• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Wales vs Australia, 5 November 2016, (1:30am 6 November AEDT) @ Millenium Stadium

PeterK

Alfred Walker (16)
KB (Kurtley Beale)/To'omua/Lealifiano all can do this, as well.

Anyone know how Lilo is going?


Disagree.

The statement was long distance whilst running.

KB (Kurtley Beale) has a weak pass to his right, can only pass long to his left.

To'omua has a long pass but needs to pivot to execute it , so he can't do it whilst running.

CLL can.
 

Scrubber2050

Mark Ella (57)
Disagree.

The statement was long distance whilst running.

KB (Kurtley Beale) has a weak pass to his right, can only pass long to his left.

To'omua has a long pass but needs to pivot to execute it , so he can't do it whilst running.

CLL can.

Gee did KB (Kurtley Beale), Matty and/or Lilo play against Wales ???????
 

PeterK

Alfred Walker (16)
Watching the game I thought Hooper was quiet at the time and one of our weaker starting forwards.

Looking at his numbers that certainly doesn't appear the case that he was quiet though.

Perhaps it was a matter of the pack around him just playing better than usual and overshadowing him on this occaision. When usually no matter the opposition he maintains that level of play whilst others struggle.


Hooper was a good link man, with good work rate.

What was good was he acted as a support runner for the backs instead of being a main runner, so let the backs do their thing and then either protect the ball or be there in support for a pass.

Why he was not sighted much he didn't do dominant important tackles or make any big runs wide.
 

Micheal

Alan Cameron (40)
Unfortunately I don't think so. To'omua is out for the season and doesn't have the required caps, Lilo's situation is well-known and Beale will be game-fit at the very earliest at the beginning of December (making a return touch-and-go). Regardless, I don't think throwing Beale into the deep end against England would be very wise given he hasn't played footy in yonks.

Imagine this backline though:

9. Genia
10. Foley
11. DHP
12. Hodge
13. Kuridrani (Kerevi if fit)
14. Folau
15. Beale

Holy moly.
 

ForceFan

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Ruck Involvements – Wales v Wallabies – Cardiff

The final score line (Wales 8:32 Wallabies) was almost a reversal of Bled 3.
It was great to see the Wallabies playing high speed, strong support, running rugby.
The Wallabies dominated with 91% Possession for the opening 15 minutes.
Their 68% Possession and 79% Territory and 1st Half scoreline of 20:3 really stamped their mark on the game. The final 56% Possession, 58% Territory shows how much the Wallabies let Wales back into the game (but not on the scoreboard).

The Wallabies significantly improved their tackling efficiency to 88% (101/115).

Both teams were standing off Defence Rucks: Wales 61%; Wallabies 54%.
The Wallabies won 96% (110/114) of their rucks; Wales 94% (82/87).
I have no TOW data (but as these numbers show there weren't a lot).


Remember:
1. Early means 1st or 2nd of player’s team AFTER the ball carrier has been tackled and brought to ground.
2. Impact means active engagement: strong physical contact, changed shape of ruck, clean-out, protecting ball etc. (more than hand on someone’s bum or arriving after the hard work has been done). Yes it’s subjective - but as I collect all data at least it’s consistent.
3. Impact DOES NOT equate to Effectiveness. I’ve concluded that coming up with an effectiveness measure is just too hard in the time that I have available – but open to suggestions.

2016-11-07_8-26-21.jpg


2016-11-07_8-26-50.jpg



Check out these involvements against the TRC averages which I included in the Bled3 discussion.

Wallabies Forwards showed ruck involvement work rates at or above their best in TRC2016.
Arnold, Fardy, Sio and Timani had ruck involvements well above their previous best.

Arnold (12 carries), Coleman (14 carries) and Timani (10 carries) were used to draw the Wales defence and create gaps out wide. Coleman topped the Wallabies tackle count again with 14.

Ruck Involvements by Backs:
Hodge – 16 Total (16 Attack/0 Defence); Kuridrani – 12T (10A/2D); Speight – 11T (5A/6D).


Ruck Involvements over Time

2016-11-06_18-54-19.jpg


2016-11-06_18-53-00.jpg


Both teams averaged 2.4 players involved in Attack Rucks.
Australia 0.6 players per Defence Ruck; Wales a low 0.5. (SR2016 average about 0.75).
Accordingly, the involvements over time is really a track of possession.

Big ruck efforts by the Wallabies in the opening and close of the 1st half.
Marked improvement by Wales in the 2nd half - with a frantic opening by both teams.

