The Wallabies Thread

[amirite]

Isn't having a ball playing 12 rather than a crash-baller the structure the Wallabies have had for most of the last 25 years?

Outside of the period where Pat McCabe was the 12 and we scored very few tries, we've generally opted for a 12 who is closer to a 10 than a 13 for example.

It would also seem that more international sides are moving towards more of a ball playing 12 than a crash baller.

The two ways people are playing the right are that model, or the same but with a play making fullback instead.

I don't think there are any top 8 test nations that aren't playing either of these models.

 

[KOB1987]

The opportunity that came for Timani had nothing to do with thinking he was not ready.

It was "forced" upon Chek only after the injury to Pocock and then McMahon.

Have never had a problem with debutantes. They are obviously but generally chosen to cover injury or dare I say it, to cover a position from which a player gets dropped for unsatisfactory performance.

Yes and no. Timani has been in the squad the whole time, it's not as though he had a light bulb moment and plucked him from nowhere. Presumably cheika has had enough of an opinion of him to retain him in the squad and keep working on him with an eye on the future instead of say Ben mccalman and his debut was imminent regardless of the fitness of pocock and McMahon.

 

[Gnostic]

Isn't having a ball playing 12 rather than a crash-baller the structure the Wallabies have had for most of the last 25 years?



Outside of the period where Pat McCabe was the 12 and we scored very few tries, we've generally opted for a 12 who is closer to a 10 than a 13 for example.



It would also seem that more international sides are moving towards more of a ball playing 12 than a crash baller.

Do you think Horan was a ball player? He remains the best 12 Australia has had IMO even if he is a crap commentator. I certainly don't.

What about Grey, I certainly wouldn't rate him a "ball player" even if he did play one test at 10 for the Wallabies IIRC.

Finally even when Lynagh played 12 he was less a distributor/ball player and played a straight running game that he retained a lot of even when he went to 10.

The only dual playmaker style 12's the Wallabies selected have been Howard, Kafer, occasionally Flatley and before the current rotations Barnes. SO IMO the "dual playmaker model" has been around for about10-12 years and actually seems to coincide with the decline in "playmaking".

Perhaps the dual playmaker model is needed because none of our players meet the base skill sets for the position and we need two players in 10 and 12 to try and get the balanced skills required?

 

[Braveheart81]

Do you think Horan was a ball player? He remains the best 12 Australia has had IMO even if he is a crap commentator. I certainly don't.

What about Grey, I certainly wouldn't rate him a "ball player" even if he did play one test at 10 for the Wallabies IIRC.

Finally even when Lynagh played 12 he was less a distributor/ball player and played a straight running game that he retained a lot of even when he went to 10.

The only dual playmaker style 12's the Wallabies selected have been Howard, Kafer, occasionally Flatley and before the current rotations Barnes. SO IMO the "dual playmaker model" has been around for about10-12 years and actually seems to coincide with the decline in "playmaking".

Perhaps the dual playmaker model is needed because none of our players meet the base skill sets for the position and we need two players in 10 and 12 to try and get the balanced skills required?

I think for that time Horan was a ball playing 12. He was an outstanding all round player. I certainly think he was more of a ball playing 12 than that of our opposition around those times such as Frank Bunce.

I think the presumption that we have been consistently more likely to pick a 12 whose second (or first) position was 10 rather than 13 holds true.

I don't think we are going it alone picking this style of player at 12. I think it is well and truly the norm in world rugby now and is becoming increasingly so.

Ideally we'd like a bigger physical threat at 12 who is also a strong ball player. In time we hope Kerevi becomes that player much like Nonu did through the prime of his career for the All Blacks. I don't think anyone has come close to matching Nonu in all round ability at 12 in recent years with his excellent short kicking game and both long and short passes as well as being a big physical threat on either side of the ball.

 

[Gnostic]

I think for that time Horan was a ball playing 12. He was an outstanding all round player. I certainly think he was more of a ball playing 12 than that of our opposition around those times such as Frank Bunce.



I think the presumption that we have been consistently more likely to pick a 12 whose second (or first) position was 10 rather than 13 holds true.



I don't think we are going it alone picking this style of player at 12. I think it is well and truly the norm in world rugby now and is becoming increasingly so.



