Wallabies v England November 1

[Wilson]

I will rarely, rarely watch BTP or any Stan extra content, dunno why just doesn't seem quality to me despite me being a massive rugby loser. Probably a me-problem but youtube is so much more accessible than Stan and I'll put on Squidge or Eggchasers in the background rather than navigate the native Stan app.

I've dropped off a lot of the Stan content too, particularly Rugby Heaven which I find very rote and boring, but that's largely due to it's quality and not because there are better options out there every week taking up my time. I pretty much always watch (or listen to) inside line for example, which I think is still great, even with Harrison bringing it down a bit from the old podcast only version.

Between two posts is a bit in between for me, but I find it works better for the Super Rugby season when there's more to talk about. I don't think their analysis is strong/deep enough to be talking about just one game, but it's about right for covering a whole round at a time, and the trends across the season. I also think it probably suffers from the guys not touring with the squad in the EOYT - there's a lot less insight they can offer when the they're so far from the team, which is where the official broadcasters should otherwise have a leg up.

 

[Dctarget]

Also not helping is that we're terrible and I don't consume much media when we lose.

 

[Major Tom]

Inside Line isn't bad and seems to just focus on the issues of the game. If you can tolerate Harrison it's pretty good imo.
If I was Stan I would be asking Squidge to put together a segment to add to Between Two Posts.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Inside Line isn't bad and seems to just focus on the issues of the game. If you can tolerate Harrison it's pretty good imo.
If I was Stan I would be asking Squidge to put together a segment to add to Between Two Posts.

Why use squidge? They have access to all of these pros, both rugby thinkers and video producers. They can just do a better job of analysis and presenting to fans (maybe these commentators aren't actually that good at analysis?)

 

[Major Tom]

Why use squidge? They have access to all of these pros, both rugby thinkers and video producers. They can just do a better job of analysis and presenting to fans (maybe these commentators aren't actually that good at analysis?)

Seems the easiest option. It's not a booming market here but somebody could put something together. Stan don't seem to have very good analysts (maybe Turinui) so just needs to be anyone that can put together something using data and evidence. AFL have ex players that use champion data and the AFL's own data.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Seems the easiest option. It's not a booming market here but somebody could put something together. Stan don't seem to have very good analysts (maybe Turinui) so just needs to be anyone that can put together something using data and evidence. AFL have ex players that use champion data and the AFL's own data.

For England game, just put up footage of every box kick England did, and analyze where they were aiming and how we dealt with it.

 

[Red Runner]

gees I hated Rod Kafer but Kafe's Chalkboard was decent.

Do NRL and AFL have a show which is just really deep dive analysis? Is that what we are after?

 

[Major Tom]

gees I hated Rod Kafer but Kafe's Chalkboard was decent.

Do NRL and AFL have a show which is just really deep dive analysis? Is that what we are after?

I'll speak for AFL. Fox have First Crack which is after the first game of the week (Thursday) I think. Or it might be Sunday night. They have On the Couch on Monday night where they cover different teams or patterns etc. Both a very good. Ch 7 have footy some too but I don't watch them. Ch 9 has Footy Furnace and they do it on the Sunday Footy show.

 

[Wilson]

Why use squidge? They have access to all of these pros, both rugby thinkers and video producers. They can just do a better job of analysis and presenting to fans (maybe these commentators aren't actually that good at analysis?)

Yeah, there's no need for them to bring Squidge (or someone else like him) in, the guys there are more than capable of this level of analysis, or at least should be - for example, Turinui was a pro coach within the last decade, and his analysis on his old Rugby Ruckus podcast with Ben Kimber was much more detailed than what they offer on Stan.

As far as I can tell they (as in the corporate overlords at Stan/Nine) just don't see the value in investing in it, which is fair enough as a business decision (as much as I don't like it or might disagree). If they were to give it a crack though they'd be much better placed to use their existing talent then bring someone else in, particularly because they're serving a focused, national market, in away Squidge will never.

