Wales v Australia

[Sully]

We were five in front. A penalty wasn't enough.

 

[Micheal]

We were five in front. A penalty wasn't enough.

I know that. A penalty doesn't necessitate a shot at goal, however.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I know that. A penalty doesn't necessitate a shot at goal, however.

So holding the ball gives you 2 options even on your doomsday scenario:
- Hold it it run down the clock - Wales take a big risk with Joubert who is not big on penalising the attacking team/team in possession;
- If you do cough the penalty you still defending and not risking a goal because that will not win it;
The real concern is that we don't have the confidence in our capacity to hold the ball for 35 seconds.

 

[Pfitzy]

Bullshit. We didn't learn because holding the ball gives you a better chance of winning. Kicking the ball to the opposition is a 100% chance of a turnover. Any chance we might giving them by holding the ball for 35 seconds is lower than that.

Except if you get turned over inside your own 40 and you have to scramble - shit for Cuthbert's try we turned it over inside THEIR 40 and they ran it in from distance on counterattack.

Go look at the second half - nearly every time we get the ball near our own 22, Foley is executing a kick down the middle, away from Wales' two sweepers. Our chasing line forces Wales to make a decision (usually set a ruck or two with the high kick afterwards), and the effectiveness of tackles like Hooper's. This was part of the Tahs game plan this year if they were outside their 22 and the options were running out.

When we lost to the Kiwis we were trying to grind the clock, give ourselves a better kicking position, and then exit. We failed to do this because our forwards didn't lay a platform. White's kick actually wasn't the problem. When we had the opportunity to exit, Foley took it, and executed a decent kick given he was outside his 22.

And we WON.

 

[Pfitzy]

So holding the ball gives you 2 options even on your doomsday scenario:
- Hold it it run down the clock - Wales take a big risk with Joubert who is not big on penalising the attacking team/team in possession;

Joubert had a fucking weird game TBH - he was giving some defensive penalties (e.g. Hodgson) that he isn't known for.

I'd rather take the risk of giving away a penalty in my half, with no opportunity for a lineout, and let my defence do the talking.

Because ultimately, defence wins games.

 

[Sully]

In the end that kick meant we defended for another 2 minutes. 1:50 after the full time siren. Gave away a couple of penalties. All for the sake of a couple of hit ups where we had control of the pill.

 

[Pfitzy]

In the end that kick meant we defended for another 2 minutes. 1:50 after the full time siren. Gave away a couple of penalties.

Yes, that is the reality. It is also the reality that we won the game.

We're both making a lot of assumptions for our arguments. 35 seconds could be two rucks, it could be three. It could be a lost ball in contact scooped up by a Welsh player, or a superb piece of breakdown work by Wales to turn it over (Tipuric was also on at that point).

None of those scenarios might have happened, but I'd like any scenario where we concede a penalty or turnover to happen after the siren and down the other end of the park from the one we're defending.

 

[Quick Hands]

I

But likewise, I don't think its a huge ask for him to trust the team to defend for the final minute.

But the thing is you don't have to just defend for the final minute. The match went to the 84th minute - so you have to defend for 5 minutes. During which time the opposition have unlimited phases - and can also receive multiple penalties as well. Wales received 2 in this time. You actually have to defend until the opposition either make a mistake or score - so giving them the ball isn't such a good tactic.

 

[Sully]

Winning the game doesn't make giving the opposition a free shot at scoring any less stupid. It's in no way a valid argument in this situation.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

The same 107 people who put Slipper "thumbs down", or the 153 who gave Phipps a vote down.

I don't think many of them have realised that you don't actually have to select a thumb - if you think someone was "OK" don't click on either.

TK still ranks highly because he's visible. He scores tries for example, or breaks a tackle or two. The work of the other players who make that happen inside him aren't often recognised.

Bingo! Especially as it was Phipps and Slipper who made the two passes to TK for his try. Take nothing away from TK though, he is definitely an asset.

