Viking
Mark Ella (57)
We definitely can't play Skelton with Hooper and Pocock either so maybe he can take his spot.
Wallabies v. Springboks, 18th July 2015, Suncorp, Brisbane
- Thread starter KOB1987
- Start date
- Status
We definitely can't play Skelton with Hooper and Pocock either so maybe he can take his spot.
Lorenzo
Colin Windon (37)
This kind of langauge has been used to describe Giteau for more than a decade. I've always thought it very vibe-o-stat and not particularly descriptive.
Can you be specific about what he "offered" and what he did that indicates football awareness?
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Take your point TWAS
The variable that did not help evaluate Cooper was Genia and for me was surprised to see him start ahead of Phipps as too much made of super rugby combo's imo
For me would always start Phipps ahead of Genia and surprised latter was chosen as first start....
The variable that did not help evaluate Cooper was Genia and for me was surprised to see him start ahead of Phipps as too much made of super rugby combo's imo
For me would always start Phipps ahead of Genia and surprised latter was chosen as first start....
shanky
Darby Loudon (17)
Given it was his first game back after nearly 5 years, I think he played with some composure. The first half was a flurry of snap kicks and shovel-ball for both Gits and Cooper.
It was noticeable that both looked a lot better in the second half when we started getting some solid, conventional ball.
It was noticeable that both looked a lot better in the second half when we started getting some solid, conventional ball.
disco
Chilla Wilson (44)
Good win, 1st game of the year against a really good Boks side who I think are a very good shot of winning the RWC especially if Vermulan is fit.
Aussies forwards were terrible (Hooper aside) until Pocock come on & showed the rest how to clean out & support the ball carrier. Will Skelton is not good enough & was basically just a passenger.
Aussies won 18-0 with Pocock on the field, he's the best player in the country & Michael Hooper is number 2 so piss off Skelton & pick a lock who can jump & scrum.
Backs need to go straight & maybe it's time to play a big centre pairing to get over the gain line more often.
Aussies forwards were terrible (Hooper aside) until Pocock come on & showed the rest how to clean out & support the ball carrier. Will Skelton is not good enough & was basically just a passenger.
Aussies won 18-0 with Pocock on the field, he's the best player in the country & Michael Hooper is number 2 so piss off Skelton & pick a lock who can jump & scrum.
Backs need to go straight & maybe it's time to play a big centre pairing to get over the gain line more often.
jollyswagman
Ron Walden (29)
What an original frickin idea that is champ! You come up with that yourself?
What a bunch of Debbie-downers you pricks are. It wasn't a perfect performance by anyone on the field but the boys came back from a 13 point deficit to win after the buzzer. For those of us old enough to have wiped someone else' ass in their life, a win like this takes us back to our happy place in Australian rugby.
Other than injury forced replacements, this team deserves anther run in Argentina. Cheika will tweak his forward structures for next week and I think we will see a much more potent performance.
For all of those who are calling for Cooper & Giteau to be benched.....give yourself an upper cut and try to think a little more critically about what you seeing in the game. We just won a bloody tough test match and the boys showed a lot of character to get there in the end. Show some bloody faith and support your team instead of pecking away and being critical of the guys out on the field who understand the game of rugby a damn more than you. If you expected a perfect performance tonight you had set yourself up for disappointment from the start. It was step in the right direction and I am sure the boys are going to build on tonight's effort.
aka_the_think
Jimmy Flynn (14)
My take on things:
Players
A. To'omua had a massive impact off the bench. I was very pleased to see him get a go at 10 for the Wallabies again. I have long thought that he's our best option at 10. I think he proved that today. Straightened attack, attacked the line, good defence, showed lots of speed/agility, etc. Most importantly, though, I thought his decision making was superb. Internal organisation of our attack (and backline) was enhanced with him at the helm, he dealt with pressure well, and he was able to put pressure on the opposition. 5/8s are decision makers first and foremost, and To'omua is the best at making decisions. Cooper was not too bad, but he doesn't deserve a second go. I have never been a massive fan, but I was really hoping for something today. He didn't deliver. Foley deserves to have a go, I would play him off the bench next week in a similar way to To'omua tonight.
