• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Wallabies v Pumas - Saturday 17 September, nib Stadium Perth

Status
Not open for further replies.
cyclopath

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
ForceFan said:
Cheika is changing the game plan, particularly around the breakdown in almost every game - as the Ruck Stats show.

England won the 3 tests in the June tests with much less possession than the Wallabies but there were still some high ruck involvements.

In the Test against the Pumas, both teams were standing off opposition rucks a lot more than we've seen in other Tests this year.

Is it part of developing a game plan for when the Wallkabies are without Pocock & Gill and more in line with the way the game is being refereed?

IMO that would be a shame for the game, as one attraction is the physical battle for the ball which differentiates Rugby from other ball games.
Click to expand...

Maybe they're just playing different game plans against different opposition based upon what they expect to face? Maybe it is not "developing" but targeted at different teams? No matter how expert many of us think we are :p , maybe there is a bit more going on than we think? We look at what the ABs forwards do, and it's easy to apply the logic that ours should be more like theirs, but maybe a pragmatic approach is taken, conceding that we have a slightly different basic level of skill and fitness to some of theirs. I'm more inclined to think players are doing what they do, or don't do under a plan, rather than just shirking the load. This is not to say the plan is always right, but it looks to me like they're mixing it up a bit. All just spitballing here, not having a go at you.
One thing which interests me is the bolded bit. England have conceded they don't feel they need a "fetcher" per se and played 3 munters in the back row against us, with good effect. Pocock is being more effectively nullified these days. The way Barnes reffed the game really took Pocock out of the equation, apart from slowing the ball a bit. Can he adapt? Sure, he's good enough. McCaw did all the time, which is why he had such longevity at a high level. I think the archetypal fetcher, while likely to always have some impact, is less likely to dominate these days. I think the players who are that archetype can easily play a different role, however.
 
ForceFan

ForceFan

Peter Fenwicke (45)
cyclopath said:
Pocock is being more
effectively nullified these days. The way Barnes reffed the game really took Pocock out of the equation, apart from slowing the ball a bit. Can he adapt? Sure, he's good enough. McCaw did all the time, which is why he had such longevity at a high level. I think the archetypal fetcher, while likely to always have some impact, is less likely to dominate these days. I think the players who are that archetype can easily play a different role, however.
Click to expand...

Pocock's game isn't just about earning or forcing TOW, it's about slowing the ball down and giving the chance for the defence to reset.

However, he can still have an impact as his 7TOW in Bled 1 showed.
Lately the game plan has been to have him unsupported - so not surprisingly he gets broken. Deans did the same thing to him in the NZ RWC. Even with a broken hand players like Pocock/Hooper/Gill/Hodgson/McMahon will give their all.
Whether it be Pocock/Hooper or whoever, they still need support - and a fair bit of it should come from the Tight 5.
The speed of engagement should be such that people aren't waiting for others to get involved but to grab the moment - knowing that support will quickly follow. In the past couple of Tests Pocock has been looking up and seemingly asking "where were the rest of you?"
 
cyclopath

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
ForceFan said:
Pocock's game isn't just about earning or forcing TOW, it's about slowing the ball down and giving the chance for the defence to reset.

However, he can still have an impact as his 7TOW in Bled 1 showed.
Lately the game plan has been to have him unsupported - so not surprisingly he gets broken. Deans did the same thing to him in the NZ RWC. Even with a broken hand players like Pocock/Hooper/Gill/Hodgson/McMahon will give their all.
Whether it be Pocock/Hooper or whoever, they still need support - and a fair bit of it should come from the Tight 5 - esp on Attack Rucks.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to over-simplify Pocock's game at all, but if he is not being allowed to win turnovers, he is at risk of conceding penalties, depending upon how it is refereed. Talking of the tight five, maybe it's more efficient to not contest but stand off and pick your moment to counter-ruck; it certainly seems more "safe" under current refereeing protocols.
I have no doubt you are right to a point, and we need to see more from some of our forwards, but I think a large reason we are so much worse than the All Blacks is right there - man for man (pretty much) across the pack we are at a different level. It's just the way it is. I don't like it, but there you go.
 
Shiggins

Shiggins

Simon Poidevin (60)
So was the argintina player cited for diving in the Quade Cooper Yellowcard. That was the worst dive I've ever seen in rugby.

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk
 
Shiggins

Shiggins

Simon Poidevin (60)
Also what's been grinding my gears this year is the wallabies can never get up and go again when the tackle is not completed. They get called tackled. But whenever the wallabies tackle someone they just get up and go again and it's called not tackled. It's really odd

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
I think those ruck stats for this particular game need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Simply because Australia had so few rucks. Normally the top involved player has between 30 and 40. The top for us was Hooper with 23.

