Wallabies v Springboks - Suncorp, Brisbane, 10th September 2016

[Strewthcobber]

Lote Tuqiri presenting the jerseys to the Wallabies today.

 

[Beer Baron]

Wow... reece hodge will cherish that!......

 

[No4918]

He does have 67 caps. Can't ask John Eales to do it every test

 

[emuarse]

Agree that Cooper wasn't the saviour last game.

BUT at least he has the POTENTIAL to be that great "playmaker"
Foley just doesn't have IT, and never will.

I actually thought that QC (Quade Cooper) improved with the second half of the game against the AB's, when he took more control of proceedings.
Of course, that might have been the plan from the dressing room.
To get involved gently, gently.

 

[Gnostic]

You don't pick Foley if you want a kicking 10, just like you didn't pick Larkham if you wanted a goal kicking 10. You always build a side around the strengths and weaknesses of the each player. "If" Foley is 10, you need other kicking options, when Larkham was 10 you needed a goal kicker etc etc



And I have said before aus is never going to beat any decent side by having a game plan built around kicking, that isn't our strength, our backs and forwards have never had that off the ball workrate/attitude to do it effectively.



Anyway to me the backs argument is a smoke screen, our pigs haven't provided that consistent platform to build any pressure.



They can't win lineouts, can't provide dominant tackles, can't turnover enough ball, can't cleanout accurately.



Until that stuff is sorted all our backs will continue to look like the pants.



We need to build pressure, to create those mismatches and we simply haven't been

I agree with the overall thrust of your post FP, excepting the "never had this ability" part. Up until Macqueen's endless recycle game Australian sides from 1982 onwards had a very balanced game, based around the superb tactical kicking game of Lynagh especially. It should also be noted that they had specialist wingers and fullbacks who had genuine pace to chase kicks.

I have heard all the arguments about how much better the defence is now, blah blah blah, it is a relative argument IMO and I marvel at how OUR modern players cannot kick the synthetic ball as far or with as much accuracy as did those from the time mentioned with the old leather ball.

 

[Quick Hands]

You don't pick Foley if you want a kicking 10, just like you didn't pick Larkham if you wanted a goal kicking 10. You always build a side around the strengths and weaknesses of the each player. "If" Foley is 10, you need other kicking options, when Larkham was 10 you needed a goal kicker etc etc

And I have said before aus is never going to beat any decent side by having a game plan built around kicking, that isn't our strength, our backs and forwards have never had that off the ball workrate/attitude to do it effectively.

Anyway to me the backs argument is a smoke screen, our pigs haven't provided that consistent platform to build any pressure.

They can't win lineouts, can't provide dominant tackles, can't turnover enough ball, can't cleanout accurately.

Until that stuff is sorted all our backs will continue to look like the pants.

We need to build pressure, to create those mismatches and we simply haven't been

Depends what you mean by this. I would agree that we have never (sucessfully anyway) played a 10 man style of rugby where we barely run with ball in hand and kick endlessly for field postion.

But our most successful teams had a game plan which included a competent kicking game into an overall game plan.

1984 Wallabies included players such as Roger Gould, Michael Lynagh, Mark Ella and David Campese - all of whom possessed high quality punt-kicking skills and could kick long for territory when the situation demanded and could be relied upon to kick the ball into touch when needed.

1991 Wallabies also included Lynagh, Campese and Marty Roebuck, who possessed similar skills.

So I would say that our best teams have always contained players who were accomplished kickers, because it is a critical skill of the game. Which may not mean that you "base your game on it" but we still need to be able to do it when the situation calls for the ball to be kicked downfield and/or out.

 

[kiap]

Unless we finish with the hobbit backrow.

It's time to triple down.

Two leprechauns are good. Three are better.

 

[PaarlBok]

wamberal

It might be sad, but it is also inevitable, and will become more so as the new tv deals pour more money into European footy.

Why do you think its inevitable? Why do the nr1 team do it different? It sure haven't did one bit for the Springboks. Take Duanne Vermeulen, he is not even close to where he was when he played in SA. I struggle to find Springbok players who were better when going up north. The NH game have changed them into kak. Now Coetzee want to keep it going. How dumb is that. He should rather try and invest in young players of colour.

Australia don't have that at all and surely your NRC is step in the right direction spesificly to produce players.

Selecting chicken runners is only giving the young NRC players too permit to chicken run.

Its a bad cycle.

 

[TOCC]

You don't pick Foley if you want a kicking 10, just like you didn't pick Larkham if you wanted a goal kicking 10. You always build a side around the strengths and weaknesses of the each player. "If" Foley is 10, you need other kicking options, when Larkham was 10 you needed a goal kicker etc etc

And I have said before aus is never going to beat any decent side by having a game plan built around kicking, that isn't our strength, our backs and forwards have never had that off the ball workrate/attitude to do it effectively.

You don't build a game around kicking, you complement a game plan with a good kicking game, teams like New Zealand aren't built around kicking but they still have bloody good kickers, it's an absolute necessity in the modern game to have a balance, to become over reliant or to ignore certain aspects of play is to open up weaknesses in other areas.

Comparing the Larkham and Foley situation is a little ridiculous, Larkham still had a very effective tactical kicking game and more importantly he knew when to employ it. As a first receiver it's not important if they aren't going to kick for goals, but it does become important if they are poor at general kicking bexause it makes the game plan predictable and easy for the defence to read.

Foley actually employed a very good kicking game during the RWC and against England I thought it was the best I'd ever seen him play, but this year he has lost that aspect of his play.

