Bruce Ross
Ken Catchpole (46)
Both viewpoints are valid. If someone is a prop uncontested scrums are shameful, but no one should be expected to go into the front row unless they have the requisite training and experience. It's only a game.
Wallabies v Poms, EOYT 2010, Twickenham
- Thread starter jason
- Start date
- Status
Both viewpoints are valid. If someone is a prop uncontested scrums are shameful, but no one should be expected to go into the front row unless they have the requisite training and experience. It's only a game.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
Despite all the folderol being flung around, I think there are some things we can assume.
We can assume that the Wallabies coaching team know at least as much as we do about scrummaging. I know that some of you will reply "where's the evidence for that?", but I would hope that is only hyperbole. Sure, they might not know as much as Foley, or Alec Evans, but they are unlikely to read any surprising new facts on the Internet, no matter how shit hot we believe we all are in all aspects of rugby theory.
Secondly, we can assume that the players are trying as hard as they can to implement their scrummaging strategy on the field. The back three are not meerkatting because they are thick, or lazy, but because they believe there is a reason to do so, or are being forced to do so.
Therefore, the intelligent response on our part, especially on this fact-oriented rugby website, is not to smugly congratulate ourselves on the scrummaging information we read online five minutes ago, but to ask why this is so.
The bottom line is not that the Wallabies scrum is stupid or wrong, but that for a complex set of reasons, they are currently unable to compete. They went backwards on the weekend because Wales made it happen.
The reasons for that are certainly complex, and probably beyond our ken, not because we in turn are stupid, but because we are so far removed from the events, including the training, the philosophy, and what goes down on the field.
And because, with the exception of a very few like Fatprop and Topo, we really know stuff-all about scrummaging.
That isn't to say that someone like Foley isn't the answer: I reckon he is. But that is because he has serious skills and knowledge, not because he has our capability to draw complex conclusions from the bleeding obvious.
We can assume that the Wallabies coaching team know at least as much as we do about scrummaging. I know that some of you will reply "where's the evidence for that?", but I would hope that is only hyperbole. Sure, they might not know as much as Foley, or Alec Evans, but they are unlikely to read any surprising new facts on the Internet, no matter how shit hot we believe we all are in all aspects of rugby theory.
Secondly, we can assume that the players are trying as hard as they can to implement their scrummaging strategy on the field. The back three are not meerkatting because they are thick, or lazy, but because they believe there is a reason to do so, or are being forced to do so.
Therefore, the intelligent response on our part, especially on this fact-oriented rugby website, is not to smugly congratulate ourselves on the scrummaging information we read online five minutes ago, but to ask why this is so.
The bottom line is not that the Wallabies scrum is stupid or wrong, but that for a complex set of reasons, they are currently unable to compete. They went backwards on the weekend because Wales made it happen.
The reasons for that are certainly complex, and probably beyond our ken, not because we in turn are stupid, but because we are so far removed from the events, including the training, the philosophy, and what goes down on the field.
And because, with the exception of a very few like Fatprop and Topo, we really know stuff-all about scrummaging.
That isn't to say that someone like Foley isn't the answer: I reckon he is. But that is because he has serious skills and knowledge, not because he has our capability to draw complex conclusions from the bleeding obvious.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
Whinging is good, if clearly labelled as such. But when I find myself trying to solve the Wallabies' scrum woes with a pen and a beermat, I know it is time to step away from the keyboard.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Pato is IMO probably as capable as Foley. What he doesn't have is the selection power to pick a scrummaging pack. If he did would Ma'afu or Finger be there?
Some responsiblity has to land on the players as well. When threatened with a yellow card the pack actually acted like it and held firm and actually bound tightly as suggested in Vidiots article so the problem isn't all in the front row and they showed they can in fact get it together when they have to and they know how to. Why don't they on each scrum then.
Furthermore as I have posted previously a prudent coach wouldn't pick players who are short of Rugby and returning from serious injuries. Robinson hasn't been right since he came back and Alexander clearly Struggled in the Shute Shield game against Randwick. Pair them with a non-scrummaging hooker and its a recipe for disaster. Now we have TPN coming in from a serious injury as well. Anybody doubt that he will go straight into the test?
Either Charles of Fitzpatrick should have been in the squad. Instead we have toured with one scrummaging hooker, who is now injured, on heavy NH ground against the four strongest scrums in the north.
Some responsiblity has to land on the players as well. When threatened with a yellow card the pack actually acted like it and held firm and actually bound tightly as suggested in Vidiots article so the problem isn't all in the front row and they showed they can in fact get it together when they have to and they know how to. Why don't they on each scrum then.
Furthermore as I have posted previously a prudent coach wouldn't pick players who are short of Rugby and returning from serious injuries. Robinson hasn't been right since he came back and Alexander clearly Struggled in the Shute Shield game against Randwick. Pair them with a non-scrummaging hooker and its a recipe for disaster. Now we have TPN coming in from a serious injury as well. Anybody doubt that he will go straight into the test?
