Wallabies Watch

[Pfitzy]

Hahaha yeh mate calm down. He was missing the 8th reserve anyway?

No, he wasn't. That is a 6/2 bench - three front rowers, a lock, two back rowers, and two outside backs. Barnes or Rabbit at 9 if Sanchez goes down, which he won't as I've picked a pack of right fluffybunnys to keep those fat northern bastards on their own side of breakdown.

 

[Scoey]

I nominate Pfitzy to replace Deans, effective immediately. Bam 3-0

 

[terry j]

so which would we prefer?

A win at all costs by playing hard boring rugby, or go down in an amazing glorious swelter of attacking free flowing rugby with tries galore from both sides (but we really turn it on) yet narrowly lose the series.

Which of those two options would leave us with the greater sense of elation (or gloom) and which would be a better indicator of the future for aus rugby.

May as well give my thoughts, I would always prefer to lose in an exciting attacking game than win a stodgy boring game. (as I typed that I could see how I loaded the question, namely a close tight low scoring game does NOT always mean boring, but you get my drift)

 

[Scoey]

Good question to promote thought terry j but it's not that cut and dry when it comes down to it as you've pretty much pointed out yourself. One of the best Test Matches I've seen in recent times was the final Bledisloe last year. 18 all draw and no tries scored. Fuck me that game was awesome!

To answer your question but, I would have to say that I can't answer it. Damn tough choice if those are the only two options!

 

[terry j]

nah, go on and answer it scoey, pretend your life depends on it! (just out of curiosity, how did you 'tag' my name yet not quote or reply to it?)

anyway on that aspect of no tries yet riveting-which I wholeheartedly agree with-to a complete outsider, that is one who brought no hopes or desires to the game, I suspect they would not have had the same reaction as we did (not just us not losing to them but the delicious twist of holding them to a draw with their run of winning games etc, it was poetic or 'if this was a hollywood script you'd laugh at it' type of thing)

sorry, stream of consciousness thing happening there, what I wanted to say is that to a great degree that particular aspect of the game seems unique to rugby I feel. The other codes don't seem to have that to anything like the degree we have it. Imagine an AFL game that had a final score of only 36-28 or somesuch? Not that I watch it so I could be wrong, but to mine there does not have that many aspects of the game that could compensate for such a low score. Ditto with league, with such a limited palette of colours-tones might be a better and more nuanced word maybe-a game that ended up with no tries but a few penalties would be pretty dull I think.

That came home to me particularly when an AFL fan commented on the final of the RWC (which I loved as it too was a tough really hard fought game) and all she said was 'the score was only 10-3 (whatever it was, low anyway) and then it hit me that the quality of our game cannot be read by such a shallow view like the final score, no it contains so many disrelated yet fascinating subcontexts. Perhaps that too is why I often get a bit frustrated I suppose when a rugby highlights package only shows a try being scored. That might work for league (as the actual try is so often the ONLY highlight there) yet when done on our game all too often the more entertaining stuff has been going on for ages before the try and the try itself can be the most boring part!!

The point being that a nightly news roundup which only shows tries misses the essence of our game and as such can be a poor tool for gaining followers.

Hmm, too much coffee this morning perhaps

 

[Scoey]

Spot on terry j, the quality of the game comes down to many different things. The quality of the contest, whether the contest was sustained for 80 mins, what was the last 10 mins like, was the game 'entertaining' in terms of what you personally find entertaining etc and so much more.

I guess I will qualify my non-answer above with my thought process and in doing so I may actually lean to one side perhaps? Who knows......

Scenario 1; win but do so in a boring fashion. Scenario 2; lose but do so playing champagne rugby.

I'll start by saying that I do not want to lose to the Lions, period. So it stands to reason that we should do whatever it takes to win. The series really is that important owing, in part, to the time it takes for us to get another run at them.

I'll follow that by saying that for the good of Aus Rugby, I think that Deans needs to be replaced; opinions of his performance aside, he's had long enough. Time for a freshen up.

If we beat the Lions, then Deans being replaced sooner rather than later is less likely. If we lose then you would like to think that he will be replaced sooner.

