dru
David Wilson (68)
I could stop at removing the clowning around in the D barn dance - completely different team.
Wallabies v All Blacks Saturday 26th August at Forsyth Barr Stadium, Dunedin
- Thread starter Froggy
- Start date
- Status
I could stop at removing the clowning around in the D barn dance - completely different team.
Dusrispict, bro.
ShtinaTina
Alex Ross (28)
Oh dear. It's happened. Cycle has fallen off the deep end.
S
sidelineview
Guest
It would make a difference but me thinks you exaggerate somewhat ... it would take a lot more than that to turn it into a ''completely'' different team.
Having good basic catch and pass skills and tackling technique learnt from a much earlier age wouldn't go astray?
Anyway, I hope they win and the ARU board is dismissed overnight. And I win lotto.
i sincerely hope the Wallabies put in a much improved performance.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
With a few exceptions, man on man the Wallabies are not so inferior to the ABs (and for that matter Scotland et al) to cause them to lose by 20 odd points and let in 50 or more. It is the structures that are failing moreso, and for that the coaching staff have to take the bulk of the responsibility.
Looking to Bledisloe 2, I fear that the ABs will be improved with the return of the World best hooker, Dane Coles, and will as a team be highly motivated to play out the whole 80 minutes. The enclosed stadium will just enhance their prospects. Otoh, the Wallabies will be weakened if anything by the changes to the second row, the continuation of a poorly performing backrow, the probability of a continuation of the shambles that passes for a defensive structure with two players, DHP and TK, who haven't even got the benefit of trying to play to it last week. So it looks very likely there'll be a bigger margin between the two sides by the end of the match.
Looking to Bledisloe 2, I fear that the ABs will be improved with the return of the World best hooker, Dane Coles, and will as a team be highly motivated to play out the whole 80 minutes. The enclosed stadium will just enhance their prospects. Otoh, the Wallabies will be weakened if anything by the changes to the second row, the continuation of a poorly performing backrow, the probability of a continuation of the shambles that passes for a defensive structure with two players, DHP and TK, who haven't even got the benefit of trying to play to it last week. So it looks very likely there'll be a bigger margin between the two sides by the end of the match.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
Ummmm. I'm pretty sure I saw him out there last week. I think we actually scored more tries than we let in while he was out there.
I'm really looking forward to the day you actually post something that resembles some form of positivity!
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
The "barn dance"defensive system wasn't so much in play in the second half when the Wallabies pretty well dominated possession. And from my viewing, TK did defend in the 13 spot when required - not at 12, or 10, or 11, or 14. The two halves last week were essentially two different games. I think the players just took things into their own hands in the second half.
Why do you not think that identifying and commenting on weaknesses that need urgent attention is not positive? I think the most negative approach is the stick your head in the sand in blind faith that the master coach has all the answers.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
1st half scrum defence was usually Foley, Kerevi, Rona, Speight, with Beale on the blind side
Early in the second Kurindrani was a straight swap for Kerevi at 12
Later on after Hodge came on he was at 12, with Kurindrani at 13 and Speight open wing and Beale still blindside
Interestingly, when Rona scored, the All Blacks were lined up as Ben Smith at 10 (no-one on the blind wing), Barrent at 12, SBW at 13 and ALB on the open wing - Wobs weren't the only ones moving around
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Standard if there is no blindside though - blind winger comes into the line and everyone else shuffles.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Look I don't know how to explain it further. One last attempt and I'll leave it as a disagree that isn't changing.
CHeika is selecting players out of place in attack, then necessitating player switching as the ball is turned over. As a concept it has some validity, but the problem is he has chosen an extreme version of the switch, and Grey also has complicated it by making it different in different parts of the field.
It seems to me clear as day the result in the first half last week was completely due to utter confusion of the players trying to manifest the strategy in the heat of a game.
Had Cheika chosen a different strategy that result would have been different. Had he used the same intended strategy, but developed a more progressive implementation, to allow the players to gel with it, different result. Had he taken the time to do a pre-test game to test the system in anger, different result.
Had he stuck with the same selections, but kept them in their form positions, no switching, different result (10 Foley, 11 Speight, 12 Kerevi, 13 Rona, 14 Folau, 15 Beale)
Everything comes back to Cheika in that first half. Swap him out, different result. Take Grey with him, different result. Might not be a win, but that first half embarrassment is completely dampened by simply allowing the players to work a strategy without confusion.
