Wallabies v Lions Game 2 MCG 26 July

[PhilClinton]

If Schmidt thinks there would have been a huge difference in playing JAS and Ikitau in different spots, wouldn't you just do that during the course of the game. This isn't netball, the number on your back is a guideline of where you are playing but you can line up wherever you want.

I feel like swapping their jersey numbers is a nothing move.

 

[Sword of Justice]

I heard BOK say that - but I didn't think they were playing that law variation in the test matches?

I believe they’re clamping down on throws beyond 15m not being straight but there a more knowledgeable law people here than I

 

[Ignoto]

Timing was completely off. One throw was wayward but they didn’t compete so we weren’t pinged. Given that pollard throws and Slipper/Ala'alatoa lifts at the Brums I’d be starting them all together.

I think Mario got underneath one of our jumpers to dislodge a ball and Curry read that lineout move like a book. Outside of those two events I don't remember it being an issue.

 

[Tomthumb]

I think Mario got underneath one of our jumpers to dislodge a ball and Curry read that lineout move like a book. Outside of those two events I don't remember it being an issue.

Those were both crucial points of the game and both in an attacking spots. The Wallabies need to be taking every chance they get, not handing the Lions more of them due to poor execution

 

[notdeadyet]

If we are going to move away from the constant up and under kicking tactics, I wouldn't mind seeing Daugunu brought into a wing spot or on the bench. The bloke will at least come in off the wing and have a crack and we know he can tackle.

and get in the way ...

 

[Strewthcobber]

You a concussion specialist mate?
We have to be careful we're not just taking players off that have concussion history. It was a big hit, but he was on his feet straight away. The doctors would have watched the tape.

The whole point of the HIA process is you don't need to be a specialist, you just have to recognise when there has been an impact to the head

"Head Impact Asssessment" - get them off the field so the doctors can assess.

 

[notdeadyet]

But thinking the starting side in test 1 showed an acceptable level of cohesion is ignoring the evidence before our eyes.

We seem to be on the same page in relation to Valetini and Skelton. My argument is that cohesion/performance would improve by also beefing up the backrow and bringing in better performers in the halves and outside backs. Therefore, Gleeson at 8 for a more physical ball running threat, Hooper at 7 to provide lineout cohesion with Skelton at lock while retaining breakdown presence and pilfering capability, Tate and Donaldson in the halves to better set up attacking capability in the backline and better skills execution, and my sole outsider being Pietsch in place of Potter who it seems is out of his depth at this level.

I know there is no chance of all of these changes being implemented. However, given most would already be training in the suggested positions and are already in or around the test squad, even just a few of them would be more likely to improve both team cohesion and performance.

Valetini, hooper, gleeson
stirring my juices there BR

 

[Major Tom]

The whole point of the HIA process is you don't need to be a specialist, you just have to recognise when there has been an impact to the head

"Head Impact Asssessment" - get them off the field so the doctors can assess.

It doesn't work that way. The medics and doctors review the footage. He got run over but I’m not sure how much, if any, was head contact. There is head contact nearly every pick and drive for the line and they don’t send people off for that.

 

[TSR]

His head did seem to clash with the hip. I agree he got up quickly but I was surprised it didn’t a mandatory HIA assessment.

Having said that I have faith the people responsible for these things know their job.

 

[Strewthcobber]

It doesn't work that way. The medics and doctors review the footage. He got run over but I’m not sure how much, if any, was head contact. There is head contact nearly every pick and drive for the line and they don’t send people off for that.

I know. That's why I'm critical of it. The only way to assess potential injury is off the field

Tackle is at 54:10 on the match clock and then front on replay at 2:19:55 on Stan coverage for the head impact

Direct head contact in the tackle for mine, and then appears to stumble getting back up afterwards (although he may have tripped on the ruck).

 

[Brumby Runner]

Anyone arguing for the Reds 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 combination to start for the Wallabies is ignoring the performance of this group in Super Rugby this year as well as turning a blind eye to the result of the Reds/Lions match earlier in the tour.

McReight remains the premier No 7 in the country but his recent performances have been underwhelming or maybe just overshadowed by the way the Lions backrow has dominated. Harry Wilson is a high rate No 8 but with limited ability to make an impression at this level. Valetini and Gleeson are both better players especially where it counts in bending or breaking the defensive line in close. Tate is the outstanding attacking No 9 and ought to be starting imo, but Tom Lynagh is not yet our test No 10. He was consistently found out under the high ball, his kicking game was poor both for touch and in general play and he did nothing to get the backline attack functioning. Hunter P has rarely stood up at test level. He is mostly one dimensional and easily contained by top level opposition.

If these were the answer to any of the Wallabies issues, they would have made more impact in the Super Rugby competition this year.

