Wallabies 2025

[Major Tom]

It doesn’t. Some of the Wallabies most clutch kickers of the pro era have been guys like Burke at 15, Flatley at 12 and nobody will forget Eales. Hooker doesn’t have to throw into the lineout either but as you come through now it’s an expectation of the position so a lot of guys who may be able to do it but play 13 shelve the skill.

It is important though and I can only imagine the diatribe on here if we said fuck it give a part timer a go then they miss a kick to win a Test.

There is also the aspect of having an elite kicker puts pressure on the opposition to not push it within 50 at ruck time because you may be punished. That opens up the attack for your side. No different in Cricket to knowing someone has a strong or weak arm and taking an extra single or saying no not worth the risk.

Well JOC (James O'Connor) missed those kicks against the spring boks soooo it’s not like we’re acing it atm.
Ultimately, if he doesn’t miss the kicks in front of goal (I think he missed a couple of them in the past) then I’m fine with him goal kicking.
Goal kicking is 1 aspect so I’m happy not to get carried away. What he lacks in goalkicking, he makes up with his defence and ball running.
I would have him on the bench for the spring tour which would allow us to go 6-2 if we wanted.

 

[stillmissit]

It doesn’t. Some of the Wallabies most clutch kickers of the pro era have been guys like Burke at 15, Flatley at 12 and nobody will forget Eales. Hooker doesn’t have to throw into the lineout either but as you come through now it’s an expectation of the position so a lot of guys who may be able to do it but play 13 shelve the skill.

It is important though and I can only imagine the diatribe on here if we said fuck it give a part timer a go then they miss a kick to win a Test.

There is also the aspect of having an elite kicker puts pressure on the opposition to not push it within 50 at ruck time because you may be punished. That opens up the attack for your side. No different in Cricket to knowing someone has a strong or weak arm and taking an extra single or saying no not worth the risk.

Agree, but it is a part of the expected skill set at 10 and I wonder if the coaches have others with a skill set to be practising it?
We have missed a few clutch kicks over the last few years, and most of us shrug and say it happens. Who can forget the long range kicks by Reece Hodge to win games, just missing the goal posts.

 

[MarkJ]

I reckon Schmidt values goal kicking, think it was a major reason why Noah appeared to be his preferred 10, and why Edmed is in favour now

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Think they’re all pretty similar in kicking. Lynagh was a dead eye for Super Rugby. If it was a main point for him Lonergan would have been picked ages ago.

 

[TSR]

I reckon Schmidt values goal kicking, think it was a major reason why Noah appeared to be his preferred 10, and why Edmed is in favour now

I’m pretty sure he came out and said exactly that. Pretty sure Lynagh is also on record as saying that after the 2024 Super Season one of Schmidt’s bits of feedback to him was his goal kicking needed to improve.

 

[stillmissit]

I hope we get smarter about when to take a kick at goal and when to go for touch. This is International rugby and small margins mean a lot.
The Spring Tour will be interesting to see if Schmidt makes some fine adjustments to the boys.

 

[Red Runner]

Our RWC stocks are rising with Marky Mark (Nawaqanitawase) (Nawaqanitawase) and now Carter Gordon. As an oddity, a mate of mine was watching Edmed play and reckoned he'd make a better centre than 10.

mark and Carter were both there last RWC…

 

[rugbyAU]

mark and Carter were both there last RWC…

So we’re McReight, Valetini, McDermott, Kellaway etc.

 

[TSR]

 

[Brumby Runner]

I hope we get smarter about when to take a kick at goal and when to go for touch. This is International rugby and small margins mean a lot.
The Spring Tour will be interesting to see if Schmidt makes some fine adjustments to the boys.

We only know if it was smarter after the event. A case in point, the second Bledisloe where contrary to previous games the Wallabies kicked for goal on three occasions early in the match and still went down by more than a losing bonus point. Not a shining example of taking the points.

 

[cyclopath]

We only know if it was smarter after the event. A case in point, the second Bledisloe where contrary to previous games the Wallabies kicked for goal on three occasions early in the match and still went down by more than a losing bonus point. Not a shining example of taking the points.

