Wallabies 2023

[fatprop]

But that was before he came back - he came back a better player - I think on current form he could slot in and be that 8 or play at lock.

His form is at lock in Super Rugby

I think he is a bench option at best

 

[stillmissit]

Except he has historically gone missing when playing @ 8

At lock, he was forced to play tighter and has more quality involvements

Fattie: I am not sure what part of history you are referring to but prior to his injury he was outstanding to my mind. When he came back he was initially slower which is understandable and was shoved in the row to fill a gap.

We won more turnovers in the 1st and 3rd tests and dominated possession in the second.

Our ruck success percentage was higher in the first two tests and only slightly lower in the third.

The perception that we got beaten at the breakdown doesn't seem to hold out in the stats. It was very even across the series.

Some decision making around players getting isolated and missed cleanouts would be our main areas of concern.

Brave, Well the stats can't lie - can they? Every report I have read both here and in the UK makes a big issue out of what the England forwards did with Genge, Laws and Itoje being most mentioned giving the Poms go-forward ball.

I looked at 2 stats sites in test 2 to see what Hooper had been up to and the first one said 1 turnover won and conceded 2 turnovers, made 9 meters via 5 carries. https://www.rugbypass.com/live/internationals/australia-vs-england-20220709107003/2022/stats/
The second site details were posted on G&G England v Australia thread, Hoopers stats were several times more than the rugby pass site.

Had a quick look at test 3. What a mess! We had 70% possession, made 6 clean breaks to 3 and gave away 19 T/o's to 13 and in the D the poms missed 38 tackles to our 17, we lost the breakdown wins 5 to Eng's 12. So those stats (apart from BD) suggest that any team that looks that good on paper should win but wins are not made on paper.

So you can make your own story up as I suspect your stats suit you better.

 

[Braveheart81]

Had a quick look at test 3. What a mess! We had 70% possession, made 6 clean breaks to 3 and gave away 19 T/o's to 13 and in the D the poms missed 38 tackles to our 17, we lost the breakdown wins 5 to Eng's 12. So those stats (apart from BD) suggest that any team that looks that good on paper should win but wins are not made on paper.

So you can make your own story up as I suspect your stats suit you better.

In the third test we butchered two clear try scoring opportunities and conceded a try because we failed to secure a loose ball in the middle of the field from our lineout.

I'll put it to you that is why we lost the game and the series.

There are definitely breakdown issues we need to tidy up but in my view that is mostly around securing our own breakdown either by not getting isolated or missing cleanouts. It wasn't a massive issue though. We had a couple of each in each game (with Courtney Lawes probably the key English player winning those). It's unlikely that you get rid of all of them.

We're winning a similar number of breakdown turnovers as our opposition though so that tells me on the defensive side of the ball our breakdown presence is reasonable.

 

[Joe Blow]

Valetini bends the line often and is a beast in defence. I think he was a little quiet in the English series but his development has been good and should continue. FWIW Wilson also bends/breaks the line often for the Reds.
Part of it must be who is feeding them the ball. Hopefully QC (Quade Cooper) will have better vision if selected. Valetini should be our 8 moving forward.

 

[Joe Blow]

I agree with FP. Holloway is most likely a good bench option at this stage to cover 5/6

 

[Viking]

Viking RE breakdown work, I would add that all of our 8 forwards, with the occasional exception ie Samu and Porecki are poor. The absence of ball winners in the forwards is an embarrassment when you consider our backs seem to do a better job than our forwards.
LOSE THE BREAKDOWN - LOSE THE GAME was the mantra when I played years ago and I have seen nothing in the last 20+ years of Wallaby games to dispute this analogy. As support for this idea, you can watch any game from McQueens time and see how the forwards ripped into the breakdowns.
Viking, I will add that we need to be competitive in all areas, i.e. it would be hard to win if you were lousy in the lineout, scrum etc but great at the breakdown. At the end of Eddie Jones's time we were lousy at the lineout, scrum and breakdown where his 'do not compete - stay in the D' just about destroyed our Rugby nouse.