B. Pocock was immense. I'm not suggesting that Hooper had a bad game, but Pocock partially reduced the dominance of the South African backrow. Obviously he had an immense effect defensively (slowing down the ball, forcing SA to commit more men to rucks he attacked, pilfering and forcing penalties) but he also had a positive effect in attack. He was almost always the first to hit the rucks he was aiming for, his timing when he isn't the first there is impeccable, and his ruck work was highly productive (he can clear out multiple people and thus do the work of many players). SA and NZ often go multiple phases without committing large numbers to the breakdown, but still cause havoc, largely because they have productive guys at the breakdown. His work is reminiscent of that whereas most other Wallaby players struggle to take out even one player. Further though, he often encourages other guys to get involved with him. He is a sort of 'first mover', and that's worthwhile. Prior to him coming on I would argue that SA's breakdown ascendancy was the reason we were behind. Our players weren't chasing the ball carrier into the ruck, leaving him isolated. When they did chase him in more often than not the work done was poor or poorly timed. He rectified that, and deserves credit.
C. Hooper or Pocock? Pocock is not an 8. He should not be playing 8. Hooper is a great player. He is not as good as Pocock. Pocock should be the starting 7. Hooper should be on the bench. I am of the belief that - were Pocock playing 7 in the first half - we would have scored more points (due to the work he does as outlined above). Pocock is the world's best 7 and his work in securing the ball for us was very possibly the difference between winning and losing today.
D. Higgenbotham? I rate Higgenbotham, however his impact today was negligible. He didn't get very long, but to be honest I think the breakdown issues are being unfairly blamed on him. He certainly contributed to that mess, no doubt, perhaps more than any other player (tbh I think Hooper had a larger impact, but whatever). With Pocock playing I do believe the issues Higgs brings to the team would be counter-balanced. I would start him again next week against Argentina. If he stuffs up again he's gone, but I believe he deserves another chance with more time on the paddock.
E. Very undecided about Giteau. The only reason I ever thought he should be in the team was for his kicking. He did next to no kicking in general play and his one shot was awful. He had some moments of brilliance, but in general was not up to it. I do not, as yet, have a suitable replacement in mind. I am sick of this To'omua at 12 shit, he's a 10. I would play Giteau again next week as his last opportunity. I still reckon JOC (James O'Connor) would be the best option at 12, but let's not go there...
F. Skelton was disappointing. I'm a big fan of his, but he didn't play too well tonight. He was too tired too early and he didn't do enough work. He needs to become a productive ruck worker, like Pocock. At times for the Tahs he was. He does not deserve disproportionate criticism for his work though - I believe Simmons, the two starting props, and even Fardy were just as ineffective at ruck time and therefore deserve some (but not as much) blame. Cheika needs to blast him this week and get him back to the fitness level he was at when the Tahs started the season. He was also used poorly - I am so sick of him running from a standing start because either the pass is mistimed or he has mistimed his run. I would start him next week, again - last chance. He is a great player, but he needs to do thinks differently. Horwill was good when he came on, relative to his usual standards, and Simmons was just about average. I am very keen to see Arnold get a go, but it would be unfair to drop any of those 3 after tonight.
G. I thought Genia was good. Phipps was also good. I think people are overrating Phipps contribution, however. I don't think he did anything markedly different from Genia, the difference was that the players around Phipps were better. They played more or less the same. Genia, for mine, was slightly better in that he (as he always does) demanded the disproportionate attention of defenders, creating space for players outside him at the point at which he made the pass. His defence was also good. He offers X factor, and I would most certainly start with him next week again - he did no wrong.
Other things
A. The breakdown was the big issue tonight. Rectified somewhat easily with Pocock on the field. People will want McCalman to start now, which would be very concerning. I would stick with Higgenbotham, but even then when Palu's not injured he will/should replace Higgenbotham as starting No. 8 and fix some of the workload issues. Unlike McCalman, the extra work he does actually has impact, and he's a decent ball runner. Ideal choice for No. 8 for now with Higgenbotham on the bench. Another thought: If Cheika wants to have two backrowers wide on either side of the field, why wouldn't Higgenbotham be one of them? Made very little sense to have a guy who is renowned for not doing work (and also renowned for his attack in wide channels) as the guy in the middle of the field while your hardest worker (and a guy not known for his ball running) is out wide. I would make Fardy my middle guy with Higgs replacing him in that wide channel.
