Wallabies v France 1st test - Suncorp 7 June

[Tomikin]

The next person who pulls out disgusting language as part of our forum is getting a rest.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Links lost the plot we need Deans back ?....

Ill show my self out

Sent from my HTC_0P6A1 using Tapatalk

 

[fatprop]

Have you read any of his other articles? His rugby knowledge is several tiers below even Growden, and he gets panned by the comments in most articles.

,,........,....

The journo comes across as a decent writer and smart enough guy, but I don't think he "gets" or has followed much sport deeply, and he only has a shallow knowledge of rugby, seemingly.

I think like all reporters there is a grain of truth. Rugby is a compromise Phipps chucks the odd loose pass because he is trying to clear the ball so quickly.

If we want a fast game we will see loose passes, there was a couple from White as well.

The interesting thing to me is that under the current game plan we need units to be ready and aware to catch the ball as well.

When you look at Phipps work with the Tahs, his passing has improved as his team mates have embraced Cheika's structures, but I really don't really think his passing improved but the receivers are more ready and expectant

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[daz]

When you look at Phipps work with the Tahs, his passing has improved as his team mates have embraced Cheika's structures, but I really don't really think his passing improved but the receivers are more ready and expectant

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Agree. I must admit I do owe Phipps a minor apology; I used to get enormously frustrated with his passing and delivery when he was at the Rebels, but the reality is that while he would pull out an absolute shocking pass or kick from time to time, it was made to look worse because while the Rebels receivers were expectant, they were rarely ready.

 

[gel]

Reading through several comments here and summarising:

At the rebels Phipps' passing is poor because other players were often not ready even though he was not expected to deliver such quick ball and;

At the tahs Phipps' passing is poor because he is expected to deliver quick ball (can't take time to deliver clean ball) and it only seems better because the tahs are more ready for it.

In both cases, there is one common denominator:

Phipps' passing is poor.

 

[Braveheart81]

It would be interesting to start timing the half backs from the time the ball becomes available until it hits the receivers hands and working out some sort of average.

At the moment all anyone can do is guess and speculate over who is good and who is Phipps, I mean bad.

My blue-lensed, one eyed, NSW is better than Queensland view is that whilst his accuracy isn't as good, Phipps is putting the ball in the receivers hands faster than White or Genia.

I think it is putting Foley and Beale or whoever else is first receiver in a better position overall because despite sometimes taking the ball at head height, they're receiving it earlier and have more time and space.

 

[BPC]

Links lost the plot we need Deans back ?..

Ill show my self out

Sent from my HTC_0P6A1 using Tapatalk

He said disgusting language, not delusional.

Sent from my GT-N7105T using Tapatalk

 

[Tomikin]

It would be interesting to start timing the half backs from the time the ball becomes available until it hits the receivers hands and working out some sort of average.

At the moment all anyone can do is guess and speculate over who is good and who is Phipps, I mean bad.

My blue-lensed, one eyed, NSW is better than Queensland view is that whilst his accuracy isn't as good, Phipps is putting the ball in the receivers hands faster than White or Genia.

I think it is putting Foley and Beale or whoever else is first receiver in a better position overall because despite sometimes taking the ball at head height, they're receiving it earlier and have more time and space.

I think Whites makes better decisions and throws a nicer pass. Maybe a bit slower there, and Whites being doing it for two years not the last 3 games..

Sent from my HTC_0P6A1 using Tapatalk

 

[BPC]

Reading through several comments here and summarising:

At the rebels Phipps' passing is poor because other players were often not ready even though he was not expected to deliver such quick ball and;

At the tahs Phipps' passing is poor because he is expected to deliver quick ball (can't take time to deliver clean ball) and it only seems better because the tahs are more ready for it.

In both cases, there is one common denominator:

Phipps' passing is poor.

That is a complete misrepresentation. For example, Daz referred to bad passes from time to time, not consistently.

Phipps is no Catchpole or Hipwell, but he provides fast delivery with the odd shocker. White is a bit slower, throws the occasional dud pass but has an excellent long kicking game. Genia is the greatest running threat while Burgess is the best sweep defender. All have advantages and disadvantages.

Perhaps you can identify the perfect half, seeing as you like dealing in absolutes rather than the reality of relative merits that are suited for different types of game plans. If you can show me the perfect halfback, I have some bottom land to sell you. Just don't ask me what it is on the bottom of.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[cyclopath]

Reading through several comments here and summarising:

At the rebels Phipps' passing is poor because other players were often not ready even though he was not expected to deliver such quick ball and;

At the tahs Phipps' passing is poor because he is expected to deliver quick ball (can't take time to deliver clean ball) and it only seems better because the tahs are more ready for it.