I agree, look at all the top renowned players who aren't opensides who performed exceptionally well this series. Itoje, Tadhg Berirne, Courtney Lawes, Malcolm Marx etc. All players who made turnovers and competed well at the breakdown.

 

[Brumby Runner]

The outcome from the series certainly seems to be that we have a hole to fill at 6. Hooper and Valetini certainly seem pretty locked in at 7 and 8 and Samu as the bench backrower.

Leota had two tests and didn't really shine then Wilson struggled in the third.

Feels like there's a good chance Holloway gets a crack at 6.

I'd like to see Holloway get a chance at 6 and play like he has for the Tahs this year, but I don't think Rob Leota has been as sub-par as some on this site seem to think.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'd like to see Holloway get a chance at 6 and play like he has for the Tahs this year, but I don't think Rob Leota has been as sub-par as some on this site seem to think.

I think he was ok without locking himself into the starting team. I think that was evidenced by Harry Wilson getting the start in the third test (who didn't go particularly well).

Rennie talked Holloway up before the series and then couldn't select him because he was injured. He also mentioned him as a potential backrower.

I'm mostly connecting the dots and suggesting it is likely we'll see Holloway at some point soon and based on Rennie's comments and selections it seems like it would be at six at the expense of Leota.

 

[Viking]

We won more turnovers in the 1st and 3rd tests and dominated possession in the second.

Our ruck success percentage was higher in the first two tests and only slightly lower in the third.

The perception that we got beaten at the breakdown doesn't seem to hold out in the stats. It was very even across the series.

Some decision making around players getting isolated and missed cleanouts would be our main areas of concern.

That is very interesting indeed. Maybe it really does just come down to those few key moments we needed to be more clinical. Which honestly is probably more of a worry. How do you make players be more clinical in that "last pass". Experience would help but that takes time and some players just don't seem perform in those big moments.

 

[Braveheart81]

From Scott Wisemantel:

Falling 21-17 in the deciding test against England, Wisemantel said the players would do a “hard review” before turning their minds to the opening match in Mendoza on August 7 (AEST).

He said the obvious learning was for the Wallabies to take their chances.

“We had two tries that went begging,” Wisemantel added. “The thing that the biggest difference between Super Rugby and test level is at test level you probably get four chances in a game, maximum.

“You got to take them so it’s good learning, it’s something that we’ve got to be better at.”

 

[cyclopath]

Except he has historically gone missing when playing @ 8

At lock, he was forced to play tighter and has more quality involvements

How does the number on your back dictate whether you play tighter or looser, apart from the back of a scrum? I don't get this narrative. Surely they just get the player to play to their strengths? I mean front rowers and backs pilfer. The old dogma around playing a certain way because of your number is 1980's thinking.
Holloway gets talked down for being too short for lock yet took a lot of ball for the Waratahs who had a very successful lineout this year. He's a good maul wrecker too. He can do both playing at 4, 5 or back row, surely?
That said, with all our lock options fit (which they aren't) you just pick who's best. But if we go down the list and are picking someone pretty green at lock, I'd as soon see Holloway there.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

From Scott Wisemantel:

Falling 21-17 in the deciding test against England, Wisemantel said the players would do a “hard review” before turning their minds to the opening match in Mendoza on August 7 (AEST).

He said the obvious learning was for the Wallabies to take their chances.

“We had two tries that went begging,” Wisemantel added. “The thing that the biggest difference between Super Rugby and test level is at test level you probably get four chances in a game, maximum.

“You got to take them so it’s good learning, it’s something that we’ve got to be better at.”

That's one of the things that rankles about the series loss the most - the squandered opportunities. This side plays with heaps of heart and ticker, but not always with a lot of rugby smarts or composure. If we're to take a step up in tiers from where we are at the moment that's going to have to improve substantially.

