Wallabies v Japan 25 Oct

[TSR]

That would be your own interpretation of it, no one else has said that. As TSR says, we roll out our weaker teams against weaker opponents, just like every tier 1 coach forever and a day has done .

I think there is an element of truth in it though. I don’t think there is any doubt we don’t have the depth of other major opponents and sometimes the only way to build depth is throw them on the field. Schmidt has mainly selected for consistency over the last 6 months - at least up until injuries intervened. But he’d also be aware we still have a lot of work to do on depth.

But I assume that wasn’t the primary driving force here. If it was you assume you’d see a team more closely aligned to what BR is looking for - which I get the logic to. I assume the number one guiding thought process was keeping our powder dry for the battles ahead.

 

[cyclopath]

Affable doesn't win test matches, Maaaate.

Probably why he actually wrote "affordable"...

 

[Wilson]

Probably why he actually wrote "affordable"...

He did actually write both:

"His career coaching hasn’t been as known as some free flowing wizard. He was affordable, available and interested in the job. probably the most affable HC going around which is a good thing for Rugby in Aus leading into a home WC."

 

[stillmissit]

I think there is an element of truth in it though. I don’t think there is any doubt we don’t have the depth of other major opponents and sometimes the only way to build depth is throw them on the field. Schmidt has mainly selected for consistency over the last 6 months - at least up until injuries intervened. But he’d also be aware we still have a lot of work to do on depth.

But I assume that wasn’t the primary driving force here. If it was you assume you’d see a team more closely aligned to what BR is looking for - which I get the logic to. I assume the number one guiding thought process was keeping our powder dry for the battles ahead.

I guess had we had 4 injuries to our best players that would have upset me more. It is a tricky game, but there is little upside to a win like this and plenty of downside,

 

[stillmissit]

He did actually write both:

"His career coaching hasn’t been as known as some free flowing wizard. He was affordable, available and interested in the job. probably the most affable HC going around which is a good thing for Rugby in Aus leading into a home WC."

Cyclo is right neither of these attributes win test matches. If we knew what did, then our problems would be over.

 

[TSR]

I guess had we had 4 injuries to our best players that would have upset me more. It is a tricky game, but there is little upside to a win like this and plenty of downside,

Nah - there’s plenty of upside.

All the players will benefit from the extra experience and the fact that they had to dig deep isn’t all bad. We have too many guys still who have less than 20 tests.

 

[stillmissit]

Nah - there’s plenty of upside.

All the players will benefit from the extra experience and the fact that they had to dig deep isn’t all bad. We have too many guys still who have less than 20 tests

I wonder if you would be saying this had we lost? There was a time in the last 20 where that looked like a strong possibility; they had most of the possession and were shutting us down easily. I struggle to see a lot of upside in this. The guys wouldn't be on the piss celebrating this effort.

 

[cyclopath]

He did actually write both:

"His career coaching hasn’t been as known as some free flowing wizard. He was affordable, available and interested in the job. probably the most affable HC going around which is a good thing for Rugby in Aus leading into a home WC."

Ha, my bad! Teach me to put my glasses on when reading the forii!

 

[cyclopath]

Obviously in retrospect, but I struggle to see the point of Tests like this, from a Wallabies POV. Not sure much was gained by chucking a scratch team with little to no cohesion out there with the potential to drop world ranking points at a time when we cannot afford to ship any. A few players impressed, but more than that number had little opportunity to show much given the way it played out. Plus we gained a few more injuries.
I think we might look pretty skinny towards the end of this tour.

 

[TSR]

I wonder if you would be saying this had we lost? There was a time in the last 20 where that looked like a strong possibility; they had most of the possession and were shutting us down easily. I struggle to see a lot of upside in this. The guys wouldn't be on the piss celebrating this effort.

Well, for one, we didn’t lose - so it’s a moot point.

But do I think guys like Nonggorr, Pietsch & Ross would have still benefitted. Definitely.

Do I think there would be more upside then downside - definitely not, but that wasn’t my contention anyway.

 

[PhilClinton]

Serious question - do high performance athletes really need 4 weeks off between games?

That seems to be the main reason Schmidt has justified rolling out the team he did in terms of wanting them fresh for the main tour games.

I feel like he’s opened himself and the team up to more criticism if they now start slow against England due to having no cohesion.

 

[KOB1987]

Serious question - do high performance athletes really need 4 weeks off between games?

That seems to be the main reason Schmidt has justified rolling out the team he did in terms of wanting them fresh for the main tour games.

I feel like he’s opened himself and the team up to more criticism if they now start slow against England due to having no cohesion.

