Wallabies Watch

[barbarian]

Calling that Welsh team average isn't being negative, it's being true to reality. They were nowhere near as good as they were in the RWC and won the 6 Nations this year in what was effectivey a two-horse race. To top it off they played themselves out of the Australian series. Two of the games were lost by Wales and one was 'won' by Australia. Even just replace Priestland with literally anyone else with two legs and two arms and the Welsh win the series 2-1.

This is just rubbish. Wales fielded almost exactly the same XV against us in that series as they did during the RWC (where we beat them), except for the injured Jamie Roberts.

They were dubbed 'the strongest Wales side ever to tour'. They came down fired up and confident of victory.

I don't know how you think two games were 'lost' by Wales, although all three were close the scoreline tells the story- we won and I don't think Wales had any reason to feel aggrieved at any of the results. This business of 'Oh, Priestland played badly', well maybe he played badly because our midfield defence was very good and limited his options perhaps?

Players are always going to play badly on both sides. But putting a whole series down to the failings of one bloke on one team is just plain silly.
.

 

[USARugger]

If you want to give me time I will gladly dig up the clips of Priestland costing them a series-changing try through unforced error as well as some of his other lowlights of his. My point wasn't the Priestland lost them the series on his own, anyway. It was that the entire Welsh side was very poor during that series but even a change of one player for someone not constantly misfiring and we would have lost that series. Why? Because we
could not take the game to a side struggling to not shoot itself in the foot, we had to rely on them to throw the game out of the window entirely in 2/3 of the tests.

Strongest Welsh side because the past few years have been an anomaly in the history of Welsh professional rugby and the side playing at the RWC hit the hottest vein of form any Welsh side has found since the 80s. The team that landed in Australia was well off the boil.

 

[Dave Beat]

The negativity here is getting to me. Ultimately everyone is debating two, maybe three positions.

1. Fly Half. People want Cooper, and seem to think JOC (James O'Connor) (the likely candidate it seems) and Barnes are abhorrent, disgusting options. But I must remind you of a few things. Firstly, even if Deans DID pick Cooper (which he probably won't, but you never know) this doesn't turn us into a razzle-dazzle Harlem Globetrotter team. Cooper was 10 at the RWC. Cooper was 10 in tests last year where we struggled to score tries. He isn't the silver bullet here.

The converse is also true. JOC (James O'Connor) and Barnes aren't going to turn us into a stodgy, negative mess. With JOC (James O'Connor) at 10 the Rebels have scored about 12 tries in their last 3 games. Barnes has only played 10 at the Tahs for 10 minutes but set up a try in that time. The Reds with Cooper at 10 have been OK, but apart from the first half against the Sharks they haven't been scoring tries. I am not convinced the difference between Cooper, JOC (James O'Connor) and Barnes is that huge at 10.

I'd suggest it is more likely we see Barnes at fullback than at 10. And he is a pretty good fullback, certainly the best games at 15 last year came from him. His stability under the high ball will be a valuable asset.

2. Inside Centre. People are desperate for Lealiifano, and I'd think he would certainly be in the squad. If Deans picks Pat McCabe then it will be controversial, but what if he picks Rob Horne? Could many people argue with that selection? Both McCabe and Horne have proven chops at the international level, and Horne is just hitting form at the right time- he was huge in test match conditions on Saturday.

And again people assume that our whole style hinges on playing two playmakers, and if we don't we will be a negative mess. Again two things contradict that assertion- our worst game last year came with two playmakers (vs NZ away) and the most attacking Aussie side this season (the Tahs) don't play two playmakers. The Reds chalked up a great win with a basher at IC.

3. Fullback. I suppose this is related to fly half, so I will refer to what I said up there.

But if you step back and look at the big picture, everyone is more or less on the same page. The forward pack looks pretty good, with multiple options in each spot. And ultimately that is where this series will be won and lost. If they get go forward ball then JOC (James O'Connor), Barnes and Horne/McCabe are more than equipped to make things happen.

So in conclusion I am not as worried as the rest of you. Lighten up and crack a smile. Life is OK, and I expect the rugby in June to be OK as well.
.

In summary, our game plan sucked for the RWC and Last year - to me that rests more with the coach than the players. The players mentioned have played different structured games and different coaches.

 

[Braveheart81]

In summary, our game plan sucked for the RWC and Last year - to me that rests more with the coach than the players. The players mentioned have played different structured games and different coaches.

Every team/player plays differently in Super Rugby (or other second tier rugby) to test rugby.

It is a very different contest.

As the intensity in the contact area and the speed of defensive lines goes up, players reduce the level of risk they take both to reduce errors and because they have no option.

We are not the only country who plays more conservatively at test level than we do at 2nd tier level.

I agree that plenty of things about the RWC sucked but to argue that our play is ever going to be a lot more expansive in tough, pressure test matches is wishful thinking.