Beating the Lions at all costs could be viewed as a short term goal and potentially at the expense of a long term goal, ie replacing Deans. This is never the right way to go. You should always look at the big picture.

However, if we lose to the Lions but finally play the type of glorious Rugby that we as fans have been craving for years we may end up with Deans for longer and have lost the Series. So what do you know, I'm leaning toward a win at all costs approach but am very conflicted by that. Thanks for that!

Oh and to tag someone in a post without quoting them, you simply type the @ symbol followed by their screen name and below the reply box (the one you're typing in) a bunch of options of members should pop up and you just click on the one you want. Voila! Hope that makes sense.

 

[terry j]

Scoey, thanks for the expanded response! good reading. (and we'll see if I can tag your name, twas pure curiosity)

Your desire to see deans gone is interesting and would be shared by many, maybe we need a 'presidential' precedent (president ha ha) of fixed terms for coach? Two 'terms' and that's your lot? But, would you feel the same way about him if he'd won the bleds, RC and the RWC? 'Yep, you done mighty good but sadly your time is still up'?

Glad I could be of service and conflict you like that!

Personally, and bear in mind I am a relative newcomer to rugby unlike you I suspect, for the long term sake of rugby in australia can can we afford to boring win at all costs for the tour? Surely what we all want is for a casual viewer of the game, intrigued by any and all buzz about the lions tour to decide to have a gander and see the wallabies go down in a thrilling tri fest? Preferably with the series one all for the final game (which fit's in totally with the 'close but no cigar' scenario) and lose in extra time.

Personally I'd far prefer that to the alternative.

I like your term champagne rugby, yeah that was what I was trying to get across.

 

[BigSteve]

1. Robinson (best at his position, experience, great scrummager)
2. Moore (Best hooker in AUS, experience, always getting involved)
3. Slipper (decent scrummager, Workhorse around the field)
4. MMM (if fit) - Douglas if MMM isn't (MMM - Most mongrel in AUS sides, great ball runner, good lineout option
5. Horwill (Leadership by example, expirenece, excellent lineout option, Captain)
6. Mowen (great leader, lineout caller, Great form)
7. Smith (Leader, expirence by the truck load, workhorse)
8. Higgenbotham (experience, great form, leader, great lineout jumper)
9. Genia (worlds best nine, leader)
10. Cooper (Passing game unmatched, experience, solid kicker, X-factor player)
11. Digby (Expirence, destructive ball runner, solid defender)
12. Lealiifano (Good distributor as well as defender, excellent kicker)
13. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) (Best Outside we Have)
14. Tomane (has been Potent in attack and defence all season)
15. Folau (Big X-factor player, experience with big games, proving he should be there)

16. Alexander (sound scrummager, expirence, works hard around the field)
17. TPN (Second best option at hooker, great defender)
18. Douglas (good around the park, weight in the scrum, good line out option)
19. Palu (great ball runner (especially when brought on against tired Lions), leadership, expirence)
20. Gill (menace at the break down, excellent defender great player to bring in when opposition gets tired)
21. White (Basically best option we have for Back to genia)
22. JOC (James O'Connor) (can cover everywhere, X-factor, great defender)
23. Palmer (excellent scrummager)

8 Brumbies
6 Waratahs
6 Reds
2 Rebels
1 Force

Excellent balance of Experience, Skill, X-factor and leadership. Would absolutely love to see this team in action! would give the lions a handful.

 

[Braveheart81]

The Wallabies need to play good rugby, not necessarily flamboyant rugby. Taking too many risks will cause you to lose more tests that you should win than winning tests that you'd normally lose.

As much as fans of all persuasions value an exciting contest, success is the most important attribute. Fans value winning above all else. It doesn't take long for a series of high scoring defeats to become more frustrating than a narrow win in a hard fought game (look at the reactions from Rebels fans for example. Fans of other teams are saying that they're going great and are putting on entertaining games but Rebels fans are getting sick of losing. The fact that they're high scoring losses are little consolation).