 

[Major Tom]

Yeah, there's no need for them to bring Squidge (or someone else like him) in, the guys there are more than capable of this level of analysis, or at least should be - for example, Turinui was a pro coach within the last decade, and his analysis on his old Rugby Ruckus podcast with Ben Kimber was much more detailed than what they offer on Stan.

As far as I can tell they (as in the corporate overlords at Stan/Nine) just don't see the value in investing in it, which is fair enough as a business decision (as much as I don't like it or might disagree). If they were to give it a crack though they'd be much better placed to use their existing talent then bring someone else in, particularly because they're serving a focused, national market, in away Squidge will never.

I also think there's not the competition of other networks. In AFL, Fox, Ch 7 and Ch 9 are pumping out content trying to win audiences over. And the audience want to be sold footy intelligence so they can work out if their team is heading in the right direction or who to at least tip every week. Rugby just doesn't demand that IMO.
Anyways, surely whacking together a 5 min video on Between the Posts or Rugby Heaven that analyses something would be better than what currently happens. And paying squidge or nick bishop wouldn't be the worst thing I reckon because they may bring in a new audience.
I might actually watch the show if it was a bit more serious. I watch inside line because I like the topics they debate and they get good and different perspectives (particularly the journalists).

 

[Wilson]

Anyways, surely whacking together a 5 min video on Between the Posts or Rugby Heaven that analyses something would be better than what currently happens.

Isn't that pretty much what already happens? A bit of short, lightweight analysis and preview of the next week that doesn't go anywhere near the depth of 20-30 minute video from the like of Squidge?

It's not completely devoid of analysis currently, it's just fairly surface level, like they're avoiding scaring off the audience with more detail. I don't think this is necessarily a bad approach for the show as it stands, I just think there's a gap in their offering when it comes to in depth analysis and explaining concepts like pod structure and modern kicking tactics.

And paying squidge or nick bishop wouldn't be the worst thing I reckon because they may bring in a new audience.
I might actually watch the show if it was a bit more serious. I watch inside line because I like the topics they debate and they get good and different perspectives (particularly the journalists).

That's not how the streaming product works - no one who isn't already paying for Stan sport is going to stump up for a weekly half hour wallabies analysis from Squidge, all of those people are already paying for the actual rugby content. Squidge existing outside that walled garden is where he is most valuable - it's growing the broader conversation, helping new fans understand the game and the existing ones engage with it at a deeper level, to the point where they might eventually buy Stan (or equivalent) themselves. Ideally Stan would be offering more of that content themselves (with a very specific Australian focus) to help bring those new fans along once they did sign up.

 

[Major Tom]

Isn't that pretty much what already happens? A bit of short, lightweight analysis and preview of the next week that doesn't go anywhere near the depth of 20-30 minute video from the like of Squidge?

It's not completely devoid of analysis currently, it's just fairly surface level, like they're avoiding scaring off the audience with more detail. I don't think this is necessarily a bad approach for the show as it stands, I just think there's a gap in their offering when it comes to in depth analysis and explaining concepts like pod structure and modern kicking tactics.


That's not how the streaming product works - no one who isn't already paying for Stan sport is going to stump up for a weekly half hour wallabies analysis from Squidge, all of those people are already paying for the actual rugby content. Squidge existing outside that walled garden is where he is most valuable - it's growing the broader conversation, helping new fans understand the game and the existing ones engage with it at a deeper level, to the point where they might eventually buy Stan (or equivalent) themselves. Ideally Stan would be offering more of that content themselves (with a very specific Australian focus) to help bring those new fans along once they did sign up.

I guess I need to actually watch BTP to make a better assessment. But from the snippets I've seen it doesn't seem that data driven. Seems more just opinions based off vibe. Again, I don't watch it to make an informed assessment.
If they got squidge I would watch it. But they don't.

 

[Ignoto]

Bring back Kimber and Morgan chatting and through in Reg. Perfect line up.