When Australia had something like 40 rucks in total compared to Argentina's 120+ it's always going to be low.

Simmons for example. Saying that 8 attacking rucks is not enough would seem right. But at the same time, saying he hit 20% of Australia's attacking rucks implies he had a reasonable work load as well.

As BH notes about positioning on the field. The smaller the total number of rucks, the easier a player can be not involved because of positioning with so few attacking ruck opportunities.

It does show that Coleman is heavily involved. But we knew that already. He's clearly our first choice lock.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Rugbynutter I thought in the context of the game he was adequate.

His ruck involvement was low. But the team's total was an anomaly for how low it was.

He made a decent number of tackles, but Coleman did more in less time. He had the 2nd most carries (only 1 less than the highest) of the pack.

But Coleman had more involvements in less time across the game. Simmons needs to have a higher work rate than Coleman, as Coleman has a higher impact.

That said, I think Simmons should get a little leeway, as Bledisloe 1 was his first game in any form since the England series due to injury which was 6 or 7 weeks. He's now had a couple of 80 minute hit outs as well as a couple of NRC games to get back to full fitness so he needs to deliver more going forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru
The_Brown_Hornet

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
Can I just say how much I'm enjoying Coleman's continued development as a test lock? What I saw from him on the weekend was exactly what we've been wanting from a second rower in Aussie rugby for a while. A big bloke with a bit of skill and athleticism but mostly plenty of old fashioned mongrel and a desire to hit blokes (legally of course). If he continues at this rate he'll have a long career in gold for mine.
 
boyo

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
Gnostic said:
3) The Argies really need to stop watching soccer. The number of players with apparently life threatening injuries requiring play to stop only for them get up and run on with absolutely no ill effects is a joke. Very soccer like and I'd like to see them warned. My old man used to say to me without looking up when I was complaining "Is there blood? No. Well you aren't hurt, so stop whinging or I'll give you something to whinge about." The broken collarbone sorted that , but you get the gist.
Click to expand...


This.
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

George Smith (75)
RugbyReg said:
No Check the gagr Facebook page. What Sio got yellow carded for.
Click to expand...

That's possibly the worst YC call I've ever seen. Surely it can't be allowed to stand? I'd hate to see Sio cop a mandatory stand down for collecting "X" yellows in TRC if that's one of them (the one Quade got was pretty lame, too, barely makes the top three of the six he's now collected :). Record is seven, I believe). ***

WR (World Rugby) really need to sit down with the Argentina management & make it VERY clear that this kinda shit is NOT acceptable. While they're at it they should make it equally clear that if nothing's done about the laser pointers they'll be playing their home games in empty stadiums next year. Need to stop that rubbish before the "fans" start taking flares in like they do for the dive ball.

*** EDIT: yes it is seven, but surprisingly neither of the joint record holders is French & one is a poofy back! Bortolami's seven plus a red from 112 matches is truly impressive.........................

http://stats.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/records/player/most_yellow_cards.html?id=1;type=class
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
Inspired by Forcefan, I rewatched the first half and only focussed on our locks, Coleman and Simmons. 2nd half lost a fair bit of structure as well as Coleman so more difficult. It was hard work and much respect to FF (Folau Fainga'a) for doing it every week.

My impressions (and this only applies to defense - we didn't have the ball enough to make significant observations on offense)

* Simmons jumps at the front and Coleman at the back on opposition throws. This meant Coleman got into midfield quicker and got involved in the first phase a couple of times.

* Likewise in the scrum. Simmons was pushing on the right head side and a couple of time play went down the other side - away from Genia. Coleman got involved a few times in that situation

* Simmons often defends one to two spots closer to the ruck than Coleman, he is a pillar at a huge number of our rucks.

* Simmons is often in a position to join a ruck but doesn't commit, preferring to get into the defensive line - personal preference or coaches direction?

* Coleman made some big hits! He got some plaudits from the Fox commentators just before half time.

* Think Simmons generally tackles a bit lower than Coleman - around the legs rather than a bit higher. This means the opposition falls forward. Coleman's tackles probably have more impact and knock players back a little more.

* Very difficult to see any difference in work rate or tackle numbers without recording things on paper - they are often running around the park right next to each other (having started at the same spot). I couldn't have told you who did more work just watching. I'm honestly surprised that Coleman was awarded so many more tackles in less time.

*I wonder how offloads are handled in the official stats - do you get a tackle if the opposition offload? Simmons lower tackling might allow more offloading.

* Simmons appears to "read the play" a little more. A couple of times he was anticipating play by running back to help his backs when the kick was on. Coleman stays in the line
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top