B. Scrum was actually only shit on one occasion. The other times it was solid enough. Holmes made a difference, but I wouldn't start with him. This body position stuff about Skelton is largely inaccurate. I can't believe that the same people that bitch about his body position turn a blind eye to the fact that our backrow - mainly Hooper - are almost always not applying force to the scrum. We lose a huge amount of shoving power whenever the going gets tough because our backrow effectively unbinds. This happens all the time, and it needs to be fixed. Higgs was good at pulling the ball out of our attacking scrums just before the pressure got to us, and the channel 1 method Ledesma has drilled is working pretty well. Scrum was better than it normally is.
C. Maul was not done well. SA were good at shutting it down, but changes could be made. Our structure at the point at which we initiated the drive was never ideal. We would do better to spend more time getting set, getting the maul long (a la England 2003) and ensure the right structure is in place before driving. The Brumbies did this, and it worked well. Further, I really think a double round would have worked well on a few occasions. SA had really numbered up on the front of the maul and a deceptive switch would have brought them unstuck. Our maul defence, the one when we didn't commit and Kepu came around the side, was superb. We need to do that more often, among other tricks. If you think about it, the same logic might apply to rucks/tackle situations. Lineouts in general were good.
D. I was really impressed with our attack. Honestly some of the best looking Wallaby attack since Larkham (so unsurprising that he's the brains behind it). Bodies in motion, decent hands (there were very few handling errors, good for a first hit out), etc. Issues in attack were A. That we went wide too early most of the time, B. Cross field running and C. Too many shit kicks. A and B are somewhat solvable as other posters have said. C is a weird one. Clearly Cheika was trying to show/develop a second game plan based on territory. Issue is no Aussie backs have decent boots. Not sure what we do to fix the kicking issues, really.
E. Defence was pretty good, except in broken play. Could have been a bit more intensity, particularly from guys like Skelton - I didn't see enough dominating hits (legitimate, cheap, or otherwise).
Anyway, that's it for now. Sorry for long post, very stream of consciousness.
Players
A. To'omua had a massive impact off the bench. I was very pleased to see him get a go at 10 for the Wallabies again. I have long thought that he's our best option at 10. I think he proved that today. Straightened attack, attacked the line, good defence, showed lots of speed/agility, etc. Most importantly, though, I thought his decision making was superb. Internal organisation of our attack (and backline) was enhanced with him at the helm, he dealt with pressure well, and he was able to put pressure on the opposition. 5/8s are decision makers first and foremost, and To'omua is the best at making decisions. Cooper was not too bad, but he doesn't deserve a second go. I have never been a massive fan, but I was really hoping for something today. He didn't deliver. Foley deserves to have a go, I would play him off the bench next week in a similar way to To'omua tonight.
B. Pocock was immense. I'm not suggesting that Hooper had a bad game, but Pocock partially reduced the dominance of the South African backrow. Obviously he had an immense effect defensively (slowing down the ball, forcing SA to commit more men to rucks he attacked, pilfering and forcing penalties) but he also had a positive effect in attack. He was almost always the first to hit the rucks he was aiming for, his timing when he isn't the first there is impeccable, and his ruck work was highly productive (he can clear out multiple people and thus do the work of many players). SA and NZ often go multiple phases without committing large numbers to the breakdown, but still cause havoc, largely because they have productive guys at the breakdown. His work is reminiscent of that whereas most other Wallaby players struggle to take out even one player. Further though, he often encourages other guys to get involved with him. He is a sort of 'first mover', and that's worthwhile. Prior to him coming on I would argue that SA's breakdown ascendancy was the reason we were behind. Our players weren't chasing the ball carrier into the ruck, leaving him isolated. When they did chase him in more often than not the work done was poor or poorly timed. He rectified that, and deserves credit.
C. Hooper or Pocock? Pocock is not an 8. He should not be playing 8. Hooper is a great player. He is not as good as Pocock. Pocock should be the starting 7. Hooper should be on the bench. I am of the belief that - were Pocock playing 7 in the first half - we would have scored more points (due to the work he does as outlined above). Pocock is the world's best 7 and his work in securing the ball for us was very possibly the difference between winning and losing today.
D. Higgenbotham? I rate Higgenbotham, however his impact today was negligible. He didn't get very long, but to be honest I think the breakdown issues are being unfairly blamed on him. He certainly contributed to that mess, no doubt, perhaps more than any other player (tbh I think Hooper had a larger impact, but whatever). With Pocock playing I do believe the issues Higgs brings to the team would be counter-balanced. I would start him again next week against Argentina. If he stuffs up again he's gone, but I believe he deserves another chance with more time on the paddock.