 

[stillmissit]

I dunno. I reckon Carter Gordon is a good example of why we shouldn’t throw young guys to the wolves. Especially playmakers. You and I went back and forward on this two years ago Stillmissit - and it was Gordon we were discussing then (well - I’m pretty sure it was you - apologies if I am mistaken). By the end of the super season I conceded and got onboard with Gordon being good enough despite his age. And look how that turned out. Yes - there was the Jones factor and it was significant. But Gordon still got caught out for not being ready for test football. As did Lolesio before him and Tom Lynagh may be suffering a similiar fate - although his issues seem more physical. Tom Hooper struggled in his first initiation as a test player and guys like Maddocks have come out openly and said it damaged his development. Going back further guys like Hanigan and Skelton also suffered from being thrown in too early. I’m not saying you can’t give guys a taste of it - guys like Wilson, McReight & Valetini all had their issue early but came through it in the longer run. And there are guys like Jorgenson & Sua’ali’i who seem more able to handle it. But they are the minority.

I don’t agree we’ve ever just thrown our best guys in on any large scale. Our best eras have been built around experience, proven test performers. When rookies have come in they’ve mostly been introduced from the bench and had to win their spot in settled teams. Especially the playmakers. Guys like Michael Lynagh, Stephen Larkham and Bernard Foley were brought in young but in different positions and were introduced more progressively, generally from the bench, before they were put in the hot seat. Flatley debuted at 10 but had Gregan inside him and Horan, Howard, Larkham & Tune outside him and a very strong forward pack. Dan Carter was played at 12 before moving to 10 and, from memory, so was Andrew Mehrtens.


I’d argue one of Australia’s big issues for the last 7-8 years has been far too many young guys without the necessary experience. It’s a problem we still haven’t got past. It’s especially been an issue at 10. Our team seems constantly less experienced than our competitors - especially when you strip out a couple of guys like Slipper and White who account for large numbers of test caps.

I’m cautiously optimistic about Gordon - but I don’t see that taking a more cautious approach with him is a bad thing at all.

Edit: actually I was wrong on Mehrtens. At least for his debut. Looks like not only did he start at 10 but he played a stormer on debut. It was against Canada though.

TSR, I am happily ensconced in Geelong for the Ferry to Tassie tomorrow.
I agree that Carter is a great example, as is Quade. The first part I want to see if we agree on is that we are not like Kiwis in our passion for the game, this is due to the alternative sports available to talented Aussies and a lack of deep focus. IE compare Kiwi game analysis with ours?
Re Carter Gordon, there was a time, that you might remember, when new young players were looked after by forwards and sometimes senior backs (whilst not checking their combs of course!). Those days are gone but the idea should still be around and particularly for our 10. The hammering that Lynagh has taken was unforgivable in my book.
So the coach could play them on the wing ,or if talented enough at FB. Maddocks was a very talented outlier who lacked personal self worth and should have been a long term 15 for the Wallabies IF he could have been helped to build his self confidence. Players like Quade and Campese come with a strong ego and were capable of being thrown in the deep end. So I guess to some extent it is dependent on the coach's thoughts about them as a person. An afterthought, I think Jordan Petaia also lacked self confidence, at least he always appeared to me as a shy guy.

Re Great Wallaby teams of the past, I seem to remember Gregan as well as Campese started quite young. The team was built by McQueen in Canberra as a bunch of throwaways and see how that went. Which brings me back to the head coach, we need a head coach who is highly organised and tactically as well as being capable of planning the downfall of the opposition. My view is that there are a lot of McQueens out there with good managerial /interpersonal skills and organisational ability. The issue is we end up with coaches who are either not tough enough to get the guys to fight to win regardless or too organizationally focused with poor people skills (ie E.Jones). Then we get a guy who can get them to fight but that runs out of puff after a season or two ie Cheika.

Schmidt is a great coach, but, as a kiwi, he comes with an expectation that the players are highly motivated, and that ain't always the case.When you consider week to week performances. I noted a few years ago that one game's strong players could be the weak at the next game BUT there was always around 5-8 playing well, and the rest average to poor. The big problem was that is was rarely the same 5-8 playing well which makes a nightmare for a coach.

 

[stillmissit]

I do agree. I just think the logical step here is to play him off the bench this game. Possible the next as well. I get why people want to move on from Edmed. I believe Gordon is more likely to be the better option. But we’ve already seen with Lolesio the issues that can come from going all in on one option. I don’t see much value for either player in punting Edmed and throwing Carter straight in.

