Wallabies v Poms, EOYT 2010, Twickenham

[Richo]

The early going is what will matter. If we can string together a few strong scrums, we'll be okay. But if we start weak, Joubert will make up his mind and we'll be fucked.

 

[JJJ]

Maybe it's time to start converting FingerS into an 8.

 

[vidiot]

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.

Fainga'a would be a perfectly adequate backup if the scrum was going well. It's not, he is part of the problem but but not the whole problem. I'm not prepared to scapegoat Fainga'a for the lack of cohesion and structure in the scrum.

As for the rest - he is considerably more agile than turtle Moore, his throwing seems to be viewed as dysfunctional on the basis of cumulative errors this season I could count on one hand (no, I'm not a mutant) and he suffers in comparison with TPN as everyone does in ball carrying. His defense around the ruck is aggressive and low in a way that stops the ball carrier in his tracks. He has given away one or two costly penalties (and been binned for one of them). He could do with being heavier.

I don't think I'm a Fainga'a booster. The scrum is dysfunctional beyond Fainga'a, and at this point the real improvements are to be made in scrummaging, not selecting. Replace him by all means, but fix the rest or the next hooker will be in the same boat at scrumtime.

 

[dobduff11]

Hes a bit small to be an 8 isn't he

 

[barbarian]

He has a mogrel edge that Moore lacks. That is why he works well off the bench, because he can come on and pull off a few big hits and bullocking runs while the scrums are less intense as the props are tired. Moore is the more well-rounded and consistent player, but you have to keep in mind that he has been around for donkey's years while Fainga'a is in his debut season. I don't know if Fainga'a is ready to start in big games, but he will get there sooner rather than later.

 

[en_force_er]

I really hope that the bench for the England game is extremely heavily dependent on the player's form against the Tigers.

If Pat McCabe lives up to how good I think he is I'd love to see him cop a bench spot and take it from there. I mean, he can cover 12 up so he is useful there.

 

[Gagger]

I've just looked at our G&GR Wallaby forwards individual player stats for the 3Ns, and Moore's are so off the chart I'm questioning if they're right

 

[Ruggo]

Fainga'a would of made a good seven.

 

[RedsHappy]

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......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.

Yes Hawko, delighted you and others are not cowered by the highly dubious notion 'oh, we don't know all the inner detail, we aren't there on the pitch, we aren't experts, we really should be deferring to the elite who are paid to do this and must, somehow, know better.' If we adopted that model, we logically should apply it to all walks of life where there's material knowledge and expertise gaps and we delegate a right a make any number of mistakes to 'society's managers' whom of course know best in most circumstances.

The fact of the matter is that the finest aspect of free speech is probably just the opposite - the open right and opportunity to critique leaders and managers of society's resources or, in this case, a football code's resources. Ultimately, without question, leaders and managers are better for it, and the notion that superior expertise and 'inner knowledge' is essential to generate a valid, useful critique is bunkum; quite often, non-experts see aspects of truth more tellingly and accurately than experts blinded by, for example, an incorrect paradigm of thought that has been taught to them, but that is now rightly transcended.

I was willing to 'defer to the experts' when RD came on board in a flurry of deference, adoration and expectation. That was then, this is now. In any other environment than the confines of the fawning patriotism and over-deferential, often private-school-derived, attitudes and insipid, introverted media we often find in hard core Oz rugby towards our esteemed rugby leaders (most of whom have badly failed the fans since 2004), the likes of the current coaching establishment would be being torn to shreds with the: poor w-l ratios, declining Wallaby and S14 gate, failed promises, never-fixed scrums and forwards play, inconsistent, roller-ooaster results, weird selections that go nowhere but are sustained, over-preserved and past-it icons still in the team causing losses, etc. There would be hard rage, not the constant 'benefit of the doubt' and 'wonderful youngsters beat the ABs once in 11', 'really coming on well for the RWC', 'what are the gracious excuses for this week', etc. One day we'll realise that this soft-minded deference - on the grounds that the elite is doing its best and we should appreciate and doff caps to them - is, at fundament, very bad for the code in the long-term.

 

[Brumbies Guy]

Fainga'a would be a perfectly adequate backup if the scrum was going well. It's not, he is part of the problem but but not the whole problem. I'm not prepared to scapegoat Fainga'a for the lack of cohesion and structure in the scrum.

As for the rest - he is considerably more agile than turtle Moore, his throwing seems to be viewed as dysfunctional on the basis of cumulative errors this season I could count on one hand (no, I'm not a mutant) and he suffers in comparison with TPN as everyone does in ball carrying. His defense around the ruck is aggressive and low in a way that stops the ball carrier in his tracks. He has given away one or two costly penalties (and been binned for one of them). He could do with being heavier.

I don't think I'm a Fainga'a booster. The scrum is dysfunctional beyond Fainga'a, and at this point the real improvements are to be made in scrummaging, not selecting. Replace him by all means, but fix the rest or the next hooker will be in the same boat at scrumtime.

When our scrum goes to shit we need a scapegoat. Use to be Dunning, then Baxter, since they're at home and Maafu isn't in the team... Fainga'a's the man now. TPN flying over will bandaid this, next will be McCalman for not pushing hard enough and Palu will be the new said scrum saviour. Truth is, our scrum isn't functional as a whole.