Ideally we'd like a bigger physical threat at 12 who is also a strong ball player. In time we hope Kerevi becomes that player much like Nonu did through the prime of his career for the All Blacks. I don't think anyone has come close to matching Nonu in all round ability at 12 in recent years with his excellent short kicking game and both long and short passes as well as being a big physical threat on either side of the ball.

We'll have to agree to disagree on Horan, he had a good short passing game but that was about it in terms of playmaking, it was his direct running lines, combination with Herbert and Little, and marvellous acceleration.

The key point I think most miss when talking about most of those whose "first position" is 10 playing at 12 is that most of them have limited running skills. Foley is perhaps the best we have had for some time in terms of being able to find a gap when he has a big mismatch, but he certainly cannot break a tackle like Horan used to, and I struggle to think of a "second playmaker" who could really offer that genuine running threat from 12 at a set or even semi set defence.

I too hope Kerevi could be that man, and think he would be better there now than Foley,
and the attack would be better overall.

 

[Micheal]

I'm personally a huge fan of the dual playmaker system as I ideally want every player in my team to be a ball-running threat, and I think that having two ball-running / ball-playing individuals in the backline provides the best balance. This is another reason that I love Genia so much.

If your halfback does not convince the opposition that he's a genuine sniping attacking threat, then defenders will drift outwards and place more pressure upon the attacking players receiving the ball. If he fulfils the defending teams expectations and doesn't snipe, then you've lost a point of attack and theres effectively one dead player on the field in terms of offence.

I believe the same thing in regard to your flyhalf. You want your 10 to put doubt into the defenders minds as he mixes up the point of attack. If the defenders expect him to pass and drift outwards then he should run. If the defenders stick to him, he should force them to commit before creating space for his outside players.

Of course this all sounds very simple and basic, but its important in this discussion. If Quade / Foley are going to be asking these questions and running a lot from 10, then we need someone else to step into the play-making shoes once they enter contact and go to ground to ensure continuity. There is no point in the 10 making a half break only for play to slow down as we chuck it to the pigs one off a ruck and wait for our flyhalf to get back to his feet and back into position.

In saying this, I think this might be the reason why Foley / Quade hasn't worked brilliantly thus far, especially when you compare it to the Foley / Beale axis of the Tahs (2014-2016) and the Wallabies 2015 campaign.

Both Foley and Beale look to run first, and will often hit a half gap as they try to utilise their explosive speed to burst through and create other options. Once either Foley or Beale hit that gap and make the space, the other can use their playmaking abilities to finish the job off, as evident in any Foley / Beale / Tahs / RWC highlights package.

It seems to be that Quade is more of your conventional playmaker, and is quite reluctant to enter contact or run the ball unless there is open field infront of him. He's not much of a 'half-gap' ball-runner. As such, he needs more strike-running options in the backline to be effective.

As such I think that Foley / Beale complement each other a lot more than Foley / Quade do. With the former, both ask questions of the defence, creating more space for the other to do their work.

With the latter, Foley essentially reduces options for Quade to pass to and space for him to work in. On the other hand, Quade doesn't create sufficient front-foot ball or space for Foley to work in by not offering a genuine ball-running threat.

Just some thoughts. Personally, Genia / DHP / Foley / Beale / Kerevi / Naivalu (or another strike winger) / Folau would be my desired Wallabies backline.

If Beale isn't fit, I'd consider dropping Foley to fullback and shifting Folau to the wing, or dropping Foley and utilising Quade and two strike running centres. Kerevi would obviously fill one of those spots, and if Simone can continue his form next year I'd hope he could fill the other.

 

[Micheal]

I'm also going to say something widely unpopular that will ultimately show my age.

I don't think we should look to teams of old (anything prior to 2003) for insight on how we should field a team today. If we had fit, 25-year old Horans, Greys, Larkhams, Campeses, Lynaghs, Flatleys, Kafers, Eales or Kefus available for selection for todays Wallabies team, I would select a whopping none of them.

I'm 23 and people often refer to these players as the golden age of Australian rugby. I've dug up old tapes, I've trawled YouTube and I've done everything I can to try and educate myself and I've ultimately found the games, skills and defence of these eras absolutely wanting.

