B
BRIX
Guest
Not calling out any names, but does anyone reply to positive real shit anymore besides bickering and gassing up refs...I'm just saying.
- Status
Our forwards are just too soft, every time we get the ABs into a difficult position they revert to driving right through the middle of our forwards and we bottle it.
The same thing happened to the Tahs vs the Highlanders, they confronted the Tahs pigs physically right down the middle and they crumpled.
On Saturday night we matched them filling it wide so in the second half while we spread out in defense, they picked up the ball and went right up the middle whether by mauling, hard scrummaging or pick and goes.
And Pocock isn't the best flanker
B
BRIX
Guest
Well said Fatprop. A huge oversight is captaincy and decision making for us too. As my uncle use to say to me..." young dumb, full of cu*"
Richo
John Thornett (49)
I don't think the ref was to blame -- although Lawrence was not only inconsistent within the game, he was very inconsistent with the rest of the 3N reffing in the way he called the breakdown. We could argue ad nauseum (and appear to be doing just that) about which decisions were more damaging / unfair / wrong for whom.
Something only touched on briefly here is the use of the bench. Fatigue was a huge problem and yet the bench barely got a run. It's no wonder we faded utterly in the last 20 minutes. By the time Deans rung the changes, the momentum was 100% with the ABs and too difficult to snatch back. Genia, Cooper and Giteau all had bad games, so what was to be lost by giving Burgo, Barnes and A. Finger a run?
Something only touched on briefly here is the use of the bench. Fatigue was a huge problem and yet the bench barely got a run. It's no wonder we faded utterly in the last 20 minutes. By the time Deans rung the changes, the momentum was 100% with the ABs and too difficult to snatch back. Genia, Cooper and Giteau all had bad games, so what was to be lost by giving Burgo, Barnes and A. Finger a run?
Scotty
David Codey (61)
It is likely that JOC (James O'Connor) saw McCaw disengage, and then assumed the scrum was over so rushed up. Therefore also likely that McCaw was the first indiscretion.
TheRiddler
Dave Cowper (27)
Welcome to the forum (I think). Before you make any further posts, I suggest you take off your rose-coloured glasses and actually study the footage. If you are going to make claims and statements, it helps to use a modicum of accuracy. As plenty of footage and photos show, The Cheat was well away from the scrum whilst the ball was still in there and Read was still attached and even further away when Read picked up the ball.
As you will have seen from the majority of post-game posts in this thread, generally the Wallaby supporters are not saying this incident cost us the game and there are numerous examples of where the Wallabies perhaps got away with a few. You may also note that most of us agree that the Wallabies are not a patch on the All Blacks at the moment and also agree that there have been some very strange selection policies. All that said and done, we look forward to seeing you next year
Hope your fishing exploits catch a few other juicy specimens as well.
Does anyone here not on crack expect any team, when playing the All Blacks, to dominate for 80 mins?
Of course you're not. You do well if you get 40 minutes, and if you get 60 minutes, well fuck me, hold your kicks and you'll have the game.
Gits didn't. That's all there was in it, fact. We'd scored the tries, we'd put on the pressure, the kicks just didn't go over. No amount of bench use or forward ticker could make those kicks go between the poles.
As for the WBs, of course they were spent, they'd just dominated the ABs for 60mins, (forgetting the 8 timezones and a test at altitude last weekend). Aus didn't LET the game get away, an excellent team put in a great 20 mins and wrestled back the momentum.
This is a fucking armwrestle with a gorilla and its always been the same. Even in our little golden fantasy world of the Farr-Jones to Eales era, they were generally close fought tests riding on final kicks. That we shoulda had 7+ points up on these guys is significant.
Some say DC was out, well so was half our forward pack. Even if this was B team vs B team, ours just showed they know how to properly compete for the first time in while.
Because of this IMO, this was a very significant test match for the Wallabies, regardless of the desperately disappointing scoreline. I doubt it'll have been lost on Henry and co, even if it's lost on a few here.
Of course you're not. You do well if you get 40 minutes, and if you get 60 minutes, well fuck me, hold your kicks and you'll have the game.
Gits didn't. That's all there was in it, fact. We'd scored the tries, we'd put on the pressure, the kicks just didn't go over. No amount of bench use or forward ticker could make those kicks go between the poles.
As for the WBs, of course they were spent, they'd just dominated the ABs for 60mins, (forgetting the 8 timezones and a test at altitude last weekend). Aus didn't LET the game get away, an excellent team put in a great 20 mins and wrestled back the momentum.
This is a fucking armwrestle with a gorilla and its always been the same. Even in our little golden fantasy world of the Farr-Jones to Eales era, they were generally close fought tests riding on final kicks. That we shoulda had 7+ points up on these guys is significant.
Some say DC was out, well so was half our forward pack. Even if this was B team vs B team, ours just showed they know how to properly compete for the first time in while.
