Sio played well for 45/50 minutes, until the hard old nut Cole tried a few extra tricks. Dunno why he wasn't subbed after the second scrum went down, the next one was the carding scrum. If Slipper had come on at the 50/55 minute mark things would probably have been very different at scrum time. In fact I reckoned the bench Oz front row bested the Poms. If Scott starts his subbing will have to be much better thought out next week.
Sio played well for 45/50 minutes, until the hard old nut Cole tried a few extra tricks. Dunno why he wasn't subbed after the second scrum went down, the next one was the carding scrum. If Slipper had come on at the 50/55 minute mark things would probably have been very different at scrum time. In fact I reckoned the bench Oz front row bested the Poms. If Scott starts his subbing will have to be much better thought out next week.
Only "played well" for those 45/50 minutes because there were fuckall scrums. even then he got done.
There are many other elements to rugby than scrums......
And Sio did win the first scrum penalty against Coles.....
After that he got bested.
FYI a props first responsibility is the scrum, the rest follows.
But I think people are getting a little hysterical in suggesting that he should be dropped from the side.
I actually thought he hit the ground first.
FYI a props first responsibility is the scrum, the rest follows.
I really don't understand all the talk I've seen in the media about making big changes to the backline, the need to bring a second playmaker in to 12 to "take the pressure off" Foley.
He didn't seem to be under any pressure in general play. We carved the Poms up, made consistent metres in attack, outscored them 4 tries to 2 until the last minute when we were chasing the game, and it could easily have been 5+ tries. Both of their tries were soft - off a fumbled poor pass, and off a poorly-defended maul.
We lost the game for two reasons. First, our goalkicking, which is a recurring theme, and second our failure to adjust to Poite's unique brand of refereeing, which is unfortunately another recurring theme.
That's it. We might have been beaten at the breakdown and seriously struggled at the scrum and lineout, but what mattered in the end was we missed our kicks while giving them 18 gift points.
I think if Foley had made his kicks and Fardy & co had adjusted to Poite, everybody would be lauding Kerevidrani as a big success. The focus this week needs to be on the forwards - the breakdown, the scrum, and the abysmal lineout. I'm fed up with watching the ball sail clean over the top with no jumpers.
Good post Simon.
It's deeply unfashionable at present to be critical of any aspect of Cheikaworld but I said before the RWC and would say again: this HC has some remarkable strengths but a notable weakness - in the context of what's required to succeed at the top levels of international rugby - is the completeness of the design of his Assistant Coaches group.
If the Wallabies are to remain at No 2 and have a serious crack at the ABs I believe Cheika needs a proper specialist forwards coach - Ledesma is not this, despite his excellent scrummaging skills - who's expert at line out and broken play, and he badly needs to properly credentialed kicking coach. L Fisher and S Lierich come to mind as candidates, Malone is not it. Or the exceptional M Byrne for both kicking and general skills perhaps now that he's back home in Australia and having been so highly regarded by the ABs.
It's notable how EJ (Eddie Jones) has brought in and used multiple specialist coaching skills already in his short England reign - Ella for attack, G Smith for the breakdown (note how Haskell is today openly proclaiming how much Smith's recent technical advice has helped him improve his skills and general game) and Wilkinson for kicking skills. Do we think these investments have not aided England?
In fairness to Cheika it may be that the ARU is constraining his $ coaching budget. This would not surprise one bit as so much ARU cash is going into little else than propping up failing franchises thus directly or indirectly bleeding resources away from core skills and coach development and such like programs. But if it exists such a financial constraint on our HC would be massively mistaken and shortsighted.