Watching the Roar's Wallabies backline highlights from 1991 to 1998, and 1999 to 2001 there is absolutely no structure or commitment in defence. Every part of play is devoid of what we now consider basic skills.

It (largely) looks like a bunch of 35 year olds playing semi-contact Subbies third grade after a huge night on the piss at their 17-year high school reunion, with the hangover being compounded by a week of not sleeping due to their newborn baby being a nuisance and the general playing ability being made all the worse as they haven't held a sports ball, gone for a jog or had anything to do with Rugby (as it is today) for about 13 years.

Of course, this is to be expected with the game only becoming professional in 1995. I will concede it does get significantly better circa 1999/2000, but even then it doesn't hold a candle to today. If 2016s shoddy Wallabies side played 1999s RWC winning Wallabies side today it'd be an absolute shellacking.

Where am I going with this?

Oh yes. This also all seems very obvious. Of course the came has moved on in terms of physicality - today's S&C programs have ensured that. Today's players would spend more time in a gym in a single season than the 90s players would have over their entire career. They also have access to great nutrition and supplements.

But the game has also moved on in terms of skill sets (the players pre 2003ish seem terribly uncoordinated), in terms of commitment / physicality / technique in defence (this is largely a product of professionalism - so many flailing arms pre-2003), in terms of structure (the alignment and defence in these videos is pathetic), in terms of the set piece (hardly any jumping in the lineouts in the 1991 to 1998 videos, and scrums are entirely different), in terms of tactics and patterns and in terms of the rulebook.

Rugby Union in 2016 is barely even the same sport to Rugby pre-2003. It should not be treated like it is. Because something worked pre-2003 it does not mean it will work today. In fact, I'd almost suggest that if it worked then it will definitely not work today.

Horan / Kafer / Larkham / Eales / Campese etc. were all fantastic players for their time. They were the prototypes of the players we have today, but they should not be used as the definition of how we should expect players to play today, or the roles that players with a certain number on their back should perform.

TL.DR; just because we didn't use the dual-playmaker system when Timmy Horan was floating around doesn't mean we shouldn't use it today. Timmy Horan essentially played another sport.

 

[Braveheart81]

You can only judge players relative to the era they played in. Obviously the game has become more and more professional and with that players have become bigger, faster and stronger.

I think it is reasonable to assume that players that have been good enough to be the best in the era they played in would probably achieve something similar at a later time.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Micheal]

You can only judge players relative to the era they played in. Obviously the game has become more and more professional and with that players have become bigger, faster and stronger.

I think it is reasonable to assume that players that have been good enough to be the best in the era they played in would probably achieve something similar at a later time.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Of course. I qualified that in my post.

Thats why, as mentioned, I dislike people going "the Golden Wallabies of bla bla bla didn't use a dual playmaker" or "Tim Horan wasn't a second playmaker and he did just fine" etc. etc.

I guess I'm mostly referring to Gnostics post, but also more widely to posts I see everywhere on Reddit / GAGR when we look back with our rose coloured glasses at the (more successful) Wallabies of bygone eras.

As you can only judge players relative to their era, so too can you only judge patterns, tactics and roles relative to each era.

Because a certain style of play worked in the 90s it doesn't mean it'll work today.

The game has moved on.

 

[Gnostic]

Michael I hate to tell you something, but most of the players now in Australia cannot kick the synthetic ball as well as those you wouldn't select could the old leather unit. Few can pass as well as Ella, Lloyd Walker, Lynagh and co.

No one in Australia is as feared a defender as Willie O, Daniel Manu or Illie Tabua. In pre-lifting days Australia had a dominant lineout with Eales, Morgan, Bowman, Giffen and others. They had extremely well hones skills that I'd put up against any of the modern players. As you say they didn't have the defence or the fitness that professionalism has brought, especially since Australia brought the Les Kiss inspired League defence in 1998.

The game has moved on in some aspects, but passing, kicking and running lines remain the same. Those are the aspects that all the Australian teams have failed at this year.

Finally if we take Wayne Bennett's philosophy of coaching to heart instead of the Eddie Jones idea and try emulating the systems that actually bring success we would be looking at the ABs structures and attempting to generate the skills base to play something decent away from a constant recycling game doing nothing but grinding away hoping for the defence to give away a penalty or just run out of numbers. As it stands the current Wallaby's structures don't achieve anything and indeed I suspect they may well struggle to even score a try this weekend just like the Boks last week.