E. Very undecided about Giteau. The only reason I ever thought he should be in the team was for his kicking. He did next to no kicking in general play and his one shot was awful. He had some moments of brilliance, but in general was not up to it. I do not, as yet, have a suitable replacement in mind. I am sick of this To'omua at 12 shit, he's a 10. I would play Giteau again next week as his last opportunity. I still reckon JOC (James O'Connor) would be the best option at 12, but let's not go there...
F. Skelton was disappointing. I'm a big fan of his, but he didn't play too well tonight. He was too tired too early and he didn't do enough work. He needs to become a productive ruck worker, like Pocock. At times for the Tahs he was. He does not deserve disproportionate criticism for his work though - I believe Simmons, the two starting props, and even Fardy were just as ineffective at ruck time and therefore deserve some (but not as much) blame. Cheika needs to blast him this week and get him back to the fitness level he was at when the Tahs started the season. He was also used poorly - I am so sick of him running from a standing start because either the pass is mistimed or he has mistimed his run. I would start him next week, again - last chance. He is a great player, but he needs to do thinks differently. Horwill was good when he came on, relative to his usual standards, and Simmons was just about average. I am very keen to see Arnold get a go, but it would be unfair to drop any of those 3 after tonight.
G. I thought Genia was good. Phipps was also good. I think people are overrating Phipps contribution, however. I don't think he did anything markedly different from Genia, the difference was that the players around Phipps were better. They played more or less the same. Genia, for mine, was slightly better in that he (as he always does) demanded the disproportionate attention of defenders, creating space for players outside him at the point at which he made the pass. His defence was also good. He offers X factor, and I would most certainly start with him next week again - he did no wrong.
Other things
A. The breakdown was the big issue tonight. Rectified somewhat easily with Pocock on the field. People will want McCalman to start now, which would be very concerning. I would stick with Higgenbotham, but even then when Palu's not injured he will/should replace Higgenbotham as starting No. 8 and fix some of the workload issues. Unlike McCalman, the extra work he does actually has impact, and he's a decent ball runner. Ideal choice for No. 8 for now with Higgenbotham on the bench. Another thought: If Cheika wants to have two backrowers wide on either side of the field, why wouldn't Higgenbotham be one of them? Made very little sense to have a guy who is renowned for not doing work (and also renowned for his attack in wide channels) as the guy in the middle of the field while your hardest worker (and a guy not known for his ball running) is out wide. I would make Fardy my middle guy with Higgs replacing him in that wide channel.
B. Scrum was actually only shit on one occasion. The other times it was solid enough. Holmes made a difference, but I wouldn't start with him. This body position stuff about Skelton is largely inaccurate. I can't believe that the same people that bitch about his body position turn a blind eye to the fact that our backrow - mainly Hooper - are almost always not applying force to the scrum. We lose a huge amount of shoving power whenever the going gets tough because our backrow effectively unbinds. This happens all the time, and it needs to be fixed. Higgs was good at pulling the ball out of our attacking scrums just before the pressure got to us, and the channel 1 method Ledesma has drilled is working pretty well. Scrum was better than it normally is.
C. Maul was not done well. SA were good at shutting it down, but changes could be made. Our structure at the point at which we initiated the drive was never ideal. We would do better to spend more time getting set, getting the maul long (a la England 2003) and ensure the right structure is in place before driving. The Brumbies did this, and it worked well. Further, I really think a double round would have worked well on a few occasions. SA had really numbered up on the front of the maul and a deceptive switch would have brought them unstuck. Our maul defence, the one when we didn't commit and Kepu came around the side, was superb. We need to do that more often, among other tricks. If you think about it, the same logic might apply to rucks/tackle situations. Lineouts in general were good.
D. I was really impressed with our attack. Honestly some of the best looking Wallaby attack since Larkham (so unsurprising that he's the brains behind it). Bodies in motion, decent hands (there were very few handling errors, good for a first hit out), etc. Issues in attack were A. That we went wide too early most of the time, B. Cross field running and C. Too many shit kicks. A and B are somewhat solvable as other posters have said. C is a weird one. Clearly Cheika was trying to show/develop a second game plan based on territory. Issue is no Aussie backs have decent boots. Not sure what we do to fix the kicking issues, really.
