Wallabies v Poms, EOYT 2010, Twickenham

[Gnostic]

McKenzie has totally hardened up two sides now. Seems to prove that it's possible. I reckon when Link gets the job post-RWC we'll see our forward play improve out of sight. Especially if he hires Foley to be scrum coach.

And Mooney for the backs. Les Kiss for defence.

Deans has two chances of the ABs job now and we know what they are.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Hang on Gnostic, didn't you rattle off a list of your preferred props earlier in the week. I maintain that our best front row is Robinson, TPN and Alexander, but the minute players think their spot is assured their performances drop off. Like I said, put a couple of these guys on notice, because they look like they are cruising a bit.

Half back is more difficult, I agree.

I don't think the situation was really any different last EOYT in terms of playing stocks and I would argue that hard decisions *were* taken. Think about the experienced guys who didn't tour and/or haven't played again for Australia. There are a few of them. Deans put his stake in the ground with the young blokes and I agreed with him then and still do now. It's mostly the more experienced guys who look shaky to me, like Chisolm, Mumm, Brown and even Rocky if I'm honest. They've all had enough tests under their belt to know the way.

 

[Groucho]

Same old same old Groucho.

The fact is that the losses have been predictable and the wins marginal at best. There have been patches of individual brilliance which have assisted the WBs to look much better than they are in truth. What we saw from England last night was a very well balanced team with a good game plan executed very well. When was the last time those factors came together for the WBs?

I don't know how we can be proven right when we consistantly pick the winners:losers and generally how it will occur.

Of course the coach doesn't play but he chooses who does and also should decide the game plans, including contingencies. Show me some evidence of thorough work in these areas. The other two areas the Coaches have massive input is in 1. conditioning and fitness - why is it that all the props except Alexander, (who hasn't been with the squad that long) look overweight and not trim like last year. 2. Bench use - this was back to its worst again last night but apart from one or two tests out of nearly three years has been consistantly woeful. If the bench players cannot offer anything in the second half they shouldn't be there.

I think the difference between my view and yours, Gnostic, is that I can see that responsibility is shared between all the contributors to a debacle.

Deans' obvious contribution was the wrong choice of game plan. However, when we play like shit, it is the players that are playing like shit.

Of course the coach contributes to all the factors you list, as, more critically, do the assistant coaches. But it wasn't bad coaching that lost us the test yesterday. It was inexcusable, execrable play.

 

[Gnostic]

I think the difference between my view and yours, Gnostic, is that I can see that responsibility is shared between all the contributors to a debacle.

Deans' obvious contribution was the wrong choice of game plan. However, when we play like shit, it is the players that are playing like shit.

Of course the coach contributes to all the factors you list, as, more critically, do the assistant coaches. But it wasn't bad coaching that lost us the test yesterday. It was inexcusable, execrable play.

Which has been the same for nearly three years. The real difference between our points of view is that I actually want some accountability, you just say oh well the players played shit and then support the selection of the same again the next week. Why do you expect any different?

 

[Gnostic]

Hang on Gnostic, didn't you rattle off a list of your preferred props earlier in the week. I maintain that our best front row is Robinson, TPN and Alexander, but the minute players think their spot is assured their performances drop off. Like I said, put a couple of these guys on notice, because they look like they are cruising a bit.

Half back is more difficult, I agree.

I don't think the situation was really any different last EOYT in terms of playing stocks and I would argue that hard decisions *were* taken. Think about the experienced guys who didn't tour and/or haven't played again for Australia. There are a few of them. Deans put his stake in the ground with the young blokes and I agreed with him then and still do now. It's mostly the more experienced guys who look shaky to me, like Chisolm, Mumm, Brown and even Rocky if I'm honest. They've all had enough tests under their belt to know the way.