 

[Viking]

Isn't having a ball playing 12 rather than a crash-baller the structure the Wallabies have had for most of the last 25 years?

Outside of the period where Pat McCabe was the 12 and we scored very few tries, we've generally opted for a 12 who is closer to a 10 than a 13 for example.

It would also seem that more international sides are moving towards more of a ball playing 12 than a crash baller.

I hate how a 12 is either a ball-player or crash-baller. Maybe we can have someone in-between like Hodge.

Or maybe we can potentially have both, in Kerevi.

 

[dru]

It seems to be that Quade is more of your conventional playmaker

Michael I agree with a lot of what you say, certainly the past greats. I also like a double playmaker system, and better everyone is a playmaker.

But I'm holding that quote for one reason. A difference of opinion. No Quade is not a "more conventional" playmaker. He IS a playmaker. Beale also. Foley is not, he's a distributor, one I personally really like, but he's not a playmaker.

To'omua, distributor. Llea (prayers with him) , playmaker but a bit coavhed out of him.

There is no doubt in my mind that Cheika will call back Beale when he can. And that the double 10 will cease at that stage. Many presume that Quade will be 10 at that point. That would be my call. But I'm not sure it will be Cheika's.

Beale is not a 10, and for me he's too remote to be the only true playmaker on tne field. In the mean time I dont mind how Quade-Foley is progressing.

 

[The torpedo]

Do you think Horan was a ball player? He remains the best 12 Australia has had IMO even if he is a crap commentator. I certainly don't.

What about Grey, I certainly wouldn't rate him a "ball player" even if he did play one test at 10 for the Wallabies IIRC.

Finally even when Lynagh played 12 he was less a distributor/ball player and played a straight running game that he retained a lot of even when he went to 10.

The only dual playmaker style 12's the Wallabies selected have been Howard, Kafer, occasionally Flatley and before the current rotations Barnes. SO IMO the "dual playmaker model" has been around for about10-12 years and actually seems to coincide with the decline in "playmaking".

Perhaps the dual playmaker model is needed because none of our players meet the base skill sets for the position and we need two players in 10 and 12 to try and get the balanced skills required?

People (and the selectors) probably don't have fond memories of the Deans era when he threw McCabe @ 12 and Horne @ 13.
That is probably why people don't like a dual crash baller @ 12 - don't want a repeat of McCabe-Horne. What we need is a crash baller with good playmaking/distributing skills - doesn't exist in rugby in Australia atm

 

[The torpedo]

Michael I hate to tell you something, but most of the players now in Australia cannot kick the synthetic ball as well as those you wouldn't select could the old leather unit. Few can pass as well as Ella, Lloyd Walker, Lynagh and co.

No one in Australia is as feared a defender as Willie O, Daniel Manu or Illie Tabua. In pre-lifting days Australia had a dominant lineout with Eales, Morgan, Bowman, Giffen and others. They had extremely well hones skills that I'd put up against any of the modern players. As you say they didn't have the defence or the fitness that professionalism has brought, especially since Australia brought the Les Kiss inspired League defence in 1998.

The game has moved on in some aspects, but passing, kicking and running lines remain the same. Those are the aspects that all the Australian teams have failed at this year.

Finally if we take Wayne Bennett's philosophy of coaching to heart instead of the Eddie Jones idea and try emulating the systems that actually bring success we would be looking at the ABs structures and attempting to generate the skills base to play something decent away from a constant recycling game doing nothing but grinding away hoping for the defence to give away a penalty or just run out of numbers. As it stands the current Wallaby's structures don't achieve anything and indeed I suspect they may well struggle to even score a try this weekend just like the Boks last week.

So TL;DR we're fucked?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I hate how a 12 is either a ball-player or crash-baller. Maybe we can have someone in-between like Hodge.

Or maybe we can potentially have both, in Kerevi.

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.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I'm also going to say something widely unpopular that will ultimately show my age.

I don't think we should look to teams of old (anything prior to 2003) for insight on how we should field a team today. If we had fit, 25-year old Horans, Greys, Larkhams, Campeses, Lynaghs, Flatleys, Kafers, Eales or Kefus available for selection for todays Wallabies team, I would select a whopping none of them.