 

[Slim 293]

I remain positive, as to me it’s clear that the experience of the English team was the main difference in the end…

Let’s not forget that the professional careers (or at least consistent professional rugby) of many in the current Wallabies really only kicked off in the last three years, in the period after England were runners up in a RWC.

 

[qwerty51]

I remain positive, as to me it’s clear that the experience of the English team was the main difference in the end…

Let’s not forget that the professional careers (or at least consistent professional rugby) of many in the current Wallabies really only kicked off in the last three years, in the period after England were runners up in a RWC.

Ah I think that's a cop out, England were hit just as hard if not harder by injuries to key players. Arguably their three best. They left their most experienced 9 at home. This squad had nothing on their 2019 squad.

Porter, Freeman, van Poortvliet, Chessum and Arundel all debuted. Tupou himself has more than double the caps than Stuart. Valetini has double the caps of Ludlam. Freddie Stewart isn't more experienced than Petaia or Banks. I think he has 1 more cap than Kellaway. Their backline really only had Farrell with a ton of caps.

We just sucked, couldn't execute and got tactically outplayed.

 

[qwerty51]

How does the number on your back dictate whether you play tighter or looser, apart from the back of a scrum? I don't get this narrative. Surely they just get the player to play to their strengths? I mean front rowers and backs pilfer. The old dogma around playing a certain way because of your number is 1980's thinking.
Holloway gets talked down for being too short for lock yet took a lot of ball for the Waratahs who had a very successful lineout this year. He's a good maul wrecker too. He can do both playing at 4, 5 or back row, surely?
That said, with all our lock options fit (which they aren't) you just pick who's best. But if we go down the list and are picking someone pretty green at lock, I'd as soon see Holloway there.

It's a crazy narrative to me; when looking at lock -> backrower you're wondering if the player has the speed, mobility and workrate to play there. He definitely does. It's more translatable rather than the other way around. Lots of backrowers wouldn't have the tight skills, lineout, scrummaging, mauling etc. to play lock.

 

[Slim 293]

Ah I think that's a cop out, England were hit just as hard if not harder by injuries to key players. Arguably their three best. They left their most experienced 9 at home. This squad had nothing on their 2019 squad.

Porter, Freeman, van Poortvliet, Chessum and Arundel all debuted. Tupou himself has more than double the caps than Stuart. Valetini has double the caps of Ludlam. Freddie Stewart isn't more experienced than Petaia or Banks. I think he has 1 more cap than Kellaway. Their backline really only had Farrell with a ton of caps.

We just sucked, couldn't execute and got tactically outplayed.

We couldn't capitalise on opportunities, and there were more than enough opportunities to win that game...

England on the other hand always came away with points.

And yes, they did have a number of injuries (and Australia had a few experienced players too), but they still had significant experience throughout the positions they needed to execute their type of play - most of the players outside of Farrell barely saw the ball...

Also, Danny Care was their halfback for the first and third test.

 

[Braveheart81]

Another 20 minute red card trial has been approved for the Rugby Championship.

 

[John S]

Another 20 minute red card trial has been approved for the Rugby Championship.

Surely after the last couple of trials the NH still aren't convinced - will yet another trial persuade them it works?

A lot of the NH press/commentary I've seen suggests that the NH is not keen on the idea as it doesn't improve player technique - that it's not reducing the incidents of dangerous tackles etc

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Is it Wales opposing?...

Sure have been on the right end of many Red Cards over the last 2 years

 

[Braveheart81]

Surely after the last couple of trials the NH still aren't convinced - will yet another trial persuade them it works?

A lot of the NH press/commentary I've seen suggests that the NH is not keen on the idea as it doesn't improve player technique - that it's not reducing the incidents of dangerous tackles etc

I don't think it is likely to change anything with the global laws but all the SANZAAR nations like it so we may as well use it for the tournament.