• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Wallabies v Italy, Florence, Sun 13th Nov 12am AEDT

Status
Not open for further replies.

stillmissit

Peter Johnson (47)
Maybe a little unfair on guys like Hanigan who carried a lot into the line and was there for the link plays.

The rest were too up and down
Yeah and that''s the problem, we love to run with the ball but our breakdown and D is pretty poor.
 

Pfitzy

Nathan Sharpe (72)
A mate of mine is watching the game now and is 20 mins in - he said 'they have no game plan'

They did, and it probably looked like the plan against France: play territory and force points through pressure.

But when you have players running it back at halfway instead of kicking to the corners it looks bad.
 

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
Uh.... maybe I'm reading what you said wrong, but that's utter horseshit Reg. You've been around these environments, you know how it works. The coaching statement is actually "If you want into the top XV then this is your chance, go show us what you've got"

There is an acknowledgement that Italy aren't as tough France, and that some players need rest.

If you're getting word from inside the camp that players are unhappy, maybe that validates your statement.

Not surprisingly I think you’ve misread it.

Giving someone a game to prove themselves in the top side is one thing. Throwing them to the wolves is another. If you want to give McReight a real chance to stake his claim then don’t put him with Samu and Hanigan. Two ineffective players at the break down (Samu good as 7 when the balance of the back row is fine but he was missing in action last night as an 8).

Marky Mark (Nawaqanitawase) and Wright are the same player. High risk. Don’t pick both and expect them to ‘make your case’. Especially when the 15 is another rookie who has been sick all week (out of the coaches control that one). When you’re relying on Wright to be your experienced head in the back 3, that’s trouble. I’d say he’s played more footy this year than Kellaway. Kel should have played.

To have a rookie 10 as the back up to the 10 we have completely mind fucked for the last 12 months was just dumb.

The balance of this side was terrible. That’s down to the coaches.
 

RedOrDead

Charlie Fox (21)
Nawaqanitawase looks promising on the wing, work in progress though.

Samu was good. Better as an impact player off the bench though.

Tom “Rocks and Diamonds” Wright did as expected.

….

That is about the only positives from this test.
 

gel

Ken Catchpole (46)
Which 30 years? In the 80s we had a few years of success, then in the early and late 90s. In between there have been gulfs of average performances. Certain historic milestones stand out like a drawn tour in South Africa or a rare Bledisloe win. But we're reaping what we sow at this point in professionalism.

Fact: at points in our history, squads of excellent players with excellent leadership have come together - in spite of the systems providing them - and been as good or better than their peers at Test level. When those individuals aren't there, the system isn't providing enough excellence to drive performance standards.
1980 4 wins/4 games
1981 3/5
1982 4/6
1983 4 wins/1 draw/7 games
1984 6/8
1985 4/5
1986 6/7
1987 5/1/10
1988 4/1/8
1989 2/6
1990 4/6
1991 9/10
1992 7/8
1993 5/8
1994 6/6
1995 4/8
1996 8/10
1997 6/1/12
1998 11/13
1999 11/13
2000 8/10
2001 6/1/11
2002 6/10
2003 9/14
2004 9/12
2005 5/13
2006 7/1/13
2007 9/12
2008 9/14
2009 6/1/14
2010 9/15
2011 9/13

I might have missed some, but that clearly shows that thare has not been "gulf in between" decent performances. The number of crap years is far lower than good.

Against all opposition across the globe for about 30 years we would generally be considered a high chance to win the match as indicated by the results. How many years are lower than 50%? How many teir 2 nations during that period had >50% over that prolonged period of time against tier 1 & 2 opposition? Outside of New Zealand or South Africa, I can't think of another nation that has had a record like that over that same period. Remembering that a sizeable number of these games are against NZ and SA - the two most dominant teams for a sizeable chunk of that time as well.

If your definition was that only NZ and SA have ever been Tier 1, and the rest have been tier 2, then I'd agree with you. But I don't use that definition.

Wallabies have been a tier 1 nation for about 30 years, and the last 10 years has been a marked decline. This not just a 2 or 3 year blip.

The modern wallabies are physically far superior to most of their predecessors, but their core skillsets are laughably worse.
 

stillmissit

Peter Johnson (47)
Every time the ref was near the pack the occa voice you heard through his mic was Hanigan Geeing up the boys. He was everywhere he needed to be and didn’t do anything stupid. Hanigan played well behind a crap team
Mostly the pack had a poor game and you can point to players you thought played well but it just goes to prove a tight team will beat a team of individuals.
Individuality is one of our problems and it shows in many ways inc. penalties and questioning ref's decisions. If you must know what you did wrong save it till the game is over.
 
Last edited:

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
Was average at best. For all the commentary about how Hooper is ineffective over the ball, McReight was absent today against supposedly lesser opposition. The 3 penalties he conceded were a game high.

Can you remember what the 3 were for? I remember one ‘not releasing’ I think? Can’t think of the others?
 

Pfitzy

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Not surprisingly I think you’ve misread it

Well it wasn't very good on the detail to being with, but I forgive you.

If you want to give McReight a real chance to stake his claim then don’t put him with Samu and Hanigan. Two ineffective players at the break down

I think "ineffective at the breakdown" is pretty much everyone at this point, so not sure that holds up as a sound argument.

The sad thing is: that ruck performance was about average for us the last few years, with a lot of inaccuracy that is partly this coaching crop's fault, partly every coach they've had previously, and mostly the systems they've grown up in.

Instinct is important and these guys don't get that kind of competition at school or youth provincial level. Suddenly they're in a Super squad and the Kiwis are schooling them. Club Rugby is no prep.

I feel a bit for McReight - life as an openside in Australia is tough, and has been for years. You're unlikely to get a bench spot and unlikely to get a start ahead of the incumbent. Your strength over the ball can be nullified by a referee's interpretations, and limited chances can slip away fairly easily.

We don't have the luxury of swapping individuals in at Test level to try them out, so you've got to make the best of your opportunities. I'm not sure many did, and the coaching staff should be having serious words to Fainga'a, Gordon, Wright, and Nawaqanitawase about their execution in particular.
 

Derpus

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Fuck i wish we wernt so poor. Losing to Italy should earn you a punt directly into the fucking sun.

Instead we'll plod on with mr 2% win rate for a whole world cup and exactly zero fans will remain. It'll just be me, drunk, bitterly complaining to no one.
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
Rennie is a kiwi who was appointed by a kiwi. He is passionate about coaching but he couldn’t really give a fuck whether he is coaching us or American Samoa.

Whoever is coaching us HAS to be passionate about Australian rugby. First box to be ticked, create the shortlist from that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top