I think the big difference really is in the top 6 inches. Jorgenson and Sua’ali’i are both young and Jorgenson in particular has had his set backs. But they seem to have the self confidence to roll with the punches. I think that’s the exception and always will be. I don’t get the sense Gordon is that ultra confident guy.

Totally agree TSR and a great summation of the problem.

 

[stillmissit]

To highlight the issue regarding Aussie union players v Kiwi's. I was coaching 1st grade forwards in Western Sydney, afterwards we are having a few beers when the Bled game Wallabies V AB's was lined up to watch in the club room. The players changed channels to watch Penrith leagues play someone.
This is a part of the issue we have.

 

[Brumby Runner]

TSR, I am happily ensconced in Geelong for the Ferry to Tassie tomorrow.
I agree that Carter is a great example, as is Quade. The first part I want to see if we agree on is that we are not like Kiwis in our passion for the game, this is due to the alternative sports available to talented Aussies and a lack of deep focus. IE compare Kiwi game analysis with ours?
Re Carter Gordon, there was a time, that you might remember, when new young players were looked after by forwards and sometimes senior backs (whilst not checking their combs of course!). Those days are gone but the idea should still be around and particularly for our 10. The hammering that Lynagh has taken was unforgivable in my book.
So the coach could play them on the wing ,or if talented enough at FB. Maddocks was a very talented outlier who lacked personal self worth and should have been a long term 15 for the Wallabies IF he could have been helped to build his self confidence. Players like Quade and Campese come with a strong ego and were capable of being thrown in the deep end. So I guess to some extent it is dependent on the coach's thoughts about them as a person. An afterthought, I think Jordan Petaia also lacked self confidence, at least he always appeared to me as a shy guy.

Re Great Wallaby teams of the past, I seem to remember Gregan as well as Campese started quite young. The team was built by McQueen in Canberra as a bunch of throwaways and see how that went. Which brings me back to the head coach, we need a head coach who is highly organised and tactically as well as being capable of planning the downfall of the opposition. My view is that there are a lot of McQueens out there with good managerial /interpersonal skills and organisational ability. The issue is we end up with coaches who are either not tough enough to get the guys to fight to win regardless or too organizationally focused with poor people skills (ie E.Jones). Then we get a guy who can get them to fight but that runs out of puff after a season or two ie Cheika.

Schmidt is a great coach, but, as a kiwi, he comes with an expectation that the players are highly motivated, and that ain't always the case.When you consider week to week performances. I noted a few years ago that one game's strong players could be the weak at the next game BUT there was always around 5-8 playing well, and the rest average to poor. The big problem was that is was rarely the same 5-8 playing well which makes a nightmare for a coach.

George Smith started both his Super Rugby and Wallaby careers young, 19 at the Brumbies and 20 at the Wallabies. But he really undeservaedly had to wait his turn behind Wilson at the Wallabies and Robinson at the Brumbies when it was obvious as the nose on anyone's face he was better than both. He was also, at the time, a rather shy person. I guess he just bucked the normal in so many ways to become one of the very best to ever play the game.

 

[stillmissit]

George Smith started both his Super Rugby and Wallaby careers young, 19 at the Brumbies and 20 at the Wallabies. But he really undeservaedly had to wait his turn behind Wilson at the Wallabies and Robinson at the Brumbies when it was obvious as the nose on anyone's face he was better than both. He was also, at the time, a rather shy person. I guess he just bucked the normal in so many ways to become one of the very best to ever play the game.

I think George Smith is the best 7 we have ever had, inc Pocock.

 

[Red Runner]

George Smith started both his Super Rugby and Wallaby careers young, 19 at the Brumbies and 20 at the Wallabies. But he really undeservaedly had to wait his turn behind Wilson at the Wallabies and Robinson at the Brumbies when it was obvious as the nose on anyone's face he was better than both. He was also, at the time, a rather shy person. I guess he just bucked the normal in so many ways to become one of the very best to ever play the game.

your saying that Smith at 19 was better that David Wilson??? Wow.