At the end of the day, imo, the Kiwi press was right. Cheika really IS a clown. He owns the D debacle in that game all on his own.
S
sidelineview
Guest
I get it, and along with the fact that the skills coach admitting they cant catch and pass properly, it was farcical. One on one tackling technique leaves a lot to be desired as well, although it becomes more difficult to tackle when you're continually on the back foot.
I dont discount the coaches accountability at all but I cant see much improvement unless the whole system is dramatically changed, which can only happen with new leadership. That general agreement with rugby fans been done to death.
Whats happening today, and I'm stating the obvious, is the result of years of poor management and neglect of grassroots.
Just that one statement from the skills coach that the Wallabies cant catch and pass properly is indicative of the general lack of proper coaching and development starting from junior and school days and progressing through the ranks. That just shouldn't happen.
The Kiwis dont have that problem.
So if its not the coaching it will be something else. Poor skills by the players, a lack of depth etc etc .....
Producing a good National team starts in the Head Office and the development begins with juniors and schools. I'm not exactly a genius stating the obvious am I?
Considering the money wasted on Super Rugby that could have been put into grassroots development and promotion and growth of the game, which should never have been neglected in the first place, the problem can only be solved by getting rid of the other clowns; the main clowns in the circus, those that run the game, and then to start again.
Changing the coaching staff should be an easy task, but that brings up another point. The lack of good coaches. Coaches along with players need to be developed as well.
I dont discount the coaches accountability at all but I cant see much improvement unless the whole system is dramatically changed, which can only happen with new leadership. That general agreement with rugby fans been done to death.
Whats happening today, and I'm stating the obvious, is the result of years of poor management and neglect of grassroots.
Just that one statement from the skills coach that the Wallabies cant catch and pass properly is indicative of the general lack of proper coaching and development starting from junior and school days and progressing through the ranks. That just shouldn't happen.
The Kiwis dont have that problem.
So if its not the coaching it will be something else. Poor skills by the players, a lack of depth etc etc .....
Producing a good National team starts in the Head Office and the development begins with juniors and schools. I'm not exactly a genius stating the obvious am I?
Considering the money wasted on Super Rugby that could have been put into grassroots development and promotion and growth of the game, which should never have been neglected in the first place, the problem can only be solved by getting rid of the other clowns; the main clowns in the circus, those that run the game, and then to start again.
Changing the coaching staff should be an easy task, but that brings up another point. The lack of good coaches. Coaches along with players need to be developed as well.
S
sidelineview
Guest
Bailing out Super Rugby franchises?
How much money has been spent on grassroots development?
how much consideration has been given to grassroots development as opposed to building from the top down?
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Do a balance sheet, mate, weigh up all the revenues and all the costs. I think you will find that Super Rugby is a signifiance net contributor to the game's finances, taken over a long period.
It comes down to a matter of judgement in any business. How much to you spend on maintaining your revenue source, and how much do you reinvest in R & D?
It is the easiest thing in the world to say that we should have been putting more into grassroots rugby. I actually heard Peter Fitz talk last night about Izzy's million dollar contract, in the context of money that could have been better spent.
For starters, Izzy brings in a helluva lot more than he costs. He is one of our very few famous faces, just check all the times you see his mug on your television screen, or in your favourite paper. For seconds, the million is not "wasted". It buys us one of our best players.
If all the Super Rugby franchises were wiped out tomorrow, where would the money come from for the grass roots anyway?
It is chicken and egg. And I will continue to point out that there is no simple solution. Finally, if the "grass roots" is not largely self-fertilising and self-financing, as it is in league and AFL, not to mention soccer, the game does not have a future.
When the game went professional, everything changed. I am bewildered that so many supporters do not seem to understand that.
We are now in, or moving towards, a situation where we will all have to pay to watch our favourite sports. We are the grass roots, we all have to put our hands in our pockets.
Start digging.
It comes down to a matter of judgement in any business. How much to you spend on maintaining your revenue source, and how much do you reinvest in R & D?
