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

[The torpedo]

Me too. We actually do have options in the backline.

I'm more worried about the locks, we've already tried them all and none have done anything worthy of a recall.

Backrow also an issue. Who to replace Poey is a hard one.

Does anyone know when Douglas will be back? Also Gill can replace Poey

 

[wamberal]

Foley is about the only player on the team who can step through defences, so he probably has to be retained.

The only other way we break the line is brute force, although Folau is somewhere in between.


I am buggered if I know what the answer is.

 

[galumay]

Foley has been one of the poorest performers over the two tests. His management of the backline plays is almost non-existant, he cannot do anything to stop the England rush defense and he cannot reliably kick the ball, in general play, for the sideline nor for penalty goal. The only way he will survive for next week is if Lealiifano or To'omua are put in at 12.

12 and 13 are not the Wallabies' problem areas atm. The proper solution in the short term is to replace Foley. It might work or it might not, but we must be saved the frustration of watching him put in another sub-par effort. The same can be said of Phipps.

Cant see Lilo getting another run, he was hopeless. Also dont see To'omua being good enough. Foley will be there again, he is the only practical option.

Another observation i forgot from last night, McMahon seems incapable off passing or offloading, he doesnt even look for it. Its a waste of his otherwise physical presence.

 

[Braveheart81]

Foley has been one of the poorest performers over the two tests.

His general play in the first test was very good.

He played a big part in 3 of the tries and our backline created a lot of opportunities.

I think you could pick at least half the team out as being poorer performers over the two tests.

 

[Scotty]

I'm a bit surprised by the reaction to the second test. I'd suggest we don't change any of the players, but maybe use the bench different.

The biggest difference we can make is get faster ball. Phipps was slow on occasion and not to mention inaccurate. If he has a good game then Foley looks better as well.

Also go back to more second line plays that worked well in the first test.

If the attack is looking blunt I'd also consider pulling Kurindrani, moving Folau to 13 and HP to 15. I don't think Lilo is the answer at 12, but happy to see him have a shot at 10. At 12 we need a strong runner with ball playing skills. Kerevi or To'omua seem the answer here.

 

[Micheal]

My lord this forum produces some of the dankest group-think I have ever witnessed.

Foley had an average game - but a lot of 10s would have in the same situation.

Then everyones bagging him for his performance in the first test - he wasnt bad at all! I thought he lead the team around quite well and created a fair bit that game (see his beautiful wideball for our second try and his absolutely mouth watering marvellous pass to Folau for his try).

Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I do think Foley is better with a creative 12 outside of him, and I think the whole team would be better served with another distributer / kicker in the backline.

Kerevi / Kuridrani is just so limited as a centre pairing, especially when Horne is one wing and Folau is the fullback.

I think with 3 of those 4 on the field you really need another playmaker / kicker at 12.

For me, next week we should field:

1. Slipper
2. Moore (c)
3. Kepu
4. Horwill
5. Arnold
6. Fardy
7. Hooper (vc)
8. McMahon
9. Phipps
10. Foley
11. DHP
12. Lealifano
13. Kuridrani
14. Horne
15. Folau

16. Sio
17. TPN
18. Holmes
19. Mumm
20. McCalman
21. Frisby
22. Kerevi
23. Hodge / Morahan

Hodge to come on for Lealfano (like for like - blood him in an otherwise unimportant test), forwards to be unleashed around the 55 minute mark (McCalman for McMahon, Mumm for Arnold).

Kerevi on for Kuridrani around the same time, Hodge on for Lealifano (or Morahan for DHP), Frisby for Phipps (hes been injected too late both times).

 

[Scotty]

The only change I would make is for Arnold to go onto the bench for Mumm. Arnold doesn't seem to have the motor to get through enough minutes at test level just yet.

 

[KOB1987]

1. Slipper
2. TPN
3. Kepu
4. Mumm
5. Horwill
6. Fardy
7. Hooper
8. Palu
9. Frisby
10. Foley
11. Horne
12. Kerevi
13. Folau
14. Morahan
15. DHP

16. Moore
17. Sio
18. Holmes
19. Arnold
20. McMahon
21. Phipps
22. L'lo
23. Kuridrani


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I wouldn't change a lot for the next test, firstly because there isn't a lot that we can actually change and secondly because the issue was mainly the top couple of centimetres, not the players themselves. Had we been smarter we could have won that game. Test one showed that we have the personnel to play good footy, we just didn't show it last night. The tactics should be altered for the next test, especially around exits and combating the rush defence. Both of those things are fixable I think.

