The Wallabies Thread

[Braveheart81]

Which tries are we actually arguing about?

The first two tries both came after multiple slow phases and a set defence with basic defensive misreads.

The first was Hodge getting stood up by Ben Smith (I think).

The second was Speight going for an intercept rather than tackling Anton Lienert-Brown.

The third was Hodge getting charged down.

The fourth had a pretty average offload by Phipps which Speight then knocked on and NZ ran away to score.

The fifth try we got turned over at the breakdown then Speight and Frisby both missed tackles on Savea down the left touchline.

The sixth try Foley doesn't find touch from the clearing kick from our in-goal and then Hooper misses a tackle on Savea. We were caught out with our defence realigning far too slow here. A kick going all the way to the halfway line can't give our opposition a try scoring opportunity otherwise we may as well give up.

If Foley finds touch in that last instance the All Blacks take a quick lineout and the situation is entirely the same. The ball was only a metre or two from touch. We don't want our clearing kicks going into the grandstands because then we have a defensive lineout on our 22.

I agree that their were times when Foley needed to find touch but blaming him for tries that happened multiple phases later with a set defence seems like a deflection from big defensive errors.

 

[Micheal]

You'd be fun to work with. You cock up at work, the rest of the team try and cover for you on the fly but despite their best efforts can't and you say it's their fault that they couldn't save your ass?

Using your example, 6 missed tackles from a scrambling defence that were up until that point on attack are probably more forgivable than the loose carry that contributed/caused the try.

There are plenty of really good things that Foley did in Bled 3, I for one thought he had a great game by his recent average standard, but to completely dismiss basic errors that directly contributed to points for the opposition is just being wilfully blind.

That is an absolute false-equivalence. Aside from the fact they are both professions in the sense that people rely upon them for a living, being a professional rugby player and working in a traditional blue/white-collar world are miles apart.

One is an environment in which twenty-three individuals engage as a single unit against twenty-three other individuals who are actively trying to force mistakes or errors. It is a long, physical contact sport. As such, even the best players make up to several errors per game and, whilst they are held accountable for mistakes, they are not crucified for them.

If you engage in an honest comparison between that and whatever you do for a living either:

a) You'll notice the false equivalency.
b) You notice equivalency and find a slightly more normal source of employment.

Even if it were comparable to a normal place of employment, what we are talking about is Foley making a basic error in an otherwise strong performance and the rest of the team, who have made errors themselves and therefore not without fault, making more errors within the events that follow.

As such the kick may be a catalyst for these errors but it is not an excuse. It was a collective failing and therefore Foley should not be hung, drawn and quartered as a response. As I suggested, he should be held accountable yet this accountability should be relative to the severity of the mistake (it was a innocuous error compared to something like Speight's attempt at an intercept). This is how it works in most work-places but I can't comment on yours.

Even further than that, Foley hasn't turned around and blamed the team as your post implies - I am simply commenting on how people overweight a few basic errors within their evaluation of his performance in a manner that is inconsistent with their appraisal of other players.

Your last sentence is particularly pertinent. I am not dismissing basic errors, yet I challenge the notion that they can justifiably be determined to have 'directly contributed' to points being scored against us.

I am not being wilfully blind Sully. What a ridiculous comment. People don't disagree with you to annoy you - it might just be that others see things a little differently.

 

[Micheal]

Oh God we're in the fucking Foley/Cooper vortex again.

How did this happen? Silly question - it always happens. The immovable object vs. the unstoppable force. All I can say is thank God Beales out of the country these days otherwise we'd have ourselves a right old throw-down.

Moving on - if you'd told me that Arnold and Coleman were lining up as our lock pairing in Bledisloe 3 during the RWC last year I would've told you that you were off your melon but now I'm over the moon with the pairing.

For all the flak that Cheika has received for swapping the locks constantly (even I threw some his way), he said that he was doing so with the intention of building depth, and I actually think he's been successful.