 

[Pfitzy]

Winning the game doesn't make giving the opposition a free shot at scoring any less stupid. It's in no way a valid argument in this situation.

Free shot? From 70 metres? Jeez I didn't realise our defence was THAT porous.

If only Quade had been out there to save the day eh?

 

[Pfitzy]

But the thing is you don't have to just defend for the final minute. The match went to the 84th minute - so you have to defend for 5 minutes. During which time the opposition have unlimited phases - and can also receive multiple penalties as well. Wales received 2 in this time. You actually have to defend until the opposition either make a mistake or score - so giving them the ball isn't such a good tactic.

Come on QH - this isn't early days rugby league with unlimited tackles. Just because someone has the ball doesn't mean they're invincible.

If your defence is good enough you only need to defend for one minute - which according to Sully is < 2 rucks.

I mean, we had Turnover King Matt Hodgson on the field so surely he would get at least three turnovers from two rucks, right?

 

[Gnostic]

I'm also in the school of thought that the clearing kick in the last minute was the right option to take.

Someone on the comments on the game review in the main page said something like:

"I can't believe Foley didn't trust our forwards to grind the game out for the final minute".

But likewise, I don't think its a huge ask for him to trust the team to defend for the final minute.

For me, grinding the game out in our half comes at risk of giving away a penalty 30-40m out from our own line as the Welsh desperately try to steal the ball, and as we desperately try to secure it. In such a scenario I could imagine Skelton / Simmons / Carter (although the latter two weren't on) / some dopey 2nd rower flopping over the ball or going off their feet and giving the Welsh a penalty in prime attacking position.

Instead, I'd prefer to play the game in their half, and putting the pressure back on them.

Often I think we are critical of the decisions our players make, when we really should be critical of the way they executed these decisions. Although the kick wasn't executed terribly well, the rest of the plan was. We did defend out the rest of the game, and we did win it.

If we had held on to the ball, given the penalty away and lost the game, perhaps we would all be lambasting him for not kicking it.

I largely ignore those comments because they are not looking at the game really. Where were Foley's options when he decided to kick. To shovel the ball on and set up a new ruck with all the forward already in front of him and fatiguing.

It is much like the White Box Kick V NZ in Bled 3. White too the only option he had left but executed it poorly.

 

[The Red Baron]

Free shot? From 70 metres? Jeez I didn't realise our defence was THAT porous.

If only Quade had been out there to save the day eh?

Keep on fighting that provincial fight.

 

[Micheal]

Keep on fighting that provincial fight.

Will all thy might.

 

[KOB1987]

Yes, that is the reality. It is also the reality that we won the game.

We're both making a lot of assumptions for our arguments. 35 seconds could be two rucks, it could be three. It could be a lost ball in contact scooped up by a Welsh player, or a superb piece of breakdown work by Wales to turn it over (Tipuric was also on at that point).

None of those scenarios might have happened, but I'd like any scenario where we concede a penalty or turnover to happen after the siren and down the other end of the park from the one we're defending.

in summation..the judgement call wasn't the problem, the execution was shithouse.

 

[Quick Hands]

Come on QH - this isn't early days rugby league with unlimited tackles. Just because someone has the ball doesn't mean they're invincible.

But it is like early rugby league with unlimited tackles. For example our field goal came on the 20th phase (or tackle)

You're right when you say that having the ball doesn't make you invincible, but it does mean that you possess the one thing you need to score (the ball)

 

[Ruggo]

Free shot? From 70 metres? Jeez I didn't realise our defence was THAT porous.

If only Quade had been out there to save the day eh?

To funny. Give yourself an uppercut.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Regardless of whether the kick was the right or wrong decision. At least they all knew what the plan was, put in a good chase to a deep kick.

Against the All Blacks in Brisbane they weren't communicating as a team, and players didn't know what their job was. Right or wrong decision it looked like they all knew what was going to happen and executed well.

At step in the right direction.

 

[ChargerWA]

Well this thread went dire quickly.

Feel free to all rule 10 yourselves.