 

[barbarian]

Time for a new keyboard RH?

 

[Gnostic]

Great post from Hawko on page three.

My points which have been dismissed coming froth a frothing anti-Deans lunatic are nicely summed up.

I can see what Deans is aiming at with his selections. It is quite obvious really, a fast dynamic team with multiple avenues for attack ( & counter attack) and fast ball movement. Hence the selection of players he has identified that can best play to that narrow (of thought - not field width) game plan. Is there a plan B. There is no evidence to indicate that there is. Yes against Wales they kicked tactically more for field position, but I take the view that Wales actually forced the kicks as the counter attack in many cases had been shut down and the field itself was sapping some of the speed of the counters.

The problem with the dynamic type set up is that, as under the Eddie Jones 15 man League style, it is devaluing the importance of the set piece and leaving a glaring weakness for an opposition to attack. Add to that the issue of the fragile Oz defensive system and this side is very vulnerable. A well balanced team with a strong set piece and solid defence will be able to win at least 50% of their games against Oz. The more pressure on the match the higher the risk as the backs will be the ones carrying the team.

I think the Wallabies are in real danger of getting beaten this weekend for the reasons above. If the Backs have another off day with their handling I think it could be a worse result than England inflicted on us this year. Will that mean the loss of another trophy in the cabinet - The Cook Cup?

 

[Groucho]

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?

Absolutely.

I'm just critiquing the critics. There is no doubt we win the hit.

 

[Jnor]

thanks dob and Nusa, it was international studies (so basically glorified arts) and I'm hoping im a decent chance of passing everything.

But now it's done so shit yeah and off to the pub for lunch!!!

 

[Groucho]

Yes Hawko, delighted you and others are not cowered by the highly dubious notion 'oh, we don't know all the inner detail, we aren't there on the pitch, we aren't experts, we really should be deferring to the elite who are paid to do this and must, somehow, know better.' If we adopted that model, we logically should apply it to all walks of life where there's material knowledge and expertise gaps and we delegate a right a make any number of mistakes to 'society's managers' whom of course know best in most circumstances.

The fact of the matter is that the finest aspect of free speech is probably just the opposite - the open right and opportunity to critique leaders and managers of society's resources or, in this case, a football code's resources. Ultimately, without question, leaders and managers are better for it, and the notion that superior expertise and 'inner knowledge' is essential to generate a valid, useful critique is bunkum; quite often, non-experts see aspects of truth more tellingly and accurately than experts blinded by, for example, an incorrect paradigm of thought that has been taught to them, but that is now rightly transcended.

I was willing to 'defer to the experts' when RD came on board in a flurry of deference, adoration and expectation. That was then, this is now. In any other environment than the confines of the fawning patriotism and over-deferential, often private-school-derived, attitudes and insipid, introverted media we often find in hard core Oz rugby towards our esteemed rugby leaders (most of whom have badly failed the fans since 2004), the likes of the current coaching establishment would be being torn to shreds with the: poor w-l ratios, declining Wallaby and S14 gate, failed promises, never-fixed scrums and forwards play, inconsistent, roller-ooaster results, weird selections that go nowhere but are sustained, over-preserved and past-it icons still in the team causing losses, etc. There would be hard rage, not the constant 'benefit of the doubt' and 'wonderful youngsters beat the ABs once in 11', 'really coming on well for the RWC', 'what are the gracious excuses for this week', etc. One day we'll realise that this soft-minded deference - on the grounds that the elite is doing its best and we should appreciate and doff caps to them - is, at fundament, very bad for the code in the long-term.

Quality rant!

Next time Link refers to us as a "bunch of know it alls" I shall ensure to remember that a few of us do.

 

[Reddy!]

I have a feeling our scrum is going to really stand up this weekend.

Sure will - they'll be standing up alot after continually being smashed into the ground.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Gnostic, I can see what you are getting at, but there is only one set piece that we still aren't up to par at the moment: the scrum. But let's not forget that we sent a pretty handy pack up North last year and mullered most other teams scrums. The Ireland game anyone? We are far from playing 15 man league. The lineout is still functioning well, so are the restarts for the most part. The defence has had some wobbles this season, that's a fair comment. However, I would rather us pick a team that is focused on attack than try and bore the other team to death by strangling them defensively. We can improve the defence, basically by picking Barnes. You can't coach the instinctive attack though. It wins us games and has done a couple of times this season.

Let's also not forget that goal kicking has been the worst issue of all. There are three tests that we could have won had we been more accurate with the boot. All of a sudden that makes the record look a little better, I would argue.

 

[Bullrush]

He has a mogrel edge that Moore lacks. That is why he works well off the bench, because he can come on and pull off a few big hits and bullocking runs while the scrums are less intense as the props are tired.

I'm yet to see Fainga'a make one big hit against either of the SH teams.

I think he tries hard to get involved but when you think of big hits or bullocking runs eg. Kaino, Franks, Palu, TPN, Thorne etc...Fainga'a is nowhere near that league.

 

[barbarian]

I never said he was in that league Bullrush, but I take your point. He made a few hits when he came on in Sydney IIRC, and I remember him making an impact in Honkers as well (besides that one dodgy throw). He isn't Kaino but he goes OK, especially when you compare with with some of our current pack.

 

[DPK]

Was the yellow in Bloem a "hit"?