 

[Gnostic]

Why? I feel like I've covered this. Kicking isn't valued in this country because as a place influenced by the overpowering influences of rugby league, we're obsessed with what people think is 'entertaining' and that is the 'ball in hand'. Watch some of the junior rugby from South Africa online/foxtel and then go watch some Australian junior rugby. They aren't in the same galaxy when it comes to kicking prowess. Am I suggesting we want 10 man rugby? No, but kicking is a rude word in many rugby circles in this country and it's just bloody stupid.



If you think that Foley - even on an empty training ground - can match Dan Carter or Morne Steyn or any of the other 10s that the other big two - or even England and Wales - have trotted out this century then you're delusional. You can't attribute every good quality the other teams have have to 'but they're surrounded by quality'. What about goalkicking? We're shit at that too. That doesn't depend on you having several other people to alleviate the pressure.



You can expect the coaching at the pro/national levels to improve the skills of the players but for goodness sake, shouldn't they have the basics nailed by the time they are getting 500k a year to do it at the highest level??

I do agree to a certain extent but the argument as to why is too simplistic.

Have a look at our development pathways. Most our players are now getting picked into EPS sides (especially backs) and bypassing club rugby altogether. They play school boys and then EPS and then Super/NRC. Where is the weekly grind of learning the base skills in depth so that under pressure they are strong?

I have been a strident critic of elite level coaching in Australia and it lack of effect in improving the players core skills. I have had to reluctantly accept that others are right in that the Super level coaches do not have the time in a high pressure short Super season to concentrate limited training time on these things. Some time can be given but not the weekly in depth attention required to bring base skills to elite level. The big push factor for the NTC was the improvement in Australia's depth, but it is an even shorter season and less time to develop skills and even though players will be exposed to a greater number of higher quality games than they could possibly achieve playing club rugby, the net benefit in improving skills that we are discussing here will be negligible.

It is too simplistic to blame the obsession with the misplaced definition of "running rugby". It does have a part to play, especially at school boy level where many forwards are picked for ball running and handling instead of the basics of their position such as propping, but after that the development pathway in its real term stops, and that is a structural failing.

 

[The torpedo]

Exactly Gnostic. What I would do is instead once they come out of school (and indicate a desire to play professional rugby), they must first sign with a top grade club side (Premier Rugby side for example) and maybe an NRC side. They must then play 2-3 years in club rugby and NRC before Super Rugby sides are allowed to offer them a contract. This ensures that they a hopefully a bit more prepared for the rigours of top-flight rugby. I would also rearrange the wallabies coaching staff to look something like this:

• Michael Cheika (Head coach)
• Laurie Fisher (forwards coach)
• Mario Ledesma/Nick Stiles (set piece coach)
• Jim McKay (attack coach)
• Nathan Grey (defence coach)
• Jonny Wilkinson (kicking & skills coach)
• A fitness coach (Dean Benton?)

Along with this, I would:

• Set up a national set-piece, kicking, and skills school for players
• Emphasise skill over size at professional level

 

[Brumby Runner]

Cant see Lilo getting another run, he was hopeless. Also dont see To'omua being good enough. Foley will be there again, he is the only practical option.

Another observation i forgot from last night, McMahon seems incapable off passing or offloading, he doesnt even look for it. Its a waste of his otherwise physical presence.

McMahon has almost no physical presence at this level. A great Super Rugby player, but not a test match player until he grows another 10cm and puts on another 15kg. Sorry, but for my money, he's been tested and isn't really up to test match rugby. He is no way a No 8, nor a Pocock substitute.

Lealiifano was a champion compared with Foley. He did little wrong, while Foley's game has gone to pieces. Whether Lealiifano is the answer for game 3 or not, Foley really has to have a rest until he gets his game in order again.

 

[Brumby Runner]

His general play in the first test was very good.

He played a big part in 3 of the tries and our backline created a lot of opportunities.

I think you could pick at least half the team out as being poorer performers over the two tests.

Not in my view. We were troubled all game in the first test by the rush defense, and Bernard had no answer to it. I pointed that out in my post game comments, so I'm not re-writing history here. I do recognise that some of his problems derive from the atrocious service he gets from Phipps, but he just has to develop a short kicking game to be the all-rounded No 10 we want to see. Sure, we scored three tries, but we lost the game. How was our goal kicking?

 

[Brumby Runner]

Hodge to come on for Lealfano (like for like - blood him in an otherwise unimportant test), forwards to be unleashed around the 55 minute mark (McCalman for McMahon, Mumm for Arnold).

Kerevi on for Kuridrani around the same time, Hodge on for Lealifano (or Morahan for DHP), Frisby for Phipps (hes been injected too late both times).