 

[Tomthumb]

Langi Gleeson is not a better player than Harry Wilson, c'mon now

 

[Major Tom]

I know. That's why I'm critical of it. The only way to assess potential injury is off the field

Tackle is at 54:10 on the match clock and then front on replay at 2:19:55 on Stan coverage for the head contact.

Direct head contact in the tackle for mine, and then appears to stumble getting back up afterwards (although he may have tripped on the ruck).

I know the tackle you are referring to. It's not conclusive for me. He got to his feet and momentarily stumbled but this could have due to the ruck or being exhausted or the fact he just got run over. I reckon the only reason we're talking about it is because he has a history of head knocks.

 

[Slim 293]

Langi Gleeson is not a better player than Harry Wilson, c'mon now

Gleeson is much stronger in contact and a far more effective ball carrier...

Wilson has a higher workrate, more skillful and better in the lineout.

 

[Major Tom]

Anyone arguing for the Reds 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 combination to start for the Wallabies is ignoring the performance of this group in Super Rugby this year as well as turning a blind eye to the result of the Reds/Lions match earlier in the tour.

McReight remains the premier No 7 in the country but his recent performances have been underwhelming or maybe just overshadowed by the way the Lions backrow has dominated. Harry Wilson is a high rate No 8 but with limited ability to make an impression at this level. Valetini and Gleeson are both better players especially where it counts in bending or breaking the defensive line in close. Tate is the outstanding attacking No 9 and ought to be starting imo, but Tom Lynagh is not yet our test No 10. He was consistently found out under the high ball, his kicking game was poor both for touch and in general play and he did nothing to get the backline attack functioning. Hunter P has rarely stood up at test level. He is mostly one dimensional and easily contained by top level opposition.

If these were the answer to any of the Wallabies issues, they would have made more impact in the Super Rugby competition this year.

He was close to player of the match against Fiji. He's played the lions once and he didn't even play badly. Gleeson should only start if Wilson or Valetini can't.

 

[Slim 293]

I don't see us not starting with the preferred backrow from last year of Valetini/McReight/Wilson...

Gleeson can really make an impact coming on in the second half, but I would be bringing off Wilson for him, and not Valetini.

 

[Hogan]

Anyone arguing for the Reds 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 combination to start for the Wallabies is ignoring the performance of this group in Super Rugby this year as well as turning a blind eye to the result of the Reds/Lions match earlier in the tour.

McReight remains the premier No 7 in the country but his recent performances have been underwhelming or maybe just overshadowed by the way the Lions backrow has dominated. Harry Wilson is a high rate No 8 but with limited ability to make an impression at this level. Valetini and Gleeson are both better players especially where it counts in bending or breaking the defensive line in close. Tate is the outstanding attacking No 9 and ought to be starting imo, but Tom Lynagh is not yet our test No 10. He was consistently found out under the high ball, his kicking game was poor both for touch and in general play and he did nothing to get the backline attack functioning. Hunter P has rarely stood up at test level. He is mostly one dimensional and easily contained by top level opposition.

If these were the answer to any of the Wallabies issues, they would have made more impact in the Super Rugby competition this year.

Interesting comments re Lynagh BR which I tend to agree with. I appreciate it was his first Test start but I thought he had no impact on the game whatsoever. Supposedly selected for his superior kicking game, he missed his only conversion, missed a crucial touch finder, gained minimal distance with his line kicks and many of his general kicks were too deep. But most importantly, as you mention, he failed to ignite his backline. Any chance we had to win the game was by attacking the spaces provided out wide. Most of the time he simply shovelled the ball whilst standing still. A lot of hype around him but yet to be convinced.

 

[Joe Blow]

Langi Gleeson is not a better player than Harry Wilson, c'mon now

Wilson was one of our best and he can go for 80. I would actually bring in Valetini at 6 and put CDC on the bench. He does not quite have Gleesons running game but his defence was mammoth. He is also a legitimate lineout target and can cover 6/7/8. Gleeson is off OS soon and CDC looks like he belongs.

 

[Major Tom]

Interesting comments re Lynagh BR which I tend to agree with. I appreciate it was his first Test start but I thought he had no impact on the game whatsoever. Supposedly selected for his superior kicking game, he missed his only conversion, missed a crucial touch finder, gained minimal distance with his line kicks and many of his general kicks were too deep. But most importantly, as you mention, he failed to ignite his backline. Any chance we had to win the game was by attacking the spaces provided out wide. Most of the time he simply shovelled the ball whilst standing still. A lot of hype around him but yet to be convinced.

He's 22 and it's his first start. I reckon he was reasonably solid. He did miss his conversion and the pen kick before half time but other than that his kicking wasn't too shabby. He'll go better when he has the ability to shovel the ball to a rampaging Valetini.

 

[Ignoto]

turning a blind eye to the result of the Reds/Lions match earlier in the tour.

Odd thing to say when only Hunter out of that list played and he was at least potm for the Reds........