Wallabies v Poms, EOYT 2010, Twickenham

[barbarian]

Yes but ball in hand can only work in certain circumstances. For instance off the kick-off: we seem to have adopted the tactic of trying to run the ball out of our own 22 when we receive a kickoff. I really hate it because you have very little to gain and a lot to lose- the opposition defensive line is well set, and they are fresh from a break after a try/pg. We generally throw it around for a few phases and then boot it downfield when we aren't making inroads.

I agree with the sentiment of not kicking away good opportunities, but our use of kicking on Saturday was very much required. Our attack was misfiring, and we were often left with nothing happening. Instead of taking the ball into contact knowing full well there was a good chance of a turnover we often chose to belt it downfield. In that instance it is the right option.

I am still baffled by your general 'kick too much' criticism though. This team kicks far less than any previous Wallaby outfit, and the stats back that up.

 

[cyclopath]

Okay I'll sort this all out, I'm an expert:

RedsHappy - we all like you and your input, passion, however, try and keep your posts a bit shorter and to the point. It'll make for a much tidier forum and debates that don't stray off topic yadayadayada.

The Jocks - stop being dicks and gloating about how short yours post and making EXTREMELY BORING jokes about word length. Accept all creatures great and small, in Gods name, Amen.

Reddy! - I like your shirt today.

...continue rugby discussion in an orderly manner thankyou.

Sometimes we forget how lucky we are to have Reddy! Kissinger in our ranks. Nice shirt, BTW.

 

[Gnostic]

Yes but ball in hand can only work in certain circumstances. For instance off the kick-off: we seem to have adopted the tactic of trying to run the ball out of our own 22 when we receive a kickoff. I really hate it because you have very little to gain and a lot to lose- the opposition defensive line is well set, and they are fresh from a break after a try/pg. We generally throw it around for a few phases and then boot it downfield when we aren't making inroads.

I agree with the sentiment of not kicking away good opportunities, but our use of kicking on Saturday was very much required. Our attack was misfiring, and we were often left with nothing happening. Instead of taking the ball into contact knowing full well there was a good chance of a turnover we often chose to belt it downfield. In that instance it is the right option.

I am still baffled by your general 'kick too much' criticism though. This team kicks far less than any previous Wallaby outfit, and the stats back that up.

There is a big difference between kicking long and the grubber and chip kicks. The latter forms are low percentage and have only ever been used sparingly for good reason. Why does it seem we seen multiple attempts in every game when they are such low percentage and more often than not deliver the ball back to the opposition in what is essentially a turnover opportunity.

The long kicking was pretty poor against England as well Bar-man. Invariably the kicks were fielded easily. Compounding the easy of the fielding of the ball was the very poor kick chase. Think Cooper's last long kick fielded by Cueto and run straight back. Cooper met him on our 10M line meaning that Cueto had covered 20 metres before first contact, in which Cueto beat Cooper as easily a Lomu would beat the worst tackler in an under 16 girls team and galloped on for the try.

The sheer number of kicks matters little, it is the execution and the follow-up.

 

[MrMouse]

Wow Naza thanks. That's pretty appalling, given Joubert was right there, even though he appeared to be watching the ball. Wow.

 

[MrMouse]

You see Barb, respectfully, I don't agree there was engagement on these central matters of any real depth, 'months ago'. I don't think the precise and visible competencies (or otherwise) of, just for example, Williams and Graham were then, or have been since, debated constructively and in detail. Same re the absence of the potentially relevant specialist coaches that, notably, have not been retained for most of the 2008-10 period. I for one have consistently raised issues in these areas that have nothing directly to do with 'Anti-Deans mob', but do go to the whole coaching infrastructure as has been put in place by the ARU (and Deans).