In both cases, there is one common denominator:

Phipps' passing is poor.

And ignoring others. And interpreting selectively. But sure, have it your way.

 

[Pfitzy]

The other thing about Phipps in contrast to White at Super level is the Waratahs are regularly hitting a first receiver on the line in the second channel as they search for width.

Go back to the first couple of games I attended this year - Rebels and Reds, and Phipps was regularly passing a few feet above the eye line of his receiver.

Move forward to the Canes and Lions games, and he was definitely getting it flatter.

 

[Tomikin]

Phipps pass is rubbish because of his jersey colour.. same with Genia Burgess that NZ clown in the West... My point is correct as White has the Gold jersey.. But the most important part is he has the Brumbies Jersey..

Matter of fact I saw a young same Carter throw better passes from half back on the weekend with a dodgy ankle and he wears the right jersey too (blue and white one)

Sent from my HTC_0P6A1 using Tapatalk

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Nearly time to wrap this game thread up. There is a game vs Les Frogge in 3 days time to concentrate on.

Discussion on the relative merits of the halfbacks could probably go off to "Wallaby Watch".

 

[barbarian]

I have said it before and I will say it again, Phipps is the best quick ball halfback in Australia. He is the fittest, and clears the ball the fastest. This year he has improved both his defence and his option taking, making him a far more complete halfback than he was a few years ago.

It's like TPN's throwing- a lot of people made up their minds on this issue years ago and have been blind to the improvements made in the last twelve months or longer.
.

 

[ChargerWA]

I too have been a vocal critic of Phipps, I may have even suggested he was selected under Deans becasue he was Dean's daughter's special friend. But it would be unkind to continue on with this theme.

I do believe he is probably the 4th best half back in Australia currently in the second best form. With Burgess injured and Genia's form in the hole, his urgency late in the game is just what the doctor ordered. I do think Burgess offers the same with slightly better accuracy, but he is injured.

I suspect that there are two scrum half brackets. White and Genia would be bracketed together as starting scrum half and Phipps and Burgess would be in the other bracket as bench/impact scrum half. You pick your best one out of each bracket. To my mind Genia isnt competing with Phipps for the bench spot, he is straight competing with White for the 9 jumper.

If Will doesn't get a run with the Wallabies this series, I dont look forward to facing him when the Force play the Reds. He wil come out spitting fire for the Red's last 3 games.

 

[Brumby Runner]

It would be interesting to start timing the half backs from the time the ball becomes available until it hits the receivers hands and working out some sort of average.

At the moment all anyone can do is guess and speculate over who is good and who is Phipps, I mean bad.

My blue-lensed, one eyed, NSW is better than Queensland view is that whilst his accuracy isn't as good, Phipps is putting the ball in the receivers hands faster than White or Genia.

I think it is putting Foley and Beale or whoever else is first receiver in a better position overall because despite sometimes taking the ball at head height, they're receiving it earlier and have more time and space.

Braveheart, I can't objectively dispute your contention that Phipps gets the ball into the receiver's hands faster than White or Genia, but my impression is that White is consistently faster and more accurate. Only an impression, mind you, but I think I can categorically say that both White and Phipps are faster than Genia, who seems to spend a fait bit more time looking for his runners, but is that the fauslt of the runners or merely a trait of Will's?

Timing the passes is an interesting suggestion but there are so many imponderables that even doing that is unlikely to lead to consensus. Just when would the timing begin - when the ball is available (by whose reckoning) or when the half back has his hands on the ball? And when is the pass completed - when it is caught or touched by the recipient regardless of whether it is in front, over his head or behind his back, or when the recipient has control and is in a position to make a decision about what to do next? (ie quality over speed?). Many other complications as well. Probably the only person who could give some sort of definitive answer is the No 10 who would be the usual target for the halfbacks' passes.

Overall, I am happy with Nic White's game and think he is the best option for starting half back atm.

 

[Braveheart81]

Overall, I am happy with Nic White's game and think he is the best option for starting half back atm.

I completely agree with this. He has a strong all round game and is in excellent form.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that Phipps is the best halfback in Australia (he's not). I wouldn't have batted an eyelid if Genia was ahead of him in this series, in fact it was a surprise that he wasn't.

I'm really just trying to argue that Nick Phipps is a better player than most people perceive him to be, particularly in the last two or so months.

He's been judged heavily on past form in much the same way that Will Genia is still regularly referred to as the world's best half back and Michael Hooper is only keeping the 7 jersey warm for David Pocock to return to the team.