You're right, it's controversial!

I understand what you're saying but I'm also of the belief that a, Rugby hasn't changed so much that the skills needed in previous times aren't relevant today and b, if you control for modern training techniques, the greats of the past will still be great now. That's of course unknowable, but there is zero chance I wouldn't take Tim Horan (probably the best I've ever seen at 12) in a Wallaby team if he were in his prime right now. The same is also true for Campo, Eales, Poido (who would love modern rugby) and other legends like NFJ and Mark Ella.

No rose tinted glasses for me, those guys are ranked in the greatest of all time in Wallaby colours for a reason. They were actually that good. They would still be that good now, possibly better.

 

[Micheal]

Ok people are putting far too much focus on the individual players (I will address this another time, I have three essays due in the next 10 days I'm pedal to the metal at University right now).

What I meant was that arguments for or against the implementation of the dual playmaker system (or any other strategy) in today's game should not be supported by evidence from pre-2003 as the game was is so fundamentally different from today's game when you consider:

- Tactics.
- Patterns of play and structures utilised by teams.
- The roles of certain positions.
- The set piece (both lineout and scrum).
- Professionalism (physicality, S&C etc).
- Skill levels.
- Rules and their interpretation.

Of course the players mentioned were the best of the best in their time and would most likely still be up there if they went through todays pathways. What I was suggesting was that if you literally plucked them from the 90s and put them up against today's team it'd be a non-contest.

Also I thought it was quite interesting that the owner of the rosiest coloured glasses, 'Golden era' Gnostic, has a Randwick supporters icon attached to his post. Could've picked it from a mile off. If only the whole Wallabies were pre-2000 Randwick players and the Shute Shield still reigned supreme in Australian Rugby.

Maybe thats not quite fair of me...

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I don't for one minute think you'd jump in your time machine and grab the 1984 edition Mark Ella and stick him in a Wallaby jersey and expect him to be the world beater he was now. No, what you'd do is you'd take a young Mark (or any other great player) at a younger age and train them in all of the points you made above. Those same blokes would be pound for pound still be as great, I'm hugely confident of that. Some of them might play different positions, but they'd still be excellent players.

Just on the Randwick thing too, in their prime they were the most successful club in Australia for a reason. Their systems and talent development was the equal of any I've ever seen. They played test level footy in first grade, with a great set piece, hard nuts in the loose and a set of extremely skilful backs who mostly looked like they had mastered telepathy.

 

[Gnostic]

People (and the selectors) probably don't have fond memories of the Deans era when he threw McCabe @ 12 and Horne @ 13.

That is probably why people don't like a dual crash baller @ 12 - don't want a repeat of McCabe-Horne. What we need is a crash baller with good playmaking/distributing skills - doesn't exist in rugby in Australia atm

Maybe because Deans never fully developed any game plan with selection to fit eg playing McCalman at 7 and then playing a wide game which he would never make it to the ruck early or even on time. He was about as half baked in terms of selection matching game plan I can ever remember, and then changing said plan halfway through a year..... How can anybody remember it fondly?

Horne and McCabe are poor examples, Horne is not and never really has been a good 13. He has always played his best rugby at 12 and he has been in my view been selected at wing for the Wallabies so he can defend at 12. McAbe whilst I admire his bravery and drive wasn't a "great" player and so it just doesn't compare to Horan with Little/Herbert in any way.

As for a Randwick icon, well yes because that's how I came to the game, in the late 70s early 80s watching a game that was physical and at the same time skilful. Deride it however much you want, and I may well be nearly double your age, but I can at least say I have watched first hand the skill levels of the players in Australian Rugby corrode as their fitness levels increased. There was actually a debate in the early 2000s about the amount of time that players spent in the gym and not on the paddock practicing skills. The glasses are not rose coloured, they are realistic. Indeed I am more realistic than many when I say that there are players with the ability to be as good as those named, many that others continually say, well they can't pass/kick/lazy etc etc. Where is the mentoring and training. Same thing can be said for our coaches that are so often discarded - Mooney et al.

 

[gel]

I'm also going to say something widely unpopular that will ultimately show my age.

You're not the first 23 year old to think that way.........

and you won't be the first 35 year old that thinks differently.