A threat of dropping is bullshit unless that player knows the is genuine competition for his spot. What I was saying Hornet in the squad's that Deans has chosen in the last three years who is there to take his spot? Really? Bearing in mind the Prop Ranking thread.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It's a good question and it would have to be somebody who hasn't played test footy yet, because Fatcat replaced those other blokes for a reason. I'm not one for threats either really, but there have to be standards that each individual player has to measure up to, just the rest of us in our professional lives. At LHP, it would be Alexander, moving from tight head and Slipper to play TH and then probably a couple of the other Tahs squad guys.

Anyway, I've got to head out for a few of hours. The above are just my thoughts on the run.

 

[Reddy!]

I'll use small words, Reddy!.
No. I do not say we do not need a goal-kicker. Where did I say that? In Reddy!'s parallel reality? I said we don't have one that can. Not many of those do it from long distance regularly either, Steyns aside.

Looking up my dictionary...

 

[Reddy!]

The coach didn't miss the kicks, or the crucial tackles, or take any ill-advised tap penalties then get turned over. The players need to take responsibility for these things.

The coach didn't play out of his skin for England. England must bear the responsibility for that.

Coach selects players who lose games, Coach selects players who lose games again, Coach selects players who lose games once more.

Coach directs players to play a losing game plan, coach directs players to play a losing game plan again, etc.

Coach and players are the same thing. All responsible. All part of the team.

It's like saying the German army are to blame for losing WW2, not Hitler, because they are the ones firing the guns.

 

[Reddy!]

And Groucho, you also say that the players are to blame, not the coach, for the Wallabies loss last night, but everyone is goddamn England, like Martin Johnson, deserve credit for Englands win. :S!

 

[MrMouse]

Those bitching about the refereeing last night are way off base. There is no such thing as a perfect refereeing performance but Joubert was respectable and reasonably consistent. We again failed to adapt very well to those interpretations but that lies with us, really. Gits definitely deserved his 10, and also incidentally did the right thing vs a definite try. Only thing he did right all night...

I'm also a bit shitted at those heaping blame on Deans. Yep, both playing group and coaching group failed to adapt to England's "radical" game plan. But only 15 were out there to execute basic skills like tackling and passing (fail), tactical kicking vs ball in hand (fail - arguably game plan), goal kicking (fail), set piece (lineout pass, scrum debatable but even on penalties). I have disagreed with a lot of Deans' wider squad selections but as he's moved towards the 22 we want it's still all him. WTF? When the players aren't up to it on a given day it's still all him. WTF? Give it a rest.

Adequate - Robinson and Alexander (realistically both were adequate, really), Chisholm (much as I hate to admit), Mitchell, O'Connor
Solid - Barnes, Burgess
Good - Sharpe, Moore, Pocock, Elsom
Great - Beale
Shit - Everyone else.
When 1/3 of your team plays shithouse and only 1/3 could be considered above average you won't win against the top nations.

Particularly not when you consider that England really were fucking good. Live with it, provide useful advice or bugger off. Johnson and his team deserve credit for some (gradual) astute selections and devising a solid game plan but it was the players who went out there and played out of their skins.

 

[MrMouse]

I guess I should specify JOC (James O'Connor) was adequate if you exclude his shite kicking. You can put him in the shit group if you want but it mucks up my proportions

 

[cyclopath]

Which has been the same for nearly three years. The real difference between our points of view is that I actually want some accountability, you just say oh well the players played shit and then support the selection of the same again the next week. Why do you expect any different?

I would be quite happy to see the players front again, but they have to really turn up, apply themselves as most, if not all have shown they CAN in the past. They have to make the tackles, they have to think on their feet (Rocky and other senior players) and show some of the aggression England showed. Most of this lot turned up in Hong Kong and did the job, where we should have won by even more if not for poor goal-kicking.
The tries last night both came from well-constructed play, so the game plan is not a total bust. But they seem to lose touch with it for long periods. But execution was horribly inaccurate - execution of many of the kicks, tackling etc...
And, last but not least, England were very, very good.

 

[RugbyFuture]

Seriosuly. You're looking for excuses in all the wrong places.....