The Wallabies need to try and play good rugby which involves making smart decisions on the field, executing what they do well and trying to score tries when the opportunity is there but I don't think they should consider themselves in the business of entertaining. This is a professional sport where only one side can win. The Wallabies aren't in the business of putting on exhibition games where the result doesn't matter. This is not the Harlem Globetrotters or WWE.

 

[Scoey]

Perfectly articulated Braveheart81, as usual. At the end of the day, if we play positive Rugby and execute accurately the wins will come.

 

[BDA]

From where I sit the series will be won and lost in the forward battle. We need a big pack that will put us on the front foot, will hold steady at scrum time and will be able to defend at rolling maul. If we can secure our ball at scrum time and our pack and get us on the front foot, we should be able to score some tries. Line-out is a secondary prior (behind scrum strength) in my opinion. With that in mind im leaning towards the following side:-

1. Robinson
2. TPN
3. Slipper
4. Horwill
5. MMM
6. Higgers
7. Gill
8. Palu
9. Genia
10. Cooper
11. Ioane
12. Lilo
13. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
14. JOC (James O'Connor)
15. Folau

16. Alexander
17. Moore
18. Kepu
19. Timani
20. Hooper
21. White
22. McCabe
23. Mitchell / Tomane

At the 60 minute mark Palu comes off, Timani comes on, MMM moves to 6, and Higgers to 8.

Another option is to have Douglas start and MMM on the bench. I'm leaning towards Timani because we need a strong THP lock in the scrums. For that reason I'd give him the nod over Simo.

 

[Scott Allen]

A poll on the ARU's site allows you to vote on who will be the surprise debutant in the Lions series - Peter Betham, Christian Lealiifano, Mitch Inman, Ed Quirk, Bernard Foley or Kieran Longbottom?

Currently 70% are voting for Lealiifano but I wouldn't have thought he'd be a surprise.

Is the ARU marketing department just throwing ideas out there or is there a clue in the names listed?

 

[terry j]

yes, certainly good points BH. Not that I started from this place with my query above, but gonna play devils advocate for a bit. Hope that's alright!

I agree about the fans. That's the point that has come up, fans. Either of a specific team or more generically in this conversation, of the game. So, as fans of the game rather than fans of a team (and I think that is the order it logically must be) and taken as read that the lions tour IS some 'magical, once in a lifetime occasion that stands alone' then perhaps the results then can also stand alone, ie 'forget losing to the AB's last year' (if only for a few glorious weeks) and see the tour as it is, alone and on a different plane to all else. In other words, maybe it does not count in the sense of your example of the rebels, because it is and does stand alone.

SOOooo, from that then my angle is maximising the opportunity of growing the game precisely because it is such a one off unique event. It only comes once in twelve years, let's grow the game as much as we can! Funny how different people can look at the exact same thing yet have totally opposite views, love that about life

The other 'problem' I have with your rebel example is exactly what you said, (for mine at least not being a 'fan') they ARE playing attractive rugby, has anyone said that about the wallabies the last few years?? So another slight difference of angle between us there, and one that perhaps allow us to walk away happy with a close loss yet now be saying' boy, they ARE finally starting to play how we want them to, nearly got the buggers but boy bring on the WC!'

AND, as I said, have hopefully snared more of the casual viewers than we would have by 'only' winning. (that was the deliberate set up of the post, I would prefer we win AND play entertaining exhibition rugby as odes the opposition)

I mean, how much of an important discussion point lately has been about the finances of the ARU? Players have to take pay cuts (yet reap the intangible benefits of wearing the gold), because the game atm is not big enough in terms of audience. The ONLY long term answer is grow the audience, you, me and anyone else reading this will still be watching next year no matter the outcome, surely we must hope that as a result of this series more will be watching next year along with us.

If I were 'da boss', and thinking strategically long term, I would be 'ordering' the coach to play attractive rugby above all else. Stupid I know!

(the absolute worst would be trying to play attractive rugby above all else and making silly continual mistakes)

 

[Braveheart81]

Is the ARU marketing department just throwing ideas out there or is there a clue in the names listed?

I think they're just trying to drive website traffic.

I don't think you could take anything out of it.

