Strewthcobber
Phil Kearns (64)
Is Gordon, C fit? have seen some conflicting reports on that
Wallabies 2025
- Thread starter rugbyAU
- Start date
JRugby2
Arch Winning (36)
Yes, he maybe isn't
Major Tom
Chilla Wilson (44)
Player drain.
Pathway systems failure.
Unsuccessful provincial comp.
I think all are being addressed but will take a while to fix. But it's going to take some more proactive and creative thinking because a lot is out of our control. I think the sabbatical type of deal might manage the player drain if RA can negotiate them. Need to continue with the underage pathway games even if we lose kids to league. Probably, need to look at selecting very talented kids that go to France in U20 and even Aus A games if they can (I know that sucks picking them over a seasoned SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) pro). And some how we need to get better results in SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) or at least more engagement. That one seems the hardest of the lot because of our depth. Third tier helps that, or do we look to move away from the Kiwis? The culture of losing to them constantly should surely be having an effect on our development. Personally, I love the idea of testing ourselves against the kiwis but I'm not sure the general Aus public gives a shit about it. I'm not sure how the comp works without them.
PhilClinton
Mark Ella (57)
Pretty simple - rugby has been market corrected over the last decade, mostly due to our 2000s administration being complacent and fumbling the bag due to thinking the NRL and AFL wouldn't reach their current heights. There is a clear correlation between lack of pathways growth and expansion in that 2000-2010 period and where we are now.
Tomthumb
John Thornett (49)
Continuing to do the same thing when it hasn't worked all game is also bush league
Strewthcobber
Phil Kearns (64)
This is such a strange conversation. Our last real threat, when we looked like a competant well-drilled team was the 21 phase, 35m march up the field at around 65mins, it was all one off passes and pick and goes.
Italy were way off side for most of it. The tackle at 66:48 probably should have been a penalty try it was that bad.
Italy were way off side for most of it. The tackle at 66:48 probably should have been a penalty try it was that bad.
Last edited:
Tomthumb
John Thornett (49)
They started inside the 22 from the scrum, no? And it ended with a moronic play from Billy Pollard falling on top of the ruck and getting held up
They had numbers and should have gone wide 2 phases before that
Red Runner
Charlie Fox (21)
some interesting stats in the SMH today.
I wonder if the new forwards coach has tried to change things up and its just not working? Donnelly came in for RC where it was fairly consistent as Lions (huge first NZ test!) but thats generally a case of not changing much up to maintain consistency from previous coach. But this tour gives him a chance to impose his style...which perhaps isn't taking...
Meanwhile, the metre gainers. Wilson's stats (despite criticism here) is impressive given his workrate.
I wonder if the new forwards coach has tried to change things up and its just not working? Donnelly came in for RC where it was fairly consistent as Lions (huge first NZ test!) but thats generally a case of not changing much up to maintain consistency from previous coach. But this tour gives him a chance to impose his style...which perhaps isn't taking...
Meanwhile, the metre gainers. Wilson's stats (despite criticism here) is impressive given his workrate.
JRugby2
Arch Winning (36)
I think the criticism of Wilson mainly stems from the perceived lack of impact in the last 2-3 tests rather than the whole year. I think a lot of us would guess that he'd be well below his yearly average of gainline success in that time.
Great stats though
Strewthcobber
Phil Kearns (64)
Very interesting stats - I do wonder if they mean anything though?
That great result against NZ was at Eden Park where we were pretty much never in the game - so it's interesting but hard to take too much from it?
Comparing that game v the England game (which was the worst result)
Carries: 126 v130
Line breaks: 2 v 6
Territory: 43% v 42%
Possession: 41% v 55%
Passes: 162 v 199
Post contact: 307m v 247m
Tackles missed by opp: 11 (NZ) v 15 (Eng)
Kicks: 13 v 26
That great result against NZ was at Eden Park where we were pretty much never in the game - so it's interesting but hard to take too much from it?
Comparing that game v the England game (which was the worst result)
Carries: 126 v130
Line breaks: 2 v 6
Territory: 43% v 42%
Possession: 41% v 55%
Passes: 162 v 199
Post contact: 307m v 247m
Tackles missed by opp: 11 (NZ) v 15 (Eng)
Kicks: 13 v 26
Last edited:
Red Runner
Charlie Fox (21)
One particular poster has been specific about it being a career long issue....
JRugby2
Arch Winning (36)
I suppose that poster wouldn't fit into the "a lot of us" group then.
Wilson
David Wilson (68)
I'm not sure they support the thrust of Payten's article - that Ikitau's inclusion could be more influential for our gainline carrying then Skelton.
The list is presented with the caveat that it's limited to those with 8 or more tests, though it's not clear if that's this year, under Schmidt or all time (very unlikely). If it's under Schmidt it excludes Skelton who Ikitau's impact is being compared to, and if it's this year it also excludes Paisami, the man Ikitau is replacing. Realistically I don't think you can make the point he's trying to make without comparing both Ikitau's gainline carries to Paisami's and Skelton's to Frost/Williams/Hooper, based on who he would be replacing.
Last edited:
JRugby2
Arch Winning (36)
Like most singular stats when viewed in isolation and without context or nuance - yeah they are meaningless
Strewthcobber
Phil Kearns (64)
The most frustrating thing about rugby for a numbers nerd like me - study after study has found no correlation between any stat that is actually measured and actually increasing your chance of winning*
*I believe the one that does stack up, the team that kicks the most wins more often
*I believe the one that does stack up, the team that kicks the most wins more often
Wilson
David Wilson (68)
I believe in the past line out success was a really good indicator, but that was for a period in the early 2000s and hasn't necessarily held long term. But realistically no single stat will ever be a perfect indicator, the game is much too complex for that. Any combination or complex metric that does correlate with winning isn't likely to be permanent either, as it will necessarily change the way teams play, to both take advantage and combat it.
Personally I just wish there were more public stats available, and the methodology for recording them was more open and well defined - what constitutes "post-contact meters"? When is a tackle classed as missed? How are multiple players involved in a tackle credited? etc. Frustratingly this information must exist somewhere, as they have to guide the people recording the stats, but none of the providers seem willing to publish it.
Last edited:
That's also likely to be a correlation not causation issue.
If you're leading you're more likely to increase the rate at which you play a territory game and kick more. If you're trailing you're more likely to run the ball from less advantageous positions.
My take is that you're not winning because you kick more. You're kicking more because you're winning.