Wallabies v All Blacks, Saturday 21st October, Suncorp, Brisbane

[KOB1987]

No point fucking about, may as well get straight into it.

Do the recent similarities of both the Wallabies and Springboks getting trounced at their first meeting with the darkness and then almost reversing the result at the next one indicate that both teams were able to identify some vulnerabilities on their post match analysis?

 

[Warpath]

we have to assume that NZ have relaxed a bit to avoid getting more injuries cause they have some HUGE games coming up in November (Barbarians, France (twice within 3 days), Scotland (4 days later) and Wales) they don't want long term injuries especially not to their playmakers, hooker and captain.

 

[cyclopath]

we have to assume that NZ have relaxed a bit to avoid getting more injuries cause they have some HUGE games coming up in November (Barbarians, France (twice within 3 days), Scotland (4 days later) and Wales) they don't want long term injuries especially not to their playmakers, hooker and captain.

None of those teams will be too much trouble for the ABs who have significant depth across the park. I can't see them giving us any leeway in Brisbane.

 

[Antony]

No point fucking about, may as well get straight into it.

Do the recent similarities of both the Wallabies and Springboks getting trounced at their first meeting with the darkness and then almost reversing the result at the next one indicate that both teams were able to identify some vulnerabilities on their post match analysis?

Yeah good call. I don't reckon the All Blacks are anywhere near invincible - mainly because the defence is leaky. This season, they lost to the Lions, drew with the Lions (for my money if there was a fourth game they would have lost that too), nearly lost in Dunedin, and nearly lost in South Africa. The ABs are still good at pulling it out of the bag, but they would have got pumped by the McCaw/Carter vintage of the team. I'm occasionally fond of the old emotional gambling hedge, so I just put a bit down on the Wallabies at $5.75. They may not be favourites, but I think this is a lot closer than the average punter is expecting.

 

[Up the Guts]

No point fucking about, may as well get straight into it.

Do the recent similarities of both the Wallabies and Springboks getting trounced at their first meeting with the darkness and then almost reversing the result at the next one indicate that both teams were able to identify some vulnerabilities on their post match analysis?

One of the big similarities between the Boks and Wallabies first games was that they both got murdered on turnover ball. If you turn it over against this AB outfit the likes of Barrett and Ioane will make you pay. If you can control possession then I don't think they're as threatening off structured play as some of the All Black teams in the past.

 

[tragic]

I’m guessing no.4 will be the only change to the starting lineup.

 

[Pfitzy]

we have to assume that NZ have relaxed a bit to avoid getting more injuries

No, we really don't.
This is an organisation that prides itself on relentless self-improvement, after all. They aim to be ruthless and make every situation the best it can be
I think there are a couple of weaknesses to the team in terms of individuals, but they are mostly made up for by the excellence of others e.g.
SBW has been very up and down in the last couple of years. I don't think his style of play works that well unless he's got someone like Conrad Smith outside him
Damian McKenzie is a fabulous player with the ball, but defensively can be a bit shit, particularly if Savea is one of the wings. That strategy relies so much on simply scoring more than the opposition. If they won't give you the ball, its a risk
As it is, the ABs have enough grunt and composure in most of their positions to come back from nearly any position, as they displayed in the Welly Bled this year. The only solution is to minimise your mistakes, play your best game, and work hard to counteract any bounce of the ball that goes against you
P.S. FUCK this typing everything in HTML.

 

[Pfitzy]

1 Sio
2 TPN
3 Kepu
4 Arnold
5 Coleman
6 Dempsey
7 Hoooper (capitano)
8 McMahon
9 Genia
10 Foley
11 Hodge
12 Beale
13 TK
14 Koroibete
15 Folau

16 Uelese (Moore was ponderous and penalisable when he came on - thanks Squeak, don't let the door hit etc.)
17 Robertson
18 Ala'alatoa
19 Rodda
20 Timani
21 Phipps
22 Kerevi
23 Rona

 

[jimmydubs]

16 Uelese (Moore was ponderous and penalisable when he came on - thanks Squeak, don't let the door hit etc.)

He looked pretty dynamic in the two tries he had a hand in!
I'm ok with either

 

[Lindommer]

I'd prefer a 6:2 bench. Just sayin'.

 

[Derpus]

Ioane seems to score a lot of his points by burning his opposite number/marker out wide. Koro in defence should be interesting. Great pace and ball and all tackling, non-existent positioning.