 

[Richo]

A poll on the ARU's site allows you to vote on who will be the surprise debutant in the Lions series - Peter Betham, Christian Lealiifano, Mitch Inman, Ed Quirk, Bernard Foley or Kieran Longbottom?

Currently 70% are voting for Lealiifano but I wouldn't have thought he'd be a surprise.

Is the ARU marketing department just throwing ideas out there or is there a clue in the names listed?

My first thought was, "Wait, what? People go to the ARU website?!"

My second was, "Looks like the unpaid intern at the Waratahs got a promotion."

 

[Braveheart81]

terry j - I think results are what is going to drive revenue and viewers for the ARU in the longer term. The more we start winning, the more the casual viewers will be interested. Everyone likes following a successful team.

If we play one test match where it is high scoring and entertaining and we lose then fans would probably say that the loss doesn't matter that much and at least it was entertaining. If you do that for a whole series though, the opinion will very quickly turn around to being sick of losing and perhaps we need to be trying something different.

I think the best goal is to be somewhere in the middle. Playing attractive rugby but also playing high percentage rugby. Even 7s these days is moving towards a more clinical approach rather than razzle dazzle. Fiji is going backwards because they're being found out by teams that hold onto the ball, take less risks and work the ball from side to side until they have a numerical advantage to work with.

We are playing a team that is absolutely desperate to win and they will be doing everything they can to achieve that. They are going to be a quality side with a very strong forward pack and excellent defence. I feel that attempting to play overly attacking rugby against them will result in a train wreck for the Wallabies rather than a high scoring series where we might lose narrowly.

 

[Train Without a Station]

so which would we prefer?

A win at all costs by playing hard boring rugby, or go down in an amazing glorious swelter of attacking free flowing rugby with tries galore from both sides (but we really turn it on) yet narrowly lose the series.

Considering recent form, it's often been lose at all costs in the big games anyway, so what do we actually have to lose?

 

[Pfitzy]

Sorry but I'm a Tahs fan and if you're picking Kepu, you haven't been paying attention to the penalties he's been giving away at ruck time

I'd have Paddy Ryan over him on form, and I never thought I'd be saying that.

 

[Scotty]

so which would we prefer?

A win at all costs by playing hard boring rugby, or go down in an amazing glorious swelter of attacking free flowing rugby with tries galore from both sides (but we really turn it on) yet narrowly lose the series.

Which of those two options would leave us with the greater sense of elation (or gloom) and which would be a better indicator of the future for aus rugby.

May as well give my thoughts, I would always prefer to lose in an exciting attacking game than win a stodgy boring game. (as I typed that I could see how I loaded the question, namely a close tight low scoring game does NOT always mean boring, but you get my drift)

I agree. To an extent the winner of this series isn't important as long as it isn't a shellacking. It is about the event and the media attention.

These two team have the onus on them to play tough, smart and attacking rugby. They owe it to the game.

 

[terry j]

Braveheart81 (heh, just showing off my new skills) I think we are on the same page actually despite how I may have been coming across. I guess I have been using that tired old cliche of 'the game itself won' rather than being overly concerned about which team. Yeah that was the point I was making about the 'fans' (us), we will be here next year come what may.

Putting myself in the shoes of a casual, well who would really be dissappointed with a 2-1 loss series wise, yet each game went into extra time (why do the aussie commentators refer to it as injury time FFS? We don't have injury time as far as I am aware, to call it injury time devalues what it really is, a close game that does not finish until a break in play, and unlike league a mere tackle is NOT a break in play) with scorelines similar to what we have been seeing so often in Super Rugby.

Maybe it's just that I see the emphasis on winning (completely understandable BTW) as a two edged sword. By the very definition of the word game there is an element of unknowingness, that it IS a contest where there is always the possibility of either team winning. To be frank, it is as equally dissatisfying to ALWAYS win games as it is to ALWAYS lose games. Additionally, that burden of NEEDING to win (sounds stupid I know but some of this is more 'aethereal than real world if you follow) can lead to styles of play like, well the wallabies in the recent past.

We end up playing dour rugby and not winning anyway, lose lose.