OK - so in effect you are saying. 'RH - the 4 substantive issues you raised last night re: kicking coaching and selection; mental skills and team culture; defence capability and consistency, and quality of breakdown work/forwards play' have all been adequately dealt with in reasoned debate months ago, and 'you know what we think' (your words) on these matters'. If 'we' here is, for speculative example, you, Groucho, Cyclo, Gaggs, TK, then, honestly, I genuinely cannot recall you properly debating those core, more detailed, issues in terms of coaching responsibility (or perhaps clearly arguing as to why they are not really the coaches' responsibility). Rather, the line has been more 'macro not micro', namely: 'RD is a visionary coach, who has selected and promoted some exceptionally talented young players whom have formed an attack that will improve the w-l ratio and win us a RWC, and we are improving quite well as we have just beaten the Boks away, and once beaten the ABs.'

Mate that's 9 issues:
Kicking
Coaching
Selection
Mental Skills
Team Culture
Defence Capability
Defensive Consistency
Quality of Breakdown Work
Forward Play

I am but a humble man and I cannot construct essays of the performance and attributes of Australian rugby like you can, but I like to think I can count.

Forgive us all if we can't address all your issues, and tend to sum your conclusions up as "Australian rugby sucks kill them all." This might be unfair, or not what you see as the main point/s you're driving but it's what I read.

Of your 9 points I would agree that all have some tie-in to the coaching staff, some specifically to Robbie Deans and all have been major issues at one time another not just in the last three years but the last decade across different levels of Australian rugby. Just as one man is not the solution, one man is not the problem.

I can see that other people are addressing specific points from your article (not post). I hope they can address some of your issues adequately. In the meantime, chill dude.

 

[fatprop]

[video=youtube;ytg5AcPWPSw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytg5AcPWPSw&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Just for clarification @ .30, shouldn't the defenders release Genia?

14 & 10 were tacklers and never released unless there is a special "Twickers" ruling

 

[MrMouse]

Send this guy to Israel, he can fix any dispute!

I'm putting him on an aid boat right now...Snap.

 

[MrMouse]

Just for clarification @ .30, shouldn't the defenders release Genia?

14 & 10 were tacklers and never released unless there is a special "Twickers" ruling

That's my understanding but Joubert (like many int'l refs) was unwilling to call this most of the night. Except against Benn Robinson.

 

[Jnor]

There seems to be something seriously wrong in the offciation of both of those trys. As fp pointed out I still find it hard to understand why the touchies hardly ever seem to intervene unless it is a matter of foul play. But the game is over and I guess we have to live with our equal worst ever loss to the Poms - something I'm sure none of us want to see bettered.

As for the debate re Dingo - I think it's obvious there have been some bad decisions but I don't think anyone has advocated he is without blame; just as the players themselves have to be faulted for being out of position/falling off tackles/missing 10-12 points worth of kicks etc. It's obviously a combination of these things that lost us the game and I agree with BaaBaa in saying that unless we're at training ourselves trying to apportion blame almost solely one way or the other is impossible to do.

I am tempted to think that Deans' perceived successful development of KN, QC (Quade Cooper), JOC (James O'Connor) into test players (although QC (Quade Cooper)'s faults as goddamn abominations atm) and failure in the case of props/hookers is just an indication of his own background and feel for the game. Anyone else see this?

The problem seems to me to be ATTITUDE. We have talent, cattle and the ability to pull of some big wins. But we can't do it consistently and that's what will stop the Wallabies winning the World Cup next year (oh, and missing goals).

 

[Rothschild]

I am still baffled by your general 'kick too much' criticism though. This team kicks far less than any previous Wallaby outfit, and the stats back that up.

You can take that as as a strong indication that I abhor kicking away good posession, particularly when or if it gets returned with interest.
Too many scrum and lineout encounters killing myself only to have some flashy flyhalf not have sufficient appreciationfor all the work I and the other forwrds have just done in securing posession. Ball is gold, you can't score without it.
Me, I would have every back spend a season in the with the pigs to learn just what it takes to get that pill.

