Wallabies at the Rugby World Cup 2011

[Inside Shoulder]

Not quite on the same level of success, but a bigger swap in terms of positions - Eric Rush had played flanker at first class level for about 5 years for Auckland, North Harbour and had even the Barbarians before he switched to the wing where he played about 10 tests for the AB's.

I think we are talking Walllabies, otherwise we'd have Dan Carter from 1/2 to 5/8, Lomu from flanker to winger....me from centre to flanker

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm the biggest atheist ever, but I'm praying that Horne hasn't actually broken his cheekbone.

If McCabe goes home, we have to bring over Beau Robinson or Hodgson.

At what point did he get the injury that might have doen that?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

vince Lombardi: "show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser"

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Call in Tom Carter

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Why do the organisers organize this sort of rubbish?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/image.cfm?c_id=4&gal_cid=4&gallery_id=121684#8066240

 

[Major Spliff Biggins]

Whilst we can all see that the OP's article was sensationalist drivel, I particularly annoyed with the use of the Zavros quote.

That piece was from an article in which he stated that Ireland won by being the better team and executing a superior game plan. He mentioned the weather as a contributing factor, but was at pains to point out that it was Irelands excellent performance that won them the game.

Some trolling methinks.

 

[ACT Crusader]

It's not a reason. But the rain helped negate one of the Wallabies great advantages, namely the speed and width in their game. Would England prefer to play the ABs on a dry or wet field? The Irish defensive coach, Les Kiss, said as much in a Ruggamatrix podcast. "The conditions didn't help Australia,and we weren't going to help them either"

Perhaps the rain didn't negate any advantage OZ may have had, but rather exposed their weaknesses. Its NZ in the middle of September, rain is more likely than not and any rugby game plan and execution should have tactics to suit.

England are a fit, fast side these days. Their attack is nowhere near as narrow as it used to be, so I can't really answer that question with other than a, 'who knows'.

 

[fatprop]

Most of the "whinging" was Aus pundits commenting that we weren't good enough at managing the game, Ireland were able to massage the game's tempo to suit themselves.

Our team, and captain, were not good enough or smart enough to counter it.

Spinning that into Aus arrogance by selective newspaper quoting is just dumb trolling

 

[potogold]

in fairness, how did they play ugly negative rugby? defence from my knowlege, is to stop scoring?? so what an australian calls ugly negative rugby, an irishman would call positive rugby because there was only 6 points conceded? thats the point of defence.

do some journalists honestly think ireland should have been soft, and let the australians get quick ball, allowing them to unleash one of the most talented backlines in rugby?? c'mon.......:

attack wasnt that bad or negative in any way, they played to the conditions. so i assume the negative rugby is directed at defence.

:angryfire: i do hate all media, all over the world. for example that england drinking thing is a joke. some journos just dont want to give it up. theres a RWC going on if they didnt know, most of them are probably rejects from the gutter press.......

 

[Jnor]

At what point did he get the injury that might have doen that?

Apparently when he got smashed in the first tackle. Haven't heard any confirmation yet though

 

[Dan54]

Hell as so a couple of journos were a bit crap, it happens, I have said and will continue to say it is one mans opinion. I know you will always get some people who will look for the negatives in their team, some will look at the positives in other team, others will think it because so and so got hurt, or ref etc, it doesn't make Aussies bad losers , some are as in every country, but most accept they were beaten by a better team on the day. I do disagree with people who thought it a bad game, I thought it was bloody good and Irish were probably coached better for that game. I do think perhaps that one or two journalists think a game has to be wide open and running everywhere to be a good game, and thats where they come across as poor, the beauty of rugby is you can play it so many different ways, in my opinion all which are great when done right.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I have - its fractured: he could do a Lockyer....

 

[Inside Shoulder]

In Australia thats because followers of union have a sort of cultural cringe: we feel that we have to be trying to out rate league and AFL - that it is somehow our destiny to be the number 1 winter code on TV and all efforts should be put into that: open rugby will attract the uninformed masses. truth is nothing will attract the uninformed masses in the end and the players at the grass roots are what the game is about.

