• 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 vs England, Sydney, 3rd Test, 25 June @ 8:00pm

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pfitzy

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Oh, and the suggestion that England cant go a lot further is horseshite. These guys now travelling to where they should always have been in the top three (talking long term), and ultimately challenging for the top spot.


That will remain to be seen.

Thing is, after last 6N Eddie's improvement on England was probably more than a lot of people imagined. But it will have put a rocket under the other coaches up there.

(I, for one, don't understand why Gatland is still in the job. Too long, boyo).

Eddie tends to be a coach who instills the base plan pretty quickly - but once that fuel is exhausted, continuous improvement is hard to find.

No doubt England have built up some impressive fitness already over their RWC2015 form, and their skill set has more aspects to it.

But incremental change from there is going to rely on continuity and you just can't guarantee that as players go in and out of form, or get injured.

One thing is for sure: the RFU will basically give Eddie anything he needs now.
 

tragic

John Solomon (38)
Just re-watched the game. Skelton was more active on the field than I can remember, England tried one maul only while he was on, and immediately upped the mauls when he was off. And thats just one part of his game. Its inaccurate to say he had no impact. He's not in my armchair selectors team, but he played well.

Phipps and Foley. What on earth is the fuss about? I'd not be happy if Genia/Quade played at that level and got this response. And Phipps and Foley can defend. Really really defend. OK kicking could be better, Phipps pass was not 110%, but hell, these guys played well.

Nobody played badly. I'm certainly not saying that and I don't think most others are.
Skelton had some good points but didn't offer as much as Coleman, Simmons or Carter and weakened our lineout. He was unfit and looked slow motion at times. So in most people's eye he makes way.
Phipps played quite well, but for the second time his erratic pass cost us 7 points and therefore potentially the game. Time to see if a more reliable passing 9 offers more. If not then he's still on the bench and the questions answered.
Foley played well in general play but he is not an international standard 10 with the boot, a key position description. He wouldn't make 10 in any of the other top 5 sides. So people are naturally looking for an alternative. But we don't have one at the moment so he stays.
It's recognising our shortcomings and why we can dominate many aspect of the stats but not win - fine tuning, not criticising.
It's natural the positives get less air play than the negatives in a losing side.
The reverse is also true and many would be lauded as the future if we'd won.
 

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
That will remain to be seen.

Thing is, after last 6N Eddie's improvement on England was probably more than a lot of people imagined. But it will have put a rocket under the other coaches up there.

(I, for one, don't understand why Gatland is still in the job. Too long, boyo).

Eddie tends to be a coach who instills the base plan pretty quickly - but once that fuel is exhausted, continuous improvement is hard to find.

No doubt England have built up some impressive fitness already over their RWC2015 form, and their skill set has more aspects to it.

But incremental change from there is going to rely on continuity and you just can't guarantee that as players go in and out of form, or get injured.

One thing is for sure: the RFU will basically give Eddie anything he needs now.



The great thing about Eddie is that after an initial period of success people tend to start hating his guts. Hard to argue with how he's going right now though. I think his strategic thinking about the game has always sound, but there have been questions for years about his man management skills. I'll laugh my head off if it's the same this time.
 

waratahjesus

Greg Davis (50)
That would be some of the worst drivel I've ever read on this site. If we all had that holier than thou attitude, there wouldn't even be a site. We would all be content to listen to our own private thoughts in the knowledge that Nobode else anywhere at any time is interested in what we might have to say. Utter crap.

It is every posters' right to express his/her opinion and add to the conversation. I have to say that the place is a better place for the absence of such pious bullshit.

Apologies. I thought this thread was just having a laugh and didn't realise you where being serious. Please continue with the opinion you had going in and don't let anyone providing stats, examples or reasoned argument stop you from posting the same crap you do in multiple threads based on nothing but personal opinion. Maybe start your own thread called "thangs I say alot" and leave the folks who have actual discussion to be unaffected by the negative poison you provide.

As for your opinion on my post, not getting something often means you should say nothing at all. I'll take it on board though and ad it to the list.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    785.6 KB · Views: 697

dru

David Wilson (68)
Nobody played badly. I'm certainly not saying that and I don't think most others are.
Skelton had some good points but didn't offer as much as Coleman, Simmons or Carter and weakened our lineout. He was unfit and looked slow motion at times. So in most people's eye he makes way.
Phipps played quite well, but for the second time his erratic pass cost us 7 points and therefore potentially the game. Time to see if a more reliable passing 9 offers more. If not then he's still on the bench and the questions answered.
Foley played well in general play but he is not an international standard 10 with the boot, a key position description. He wouldn't make 10 in any of the other top 5 sides. So people are naturally looking for an alternative. But we don't have one at the moment so he stays.
It's recognising our shortcomings and why we can dominate many aspect of the stats but not win - fine tuning, not criticising.
It's natural the positives get less air play than the negatives in a losing side.
The reverse is also true and many would be lauded as the future if we'd won.