1st half leading DRIs
Pocock, Speight - 4; Timani - 3; Moore - 2

2nd half leading DRIs
Fardy - 11; Hooper - 6; Timani, Moore, Sio - 3; Speight, Arnold, Coleman - 2

Tipuric's effiorts matched by the Pocock/Fardy combination.

The post below includes some additional data.
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
Yeah I wonder what the situation would be if the Welsh team had been together for 3 months and the Wallabies had had two training sessions together.

Still, did the job against what was put in front of them. And made a bit of a statement while doing it.

Well you could look at their first game v the ABs where they were leading at half time (may have been the first 2 games actually?) and our series v England as a bit of an example of that dynamic. It rarely gets trotted out as a genuine excuse though.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Not really.

Our first game vs England was played 2 weeks after the last Super Rugby round. The same date of the Aviva Premiership final.

I can understand why you think that, because it's constantly repeated. But that's not really how it worked out.

The last 6 Nations match was 12 March, and they had a 1 off test on the same weekend as the Premiership Final which only included players who were not playing.

The England team had not consistently been together at all.
 

PeterK

Alfred Walker (16)
ForceFan - Thanks.

If I look at the total involvements, ruck, carry and tackle some players are immense.

Pocock in half the time for 80 mins had the most 68.
Fardy matched this too but he knew he was only playing one half.
Arnold with 48 for 68 mins comes to 56 for 80.
Hooper has 55 for 80.
Timani has 52 for 80.
Coleman has 50 for 80.

These are great figures especially for the big men.
 

ForceFan

Peter Fenwicke (45)
2016-11-06_18-56-43.jpg


Similar work load by major playing groups in both teams.
Wales Front Row more involved than Wallabies with big effort from Jenkins.
Wallabies Locks more involved than recent past games.
Wallabies back Row carrying most of work load - as usual.

2016-11-06_18-57-07.jpg


More involvement in DRIs from Tight 5 than shown in TRC.
Jenkins and Owens hard workers for Wales.

2016-11-06_18-57-34.jpg

Very similar distribution of player involvements on Attack Rucks.

2016-11-07_9-24-24.jpg


Both teams standing off Defence Rucks.
Wallabies committing more players at key stages of the match with 17% 2 or more players; Wales 10%.
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
I know it's not exactly the same TWAS, but for the June tests the NH sides had all played the 6N together and then the players join the squads as their teams are eliminated, so they have a lot more training together than the SH sides who have 2 weeks in readiness for their first hit out. I don't think it's any secret that the SH sides are the rustier for the June tests and the NH sides for the November tests, so it all balances out in the end. In no way am I using it as an excuse, it's just how it is.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
The Six Nations finished 3 months prior to the first June test before returning to their clubs for that period.........

That's just making up logic to justify our loss. A quarter of the 23 that played the first test played in that final on the 28th.

The same amount again were represented by the losing Semi Finalists.

Something like 12 players from that 23 played on May 21.

The Wallabies had a 2 week period where every player was available between the last Super Rugby game and 1st test.

Where as Strewthcobber points out, the Welsh players all played last weekend, with some being back for 2 training sessions prior to the test. Then there's the fact that some are in England, some are in France, etc.

To say it's the same situation sells them short significantly, and oversells any disadvantage we may have in June. If it was such an advantage why did the Wallabies start horribly against the All Blacks who's players only dripped back into camp?
 

Micheal

Alan Cameron (40)
The Six Nations finished 3 months prior to the first June test before returning to their clubs for that period...

That's just making up logic to justify our loss. A quarter of the 23 that played the first test played in that final on the 28th.

The same amount again were represented by the losing Semi Finalists.

Something like 12 players from that 23 played on May 21.

The Wallabies had a 2 week period where every player was available between the last Super Rugby game and 1st test.

Where as Strewthcobber points out, the Welsh players all played last weekend, with some being back for 2 training sessions prior to the test. Then there's the fact that some are in England, some are in France, etc.

To say it's the same situation sells them short significantly, and oversells any disadvantage we may have in June. If it was such an advantage why did the Wallabies start horribly against the All Blacks who's players only dripped back into camp?

I think your a bit off here TWAS.

Sure England weren't playing test matches in the weeks leading up the the series vs. us but what you have to consider is that since the RWC they had played six games to our none. This gave them significant momentum going into the first test, but most importantly, it gave them cohesion and practice as playing as a team against top-quality opposition.

Regardless of lead up time in terms of preparation (it was essentially the same amount of time spent in camps), they had significantly more time as a squad than we did in the six months leading up to the game.

If you compare a mid-season game to the first trial / game of the season at any club at any level anywhere in the world you generally see a fuckload of improvement.

I think it definitely counts for something.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Yes, if you compare a mid-season game to a first trial in club level you generally see improvement.