Either Charles of Fitzpatrick should have been in the squad. Instead we have toured with one scrummaging hooker, who is now injured, on heavy NH ground against the four strongest scrums in the north.
Jnor
Peter Fenwicke (45)
This kind of stuff is what makes G&GR so good. I agree completely Groucho, although it is very frustrating to see those who know better than we do unable to come up with an effective solution.
Obviously there are myriad reasons for this and we can only opine as to what they are with our limited knowledge. If the solutions were obvious we probably wouldn't have anything to talk about. Great post though.
Can anyone tell I have an exam (last undergrad ever) tomorrow morning? G&GRProcrastination ftw!
Obviously there are myriad reasons for this and we can only opine as to what they are with our limited knowledge. If the solutions were obvious we probably wouldn't have anything to talk about. Great post though.
Can anyone tell I have an exam (last undergrad ever) tomorrow morning? G&GRProcrastination ftw!
dobduff11
Trevor Allan (34)
Nice Jnor what is your degree in?
I like Fitzgerlad and Charles but Fitzy hasn't played much this season so I would have taken Charles. Also fitzy hasn't been in the wallabies set up
I hope TPn doesn't get injured, he is such a legend and deserves to have a solid Super 15 season and then the RWC.
I like Fitzgerlad and Charles but Fitzy hasn't played much this season so I would have taken Charles. Also fitzy hasn't been in the wallabies set up
I hope TPn doesn't get injured, he is such a legend and deserves to have a solid Super 15 season and then the RWC.
would you call Fitzpatrick a scrummaging hooker? I'd put him in the same league as Fainga'a and Edmonds, except he hasn't started a Super 14 match.
Nusadan
Chilla Wilson (44)
Good luck mate, enjoy the beers afterwards, been there and done that myself...but the best thing was that I found out I passed after all after a couple of weeks of nervous waiting...so hence more beers!
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
If our selectors and coaches are so wonderfully equipped with knowledge and experience Groucho, why were we totally and completely owned by the third or fourth best NH scrum. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't wash. If Pato wanted different cattle and Deans refused him he should have resigned immediately. Foley clearly did that last year. If Pato got the scrum he wanted then clearly he can't coach them to play without disgracing the jersey. Ergo, he's the wrong guy for the job.
When the scrum is that bad someone has to take responsibility for the debacle. And debacle is not too strong a word.
On the one scrum where everyone stayed bound, we did not go backwards. The team plan, as I deduce from what was played, is to get all three loosies off as fast as possible. Who made that plan? Not me, not you, its the coach. Given how poor Cooper's tackling is, you can say it wasn't such a bad plan to take into the game. But after 20 minutes someone in the coaches box needed to change that plan. At the very latest it could have been changed at oranges. It wasn't.
From that one scrum where the loose forwards bound and pushed, Ireland scored a try. Watch Coopers magnificent!!! attempted tackle. Cooper is a real asset in attack, the X-factor our backline needs. But the attempt to cover his defensive deficiencies significantly depowers the scrum.
There is an alternative, and the site has been screaming for it for months. Swap Barnes for Giteau and then move Barnes to 10 on defensive plays. Then we can afford for the loose forwards to stay bound and pushing until their backrow breaks off or the 9 passes, because we have a reliable defender in the 10 channel. It does mean the 12 channel gets targeted, but its much easier to cover.
To sum up: its not that the scrum is "stupid or wrong", it's that the gameplan and selections are being pulled apart by good NH coaches. Gatland is a very good coach with players who just couldn't match our backline. But his eight man shove plan worked a treat. If our coaching team is so good, why couldn't we "play what's in front of us" and change the gameplan where it wasn't working? But we didn't change it till Wayne Barnes forced us to change it. By that measure maybe Barnes should be our scrummaging coach. He was the only person capable of changing the gameplan when it wasn't working.
[As a side issue you could ask why the Troika didn't use the same tactic last week. Their pack is certainly capable. I think the reason they didn't is because their style of play, like ours, is to get the loosies off quickly to play an up-tempo game. Thank God they didn't.]
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
If our selectors and coaches are so wonderfully equipped with knowledge and experience Groucho, why were we totally and completely owned by the third or fourth best NH scrum. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't wash. If Pato wanted different cattle and Deans refused him he should have resigned immediately. Foley clearly did that last year. If Pato got the scrum he wanted then clearly he can't coach them to play without disgracing the jersey. Ergo, he's the wrong guy for the job.
When the scrum is that bad someone has to take responsibility for the debacle. And debacle is not too strong a word.
On the one scrum where everyone stayed bound, we did not go backwards. The team plan, as I deduce from what was played, is to get all three loosies off as fast as possible. Who made that plan? Not me, not you, its the coach. Given how poor Cooper's tackling is, you can say it wasn't such a bad plan to take into the game. But after 20 minutes someone in the coaches box needed to change that plan. At the very latest it could have been changed at oranges. It wasn't.