 

[HJ Nelson]

Photos from todays Captain's run (Wallabies)

Flickr (my 100th Album) or Facebook

 

[KOB1987]

wamberal

Why do you think its inevitable? Why do the nr1 team do it different? It sure haven't did one bit for the Springboks. Take Duanne Vermeulen, he is not even close to where he was when he played in SA. I struggle to find Springbok players who were better when going up north. The NH game have changed them into kak. Now Coetzee want to keep it going. How dumb is that. He should rather try and invest in young players of colour.

Australia don't have that at all and surely your NRC is step in the right direction spesificly to produce players.

Selecting chicken runners is only giving the young NRC players too permit to chicken run.

Its a bad cycle.

Agree in principle.

I actually wonder if the RWC 'chicken runners' were given some sort of sweetener in their deal that extended beyond the World Cup as it's only those blokes who have been given any exposure since then. I remember reading somewhere after the 'Giteau Law' was introduced that it actually wasn't written for Matt Giteau, it was for Sekope Kepu.

Looking at the players who now qualify to play (and are/have this series), Kepu and Cooper have come back, Giteau and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) aren't anymore, leaving Mitchell and Genia. Genia has conveniently been left out of most opponents' to the rules arguments as he's actually been an asset to the side. Mitchell is on the bench this week but it's mainly through attrition that he's there. He'll lack match fitness but I can see his experience being very useful against tired legs later in the game.

Moving onto tomorrow's game, in the starting side we've already got Coleman, Hodge, DHP and Kerevi who are all debutantes this year, and on the bench Arnold and Ala'alatoa. Throw McMahon into that group and there's a fair bit of inexperience there. So it's understandable that Cheika is trying to balance the side a bit in that regard and shuffling the deck chairs a bit to keep some experience in the side, otherwise we'd have a whole backline of debutantes. But there's 6 blokes there (>25% of the match day squad) who weren't even really considered for the Wallabies side last year, it's not as though they're being completely ignored.

 

[Quick Hands]

Looking at the players who now qualify to play (and are/have this series), Kepu and Cooper have come back, Giteau and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) aren't anymore, leaving Mitchell and Genia. Genia has conveniently been left out of most opponents' to the rules arguments as he's actually been an asset to the side. Mitchell is on the bench this week but it's mainly through attrition that he's there. He'll lack match fitness but I can see his experience being very useful against tired legs later in the game.

No, he hasn't been conveniently left out of the argument (not be me anyway). I've purposely not made it about any individual player; I've made it all about the principle - which IMHO is a bad principle.

 

[TOCC]

15 of the match day squad have over 25 caps, and 10 of those players have over 50 caps... There's no shortage of experience

 

[TOCC]

No, he hasn't been conveniently left out of the argument (not be me anyway). I've purposely not made it about any individual player; I've made it all about the principle - which IMHO is a bad principle.

Lack of competition/options for the halfback position is a design of the ARU's own making, the ridiculous situation of having 2 inelegible players as the starting halfbacks at Australian Super Rugby teams has increased the need for players like Genia.

Likewise for blindside flanker/number 8... The last 5 years of having players like Potgeiter, Tui, Thompson, and Delve as the starting 6/8 has lead to the current situation where there is a lack of options at wallaby level.

 

[Mr Doug]

Can I ask our South African contributors the same question that I asked an All Blacks supporter earlier tonight: Does the Springbok management apply the same "Fly-in-fly-out" regime as the Wallabies management does when selecting players?

 

[KOB1987]

No, he hasn't been conveniently left out of the argument (not be me anyway). I've purposely not made it about any individual player; I've made it all about the principle - which IMHO is a bad principle.

Yeah, you've always offered a pointed but balanced argument, that wasn't directed at you.

Lack of competition/options for the halfback position is a design of the ARU's own making, the ridiculous situation of having 2 inelegible players as the starting halfbacks at Australian Super Rugby teams has increased the need for players like Genia.

Likewise for blindside flanker/number 8. The last 5 years of having players like Potgeiter, Tui, Thompson, and Delve as the starting 6/8 has lead to the current situation where there is a lack of options at wallaby level.

That's true. 6/8 is where it really stands out at the moment, there isn't really anyone uncapped who's knocking at the door for test selection. I'm not sure it's totally because of the 'intruders', but they don't help. Also to blame is letting players like Mowen go at their prime. At least there are a couple of viable options in the pipeline at halfback.

 

[PaarlBok]

M Doug

Can I ask our South African contributors the same question that I asked an All Blacks supporter earlier tonight: Does the Springbok management apply the same "Fly-in-fly-out" regime as the Wallabies management does when selecting players?

You mean chopping and changing?

 

[dru]

I really hope, and am expecting, that Saffers will have more to consider this weekend.

Clearly I expect the Wobblies to do the same and come out in front.

In the mean time I REALLY like this bloke.

http://www.espn.com.au/rugby/story/_/id/17501485/south-africa-captain-wants-faster-improvement

 

[Brumby Runner]

I agree with the overall thrust of your post FP, excepting the "never had this ability" part. Up until Macqueen's endless recycle game Australian sides from 1982 onwards had a very balanced game, based around the superb tactical kicking game of Lynagh especially. It should also be noted that they had specialist wingers and fullbacks who had genuine pace to chase kicks.

I have heard all the arguments about how much better the defence is now, blah blah blah, it is a relative argument IMO and I marvel at how OUR modern players cannot kick the synthetic ball as far or with as much accuracy as did those from the time mentioned with the old leather ball.

Where is the present day Rob Egerton?

 

[I like to watch]

Where is the present day Rob Egerton?

Buying tickets to the test matches like the rest of us.
28 yo wingers are not being promoted out of the SS for their debut for the Tahs, let alone the Wobblies.