You also generally don't see a 3 month gap between performances........

How long do combinations hold not playing together? Where do we draw the line? Do they maintain after 3 months, but not 6?
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Anyway, the point is that playing together 3 months prior before then splitting and going back to club teams is hardly the same situation as us playing 7 uninterrupted test matches prior to commencing our tour, having also played 3 tests only interrupted by 3-5 matches in the 2 months before the 1st of those next 7.
 

Lee Grant

John Eales (66)
Geez - quite a few posts on the game. Too many to read all of them but I bet there are a lot of positive ones for a change. Here are some stray thoughts:

• Wales' fans would have been keenly disappointed with the tepid performance of their team, but if we remember how crap the Wallabies were in their first test of the season we should take pause.

However Wales was a pale shadow of the team that played for so well in NZ for long periods in two of their tests in June.

And once their white-line fever near the posts with men scratching their bums out wide, was poor rugby.

They were missing some players - every team does - but the absence of their pack leader Alun Wyn Jones was a killer for them.

• Aus played well but the conversion of "chances into tries" ratio was just as disappointing as in our losing games against better opponents.

• There were so many Aussies who played well as individuals, as a result of the collective Wallabies' effort, that one could virtually go through the whole team - but the two players who impressed me most were the locks Coleman and Arnold.

Their line-bending was so regular that it beggared belief and it didn't matter that Wales were set up to tackle the runners. Their lineout work was fine and their delicate work in combo to set up the Foley try couldn't have been bettered by centres.

I always thought that Arnold would make his mark but that Coleman was too much of a boofhead in Super Rugby this year to emerge in 2016. After he got to Sydney the big Tasmanian was one I would have liked to have kept here to develop him. But one of the benefits of having five Super Rugby teams is that there are good stories like that of A. Coleman.

• The lineout was better and owed some to Moore's good throwing - and his general play was as in younger days.

• Kepu was top-notch but how many times have we seen him go into rucks with his shoulder? And often he does it in dead rucks where everybody is on the ground and his action would not have been rewarded anyway?

• Good to see Kuridrani back in form as I had nearly given up on his being able to play as he did in Cardiff.

• Foley earned his man-of-the match award but I couldn't help thinking how Quade Cooper would have ripped Wales open even more.

• I hadn't been as enthusiastic as others about Reece Hodge, but he played like he belonged, didn't he? I still don't think he should be considered as a specialist winger, but as a 12 he played well in that type of game as a specialist. And as a reserve he would be without price.

• Timani is showing signs that I had hoped for when the Waratahs contracted him some time ago. He's picking the ball up from the ground better and giving the odd sly pass in contact, or just before. I just wish his first two steps were more explosive. Watch this space on L. Timani.

• I waited to see the usual problem of good runs in the tight but missing supports to take the ball, or to attend to the attacking ruck - but there wasn't much isolation. Good sign that.

• Another old problem of backs passing to the man and not to the desired target in front of him was not noticed much either. It was like watching the old Brumbies' teams that Larkham was in.

• Good to see Phipps improving - as he had to.

• It was also enjoyable to listen to one of my favourite commentators, the affable Eddie Butler, and the comments of "Jiffy" Davies.

• Not to the point, but I wrote drivel here as I was watching my recording of the Barbarians v v Boks game out of one eye - and now the game is finished.

I won't give you a spoiler but if you get a chance to watch it, do so. Taqele Naiyaravoro was the man-of-the match and Luke Morahan had a fine shift from the bench.

And if you watch it, do so to the end, because Will Greenwood (the Barbarians' backs coach) was both incisive and hilarious in the post-game interview.
.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Lee, I don't know if Quade would have done any better, or worse for that matter.

But I think this game has basically told us nothing in that regard as the question was never if either could perform well beyond a very dominant pack. It's what we get behind the beaten pack that really needs to guide the decision.

On Hodge I must say it was noticeable how beneficial his big kick was. There was one point where he put a 22 out on their 22, Wales went for the quick line out and then kicked out themselves, and suddenly we had a line out on around halfway.

That's the type of thing that will be invaluable behind a beaten pack.
 

PeterK

Alfred Walker (16)
Lee - Timani just needs to step sideways a little bit to hit the defense at an angle , then add the power as you say in those 2 steps and he will break tackles instead of just run over them to get over the ad line.
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
That's just making up logic to justify our loss.

No I made it quite clear I wasn't using it as an excuse.

The advantage the NH teams have over the SH teams in June may not as big as the one the SH teams have in November, I didn't ever claim that it was, but it's still an advantage. I said it was the same dynamic, not the same advantage.
 
Top