Wallabies V Boks Loftus Versfeld Pretoria 28/08/2010
- Thread starter Gnostic
- Start date
- Status
en_force_er
Geoff Shaw (53)
Neither, cyclo listed them, Palu, Nau & Horwill (maybe - he hasn't played for two years really) and Alexander. Of the current Higgers is the only one with the potential to do something to lift the side.
It isn't an enforcer, it is units that combine a test quality workrate with the ability to do that something extra.
a forward pack of
Robinson
Nau
Alexander
Sharpe
Horwill
Elsom
Pocock
Palu
With a bench of
Moore
Slipper
Mumm
Higgers
Would see us competing. Our next level, a few who are starting, is not up to it .
How I would love to see that pack and reserves. Who knows, maybe next year we will.
rsea
Darby Loudon (17)
I think they should be on incentives, not lofty base salaries
EDIT:
Something like
Solid Retainer
+Bonus for picked in 22
+Bonus for picked in 15
+Bonus for game win
+Bonus for tournament win
No individual player bonus' to avoid conflicts, but "star" players can be rewarded with an improved retainer up front that is negotiated at the end of every WC
It makes sense from an admin POV as well. Team wins = greater income and therefore greater cash reserves
EDIT:
Something like
Solid Retainer
+Bonus for picked in 22
+Bonus for picked in 15
+Bonus for game win
+Bonus for tournament win
No individual player bonus' to avoid conflicts, but "star" players can be rewarded with an improved retainer up front that is negotiated at the end of every WC
It makes sense from an admin POV as well. Team wins = greater income and therefore greater cash reserves
I thought it was an improved performance, but still disappointing. The first half honestly reminded me of the Crusaders in their prime (in attack anyway)- making things happen with the ball in hand, good execution, lethal on the counter. But to the Boks credit they came back hard, and exposed our weak first-up defence. We simply fell off too many tackles- would be interesting to see the stats because I think this was by far our worst defensive performance. Think Maafu and Fainga'a have had enough, Moore and Slipper for next week.
Also I thought Rolland was very poor. Let everything go at the breakdown, but would occassionally find a penalty seemingly for the sake of it. No consistency, and I think the crazy pace of the game was due to him. Both sides were flying off their feet at the ruck, how many ruck turnovers did we see? I can think of one. There was no contest because of his poor officiating. How not to referee the ruck. It didn't disadvantage any particular side, but the game was much poorer for it.
Also I thought Rolland was very poor. Let everything go at the breakdown, but would occassionally find a penalty seemingly for the sake of it. No consistency, and I think the crazy pace of the game was due to him. Both sides were flying off their feet at the ruck, how many ruck turnovers did we see? I can think of one. There was no contest because of his poor officiating. How not to referee the ruck. It didn't disadvantage any particular side, but the game was much poorer for it.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Can't have Ma'afu on the bench Barbarian, he can't cover LHP and Slipper will be clagged after 50 minutes at THP so if Fatcat gets injured we are left with a tired prop and an unfit one.
Then again Deans doesn't use the bench so yes put him on the bench, just like getting dropped really.
Then again Deans doesn't use the bench so yes put him on the bench, just like getting dropped really.
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
Great game. The result was not good but there are some great positives. For a team who looked so unthreatening in Christchurch, we really turned that around. I have to dump heaps of praise on Beale here. We all know he has flair but it was the quality of his decision making that has really come of age. The top 4 inches have really fallen into place for him and full credit to him. As Barbarian said above, that first half was very Crusader like. For the first time under Deans the Wallabies actually looked like they had grasped the concept "playing what's in front of you". The combination between Cooper and Gateau looked very coherent in combination. They reminded me of the Carter, Mauger combination. There were some familiar elements of previous eras with AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) playing the crashballer on occasions. The backline looked good and with the cattle we have to return in the forwards leave me with a good feeling.
It is a shame about Higgers having to withdraw as this game would have appealed to his style well and I am positive he would have offered a lot at the back end. McCallman was impressive off the bench. As said, Moore should have come on but not replacing any of the backs was not a bad move and still believed we should have gone in with the 5:2 split.