Because of this IMO, this was a very significant test match for the Wallabies, regardless of the desperately disappointing scoreline. I doubt it'll have been lost on Henry and co, even if it's lost on a few here.
Scott Allen
Trevor Allan (34)
RedsHappy - thanks for the compliment but far from falling back in love with Giteau, I've watched the game again play by play to prepare our stats and stand by my earlier thoughts on Giteau that he wasn't bad (apart from his kicking). I see John Eales thought the same thing this morning "... it was hard to fault a Wallaby, Matt Giteau missed four kicks and that ultimately proved the difference, but he contributed strongly." I definitely think the Wallabies need to replace him as their first choice kicker.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Well said Gagger. As some of our Kiwi members said, the boot was on the other foot for a period of time there when we seemed always to have the ability to win the tight ones.
The fact that we played 50-60 minutes of good footy against the best team in the world (and perhaps one of the best in history) and had our noses in front the whole time is a big step up from where we've been. Compare this to Melbourne, where we got blown off the park. Or the results last year.
It's not good enough right now, but at least the direction is the right one. That said, the goal kicking needs to be sorted out. It's an important part of the game and Gits has cost us three tight matches in 12 months with inaccuracy.
The fact that we played 50-60 minutes of good footy against the best team in the world (and perhaps one of the best in history) and had our noses in front the whole time is a big step up from where we've been. Compare this to Melbourne, where we got blown off the park. Or the results last year.
It's not good enough right now, but at least the direction is the right one. That said, the goal kicking needs to be sorted out. It's an important part of the game and Gits has cost us three tight matches in 12 months with inaccuracy.
Top Bloke
Ward Prentice (10)
I agree 100% with you on this. What most fans forget is that each test is a NEW game. Sure the AB's, Wobs, Boks et all approach each game expecting to win, but they never expect to win just becasue they won the last game. They put in the work, devise their tactics, train their guts out and on that basis expect to get a result. I can guarantee Ted, Shag & Smith will be working just as hard on their plans regardless of a win or a loss. I'd bet Deans does the same. He'll have been bouyed by the performances of McCalman, Beale, Turner, and possibly be thinking he got more to work with now than at the start of the Tri-Nations.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
I agree that apart from kicking, he wasn't bad, however he wasn't good either and we could expect our most experienced and most highly rated back to be good. If the 'leader' of our backline isn't good, then how can we expect the remainder of our backline to improve? At the very least he hasn't been good enough to warrant automatic selection in the next game, or on the spring tour. We need to start looking at the options, and seeing how different styles could change the balance of the backline (eg Fa'ainga, JOC (James O'Connor), Barnes).
Scott Allen
Trevor Allan (34)
Agree that "not bad" shouldn't guarantee selection next game. At the same time I think that selections should be based on players playing better than the guy in a position for a change to be warranted. For example, I think JOC (James O'Connor) has done a pretty fair job on the wing given he's been playing out of position but Turner's performance was better than JOC (James O'Connor) and I think he deserves to be promoted in place of JOC (James O'Connor) when Mitchell comes back.
I don't think Fainga'a has done anything in the test matches (albeit with very little game time) to warrant going ahead of Giteau.
JOC (James O'Connor) and Barnes have showed some form but have they outplayed Giteau? JOC (James O'Connor) - think we need to see him play at 12 on tour to answer this but not against the AB's in the next game. Barnes - could mount a case that he has and I wouldn't argue with him going to 12 but I doubt Robbie will make this move for the next game against the AB's in Hong Kong.
I don't think Fainga'a has done anything in the test matches (albeit with very little game time) to warrant going ahead of Giteau.
JOC (James O'Connor) and Barnes have showed some form but have they outplayed Giteau? JOC (James O'Connor) - think we need to see him play at 12 on tour to answer this but not against the AB's in the next game. Barnes - could mount a case that he has and I wouldn't argue with him going to 12 but I doubt Robbie will make this move for the next game against the AB's in Hong Kong.
L
Linus
Guest
It's nice to see some rational discussion (from Gagger and Austin) come into it. The Wallabies outplayed the AB's for long stretches and that was a big step up. Definately ran out of steam at the end. I know Giteau has his faults but I agree noone has clearly played better than him when given the opportunity. It seems like a chorus of change because you dislike Giteau personally.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
I think Barnes almost certainly has the ability and the runs on the board to play 12. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I would start him there in HK and on the EOYT. He's also a good kick for goal.
Bowside
Peter Johnson (47)
JOC (James O'Connor) is not a winger, he is a 12. We have 2 good wingers in Mitchell and Turner and an underperforming 12 in Giteau. Its logical that you would at least give JOC (James O'Connor) (and/or Barnes) a run at 12 and make giteau earn his spot back off the bench.