Moore's bloody half-neck roll as soon as he came on was as bad as his try assist was good. I still maintain Uelese brings more but i guess he is still incredibly raw.

I don't think Rodda has done enough to even stay in the 23 has he? His stats over both games were terrible, and he barely seemed noticable during his two matches from a qualitative perspective. I'd bring Arnold in with Simmons on the Bench. I don't know who's better but i suspect Cheika will pick Hanigan over Tui on the bench.

Hunt is back with the squad i think? if he's fit i'd rather him on the bench than Kerevi.

 

[fatprop]

I don't think Rodda has done enough to even stay in the 23 has he? His stats over both games were terrible, and he barely seemed noticable during his two matches from a qualitative perspective. I'd bring Arnold in with Simmons on the Bench. I don't know who's better but i suspect Cheika will pick Hanigan over Tui on the bench.

Rodda made some serious impacts, he and Coleman were getting through the gainline

 

[wamberal]

Rodda made some serious impacts, he and Coleman were getting through the gainline

I kept a partidular eye on both of them, Coleman was my MOTM and as you say, Rodda did a whole lot of grunt work. The kind that does not appear in the stats, which is why I would bet my left gonad that Chubby just does not look at numbers at all, at all.

 

[dru]

Defence, especially on the counter, is what the WBs must improve to have a shot. The defensive effort v Pumas would have been torn up by the ABs.

Once that is sorted, and only when it is, do any of the other issues give us a chance.

It’ll be interesting to see if Cheika again reverts to 12 defending at 12.

 

[Up the Guts]

Defence, especially on the counter, is what the WBs must improve to have a shot. The defensive effort v Pumas would have been torn up by the ABs.

Once that is sorted, and only when it is, do any of the other issues give us a chance.

It’ll be interesting to see if Cheika again reverts to 12 defending at 12.

I think our kicking in general play is a bit more judicious than it has been in the past and this may deny the ABs as many opportunities on the counter attack. We found grass a few times against the Pumas and our exits are now usually pretty close to halfway with Beale even getting one to the 10 metre line. You're we'll still have to be better in defence.

 

[dru]

It’s not just the counter from a kick return, though it’s good news you are happy with improvements there. Any turnover ball is immediately an attack from the ABs. It fluent and rapid. And it exposes the barn-dance.

Really interested in seeing how they line up in defence. Those few seconds following turnover are critical.

 

[fatprop]

Defence, especially on the counter, is what the WBs must improve to have a shot. The defensive effort v Pumas would have been torn up by the ABs.

Once that is sorted, and only when it is, do any of the other issues give us a chance.

It’ll be interesting to see if Cheika again reverts to 12 defending at 12.

I don't see the correlation between where a 12 defends at set piece and how the team scrambles and realigns after a turnover

 

[Derpus]

I don't see the correlation between where a 12 defends at set piece and how the team scrambles and realigns after a turnover

I think the idea is that as Beale doesn't defend at 12 but attacks there (sometimes) at set piece, when they turn it over directly after that set piece, we have to rejig our defense so everyone is set, potentially leaving gaps.

 

[fatprop]

I think the idea is that as Beale doesn't defend at 12 but attacks there (sometimes) at set piece, when they turn it over directly after that set piece, we have to rejig our defense so everyone is set, potentially leaving gaps.

But that isn't what happens, Beale doesn't immediately start running back the wing or 2nd 15 on a turnover, they all try to realign, scramble and set the defensive screen; they fill in wherever they are and make do

 

[dru]

I don't see the correlation between where a 12 defends at set piece and how the team scrambles and realigns after a turnover

Fair enough to. Look, I was hunting for improved shuffle D at the turnover after the disastrous Bled #1. For sure for Bled #2 we had a much improved performance and one of the obvious changes was Beale (generally) defending at 12. He did great.

Since then he has returned to the D positioning from Bled #1. I was looking at this as a sort of litmus test as to Cheika’s thinking. And you are right there are many ways to skin a cat. So my “litmus text” might prove poor.

FWIW I don’t at all have a problem with protecting (or reducing risk) to the key playmakers. Right now that’s Genia, Foley and Beale. But if we are going to be shuffling at turnover we sure as hell need a plan against the ABs. That plan needs:
x to be very efficient
x rehersed to the point of being natural

The fact that we have been doing something different after the ABs does little to instill confidence when we next meet. Especially if the system has changed from the partial success (where 12 defending at 12 would be a fair litmus test.)