That's given me the best laugh I've had since the first test got underway. Imagine anyone suggesting that McCalman and Mumm can be unleashed.

 

[KOB1987]

McMahon has almost no physical presence at this level. A great Super Rugby player, but not a test match player until he grows another 10cm and puts on another 15kg. Sorry, but for my money, he's been tested and isn't really up to test match rugby. He is no way a No 8, nor a Pocock substitute.

Lealiifano was a champion compared with Foley. He did little wrong, while Foley's game has gone to pieces. Whether Lealiifano is the answer for game 3 or not, Foley really has to have a rest until he gets his game in order again.

I've actually been enjoying your posts BR, but I just want to pull you up on the #8 thing. Mccalman is a real life proper #8, as is Palu. Both of these blokes are workhorses in the tight and most of their good work is camouflaged by the bodies around them and doesn't show up in any stats. Ask the blokes that play with them.

As for #10, Foley is the better option of those two. I don't think he's our long term future though, that's probably Greene, Horwitz, Mackintyre or someone hiding in subbies or the country comps.

EDIT: you changed your post! You definitely had something about mccalman in the original one, saying he wasn't a test #8 or something. Maybe you realised you were wrong.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[The torpedo]

That's given me the best laugh I've had since the first test got underway. Imagine anyone suggesting that McCalman and Mumm can be unleashed.

Just tell them to destroy everything wearing a white shirt

 

[galumay]

Lealiifano was a champion compared with Foley. He did little wrong, while Foley's game has gone to pieces. Whether Lealiifano is the answer for game 3 or not, Foley really has to have a rest until he gets his game in order again.

LOL! I didnt realise you were watching a different game!! Foley wasnt that bad, any 10 would have struggled with a defence as good as Englands. He is still our best option at 10 by a significant margin.

50/50 though, agree with you about McMahon.

 

[Gnostic]

Exactly Gnostic. What I would do is instead once they come out of school (and indicate a desire to play professional rugby), they must first sign with a top grade club side (Premier Rugby side for example) and maybe an NRC side. They must then play 2-3 years in club rugby and NRC before Super Rugby sides are allowed to offer them a contract. This ensures that they a hopefully a bit more prepared for the rigours of top-flight rugby. I would also rearrange the wallabies coaching staff to look something like this:

• Michael Cheika (Head coach)
• Laurie Fisher (forwards coach)
• Mario Ledesma/Nick Stiles (set piece coach)
• Jim McKay (attack coach)
• Nathan Grey (defence coach)
• Jonny Wilkinson (kicking & skills coach)
• A fitness coach (Dean Benton?)

Along with this, I would:

• Set up a national set-piece, kicking, and skills school for players
• Emphasise skill over size at professional level

That would be wonderful in an ideal world, but into your equation comes the threat of League signing the kids straight from school and tying them up. Even if they never make the grade in League they essentially are lost to Rugby in their formative years and will face the same struggles if they come back.

It is a conundrum, paradox and most vexing problem that has its genesis in the half baked rush to professionalism caused by the World Rugby Corp. threat in 1995.

I don't know what the answer is, but truthfully unless the base skills issue is addressed in depth then we face a future of mediocre results interspersed with a smattering of out-performances and a litany of coaches being told they are failures for not getting results with poorly skilled "professionals" that have never received the in depth training to achieve their potential.

 

[The torpedo]

That would be wonderful in an ideal world, but into your equation comes the threat of League signing the kids straight from school and tying them up. Even if they never make the grade in League they essentially are lost to Rugby in their formative years and will face the same struggles if they come back.

It is a conundrum, paradox and most vexing problem that has its genesis in the half baked rush to professionalism caused by the World Rugby Corp. threat in 1995.

I don't know what the answer is, but truthfully unless the base skills issue is addressed in depth then we face a future of mediocre results interspersed with a smattering of out-performances and a litany of coaches being told they are failures for not getting results with poorly skilled "professionals" that have never received the in depth training to achieve their potential.

How about this then?

IMO there really needs to be a skills course done at around under 14's level (or around then) that teaches kids full-on skills and drills it into them that "it doesn't matter what size you are, a skilled player always beats an unskilled player". Teach them proper catching and passing, kicking, catching kicks, and for forwards, scrummaging and all that sorta shit.

Also what was the thing about World Rugby Corp.?

 

[Slim 293]

Lealiifano was a champion compared with Foley. He did little wrong, while Foley's game has gone to pieces. Whether Lealiifano is the answer for game 3 or not, Foley really has to have a rest until he gets his game in order again.

The only thing I saw Lilo do was drop a pass..........