But that is just poor application of statistical data. Anecdotal evidence is next to worthless. It's easy to judge whether taking a kick was smart or not after the fact.
Now if someone collated the data for penalty kicks taken, with success rates and positional data on the field including who took them, where and when they were taken you might get something. Oh, and look at whether the defending team were on final warning for a YC too.
Too many parameters to really know if taking the points is better, or not.
Of course, having a goal-kicker with an 85% or better success rate would help too.

 

[stillmissit]

We only know if it was smarter after the event. A case in point, the second Bledisloe where contrary to previous games the Wallabies kicked for goal on three occasions early in the match and still went down by more than a losing bonus point. Not a shining example of taking the points.

Let's add in that it was the worst game we played in the RC.

 

[TSR]

We only know if it was smarter after the event. A case in point, the second Bledisloe where contrary to previous games the Wallabies kicked for goal on three occasions early in the match and still went down by more than a losing bonus point. Not a shining example of taking the points.

And yet a number of people afterwards were critical that Wilson turned down additional shots at goal.

To me Bledisloe 2 was a classic demonstration that whichever way you go, some people will always think you did the wrong thing. Especially if you lose.

 

[stillmissit]

And yet a number of people afterwards were critical that Wilson turned down additional shots at goal.

To me Bledisloe 2 was a classic demonstration that whichever way you go, some people will always think you did the wrong thing. Especially if you lose.

Success has a thousand fathers, and failure is an orphan. An old cliche, but continuously relevant.

 

[Brumby Runner]

But that is just poor application of statistical data. Anecdotal evidence is next to worthless. It's easy to judge whether taking a kick was smart or not after the fact.
Now if someone collated the data for penalty kicks taken, with success rates and positional data on the field including who took them, where and when they were taken you might get something. Oh, and look at whether the defending team were on final warning for a YC too.
Too many parameters to really know if taking the points is better, or not.
Of course, having a goal-kicker with an 85% or better success rate would help too.

The same provisos apply to the question of going for line and line out but many posters still hold a black and white opinion. In the case I quoted it was very early in the game so no need to consider possible yellow card and all kicks were successful but in the end achieved nothing in terms of the result.

 

[TSR]

Maybe I misunderstand your post BR but you seem to be suggesting that she decisions to kick for goal as opposed to going for line was a factor in our loss. I’ve got to say that’s a pretty long bow. At the very least there are quite a few other factors that were much more significant.

 

[cyclopath]

The same provisos apply to the question of going for line and line out but many posters still hold a black and white opinion. In the case I quoted it was very early in the game so no need to consider possible yellow card and all kicks were successful but in the end achieved nothing in terms of the result.

The outcome from going for touch on all those is obviously unknown so I am unsure what your point is. It may have been even worse, no different or better. Hard to know it was a poor use of penalties.
In any event I am talking about coaches and teams collating data about these situations with regards to particular opponents and knowing the likelihood of player X actually kicking a PG from certain distances / angles or the team scoring from a timeout / maul and the relative strengths or weaknesses of the opponents etc. I would be surprised if these variables are not closely studied by coaching teams to have a general plan with penalties for each opponent.

 

[Strewthcobber]

This sort of data is absolutely being looked at by teams.

Rugby Data To Be Unlocked By Professor Dimitri Perrin Through QUT-QRU Partnership

Rugby Data To Be Unlocked By Professor Dimitri Perrin Through QUT-QRU Partnership

qld.rugby

 

[Brumby Runner]

Maybe I misunderstand your post BR but you seem to be suggesting that she decisions to kick for goal as opposed to going for line was a factor in our loss. I’ve got to say that’s a pretty long bow. At the very least there are quite a few other factors that were much more significant.

There are posters who are adamant that three points should be taken on all occasions. In recent times the Wallabies have been inclined early in games to go for line and have been heavily criticised. I was using the second Bledisloe as an example to show that "early scoreboard pressure " (ie, goals rather than lineout) is not a guarantee of success. Against top opposition some risks might be necessary to have a shot at a win so circumstances should dictate the decision. It is not inherently wrong to go for the try if the side looks to have parity at set piece.

In short, I don't have an aversion to a decision to try score 5 or 7 but there is no set reason to favour one decision over the other. As you say there are many factors that determine the outcome.