E. Defence was pretty good, except in broken play. Could have been a bit more intensity, particularly from guys like Skelton - I didn't see enough dominating hits (legitimate, cheap, or otherwise).
Anyway, that's it for now. Sorry for long post, very stream of consciousness.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I'll bite, that break he made before he threw a poor pass to Folau is a good example. He's good at identifying weaknesses in the defence that he can take on and attack.
But I'd start To'omua. Giteau's a very good player, he's a probably a 7/10 whilst To'omua's a 7.5.
FilthRugby
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I think back to last year when the Wallabies were beaten on full time by the Ab's at Suncorp and how tonight they keep going for the 80+ minutes and got the result.
Well done team and those players above after that great try!
T
TOCC
Guest
Matt Giteau - Broken Nose
Will Genia - Knee injury
Both In doubt for Argentina, squad flies out Monday.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Will Genia - Knee injury
Both In doubt for Argentina, squad flies out Monday.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FilthRugby
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
TOCC any more injuries? Or just those two?
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
More with Gits about right options.....just not executed so well as bit of rustiness about his game.....
Pass that went over sideline....saw that as right option but did not execute well that pass....
Was always near the ball -/ play shows general good awareness.......
If were talking about Gits and To'omua as starting 12 - To'omua gets the nod but for me I wonder whether both are starting Xv material as either 10 or 12...
Foley needs a go.......but Cooper and Genia are not starting XV material based on tonight's performance
Pass that went over sideline....saw that as right option but did not execute well that pass....
Was always near the ball -/ play shows general good awareness.......
If were talking about Gits and To'omua as starting 12 - To'omua gets the nod but for me I wonder whether both are starting Xv material as either 10 or 12...
Foley needs a go.......but Cooper and Genia are not starting XV material based on tonight's performance
T
TOCC
Guest
That was from Twitter, didn't look to be any other players injured... Fardy and Slipper were both limping at separate points throughout the match though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
More with Gits about right options.....just not executed so well as bit of rustiness about his game.....
Pass that went over sideline....saw that as right option but did not execute well that pass....
Was always near the ball -/ play shows general good awareness.......
If were talking about Gits and To'omua as starting 12 - To'omua gets the nod but for me I wonder whether both are starting Xv material as either 10 or 12...
Foley needs a go.......but Cooper and Genia are not starting XV material based on tonight's performance
Pass that went over sideline....saw that as right option but did not execute well that pass....
Was always near the ball -/ play shows general good awareness.......
If were talking about Gits and To'omua as starting 12 - To'omua gets the nod but for me I wonder whether both are starting Xv material as either 10 or 12...
Foley needs a go.......but Cooper and Genia are not starting XV material based on tonight's performance
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
He hasn't been soaking his hands in ivory fluid for 5 years. All we've heard about is how good his been playing in the NH.
Tonight showed there's a big step up from big NH games behind a good pack and test rugby.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
You know those times when Phipps couldn't decide where to pass and looking looked like a headless chicken? It's because he was getting there so quick his forwards weren't ready for the next phase. They weren't used to his pace compared to Genia. His long ball is much better too, he cleaned up at the back of a lineout a through a pass to To'omua on the other half of the field easily. He scored that Hooper try by cleverly holding it up and getting the defender planted.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
TWAS
Disagree with your view on Giteau...was not perfect but showed enough that adds a lot....To'omua may be better starting 12 - if not better 10 than Cooper.....
Giteau showed enough that in the mix
Others tonight less convincing....which is sad as some like higgers was a fan.....but deserves to be dropped to bench...
Disagree with your view on Giteau...was not perfect but showed enough that adds a lot....To'omua may be better starting 12 - if not better 10 than Cooper.....
Giteau showed enough that in the mix
Others tonight less convincing....which is sad as some like higgers was a fan.....but deserves to be dropped to bench...
Lorenzo
Colin Windon (37)
Actually, being critical of "the boys" despite their (after the bell) victory is actually more indicative of critical thought than merely "showing some bloody faith" in "the boys" because they allegedly have such superior understanding of the game.
Most of us have seen Giteau play ~90 tests now and the gaps in his game haven't improved at all as a result of playing in the NH for 5 years. How many more tests ought he have to prove himself?
- Status