 

[Athilnaur]

I wouldn't say the Irish played ugly negative rugby, it was well executed, and with great commitment. The pace of the game was expertly controlled also, a crucial part of sport. But I would say that attractive rugby has both good defense and good offense. It seems to me that's the whole point of the game, forwards set the platform and create momentum, releasing the backs to exploit space. To win. Winning by penalties is something different. For the future of the game I'd like to see more rugby using the whole team, where a few tries are scored.

But the key word is win. At the end of the day you won't see any Aussie saying after a loss, 'it's ok, we played prettier rugby'. Like everyone else, we want to win. We didn't. The scales were weighed and we were found wanting. When teams lose a game, players invariably say 'we'll learn from that'. In this case a fair few lessons were given, here's hoping they were all learnt.

 

[Blob]

in fairness, how did they play ugly negative rugby? defence from my knowlege, is to stop scoring?? so what an australian calls ugly negative rugby, an irishman would call positive rugby because there was only 6 points conceded? thats the point of defence.

do some journalists honestly think ireland should have been soft, and let the australians get quick ball, allowing them to unleash one of the most talented backlines in rugby?? c'mon.......:

attack wasnt that bad or negative in any way, they played to the conditions. so i assume the negative rugby is directed at defence.

:angryfire: i do hate all media, all over the world. for example that england drinking thing is a joke. some journos just dont want to give it up. theres a RWC going on if they didnt know, most of them are probably rejects from the gutter press.......

Potogold, there was nothing negative about Ireland's play at all. Not one thing. They played to their strengths, as all teams do. Their strengths were stronger on the day than Australia's strengths.

 

[Army_Gav]

I'll echo the same thoughts as others.

Send Horne and McCabe home. Bring in another openside for f**k sakes while we can.

The other player is an interesting question. Most of our backs are utilities, capable of playing 12/13+ eg. JOC (James O'Connor), AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Diggers, Beale. Rooster is the only real specialist winger.

Do we want another specialist <insert position> or a utility? As much as I hate to admit it, you'd have to throw up Giteau's name at this point with the latter.

Btw. Did anyone else loving seeing Samo running between the "tram tracks" like a freight train?

 

[John the baptist]

Todays result showed the great side of positive attacking rugby. It may have been a poorish team to play against but you you can only beat whats put in front of you. Last week Ireland countered Australian attacking play very effectively. That game does not change the fact that Australia are close to the top of the IRB rankings and Ireland are well below them.

I acknowledge our pool win but accept that it is meaningless unless we win the group and the quarter final.

The fact that Ireland used an effective defensive strategy does not make Australia bad and Ireland good.

We will see what is good and bad at the end of the tournament.

Lets enjoy the rest of it.

 

[Athilnaur]

Won't have any choice but to send them home surely. Ant too potentially but he may wing it. Docs will look pretty closely.

Taps does seem a strong possibility, a 7 is a must, I won't let the opportunity pass to say Tom Carter, who had a big year for the Tahs, is in great form and is a big game player, but unseen at test level and is a defensive player who trucks. The haters here would have a meltdown

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

If Ant and Horne are both out, I don't know why they would bring in Turner who is a winger/fullback. you have enough people who can cover those positions at the moment. JOC (James O'Connor), Mitchell, Beale, and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) can all cover full back and realistically they can all cover wing (beale has pace).
plus Digby coming back onto the wing.

Two centres injured means a centre has to come in along with a 7 of course!

George Smith is the easy answer, he's already over there!

Probably Beau (tho he wasn't flash against Samoa).

Let's face it, whoever comes over as back cover isn't going to be starting, they will be providing cover. I think you can get away with taps, but he is a risk as he has never played a test. Carter ditto and he doesn't seem to be in Dingo's frame.

Hard to look past Giteau.

 

[Godfrey]

Said this in another thread but I want left-field choices who might bring some spice and x-factor. Some choices who have played and beaten some big boys in super rugby this year include Liam Gill and Ben Tapuai. They'd slay Russia and I think the most they'd be needed for after that is possible a bench appearance in the finals. The beauty is no one knows exactly what these guys are capable of, including the opposition. I know it won't happen and we'll go for the Giteaus and Turners, but I think it might be worth the risk.

By the way I'm aware of the counter-arguments (and oddly somewhat agree with some of them) including "Gill's too small/young/inexperience" and "Matt Giteau has 92 tests" and "But what about Mat "Samoa" Hodgson"?