Defence was poor and the frustrating thing with the Wallabies is that we fix up one area of our game and then we let another part of our game deteriorate. The usual basic skill eras linger.
There is more positive than negative to come out of that performance.
It is a shame about Higgers having to withdraw as this game would have appealed to his style well and I am positive he would have offered a lot at the back end. McCallman was impressive off the bench. As said, Moore should have come on but not replacing any of the backs was not a bad move and still believed we should have gone in with the 5:2 split.
Defence was poor and the frustrating thing with the Wallabies is that we fix up one area of our game and then we let another part of our game deteriorate. The usual basic skill eras linger.
There is more positive than negative to come out of that performance.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I can't really see the positives...
The tries only came early on from some great individual moments but there didn't seem to be any real improvement in the team...
It reminds me of those games that the Wallabies won against the third string Welsh and South African sides back in 2007...
The tries only came early on from some great individual moments but there didn't seem to be any real improvement in the team...
It reminds me of those games that the Wallabies won against the third string Welsh and South African sides back in 2007...
For me the good was that we took those opportunities early. But yeah, they didn't represent any revelation in play - couple of bits of individual good play and luck, rather than dominant structured play leading to an inevitable end.
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
I agree Beale had a fantastic game, every time he had the ball I felt something was on. He knows how to run, draw a man and pass. He and Cooper in the same team is a defensive nightmare but the attacking qualities both have will give any other team nightmares too. The first half attack was great but the defence was a disaster.
Higgers getting injured in the warm-up tells me he is another Shephard. That is just poor preparation. I also agree that McCalman looked good when he came on. Next week he needs to go to 8 with Higgers on the bench. I agree we needed a 5:2 split and will again next week. Moore should have been on at 50, Fainga'a looked concussed to me.
I agree that we fix one area and another goes cactus, this week it was the lineout and defence. But I can never agree that there is more positive than negative out of this performance The negatives to me are:
1. Giteau was almost invisible until we got a penalty. If he's going to be any good for the WC he needs to be dropped from the EOYT and prove himself in the S15. He appears to be completely burnt out.
2. JOC (James O'Connor) is not a winger. He scored one try from 12 and got another after a dropped ball. He needs to be used from the bench as an inside back replacement. We need Turner for his defence, high ball takes and kick chasing as well as his finishing.
3. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) had a very poor game. Why he did not use his renowned fend is a mystery, and he was often caught in the tackle. Who would want to be a winger outside him?
4. Brown showed again he does not have the skills required except perhaps as a back-up 7 and Hodgson fulfills that role anyway when he returns. Sad, because he goes well at Super level and tries his guts out every time but he just does not have the required impact.
5. Mumm is a great player from the bench due to his versatility but he should not be starting. I'm not convinced about Simmons but he's all we have and should start next week. (Please no one suggest Chisholm). Mumm did not have the impact he should have had and was overshadowed by the Boks 4-8 players.
6. Maafu did nothing except scrum, and that not very well. Slipper has to start.
7. Deans is failing completely because he is not playing what is in front of him. At the after-game press interview he looked bewildered. I think he is watching some sort of theoretical game in his head and not what's happening on the ground. If a player is not playing well, particularly if he is a favourite, no corrective action is taken because he doesn't see the cause of the problem. That's why the bench is not used as it should be: Fainga'a needed replacing after 55 mins but was left on till the end, Genia was gone at 60 but Burgess warmed the pine all night (he's the new "splinters"), Giteau should have been replaced by Barnes from 45 onwards but never left the bench.
8. Deans can't see that the Wallaby team needs the structure of a game plan to build their individual flair on; according to him all you need is to run out there and do whatever you think is best. In the last 20 minutes, when tiredness set in, we reverted from the high intensity running game we had used to midfield bash and barge which de Villiers and Fourie effectively snuffed out. Why move away from what's working? Because fatigue impairs decision making and if the gameplan isn't already embedded then players will drift away from what they should be doing towards what they think is "safe".
When you throw away a game like that there are no positives worth talking about.
- Status