Hey Tragic. There were 23 (22) players involved let alone the coaching staff. And they played a brilliant game. Targeting Phipps for being responsible for 7 points, without looking at try saving tackles and a general drive that pyshed the points we did score... Well to me it just isnt a balanced view.

Foley not an international 10 pfft. He starts for the Wallabies. And has little competition. What just love, it that if we can have Quade back, without the mindless emotion from fans, and if the Reds (god help us not the Rebels) can play him back into form, his has still got a hell of a chance to break back i to the Wallabies starting crew. Swap Quade for whatever your flavour of preferd 10 is. Same story.

Ditto Phipps. Frisbey, Genia, White whatever, they're going to have to work seriously hard to displace him.

Skelton, what can I say. He's not going to make a Super Rugby team I pick. But I'd like to think I can look unemtionally at his performance. Did he look pedestrain? Hell yes, even stopping a jog onto the pitch with a walk. But look at him, actually look at him in play. Its a bit of a misdirection to suggest, as one has, that he was good in the LO because he lifts. He does, one badly, but what a waste. He isn't fast enough (lazy/unfit/ or just big, I'm with big) to hit many rucks up front unless hes lucky. But he did what he could to be second group at many many rucks. We here that the team should have used the English focus on him to create gaps. Hell help me, I think they did.




We are all going to see different things. But much. No, most, of the negative comment here, particularly where it targets individuals, is well OTT.

3-zip. Sounds piss poor. But it wasnt. Keep pushing Cheika. Wallabies please do the same.
 

Beefcake

Bill Watson (15)
Personally, dont think its all doom and gloom:

Both sides were somewhat evenly paired, if skewed favourably to the Wobs based on recent performance history; Throughout the series both played a predictable and confrontational style of footy while the Wobs actually showed a glimpse of the old skool running rugby...

The failures were systematic, laying somewhere between the drone application of Cheikaball and the playing groups' inability to devise counter-strategies during the game. This may highlight a lack of leadership on field but overall reflective of the Wobs management selection of leadership.

Changing tact during all games such greater emphasis on securing rucks, controlling the tempo of the game, better tactical kicking and when to go all guns blazing would have been much better approach during the game rather than the frenetic side to side play - well observations on how the darkness operate when faced with tight games... what happened to the reserves changing the game...

Obviously all coaches look to the darkness for clues on how to play with the scope of cattle in mind, hopefully the 3-0 whitewash is more reflective of a style change than an implosion.
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
Once again I was unimpressed with Cheika's post match interview.

Comments were basically "we need to be more clinical" - stating he will not stray away from his strategy because "it works, it has in the past". Blaming100% on inaccuracies instead of any acknowledgement at all that poor strategy could have led to those inaccuracies.

Lots of discussion around ref decisions too.

Been around rugby for a while now and still don't understand the usage of "clinical". Does it mean accuracy in driving into players at the breakdown? Or choice of strategy at different parts of the field? Or playing without emotion? Or is it a buzzword which gives gravitas but no meaning?
 

formerflanker

Ken Catchpole (46)
the playing groups' inability to devise counter-strategies during the game. This may highlight a lack of leadership on field but overall reflective of the Wobs management selection of leadership.

Both sides had "water boys" on the field and sideline for long periods of time, obviously shouting instructions from the coach.
Therefore any criticism or praise of on field decision making must include the decisions made by and passed on from the coach.
 

ForceFan

Peter Fenwicke (45)
For those who may be interested in who did all of the Ruck work for the Wallabies in the Sydney Test.

Remember:
1. Early means 1st or 2nd of player’s team AFTER the ball carrier has been tackled and brought to ground.
2. Impact means active engagement: strong physical contact, changed shape of ruck, clean-out, protecting ball etc. (more than hand on someone’s bum or arriving after the hard work has been done). Yes it’s subjective - but as I collect all data at least it’s consistent.
3. Impact DOES NOT equate to Effectiveness. I’ve concluded that coming up with an effectiveness measure is just too hard in the time that I have available – but open to suggestions.

2016-06-26_19-47-16.jpg


Ruck Involvements over Time
2016-06-26_19-17-01.jpg


Comments:

1. Those critical of Fardy making a few mistakes towards the end of any game need to remember his work rate at the breakdown over the full game.
2. Fardy was in the top 3 for Ruck Involvements for all 3 Tests and made the most Ruck Involvements for the Wallabies in this series.
3. If he's not the man to have at BSF then his presence at the breakdown will be greatly missed. His Defence Ruck Involvements (DRIs) in the 1st half (10) was almost equal to the combined efforts of Hooper (6) and McMahon (5).
4. Fardy had the same number of TRIs with similar splits between Attack and Defence (35T - 24A/11D) in his 50 minutes as No6 as McMahon (36T - 27A/9D) and Hooper (35T - 24A/11D) had in their 87 minutes.
5. The Wallabies Front Row lifted their efforts in this game to 24% of Total Ruck Involvements (TRIs) and 28% of DRIs.
6. Fardy's efforts in the last 30 minutes (20T - 15A/5D) signbificantly boosted the TRI's for Locks to 20% (usually only 15% or less).
7. In 43 minutes Simmons had more Ruck Involvements (19 Total - 17 Attack/2 Defence) than Skelton in 55 minutes (16T - 15A/1D) and Coleman in 43 minutes (16T - 12A/4D).
8. Both Simmons and Skelton main focus at the breakdown is on supporting the Wallabies ball carriers. Coleman was more involved in DRIs and earned a critical TOW late in the game - which resulted in the last Wallabies try.
9. Unfortunately I have been unable to find any good Turn Over Won statistics. (Would be pleased to be given a link to some as none on ESPN) My own observations indicated very few were made by any of the Wallabies Back Row at the breakdown. There were a few Penalties Forced by preventing the England ball carriers from releasing the ball.
10. Significant Ruck Involvements by Backs:
Kuridrani - 17T - 14A/3D
To'omua - 14T - 12A/2D
Foley - 12T - 11A/1D
Folau - 10T - 10A/0D
DHP - 10T - 9A/1D

It's certainly worth taking Ruck Involvements into account with other key statistics when ranking players efforts and worth to the team.

I'll post the England team's numbers when available.
 

FrankLind

Colin Windon (37)
Skelton and Tuipulotu came on the international scene at the same time.
Both huge impact players. (though Skelton is bigger)
Tui' is getting better but Skelton isn't.
Of course this is a lot to do with the players themselves, but I think coaching and guidance also play a big role.
As an AB supporter, I was genuinely worried when I first saw Skelton throwing people around. Now, not so much.
 

dru

David Wilson (68)
I think there is way too much talk of Quade coming back into the wallabies.

At this stage I'm not even sure I want him back in the Reds let alone Wallabies. He has a lot to prove to get picked for an international again.

Oh, I most definitely want him back at the Reds. Big time. Unlike many of his supporters though, I think he has to prove himself over Mac. He will, but he has to actually do it.

Quade at the Wallabies? We can only hope. But there is a shed load of stuff needed. I am not one who disses Foley, and Foley looses his job ONLY if another proves definitively he is better. Now I KNOW Quade uninjured could do that a couple of years ago. Right now? I want him to do it. On merit. And that would be good for Aussie rugby, cause actually I think we've got a fricken good 10 right now.

Back at the Reds... Get it sorted quickly. Please.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Some random thoughts..........

- Much improvement in our forward runners - Simmons, Fardy and McMahon in particular. That was probably the best I've ever seen Simmons carry the ball ever.

- To'omua played his best game of the year, and highlighted the fact that we play so much better with a second playmaker at 12.

- The scrum was the best it had been in the three games, even with Skelton packing down at second row.

- Despite what the fringe element from Qld and the ACT have to say Foley is still our best flyhalf, but he has to work on his kicking - three poor kicks directly led to English tries, and it seems Bernie is teaching him the Brumbies secret on how to miss touch finders.

- Phipps' distribution was not particularly good.

- We're missing the the likes of Pocock, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Giteau and Douglas....... even McCalman would've been handy off the bench. We just looked dumb when it mattered.

- The inclusion of Skelton is problematic - he did a good job of sucking in defenders, but when Simmons had to go off early it really hurt our set piece with Skelton unable to go more than 50 mins.
 

ForceFan

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Ruck work for England in the Sydney Test

2016-06-27_1-00-07.jpg


2016-06-27_0-57-50.jpg


Comments

1. Impressive work rates and contributions by Itoje and Hartley over the 3 games. Itoje leading Ruck Involvements in all 3 games. Hartley in top 3 in all games.
2. Big work rates by England Tight 5 with Front Row (30%) and Locks (32%) making 62% of Total Ruck Involvements (TRIs). This leaves the Back Row and Back to be available to accept and run with the ball.
3. For the Wallabies these contributions were 24% and 20% - Total 44%.
(Note: In the RWC Final the ABs Tight 5 contributed 55% of Total Rucks; the Wallabies Tight 5 - 40%.)
4. England Back Row 22% of TRIs compared with Wallabies 33%.
5. England Backs 16% of TRIs compared with Wallabies 23%.
6. Both teams averaged about 2.5 support players per Attack Ruck.
7. Wallabies were standing-off most Defence Rucks and averaged only 1 player putting pressure on the England ball carriers.
8. England almost ignored the Wallabies in Attack - averaging only 0.5 players putting pressure on the Wallabies ball carriers. England's main focus was maintaining a well spaced defensive line which moved up consistently fast the whole game (as per all 3 games).
9. Wallabies won 106/108 rucks (98%) - only 2 lost to England.
10. England won 82/90 rucks (92%) - losing 8 in TOW by Wallabies or Forced Penalties.
11. Significant ruck involvements by England Backs:
Farrell - 16T - 14A/2d
Brown - 12T - 8A/4D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top