 

[Dave Beat]

Every team/player plays differently in Super Rugby (or other second tier rugby) to test rugby.
It is a very different contest.
As the intensity in the contact area and the speed of defensive lines goes up, players reduce the level of risk they take both to reduce errors and because they have no option.
We are not the only country who plays more conservatively at test level than we do at 2nd tier level.
I agree that plenty of things about the RWC sucked but to argue that our play is ever going to be a lot more expansive in tough, pressure test matches is wishful thinking.

For a large part I agree, but our game plan, or lack of has not been on the money.
Apart from the trophy - The Reds playing positive rugby beating an All Black laden Canterbury side a couple of years back shows a well thought out positive game plan can prevail.
Looking at that game plan and other top of the table clashes - in that game Canterbury played tight go forward ball retention rugby in the second half and time saved the Reds.

 

[Braveheart81]

For a large part I agree, but our game plan, or lack of has not been on the money.
Apart from the trophy - The Reds playing positive rugby beating an All Black laden Canterbury side a couple of years back shows a well thought out positive game plan can prevail.
Looking at that game plan and other top of the table clashes - in that game Canterbury played tight go forward ball retention rugby in the second half and time saved the Reds.

The toughest games in the 2011 Super Rugby season still reverted to dour tactical struggles where the Reds prevailed. They won Super Rugby because they were able to muscle up against the best teams and win tight games, not because they were able to throw the ball around a lot and put on plenty of tries against teams that defended poorly.

 

[Dave Beat]

The toughest games in the 2011 Super Rugby season still reverted to dour tactical struggles where the Reds prevailed. They won Super Rugby because they were able to muscle up against the best teams and win tight games, not because they were able to throw the ball around a lot and put on plenty of tries against teams that defended poorly.

Partly true, they changed the game plan given their opposition, it was attractive rugby and also involved ball retention. They built phases going forward, I'd love to see the 7+ phase stats for the wobs over the last 18 months, where the phases were played and went, and meters gained.

 

[Scoey]

Players are always going to play badly on both sides. But putting a whole series down to the failings of one bloke on one team is just plain silly.

Someone should point this out to those who still blame Quade for the RWC loss to the AB's.

 

[Richo]

We all like to complain when Deans selects a strong defensive side with minimal attacking flair. But the consequences of selecting a side like that is you make other teams look bad and limit their options. That's what happened against Wales last year. It doesn't make for attractive rugby, but we should give credit to the Wallaby defense for Wales' poor performance.

 

[BDA]

At this stage of his tenure, Deans is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Even if he wins the series people will chastise the tactics and selections he's employed. But at the end of the day, you reap what you sow. The poor RWC performance left such a bad taste in the public's mouth that Deans has been essentially dead in the water since 2011.

Apart from his poor record against the All Blacks, his team hasn't performed too badly since then (having regard to the personnel available). But the truth is that the only type of rugby the Australian public will accept from Deans' Wallabies is end to end, running, WINNING, rugby, and a world no.1 status. Is that unfair? perhaps, but this is what you get when you have a coach out-stay his welcome.

I highly doubt McKenzie or Jake White would be so badly criticised if they were to take the job tomorrow and run with JOC (James O'Connor) at Flyhalf, or McCabe at 12, or Barnes at Fullback, etc.

Let this be a lesson to the ARU.

 

[lewisr]

We all like to complain when Deans selects a strong defensive side with minimal attacking flair. But the consequences of selecting a side like that is you make other teams look bad and limit their options. That's what happened against Wales last year. It doesn't make for attractive rugby, but we should give credit to the Wallaby defense for Wales' poor performance.

In modern Australian football codes there is more to the sport than just winning a match. Surely everyone here recognises the fact that we have to look at the bigger picture. As rugby faithfuls we will always watch our beloved wallabies rain hail or shine but there is a tier of people who are on the edge. Bill Pulver understands this hence his push for "smart, attacking and attractive rugby". The ARU record losses every year in the vicinity of 19 million dollars and will continue to do so if our flagship team fails to excite the masses.

One thing Union has over AFL and League (in my opinion anyway) is that it can have such a long passage of play from one team that is in no way repetitive and still produces an exciting finish. NRL and AFL stike me as extremely repetitive and boring but they have an edge through the simple fact that they are easier to understand.

The reds (albeit less in recent weeks) have been masters at producing a variety of playing styles that anyone can relate to even if you don't understand the nitty gritty rule stuff. Hence, the QRU have been recording profits for the last 3 years along with membership numbers rivaling the beloved Broncos. And guess what, they still win.

Both the Tahs and Brumbies have caught on and are both proving that this kind of approach is not only successful in a competition sense but also for their crowds. This concept that attractive rugby is not achievable at international level is ludicrous. The Wallabies and All Blacks have proved this countless times in the past with high tempo running rugby. Instead, we seem to be opting for the crash it up, hope for a penalty, style of play that will send even the most loyal of fans to sleep. It relies soley on interpretations of rules and the hope that maybe someone misses a tackle.