From that one scrum where the loose forwards bound and pushed, Ireland scored a try. Watch Coopers magnificent!!! attempted tackle. Cooper is a real asset in attack, the X-factor our backline needs. But the attempt to cover his defensive deficiencies significantly depowers the scrum.
There is an alternative, and the site has been screaming for it for months. Swap Barnes for Giteau and then move Barnes to 10 on defensive plays. Then we can afford for the loose forwards to stay bound and pushing until their backrow breaks off or the 9 passes, because we have a reliable defender in the 10 channel. It does mean the 12 channel gets targeted, but its much easier to cover.
To sum up: its not that the scrum is "stupid or wrong", it's that the gameplan and selections are being pulled apart by good NH coaches. Gatland is a very good coach with players who just couldn't match our backline. But his eight man shove plan worked a treat. If our coaching team is so good, why couldn't we "play what's in front of us" and change the gameplan where it wasn't working? But we didn't change it till Wayne Barnes forced us to change it. By that measure maybe Barnes should be our scrummaging coach. He was the only person capable of changing the gameplan when it wasn't working.
[As a side issue you could ask why the Troika didn't use the same tactic last week. Their pack is certainly capable. I think the reason they didn't is because their style of play, like ours, is to get the loosies off quickly to play an up-tempo game. Thank God they didn't.]
I'm not saying they are wonderfully equipped, Hawko. I'm saying we're doofuses. In this and other threads, I've read every possible permutation of the scrum presented as THE SOLUTION.
What I'm saying is that it is a complex problem, and we are kidding ourselves if we think our trite summations are more than the fluff on the bum of the elephant we think is in the room.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Groucho, you make a fair point and I would hope that the collective wisdom of the coaching staff is greater than our own, but if we can't offer up an opinion, even if it isn't partnered with the requisite inside knowledge of the international game, then what are we all doing here?
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
Not sure it is the real world. The real world as recorded on my TV last saturday night is that our scrum got monstered and that we were regularly penalised for early detatchment. It isn't too complex, there are about six factors that went into the mix:
1. Fainga'a is too small and too weak yet to hook against good scrums. Another couple of years of physical development and he might get there, but he's not there yet.
2. It appears (based on aerial shots I haven't seen but others have) that the locks aren't binding tight and the 8 is not driving forward on the hit.
3. The loose forwards are not supporting the tight five hard enough at the engagement.
4. All three loose forwards are detatching early to cover the 10/12 channel.
5. The two Bens have not regained their last year's tour form after injury.
6. The timing of our engagement means we have been missing the hit (probably a hangover from the week before when we got regularly penalised for going early).
I agree with Groucho, I am not a scrum coach's bootlace. But I do know what I can see, and have been seeing since the first test against England this year. And for all the coach's talk, there may have been some improvement in our performance but nowhere near enough to be competitive. Players in all tight five spots have been in and out of the team. But we are regularly getting creamed. That's real.
dobduff11
Trevor Allan (34)
Apparently Stephen Moore had a back complaint and they are hopeful he will return against England.
http://www.rugbyworld.com/Story/0,18830,3551_6494758,00.html
http://www.rugbyworld.com/Story/0,18830,3551_6494758,00.html
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
Quality rant. Over the top though.
Joubert is a good ref. At least you wonlt have half an hour between "pause" and "engage". You'll also have the advantage that he will blow the Poms for sealing the ball off on attack at the breakdown, something that the ref completely ignored in the AB Pom game.
Ps. The ARU can't put sanctions on refs.
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
I think Fainga'a is 100% out of his depth as a test hooker. He is too lightweight and doesn't have the core skills that the modern hooker needs which is agility, powerful ball carrying, ability to play like an extra loose forward, and scrum like a prop.
He hardly ever carries, adds little impact in the scrum and his throwing can go wrong at times. He plays a good support role and defends well but that's about it.
He is a solid S14 player and only in the squad becuase there is nobody else.
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
Getting a bit off topic, I don't know what level you were playing but I can recall times when somebody inexperienced or a young fella came in to prop, the older fellas on both sides would give them little pointers here and there. It was made very clear that the older fella was going to try and smash you but they would give little tips and critique to help the younger fella compete and more importantly stay safe. First piece of advice was always don't be a hero.
en_force_er
Geoff Shaw (53)
We get thumped because we try to go out there and dominate them, you can see that by the angles and shifty business fatcat tries to pull-off.
We should be holding firm and digging in, later in a match when threatened with cards and penalty tries that's what we do and the improvement in noticeable.
I know it's not a positive mentality but if we win our own ball and hold theirs then we are doing enough (for now).
We should be holding firm and digging in, later in a match when threatened with cards and penalty tries that's what we do and the improvement in noticeable.
I know it's not a positive mentality but if we win our own ball and hold theirs then we are doing enough (for now).
- Status