 

[Hawko]

Reading through several comments here and summarising:

At the rebels Phipps' passing is poor because other players were often not ready even though he was not expected to deliver such quick ball and;

At the tahs Phipps' passing is poor because he is expected to deliver quick ball (can't take time to deliver clean ball) and it only seems better because the tahs are more ready for it.

In both cases, there is one common denominator:

Phipps' passing is poor.

So what do you want? You only get one Catchpole in a lifetime, so..

​

Do you choose Genia, who appears to have lost the ability to do anything without taking time out to think about it and therefore has to box kick (badly) because all his supports are already covered?​

​

Do you choose White, who is not as fast but usually more accurate (probably because he takes more time)? His kicking game is better than the others but his running game is poorer.​

​

The Tahs have chosen Phipps because he suits the gameplan they want to play, otherwise McKibbin would start. The Wallabies have chosen White to start because Link wants the ball to come reasonably quickly but to also have White's excellent kicking game at the team's disposal. Genia's slow purposeful approach doesn't suit the Wallaby gameplan (or the Reds for that matter).

So what if I agree Phipps passing is poor? (I don't, but for the sake of the argument.) Genia's play this year has been worse than Gregan's last 15 tests, and in exactly the same way. Link's gameplan clearly requires quick ball to release the backline before the other team has had time to get set and aligned. So Phipps is clearly the better choice between the two.

But I'd take Catchpole, Hipwell, Farr-Jones and the young Gregan over any of them in a heartbeat.

 

[the sabanator]

A night of test match rugby is not a cheap outing and nor should it be.

Australia hosts about 7 test matches a year. There is no way these events are going to work better if it is structured with the aim of being a cheap night out for the family. How many extra tickets are you going to sell to make up for the reduced revenue on the tickets you would have sold at the higher price point?

The price of the product needs to reflect the value and cost of the product you're selling, not just the demand for it.

Sorry to go back a few pages, but:


So you honestly think it's better to price people out of the market, thereby reducing the number of people that can actually/or are willing to get to a test match and experience the game live?

30,000 tickets at a mean of say, $80, is $2.4 million.
45,000 tickets at $60 is $2.7 million.

I don't think 15,000 extra purchases is out of the realm of possibility at a lowest price of around $35, rather than $50.

You're always going to get big corporates/rugby fanatics to buy the $200+ seats with the best view. It's the younger market and families who you'll attract if you're offering seats at around $35 for cheaper parts of the ground.

A test match doesn't look very premium on television or to your average punter when 33,000 people go. But an event looks fantastically exciting when 45,000+ go. The French were never going to draw crowds by themselves, and the ARU severely misestimated the demand for tickets to the test.

 

[Train Without a Station]

If you think dropping prices by $15 will get you another 15,000 you are absolutely delusional. We live in a society where the majority of people seem to regularly pay $4 for their morning coffee.

 

[Braveheart81]

Sorry to go back a few pages, but:


So you honestly think it's better to price people out of the market, thereby reducing the number of people that can actually/or are willing to get to a test match and experience the game live?

30,000 tickets at a mean of say, $80, is $2.4 million.
45,000 tickets at $60 is $2.7 million.

I don't think 15,000 extra purchases is out of the realm of possibility at a lowest price of around $35, rather than $50.

You're always going to get big corporates/rugby fanatics to buy the $200+ seats with the best view. It's the younger market and families who you'll attract if you're offering seats at around $35 for cheaper parts of the ground.

A test match doesn't look very premium on television or to your average punter when 33,000 people go. But an event looks fantastically exciting when 45,000+ go. The French were never going to draw crowds by themselves, and the ARU severely misestimated the demand for tickets to the test.

Suncorp has had crowds over 40,000 for the June test most years. It devalues the product if when ticket sales are slow in 2014 they then have 2 for 1 deals or dramitically lower the price late in the piece. It also pisses off people who've already bought tickets for the original price.

Can you predict that drop in ticket sales in advance accurately? If so and you drop the ticket price by $20 one year, it's harder to bring it back up without people getting upset. Consumers are far more sensitive to price rises than price falls (i.e. the sentiment isn't inversely proportional).

You also have to stagger your ticket categories effectively. If your lowest category tickets are too cheap relative to the premium category then you struggle to sell the premium ticket because it is harder to justify the difference in price.

Using your numbers, if your lower ticket price only attracted 5,000 more fans then you are losing money. It's impossible to tell how much of your drop in crowd numbers related to prices.

There are also events in other states. Prices whilst not being identical need to remain somewhat in line.

I do think test match rugby is a premium event and we shouldn't be devaluing it. It should be more expensive than a night at the Super Rugby and it should be more expensive than going to an AFL or NRL game etc.

At what ever level you price anything at, some people will be priced out of the market. It's a fact of life.