Of course I want the Wallabies to win, but at the same time I want to see Union - as a football code - grow stonger and compete with the likes of the NRL and AFL. It simply won't happen if we play like we did against Wales.

 

[Sully]

Australia's running rugby is a myth except for a short time in the 80's. What the game plan does need to be is not completely devoid of enterprise as it was in the world cup. It needs to try and win a match and not be happy not to lose. It's not hard to keep us happy. And that involves a little more than winning ugly.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[Scotty]

I see us kicking away a lot of "good counter attacking ball" throughout this series, we are going to play it tight and conservative.

I have seen no evidence since the RWC of anything else. We just don't counter from our own half. The other likely option is Mogg who will also kick shit out of it 99% of the time, just like he does each week.

Yes, but doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[Scotty]

Its a style of rugby where the weak links have been eliminated or at least made less weak; where blokes generally have the fundamentals.
Ever wondered why, in the past, the Tahs had a pack that were dominant in the scrums but the Wobbs had a pack that was often decimated? Its because all the weak links in the NZ (SA) packs are removed when the Ab's/Boks are picked and the sum of their parts is greater than the sum of ours because their weak links have been removed.
Compare any test to Blues v Rebels from last weekend, in particular.
Tries are hard to come by.
Backline penetration the exception rather than the norm.
There's always one more bloke to beat after a break than there is in s 15 because, hell, the opponents are test players not a mixture of test players and blokes who will never play a test.
And the BIL are a combination of test players where, theoretically, the weaker players at test level have been weeded out.

Sorry, but I don't see anything in this response that relates to 'style'.

There is no such thing as a definitive style in test matches. The All Blacks play a lot different to England, that play different to Wales. The common factor in all the styles is that it generally suits the players at hand.

The All Blacks by and large play a very similar style to the New Zealand super rugby teams. Reasonable set piece, strong focus on the breakdown, fast interchange between forwards and backs, and good counter attack. The wallabies should be looking at playing a style that matches our super teams, particularly the form teams - Brumbies, Reds, Tahs.

 

[Scotty]

The toughest games in the 2011 Super Rugby season still reverted to dour tactical struggles where the Reds prevailed. They won Super Rugby because they were able to muscle up against the best teams and win tight games, not because they were able to throw the ball around a lot and put on plenty of tries against teams that defended poorly.

The won because they were able to muscle up at the breakdown, defend well and ........


take advantage of an opportunity when it came their way (either through their creating it or from the opposition mistake).


The last of these is where the Wallabies have been falling down in the last 18 months.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Sorry, but I don't see anything in this response that relates to 'style'.

There is no such thing as a definitive style in test matches. The All Blacks play a lot different to England, that play different to Wales. The common factor in all the styles is that it generally suits the players at hand.

The All Blacks by and large play a very similar style to the New Zealand super rugby teams. Reasonable set piece, strong focus on the breakdown, fast interchange between forwards and backs, and good counter attack. The wallabies should be looking at playing a style that matches our super teams, particularly the form teams - Brumbies, Reds, Tahs.

"style" may not have been the best word to convey my meaning. Braveheart81 conveyed my meaning in post #2724 above.
I dont see much in common between the styles of the Reds, Brumbies and Tahs.

 

[Try-ranosaurus Rex]

This thread is getting incredibly frustrating to read. Every page for the past 137 reads something like:

"Deans is shit, Quadey is the saviour of Australia Rugby"
"Quade is not te saviour of Australian Rugby, deal with it Banana Bender"
"McCabe is hopeless, nothing but a basher and a rock in defence... gimme Lealiifano"
"Deans won't play debutants"
"Deans is shit, Quadey is the saviour of Australian Rugby"

Repeat.

Notwithstanding the fact that there is actually some gem comments in here... just littered through the hymn book above.

 

[Scoey]

You'll find T-Rex that it gets a bit like this building up to each new comp, tour or test series. Once the footy starts everyone will go back to their usual ref bashing and light hearted banter. It's very cyclical. You wait till you're around for the bit between the EOTY and the start of the next S15 comp when there's no Aussie Rugby being played! Sheesh!

 

[thierry dusautoir]

I really hope Folau gets a shot at fullback and isn't pushed to the wing. This may be unlikely but i just think his form is so good that his selection at 15 should be a definite regardless of his debutant status

 

[wamberal]

I really hope Folau gets a shot at fullback and isn't pushed to the wing. This may be unlikely but i just think his form is so good that his selection at 15 should be a definite regardless of his debutant status

SupeRugby is a very different ball of wax to full on Test match rugby. Folau simply has not been tested yet. He is absolutely new to the game, and to complete his education at one of the most demanding positions in the back-line, against a tough side that will exploit every tiny weakness, is too much of a gamble.

I do not even think he should start. He should be in the 22, and Deans should wait to see how the game unfolds, how our forwards go, how much tactical kicking the Lions do, and of course what is the weather, before putting him on. Maybe he will put him on at 15, if we are dominating.

I would hate to see the guy crucified, through lack of experience, in his first Test Match.