 

[I like to watch]

OK - so in effect you are saying. 'RH - the 4 substantive issues you raised last night re: kicking coaching and selection; mental skills and team culture; defence capability and consistency, and quality of breakdown work/forwards play' have all been adequately dealt with in reasoned debate months ago, and 'you know what we think' (your words) on these matters'. If 'we' here is, for speculative example, you, Groucho, Cyclo, Gaggs, TK, then, honestly, I genuinely cannot recall you properly debating those core, more detailed, issues in terms of coaching responsibility (or perhaps clearly arguing as to why they are not really the coaches' responsibility). Rather, the line has been more 'macro not micro', namely: 'RD is a visionary coach, who has selected and promoted some exceptionally talented young players whom have formed an attack that will improve the w-l ratio and win us a RWC, and we are improving quite well as we have just beaten the Boks away, and once beaten the ABs.'

RH, they might be substantive issues and you were verbose in your post,but there was very little of fact or substance in your musings.

Kicking: I actually agree that RD stuck with Gits too long. However your claims that RD is negligent in not grooming a succesor is ridiculous. the kickers for each of the S14 sides are in the WB run on side. BTW JOC (James O'Connor) has regular kicking sessions with Halligan,and though only 20 has played as many tests as Mark Ella .

Defence: You mention statistics & benchmarks but quote none. You now claim it is RD's fault that QC (Quade Cooper) has been exposed. had RD dropped him this tour, you would have assembled the lynch mob! You can't be raving about QC (Quade Cooper)'s form in June, then sacking the coach for playing him in the next game!
You have previously criticised RD for his choice in his skills coach, you then criticise him because his skills coach received a better job offer & resigned. RD appoints a new skills coach for the tour & you then criticise him for that as well! Your assertion that Aust has a long tradition of rock solid defence is overstated, it is true when we have winning teams.

- mental skills. Did you ever consider that in a TEST match the 60 minute mark is about how long it takes a dominant side to assert itself?
Your quip about the "plan a minute developed on site" has more to do with the 10 not being able to implement, than the coach giving no instructions. I do not accept that Deans does not use sports Psychologists.

- forwards and breakdown. You don't actually make a point other than we do not have 8 bam bams.......
In terms of your criticism of Rocky as captain, it was universally praised upon his appointment. in any event who else could have been chosen at that time?They had to be senior & had to be capable of holding their spot for a few years...name an alternative AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
In terms of your complaint about selections for baa baa & Aust A games, how many were played?
That's enough to get me started.....

 

[Gnostic]

RH, they might be substantive issues and you were verbose in your post,but there was very little of fact or substance in your musings.

Kicking: I actually agree that RD stuck with Gits too long. However your claims that RD is negligent in not grooming a succesor is ridiculous. the kickers for each of the S14 sides are in the WB run on side. BTW JOC (James O'Connor) has regular kicking sessions with Halligan,and though only 20 has played as many tests as Mark Ella .

Defence: You mention statistics & benchmarks but quote none. You now claim it is RD's fault that QC (Quade Cooper) has been exposed. had RD dropped him this tour, you would have assembled the lynch mob! You can't be raving about QC (Quade Cooper)'s form in June, then sacking the coach for playing him in the next game!
You have previously criticised RD for his choice in his skills coach, you then criticise him because his skills coach received a better job offer & resigned. RD appoints a new skills coach for the tour & you then criticise him for that as well! Your assertion that Aust has a long tradition of rock solid defence is overstated, it is true when we have winning teams.

- mental skills. Did you ever consider that in a TEST match the 60 minute mark is about how long it takes a dominant side to assert itself?
Your quip about the "plan a minute developed on site" has more to do with the 10 not being able to implement, than the coach giving no instructions. I do not accept that Deans does not use sports Psychologists.

- forwards and breakdown. You don't actually make a point other than we do not have 8 bam bams.......
In terms of your criticism of Rocky as captain, it was universally praised upon his appointment. in any event who else could have been chosen at that time?They had to be senior & had to be capable of holding their spot for a few years...name an alternative AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
In terms of your complaint about selections for baa baa & Aust A games, how many were played?
That's enough to get me started.....

