direct, straight running and accurate short passing. Blokes hitting the gain line at pace helped too. Why don't we do that every week, because when we do play that way the result tends to be a bit better.

 

[Rugrat]

Tend to agree it wasn't the spray that got them going in the right direction after half time. For me it was change in their attacking shape and reversion to a simpler more direct game. Fewer miracle balls and more direct, straight running and accurate short passing. Blokes hitting the gain line at pace helped too. Why don't we do that every week, because when we do play that way the result tends to be a bit better.

Watched Cheika on kick and chase tonight and he said that he didn’t talk any tactics at half time. So he didn’t tell them to revert to basics they just did it on their own. He also said they are good players they dont need him to tell them what to do. That will do me Chieka has become the self appointed sports psychologist, frankly I don’t think he has much more to offer this team.

 

[dru]

Watched Cheika on kick and chase tonight and he said that he didn’t talk any tactics at half time. So he didn’t tell them to revert to basics they just did it on their own. He also said they are good players they dont need him to tell them what to do. That will do me Chieka has become the self appointed sports psychologist, frankly I don’t think he has much more to offer this team.

Look, I don't like where TGC has been taking this team. Not at all. But seems that people have been calling me a naysayer for ages and are now getting on board. But going overboard.

Cheika himself needs to work out in his head what he can give this team (that he has not already). And then look brutally at the team he has arranged around him. Do they fill his gaps?

I would really love to see Reg's squad selection for the EOYT. Hey you can argue over any number of players in that squad (as a self appointed Quade lover and a Red supporter I'm not sure at all of Reg's 10s) but it is the thrust that is important. Cheik may well be able to work his magic with a new crew. And let the Aussie best crew take a break from Cheika. And in the mean time decide how THEY can assist the Wallabies.

Cheika is going to be here through to the RWC. We should be asking how we get the best value from that.

 

[Rugrat]

Look, I don't like where TGC has been taking this team. Not at all. But seems that people have been calling me a naysayer for ages and are now getting on board. But going overboard.

Cheika himself needs to work out in his head what he can give this team (that he has not already). And then look brutally at the team he has arranged around him. Do they fill his gaps?

I would really love to see Reg's squad selection for the EOYT. Hey you can argue over any number of players in that squad (as a self appointed Quade lover and a Red supporter I'm not sure at all of Reg's 10s) but it is the thrust that is important. Cheik may well be able to work his magic with a new crew. And let the Aussie best crew take a break from Cheika. And in the mean time decide how THEY can assist the Wallabies.

Cheika is going to be here through to the RWC. We should be asking how we get the best value from that.

Picking an alternative squad to Cheika is fun but meaningless in the context that unless you control the game plan, substitutions and combinations you literally are just pulling names out. For Cheika to basically blame a lack of fan support for the team as a reason for failure is pathetic. He has been judge jury selector coach and primary contract negotiator for 4 years. His belief in players is all well and good but is he the coach or the captain of the cheer squad.

 

[Brumby Runner]

With Cheika facing the RA Board to explain (again) his plan for the Wallabies in 2019, what are the real, nitty gritty questions the Board should be putting to him?

Some where I would like to see the answers are :

1. You have always maintained that Kurtley Beale is the Backup No 10 for Bernard Foley. You experimented with KB (Kurtley Beale) in that role in three tests this year. Do you agree with the widely held notion that the experiment was a failure, or do you still regard KB (Kurtley Beale) to be a realistic option in the No 10 spot?

2. If the answer to Q1 is yes, how can you reassure the Board and the rugby public that should it be necessary to play KB (Kurtley Beale) at No 10, the outcome will be successful in the face of the evidence to the contrary?

3. If the answer to Q1 is no, what is your plan to provide a backup No 10?

4. Why have you not taken an opportunity in the last three years to identify and develop a backup No 10 in the squad? Has your loyalty to KB (Kurtley Beale) clouded your judgement over that period?

5. Do you agree with the widely held view that the Wallabies' defensive structures are deficient? Why has this been allowed to persist and what are your plans to rectify the problems that are now apparent? Do you have the necessary resources to rectify the problems?

6. Do you acknowledge the Wallabies' ability to score points has deteriorated severely over the past twelve months, and why is this so? What are your plans to rectify the problems that are now apparent? Do you have the necessary resources to rectify the problems?


There must be many other questions that need to be put to Cheika at this review. He should be put on the spot about his lack of encouragement to many of the players who have been with the squad but have seen little or no game time despite continued poor performances from his selected group. Another line of questioning should address the apparent lack of basic skills often on display and why that situation has persisted.

In my view, he should be interrogated in detail and not just be invited to outline his "plan". If I remember correctly, he already did that only a couple of months ago, but where is the evidence that his plan is working, or even that he really has a plan at all? And I want the detail of his responses and his plan to be published for all to see. The problems at the Wallabies level have been evident for a long time and should not be swept under the carpet now.

 

[Derpus]

With Cheika facing the RA Board to explain (again) his plan for the Wallabies in 2019, what are the real, nitty gritty questions the Board should be putting to him?

Some where I would like to see the answers are :

1. You have always maintained that Kurtley Beale is the Backup No 10 for Bernard Foley. You experimented with KB (Kurtley Beale) in that role in three tests this year. Do you agree with the widely held notion that the experiment was a failure, or do you still regard KB (Kurtley Beale) to be a realistic option in the No 10 spot?

2. If the answer to Q1 is yes, how can you reassure the Board and the rugby public that should it be necessary to play KB (Kurtley Beale) at No 10, the outcome will be successful in the face of the evidence to the contrary?

3. If the answer to Q1 is no, what is your plan to provide a backup No 10?

4. Why have you not taken an opportunity in the last three years to identify and develop a backup No 10 in the squad? Has your loyalty to KB (Kurtley Beale) clouded your judgement over that period?

5. Do you agree with the widely held view that the Wallabies' defensive structures are deficient? Why has this been allowed to persist and what are your plans to rectify the problems that are now apparent? Do you have the necessary resources to rectify the problems?

6. Do you acknowledge the Wallabies' ability to score points has deteriorated severely over the past twelve months, and why is this so? What are your plans to rectify the problems that are now apparent? Do you have the necessary resources to rectify the problems?

Can't imagine someone asking this kind of question in a professional context. Pretty insulting.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Isn't his answer To'omua will be 10 if needed? Tried Quade, tried Kurtley, Lilo got sick, and don't blame me for your inadequate development of young 10s RA. The Wallabies is not the place to be training up young 10s.

 

[RoffsChoice]

I've got a ton of problems with the history of Cheika's selections, but Beale at 10 isn't one of them, nor is it confined to him:
- John Connolly explained that he didn't bring Beale to the 2007 World Cup because he had enough depth at 10.
- Robbie Deans started Beale at 10 in seven test matches in 2012, despite having Berrick Barnes, Quade Cooper, or Mike Harris available.
- Ewen McKenzie started Beale at 10 and To'omua at 12 in both games against NZ in the 2014 Rugby Championship, and started Beale at 10 in the 2008 Super 14 Final.
- Chris Hickey had Beale as his first-choice 10 in 2009.
- Damien Hill had Beale as his first-choice 10 in 2012.
- Daryl Gibson started Beale at 10 for his first three games as Waratahs coach.
- Dai Young preferred to move Beale to 10 and bring on a 12, than bring on a 10.

I think we've worked out that Beale is at his best at 12, but he is also a good option at 10.