I'd now be content (but not necessarily happy) with the vast majority of permutations of the following packing down at lock for Australia:

Arnold, Coleman, Simmons, Douglas, Carter.

And you could almost throw Skelton and Mumm into the mix, with Timani being another option.

Its nice to finally have some options there, and I think the competitions pushed players into better form (Simmons being a prime example).

 

[Scrubber2050]

Oh come off it.

He picked Foley over Cooper - marginal call with not much either way.

He's picked Mumm over Fardy - marginal call again.

He picked Foley over Hodge - marginal call.

Remember that at this stage Hodge had played something like 11 games at Super Rugby level at a variety of positions and for the role that Cheika desired Foley it was a marginal call between Hodge and Foley.

It's not like Cheika's been making bizzarro-world calls across the park every single game.

Theres one or two every now and that cause some parties to grab pitchforks and other parties to look at what and go:

"Hmm, thats interesting. Thats not what I would've done but I know what he's looking for in that role and its somewhat reasonable for him to have picked that player under such a framework. After all he is the coach and choosing a gameplay, style of play and players to fulfil that is his prerogative".

You may not be in the "too many Reds" camp but the black/white way in which you articulate your views causes people to mentally place you in one.

(I wish we would stop talking about Tahs vs. Reds it creates a divisive "us" vs. "them" mentality thats disastrous in an already divided and under pressure code).

Tribal shit has been alive and well for 100 years.

We (QLD) love to hate 'en and they are the same.

No big deal. it adds a bit of fun and when your not so well thought out
arguments fail you can always fall back of the tribalism argument.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Who's talking about Cooper?

You were happy to say the virtues of Foley.

A few of us are merely pointing out what we perceive flaws, and comparing the outcomes to last NZ game to test the logic that our attack was so strong.

 

[Tip]

I strongly suggest that those on these pages that disagree with my assessment of Foley to head over to the Roar and read Nick Bishops piece on the Tah halves.

FYI, Bishop is a former technical/ (one of their many) assistant coach of England.

 

[cyclopath]

I strongly suggest that those on these pages that disagree with my assessment of Foley to head over to the Roar and read Nick Bishops piece on the Tah halves.

FYI, Bishop is a former technical/ (one of their many) assistant coach of England.

Brian Smith, ex-assistant coach of England thought Foley went well. Who do we believe? At the end of the day, even experienced and better-credentialed pundits than any of us disagree on many matters of selection / tactics and play. Remember, coaches and tacticians have a preference for how they want to see the game played too. They are not immune to inherent bias.
I tend to think the truth lies in between - Foley, as an example, is neither magnificent nor is he shit, and the same can be said for most players.
The tendency for some to attribute team-wide failures predominantly to one player at times is simplistic. It's the butterfly effect turned up to 11.
And I am not specifically talking about Foley - this applies to whatever player happens to be scapegoat du jour.

 

[Micheal]

Who's talking about Cooper?

You were happy to say the virtues of Foley.

A few of us are merely pointing out what we perceive flaws, and comparing the outcomes to last NZ game to test the logic that our attack was so strong.

TWAS you delightful creature you are entirely correct.

I suppose I jumped the gun on that one. I saw the Foley-detractors Super XV emblems and saw red.

 

[TOCC]

Sure, a Queenslander criticises Foley and it must be due to parochialism, as Hawko so fondly put it, it must be because us Queenslanders know best. There's absolutely no way a Queenslander could objectively analyse a players performance and comment on it without bias...

 

[Tip]

Brian Smith, ex-assistant coach of England thought Foley went well. Who do we believe? At the end of the day, even experienced and better-credentialed pundits than any of us disagree on many matters of selection / tactics and play. Remember, coaches and tacticians have a preference for how they want to see the game played too. They are not immune to inherent bias.
I tend to think the truth lies in between - Foley, as an example, is neither magnificent nor is he shit, and the same can be said for most players.
The tendency for some to attribute team-wide failures predominantly to one player at times is simplistic. It's the butterfly effect turned up to 11.
And I am not specifically talking about Foley - this applies to whatever player happens to be scapegoat du jour.