I will just reply on this part alone - Universal praise - what a crock of shit, I did not think he should have toured last year let alone be Captain.

IMO Elsom wasn't even the form 6 in Oz this year and he didn't play he last year. In fact he was probably third best behind Mowen and Higginbum this year. Remember even the Ponies supporters were bemoaning the fact the Elsom was a shadow of his form prior to his NH stint throughout the S14. In fact I will go so far as to say the last game was his best since his return and that is still off his best.

I would ask who is our most consistant forward and that would be Pocock, followed by Sharpe. I agree that it is too soon to give Pocock the Captaincy and I want him to concentrate on hi game. I would however give the job to Sharpe who has done a magnificent job with the Force and is probably along with Pocock the first choice forward.

 

[BRIX]

Just a few points that haven't been mentioned yet, in no particular order:

- I still think Rocky's a shit captain

- Our media have a responsibilty, talking of Grand Slams 5 games before the long trip back to Sydney is not a good look. Especialy with the amount of pups we have in the squad

- Joubert raised the whistle to his gob 4-5 times when both England and the Wallabies had the ball and didn't blow for some reason. I don't know if anyone else picked that up but their was a certain amount of hesitation on his part. Its as if he was picking his penalties.

- 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.

Win lose or draw the beer will pour, but england?...FUCK!

Few more points you grumbly gerbals didn't mention:

- 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

- Defense was too compressed because we thought England would play their vintage brand of rugby by punching it up through the flanks with pick & drives. Too many piggies caught napping on the wings which leads me to my next point - Robinson needs to get in shape. On a more positive note I thought Squeaky played magnificently. He played like a man who knew TPN was back in camp.

Smarter, older, uglier team England were

Seems like Naza is the only one that reads other peoples comments. Thanks for the videos and feedback lad :thumb

 

[Bowside]

There was really only 4 contenders: sharpe, elsom, giteau and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper). I prolly would have given it to sharpe, maybe giteau, however rocky seemed like a good choice at the time.

In hindsight the decision was wrong, but I'm not going to hark on about it as its hard to pick a captain in a team like Australia that has a record of being inconsistent.

In any case a fully fit James Horwill should be the next wallabies captain.

 

[BRIX]

Definitely Bowside, captaincy is a huge problem amongst our ranks and the job is made all that more difficult trying to lead an inconsistant team. I called for Rocky to pass over his duties a few months ago after observing his ego and communication with other players.

Of course the question boils down to who would fill that roll. I think Horwill would do a splendid job, much like Rocky he leads by example, but can also keep his ego in check and maintain a degree of diplomacy - "yes sir, but can you please keep a look at this..." type of schoolboy etiquette which is paramont in getting those 50/50 calls to sway our way.

 

[Groucho]

In fact he was probably third best behind Mowen and Higginbum this year.

Ben Mowen? Didn't he play eight this year, mainly off the bench?

 

[barbarian]

I hate to sound like a broken record but captaincy is another one of those things that you can't really make a full judgement of unless you are in the team. Of course that doesn't mean we can't speculate, but I would think one of the key components in picking a captain is who has the respect of the team behind closed doors. We have no idea who has that at the moment. On the field Rocky doesn't quite cut it in both his manner and his decisions, so I would be looking elsewhere. But maybe he is the only player who is universally respected in the sheds, in which case he probably deserves the nod.

 

[Nusadan]

When John Eales was appointed captain in the first place, I was sceptical to be honest...and now he is regarded as one of the game's greatest ever captains!

Anyone here put his/her hand up having had these same thoughts as me back then?

 

[Gnostic]

Don't comment, don't critique, don't worry about it, because you can't do it with full knowledge because you aren't in the "know" so to speak. Fine then close up the Blog and Forum and everyone go home.

 

[DPK]

After you.