Wallabies 31 Man Squad

[Scotty]

Plenty of Australian teams at various levels, over many years, have tried to throw the ball around without doing the hard graft.

Frankly, the hard graft, executed well, can be just as entertaining (if that is what we are talking about), as a series of scintillating backline movements.


I exclude the Queensland 13 man maul, a blight on the game, no matter how well it is executed. How do you feel about it?

It has its place. But I don't want to see it all the time.

I like rugby more than any other sport because of its variety of play and of people that can play it. I watch to see spectacular lineouts, hard scrums, tough breakdowns, big tackles, passing and running skills, variation in attack and defense. None of this I call 'ugly'.

What I do call ugly is a team that wants nothing more than to not play the game. They do all they can to slow the ball, keep it out of play and kick it as far away from their own hands as possible. They take excessive time with lineouts, have a break at every scrum and infringe heavily on opposition ball at the ruck.

 

[Scotty]

Ugly to me is constant aimless kicking (especially games of aerial ping pong and forcing back), passing the ball to stationary pods of forwards who get no go forward, skill errors, crash ball after crash ball, killing the ball at the breakdown, copious scrum resets and driving mauls that go nowhere.

Attractive rugby to me contains any combination of the following: set pieces that actually restart the game, good handling/passing, kicks that find their mark and generally advance the cause of the attacking team, good hits in defence, quick ball from the breakdown, big forwards smashing it up at pace around the fringes (also known as good pick and drive), backline moves that break the line, driving mauls that advance the pill down the paddock and running play that involves all fifteen players in a team.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I'll think of other things later.

Just read your post after sending my own. Looks like we are on the same page.

 

[Paradox]

We can seriously own the breakdown against the Lions. Robinson and now Fainga'a have done some serious damange. Pocock would have been amazing against them but Hooper and Gill (and maybe Smith pending fitness) will cause them massive problems.

 

[Zander]

Um, did you watch that game?

Did you see how much ball they kicked away? The difference is their kicks were accurate, chased extremely well and France were pressured in the lineout.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Did you see how much ball they kicked away? The difference is their kicks were accurate, chased extremely well and France were pressured in the lineout.

I'd describe the AB performance as clinical rather than ugly. They executed the basics well and took their chances. They also defended mightily. The French were pretty awful in that second half.

 

[USARugger]

Did you see how much ball they kicked away? The difference is their kicks were accurate, chased extremely well and France were pressured in the lineout.

82 runs to 44 kicks..70% of possession kicked away, huh? They also doubled the running meters of the French (535 to 269) with 41% of the possession (49% first half and 33% second half).

Now speaking of numbers that actually exist, why don't we talk about the fact that the All Blacks missed 25 out of 121 tackles..or nearly 20% of their tackles? Is it rust or is there a chink in the Darkness' armor?

 

[Brumbieman]

New Zealand have been distinctly average, aside for about 50mins, since the world cup.


The fact that we've been worse as have the Boks, is the only reason they haven't lost more. England thrashed them, ffs. We should be doing the same.

 

[fatprop]

FP I think you are confusing a well executed conservative game plan with the rubbish that was played by the pre-2013 Tahs (and the Wallabies). The ABs have played poorly on occasion but they have NEVER approached a game with a "try not to lose" mentality. They go out with the will and belief to win. The game plans from the Tahs and in my opinion from the Wallabies just do not seek to win in and of themselves, they seek to minimise the points an opponent can score, hoping that the "X players" can create some opportunity for the Wallabies. Nothing is created by team work in game plans employed to date.

And therein lies the difference between a true conservative game plan, it still seeks to win by domination of the field position, as the 2003 English RWC side did. They had safe dominant forward play and a sublime kicker from the hand and the tee. The Boks of 2008 has perfected the attacking kick chase game and again had a sublime kicker from hand and tee. See the differences.

The Wallabies kick out of danger, but all too often it is poorly executed. Do they have a kicker of international class?

As Gagger posted it has much to do with execution, and execution is heavily influenced by factor such as team balance and tactics and not just the individual skill sets of the players.