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
We need to get over the victim mentality and stop looking for external excuses why we lost one game.
Rejoice in the fact that we have closed the gap on the #1 team and our arch enemy.
FFS in the last 21 days the Men in Gold have travelled to Saffer land, played twice on the high veldt, winning one, returned home and really put the shits up the Darkness in a tight match.
Over the season, we have gone from a 20 point hiding down in Mexico to one that got away from us by one stinking point. That has got to make you misery guts grumble bums happy. As if the score in this Dead Rubber really mattered in the grand scheme of things. What mattered is that we have shown that we can score points, and take on the Blackness and the Saffers without being intimidated by them and their alleged aura of invincibility.
Awesome effort from the Men in Gold, and a pleasure to see the progress being made as the season unfolded.
The "it was only NZ's B team" argument doesn't wash with me. When I looked in the programme, the players were all listed under "New Zealand", no mention of "New Zealand B". They wore black with a fern on their chest, and did a haka like we have come to expect from the All Blacks. They were All Blacks, and history will record this as fact. The Darkness are claiming it as their 10th consecutive win over us, and their "whateever"th against all comers. You play with what you've got on the day.
The Goldness have gotta be looking good to perform well at RWC 2011. The Golden Ones will need all our support, and giving them on victim mentality is going to do their confidence no good.
My dear old man used to tell me that referees were shithouse in his day, and that is no different when I was playing, and that they would be shithouse for the forseeable future. You just needed to score more points than the other mob to take the referee's influence out of the final result.
No matter what you thought of Mr Lawrence's performance on Saturday night, we had plenty of opportunities to score more points than the Darkness,and we didn't complete. Only got ourselves to blame.
While on the subject of shithouse referees, the other thing the old fella used to tell me was that he had never seen a referee change his mind, and regardless of how wrong the decision was. Arguing with him to try and convince him to change his mind was the most counter-productive thing a team or Captain can do.
Pity Rocky and Bam Bam's dad didn't hammer those same points home to them during their formative years.
Clearly obvious that Sir Ruchie's dad did.
Rejoice in the fact that we have closed the gap on the #1 team and our arch enemy.
FFS in the last 21 days the Men in Gold have travelled to Saffer land, played twice on the high veldt, winning one, returned home and really put the shits up the Darkness in a tight match.
Over the season, we have gone from a 20 point hiding down in Mexico to one that got away from us by one stinking point. That has got to make you misery guts grumble bums happy. As if the score in this Dead Rubber really mattered in the grand scheme of things. What mattered is that we have shown that we can score points, and take on the Blackness and the Saffers without being intimidated by them and their alleged aura of invincibility.
Awesome effort from the Men in Gold, and a pleasure to see the progress being made as the season unfolded.
The "it was only NZ's B team" argument doesn't wash with me. When I looked in the programme, the players were all listed under "New Zealand", no mention of "New Zealand B". They wore black with a fern on their chest, and did a haka like we have come to expect from the All Blacks. They were All Blacks, and history will record this as fact. The Darkness are claiming it as their 10th consecutive win over us, and their "whateever"th against all comers. You play with what you've got on the day.
The Goldness have gotta be looking good to perform well at RWC 2011. The Golden Ones will need all our support, and giving them on victim mentality is going to do their confidence no good.
My dear old man used to tell me that referees were shithouse in his day, and that is no different when I was playing, and that they would be shithouse for the forseeable future. You just needed to score more points than the other mob to take the referee's influence out of the final result.
No matter what you thought of Mr Lawrence's performance on Saturday night, we had plenty of opportunities to score more points than the Darkness,and we didn't complete. Only got ourselves to blame.
While on the subject of shithouse referees, the other thing the old fella used to tell me was that he had never seen a referee change his mind, and regardless of how wrong the decision was. Arguing with him to try and convince him to change his mind was the most counter-productive thing a team or Captain can do.
Pity Rocky and Bam Bam's dad didn't hammer those same points home to them during their formative years.
Clearly obvious that Sir Ruchie's dad did.
DPK
Peter Sullivan (51)
Just out of curiousity, when Israel Dagg made a break and kicked infield for Muliaina, the penalty was given from entering from the side; when was the tackle completed? Was there a ruck? It seems to me like the ball was "out" ie. not in a ruck the entire time. Seemed like a very strange decision from the ref.
M
Mojoman
Guest
So he's good on defence\turnovers, isn't that a tad one-dimensional? Phil Waugh does that too. If you want to see all round, watch some tapes of George Smith running around. At his best he was more skillful than any other 7, McCaw included. McCaw just has oodles of determination and leadership.
I rate Pocock as a good 7 who's outstanding @ turnovers but unlike you guys I don't cream my pants over him.
Could well be an SA vs France final. I'm not dumb enough to claim the AB's will win the RWC.
- Status