It is the easiest thing in the world to say that we should have been putting more into grassroots rugby. I actually heard Peter Fitz talk last night about Izzy's million dollar contract, in the context of money that could have been better spent.
For starters, Izzy brings in a helluva lot more than he costs. He is one of our very few famous faces, just check all the times you see his mug on your television screen, or in your favourite paper. For seconds, the million is not "wasted". It buys us one of our best players.
If all the Super Rugby franchises were wiped out tomorrow, where would the money come from for the grass roots anyway?
It is chicken and egg. And I will continue to point out that there is no simple solution. Finally, if the "grass roots" is not largely self-fertilising and self-financing, as it is in league and AFL, not to mention soccer, the game does not have a future.
When the game went professional, everything changed. I am bewildered that so many supporters do not seem to understand that.
We are now in, or moving towards, a situation where we will all have to pay to watch our favourite sports. We are the grass roots, we all have to put our hands in our pockets.
Start digging.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
You are correct but that will take 10+ years to filter down and then build up.
Easiest fix is a clean out of the Board, a clean out of Cheika, Grey, Larkham and Mario and the appointment of a new coach and underlings.
I only know of one bloke (untested at this level) who has the smarts, enthusiasm and ability to instill a real die hard culture and self belief in the Wallabies : Matt Taylor.
However if that was the case then 1 or 3 very experienced Assistants would be required. Byrne would be a keeper.
I honestly believe we have the necessary talent in this country. Some of Chek's decisions have been labelled as favouritism (no question there), some selections are just unwarranted and playing some guys out of position borders on bizarre. These types of things have led to the culture and attitude hitting an all time low (Forget about the Pressers and interviews, they are just telling us mugs what we like to hear).
Skill, fitness, defence and attack are all important but they are fucking useless unless the attitude and culture that the lads are a part of, is of a very high standard.
S
sidelineview
Guest
And which all comes back to the master plan orchestrated by the people running the game.
I dont pretend to have all the answers; i'm just another disgruntled fan, but if you want to build a good strong house, you work from a plan and start with the foundations/footings. If they're not strong enough, the flash house you've built will come tumbling down eventually. Thats no chicken or egg argument.
If grassroots is neglected you dont have the quality teams to compete in something like Super Rugby and people dont support it anyway, and go back to watching something like SS which is more entertaining and better value.
Something like SS is a connection with grassroots and tribalism which people associate with. Super Rugby is a wank.
The decision makers lost a connection with the grassroots level and what is really important.
A similar thing happened with the Super League war.
Mentioning AFL, why has that game made significant inroads into junior and school sport? Now its a major player even in formerly traditionally strong rugby schools. And where is the growth in rugby from the nursery levels?
I didnt say there was a simple solution, and I'm not sure what the solution is, but a good start would be to piss the current administrators off and start again.
If photos of the main players were on a bulletin board it wouldn't be too hard to replace Chek and co photos with someone elses.
Its not as easy to replace the administrators with worthy replacements.
There's a of fences to be mended.
I dont pretend to have all the answers; i'm just another disgruntled fan, but if you want to build a good strong house, you work from a plan and start with the foundations/footings. If they're not strong enough, the flash house you've built will come tumbling down eventually. Thats no chicken or egg argument.
If grassroots is neglected you dont have the quality teams to compete in something like Super Rugby and people dont support it anyway, and go back to watching something like SS which is more entertaining and better value.
Something like SS is a connection with grassroots and tribalism which people associate with. Super Rugby is a wank.
The decision makers lost a connection with the grassroots level and what is really important.
A similar thing happened with the Super League war.
Mentioning AFL, why has that game made significant inroads into junior and school sport? Now its a major player even in formerly traditionally strong rugby schools. And where is the growth in rugby from the nursery levels?
I didnt say there was a simple solution, and I'm not sure what the solution is, but a good start would be to piss the current administrators off and start again.
If photos of the main players were on a bulletin board it wouldn't be too hard to replace Chek and co photos with someone elses.
Its not as easy to replace the administrators with worthy replacements.
There's a of fences to be mended.
S
sidelineview
Guest
Building a culture .. a very good point.
Its no point focussing on the coulda woulda and shouldas now except to learn from the mistakes.
But the truth is it shoulda been acted upon more than just +10 years ago which woulda improved the current situation.
- Status