....Joubert was pretty much spot on except at a couple of scrums and the lenght of field try (where looking again now he was unsighted so blame the touchie).

Did you watch the game? the english where offside, im pretty sure the whole game except the kickoffs, lying all over the ball, coming in from the side, handling the ball on the ground. if any of our players did it they where immediately penalised.

Whilst it was the wobblies fault for much of it, it wasn't helped and the english perfermoance was heavily exagerated by joubert.

 

[Groucho]

Which has been the same for nearly three years. The real difference between our points of view is that I actually want some accountability, you just say oh well the players played shit and then support the selection of the same again the next week. Why do you expect any different?

Assigning blame to one selected person, regardless of the cause of an event, isn't accountability. It's politics.

In any case, you're wrong on what I think. I think one of Deans' contributions to our problems is bad selections. I would be selecting different players after this debacle. I would have been selecting some different players some time ago, for example Barnes and Turner. But the bottom line is these are the players we have. If we sack them, will the replacements do better? In most cases those replacements will be extremely green, and while they get up to speed, Deans will be constantly criticized for selecting them.

 

[naza]

Ashtons try was the tipping point. What happened to the attacking team having the advantage? Palmer did not release Genia and made no attempt to roll away while Flood (who was also involved in the tackle) came in from the side of the ruck.

- Ashtons first try, Pocock gets held back by you called it - Ashton

- Penalty kick that puts us out of the test with a grim 29-13 scoreline comes about from a Tindall shepard on J'OC allowing Cueto to break the line

I'm surprised not more was made of this. I was in disbelief both England tries were awarded. The first England try, Ashton deadset tacked Pocock who was in cover defence. Not to mention the obstruction to lead to the line break, which England were doing all day. An absolute farce. For the second try, I was wondering which England spoiler Joubert would yellow card. Madness. Joubert fucked us over.

I'm far from bitter. I thought England would beat us. I thought they played the better test rugby - high intensity, aggressive and clinical.

 

[Groucho]

And Groucho, you also say that the players are to blame, not the coach, for the Wallabies loss last night, but everyone is goddamn England, like Martin Johnson, deserve credit for Englands win. :S!

If that means what I think it does, I agree,

 

[MrMouse]

The first England try, Ashton deadset tacked Pocock who was in cover defence.

Link?

I thought Joubert was predictably lax around the ruck area and we should have taken more opportunities to, as RF mentions, get up offside, lie on the ball etc. But I don't think he significantly impacted the outcome. I might review that opinion if I can see the Pocock incident.

 

[Blue]

Did you watch the game? the english where offside, im pretty sure the whole game except the kickoffs, lying all over the ball, coming in from the side, handling the ball on the ground. if any of our players did it they where immediately penalised.

Whilst it was the wobblies fault for much of it, it wasn't helped and the english perfermoance was heavily exagerated by joubert.

Complete an utter rubbish. While he made mistakes, the Wallabies got smacked in spite of him.

But hey, if it makes you feel better then have all of it.

 

[Rothschild]

Aside from the piss weak backline defence, the front row, scrum as a whole, indiscriminate midfield kicks, lack of leadership, lousy penetration by Giteau, lousy distribution by Giteau, slow delivery from the T/R/M, flacid contact, does anyone think we have any problems moving forward.
Oh and when England ffs score a length of the field try, that is a great cue to cut the fuck out kicking the ball away and learn to attack and use your strengths.
Sheez, what a disgrace that was.

 

[Groucho]

Aside from the piss weak backline defence, the front row, scrum as a whole, indiscriminate midfield kicks, lack of leadership, lousy penetration by Giteau, lousy distribution by Giteau, slow delivery from the T/R/M, flacid contact, does anyone think we have any problems moving forward.
Oh and when England ffs score a length of the field try, that is a great cue to cut the fuck out kicking the ball away and learn to attack and use your strengths.
Sheez, what a disgrace that was.

Well, they scored the length of the field try from a turnover, not a kick.

But it was a disgrace.