I'd believe the technical assistant, who's job was specifically to dissect and analyse phase play - does so - then justifies his thoughts in a smidge over 2000 words.

I believe him rather than the motormouth who'll say anything to stay relevant as he aims for his next coaching /media gig.

 

[cyclopath]

I'd believe the technical assistant, who's job was specifically to dissect and analyse phase play - does so - then justifies his thoughts in a smidge over 2000 words.

I believe him rather than the motormouth who'll say anything to stay relevant as he aims for his next coaching /media gig.

Q.E.D.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Brian Smith, ex-assistant coach of England thought Foley went well. Who do we believe? At the end of the day, even experienced and better-credentialed pundits than any of us disagree on many matters of selection / tactics and play. Remember, coaches and tacticians have a preference for how they want to see the game played too. They are not immune to inherent bias.
I tend to think the truth lies in between - Foley, as an example, is neither magnificent nor is he shit, and the same can be said for most players.
The tendency for some to attribute team-wide failures predominantly to one player at times is simplistic. It's the butterfly effect turned up to 11.
And I am not specifically talking about Foley - this applies to whatever player happens to be scapegoat du jour.

Except Nic White.

 

[Brumby Runner]

TWAS you delightful creature you are entirely correct.

I suppose I jumped the gun on that one. I saw the Foley-detractors Super XV emblems and saw red.

So Michael, did you miss my response on Foley's game (and not a mention of the other) or did my team emblem escape your attention? Rather than all the negative comments coming from Qld, I rather think only (or most) of the positive comments come from NSW.

 

[A mutterer]

So Michael, did you miss my response on Foley's game (and not a mention of the other) or did my team emblem escape your attention? Rather than all the negative comments coming from Qld, I rather think only (or most) of the positive comments come from NSW.

 

[Micheal]

So Michael, did you miss my response on Foley's game (and not a mention of the other) or did my team emblem escape your attention? Rather than all the negative comments coming from Qld, I rather think only (or most) of the positive comments come from NSW.

It was actually just a cheap attempt at a bit of double entendre and not much more.

("He was seeing red" vs. "the Queensland Reds", you know?)

But I suppose its quite a sensitive topic and tone etc is hard to convey within text-based communication. I really wouldn't look too far into it haha.

 

[Slim 293]

I strongly suggest that those on these pages that disagree with my assessment of Foley to head over to the Roar.

Let me just stop you right there.........

 

[Hawko]

Let me just stop you right there...

I will not have you criticise the world's greatest, fairest and most unbiased commentator, Spiro Zavos, on this forum. It just cannot be.

 

[Braveheart81]

Welcome to the gun show!

Korobeite's arms are almost as big as Pocock's!

Photos from the Wallabies facebook page.

 

[Scoey]

Welcome to the gun show!

Korobeite's arms legs are almost as big as Pocock's arms!

FTFY

 

[Tip]

Let me just stop you right there...

I'm a Wallabies supporter.

I will read articles about the Wallabies. No I don't read Spiro, or Lordy, because I don't feed the trolls.

There's a reason Scotty left here and began writing for the Roar. This post is precisely it.

Instead of debating the merits of a well thought out argument, one of the most experienced posters on this forum replies THIS.

Completely ignoring that the article was written by a former Assistant coach of England.

Slim, petty points scoring is petty. Ditto to you Cyclopath. QED doesn't apply because the editors set the title, not Nick. If you made the effort to glance at that page you would see Nick highlighting that the Editors changed his preferred title for clickbait (however, the title is still very much accurate)

One would expect G&GR's most prolific posters, (Sorry Braveheart) to be more balanced, reasonable and maybe, just maybe, contribute to the discussion points on a discussion board.

Yeah nah, won't hold my breath. Scott Allen jumped ship for this exact reason. It's a shame when your biggest contributors to this forum are also the biggest anchors.