Do not confuse a conservative plan with a negative plan.

I see the difference between playing conservatively and negatively as just how well the plan is executed.

But we are just playing semantics.

The Brumbies showed last night that playing conservatively has it moments, they tried to put pressure on their set piece, they executed well and smothered the Lions defensively - keeping them behind the advantage line, whilst the Brumbies played no rugby in their own half

I have seen no evidence that the Wobs won't attempt to do near the same thing and it can have it's moments

It will only be called "ugly" if we lose

 

[wamberal]

It will only be called "ugly" if we lose

And if we try to play open, running, rugby and lose, that will be called "ugly", too. It will be ugly, because of mistakes and errors of judgement, not because of intent or game plan.


Good execution is what matters, an absence of errors, accuracy at the set pieces and breakdowns. Get the little things right, and the big things will follow.

 

[scaraby]

Ugly Rugby?

 

[Dumbledore]

With reports that Lilo is likely to get the 12 jersey for the first Test, will the frothing hordes who were getting outraged that Deans would pick McCabe because 'you just know he will' admit that maybe they were wrong? Or is the narrative going to shift back to, sure he picked Lilo but how much better would we have looked with Cooper at flyhalf?

 

[Braveheart81]

With reports that Lilo is likely to get the 12 jersey for the first Test, will the frothing hordes who were getting outraged that Deans would pick McCabe because 'you just know he will' admit that maybe they were wrong? Or is the narrative going to shift back to, sure he picked Lilo but how much better would we have looked with Cooper at flyhalf?

Of course not. The argument will go back to saying that Deans would have picked McCabe if he'd had more time back from injury... just like when people were complaining about the initial 25 man squad saying that it was crap because Deans would have picked McCabe if he'd been healthy.

People used to complain that they couldn't understand what Deans was doing. Now they complain that they know what he would have done if he'd been able to.

 

[Dumbledore]

Of course not. The argument will go back to saying that Deans would have picked McCabe if he'd had more time back from injury. just like when people were complaining about the initial 25 man squad saying that it was crap because Deans would have picked McCabe if he'd been healthy.

People used to complain that they couldn't understand what Deans was doing. Now they complain that they know what he would have done if he'd been able to.

Ah of course. Silly me.

 

[KOB1987]

when is the team announced?

 

[Braveheart81]

when is the team announced?

Tomorrow.

 

[KOB1987]

Tomorrow.

thank you

 

[p.Tah]

Cully seems to have been given a heads up. I do like the team.

Wallabies XV: Benn Robinson, Stephen Moore, Ben Alexander, James Horwill (c), Kane Douglas, Ben Mowen, Michael Hooper, Wycliff Palu,Will Genia, James O'Connor, Digby Ioane, Christian Lealiifano, Adam Ashley-Cooper, Israel Folau, Berrick Barnes.

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-union/uni...abies-debut-against-lions-20130619-2oibi.html

 

[lewisr]

With reports that Lilo is likely to get the 12 jersey for the first Test, will the frothing hordes who were getting outraged that Deans would pick McCabe because 'you just know he will' admit that maybe they were wrong? Or is the narrative going to shift back to, sure he picked Lilo but how much better would we have looked with Cooper at flyhalf?

Those of us that you so affectionately labelled "frothing hordes" will be happy if he chooses a fit, in form back, in position for the first test. It would be a welcome change from what we are accustomed to. Whether Deans is able to use him to the best of his ability is another question. Sorry if we don't share your optimism about Robbie. This is a place to question and discuss the decisions that have and are to be made. Take a step back and stop assuming that alternate opinions to your own have no merit.

 

[Braveheart81]

Dumbledore - so there's the answer.

Picking Lealiifano was the right choice for any other coach but considering Deans doesn't know how to use him it's the wrong choice.

 

[Try-ranosaurus Rex]

Picking Lealiifano was the right choice for any other coach but considering Deans doesn't know how to use him it's the wrong choice.

I agree with 95% of your posts Braveheart.... BUT optimism, where is your optimism.... CL will rip it up!!!