That was never an issue that I am aware of. It’s that they have 5 games in 5 weeks, plus it might have been considered not to risk some of the best players in a game we should win without them. As Schmidt said, a calculated risk.

 

[KOB1987]

Obviously in retrospect, but I struggle to see the point of Tests like this, from a Wallabies POV. Not sure much was gained by chucking a scratch team with little to no cohesion out there with the potential to drop world ranking points at a time when we cannot afford to ship any. A few players impressed, but more than that number had little opportunity to show much given the way it played out. Plus we gained a few more injuries.
I think we might look pretty skinny towards the end of this tour.

I think most would agree with this, but a bit probably has to do with the agreement RA signed with the JRU a few years ago? I might be wrong on that. Regardless it probably seemed a good idea at the time as a warm up for the northern tour, they probably didn’t think about the WR (World Rugby) rankings being an issue when they scheduled it.

 

[Brumby Runner]

KOB, to me a warm-up game implies that most of the best players will get a run at some stage in order to ready themselves for the main courses to come.. As I've said on a couple of occasions in posts, I have no issue with starting with what is pretty much a development side but the bench should have had more of the likely top XXIII players in order to iron out any kinks before those main games. I would hate to see the Wallabies now go down to England because three or four of the team are short of a run.

I recall with some nervousness, that the Brumbies had a big win over the Drua in Round 1 of SR25 with what was very much a development side. The next week with all the top players back (around 5 or 6 Wallabies) they went down in a shock result to the Western Force. I have this uneasy feeling of deja vue.

 

[TSR]

Serious question - do high performance athletes really need 4 weeks off between games?

That seems to be the main reason Schmidt has justified rolling out the team he did in terms of wanting them fresh for the main tour games.

I feel like he’s opened himself and the team up to more criticism if they now start slow against England due to having no cohesion.

I have no professional expertise - but it seems to be standard industry practice, especially for teams on tour.

Schmidt isn’t doing anything that hasn’t been done 100 times before.

 

[Yoda]

The Springboks are constantly changing their lineups but it's not classed as someone being 'dropped', benched, a so called 'B team' or rotation. It's just using your squad based on who you are playing and trying to give everyone game time. Professional really.

 

[Wilson]

Serious question - do high performance athletes really need 4 weeks off between games?

That seems to be the main reason Schmidt has justified rolling out the team he did in terms of wanting them fresh for the main tour games.

I feel like he’s opened himself and the team up to more criticism if they now start slow against England due to having no cohesion.

In this case I don't think it's about the time since last game, as much as it is about the 5 games in a row they've got scheduled. He's spoken about the attrition they experienced by the end of the tour last year and that's what they're trying to avoid.

That said there were a couple of players reported as carrying niggles (Ala'alatoa and Tupou) who likely will have benefited from an extra week off.

 

[KOB1987]

KOB, to me a warm-up game implies that most of the best players will get a run at some stage in order to ready themselves for the main courses to come.. As I've said on a couple of occasions in posts, I have no issue with starting with what is pretty much a development side but the bench should have had more of the likely top XXIII players in order to iron out any kinks before those main games. I would hate to see the Wallabies now go down to England because three or four of the team are short of a run.

I recall with some nervousness, that the Brumbies had a big win over the Drua in Round 1 of SR25 with what was very much a development side. The next week with all the top players back (around 5 or 6 Wallabies) they went down in a shock result to the Western Force. I have this uneasy feeling of deja vue.

hence why I said at the time it was scheduled it was viewed as a warm up game, but by the time it came around it was viewed as a distraction they would rather didn’t exist so the approach was to navigate through it with as little disruption as possible to the main game that lies ahead . Anyways, we got through it so let’s just look forward to next week!

 

[TSR]

The Springboks are constantly changing their lineups but it's not classed as someone being 'dropped', benched, a so called 'B team' or rotation. It's just using your squad based on who you are playing and trying to give everyone game time. Professional really.

And I think this is the big difference. Everyone else can run out their B teams and it doesn’t matter so much. It’s been a long time since we’ve been in that position and, when we’ve done to, we’ve dropped a few games. But teams still do it and have done for some time. it certainly wasn’t the Boks A team that got done by Japan at the World Cup all those years ago and it wasn’t Frances A team that visited Australia a few years ago.

Edit: and there’s every chance it cost them the series

 

[Slim 293]

While there was a lot to dislike - the early pick n drives, for example - we got a win, and Eddie can suck it.

There was some serious white line fever going on there...

After what felt like 100 pick and drives, Bell was standing one out of the ruck with a massive gap in the defensive line in front of him screaming for the ball, and Canham picked it up and went head first into nowhere... and then I'm pretty sure we turned it over a couple of phases after that.