Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC

[RugbyReg]

I note Paul Alo-Emile started for Stade Francais on the weekend. Seems the injury didn't rule him out of the RWC, albeit it would have been a huge risk to take him.

Should we have managed him better? Would he have been a better option that Toby Smith?

 

[fatprop]

Interesting piece by Greg Mumm on the Roar.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/09/09/two-halves-make-a-whole-but-the-breakdown-will-make-it-work/

Essentially that the pack did not adapt to a defence that didn't commit to the ruck. Meaning the gaps are inside not wide. And the game play was getting the ball wide. Phipps with fast delivery is better at the wide game.

The pigs could have adapted to pick and go to ease this but so could have Phipps by running more through the middle and better feeding the pack around the scrum.

Which is a style that Genia is more suited to. Ideally you want a half with excellent skill sets at both of these, but it hasn't happened yet so don't expect it in a couple of weeks.

Which is why neither Genia nor Phipps has a lock in this preoccupation that the fans have with a first 15. Cheika will change the selections based on the opposition.

You could say the same about the 10s. And while it doesn't quite work Gitts and Beale. QC (Quade Cooper), Gitts, and Beale have spent time out of position which to me suggests who Cheika sees as his "finishers". But the team will be selected for the opposition.

This is NOT "depth". It's Cheika using the material available to him to create depth in the playing style through the tournament.

I like it. Plenty of pressure though to get it right.

It is a very good article, it highlights our challenges in the first half.

The big disappointment being the lack of adaption in that first half.

Between the experienced players and the water boy/coach it shouldn't have taken 40 minutes to adapt

 

[Ignoto]

The big disappointment being the lack of adaption in that first half.

Between the experienced players and the water boy/coach it shouldn't have taken 40 minutes to adapt

Playing devils advocate, how long do you play your Plan A gameplan before trying a new one? When do you cut your losses that the game plan you wanted to execute from the beginning never really got momentum?

 

[Braveheart81]

I note Paul Alo-Emile started for Stade Francais on the weekend. Seems the injury didn't rule him out of the RWC, albeit it would have been a huge risk to take him.

Should we have managed him better? Would he have been a better option that Toby Smith?

I guess the advantage we have had with Smith is that he's been training with the squad for a while now and that has surely improved his readiness.

It is a very good article, it highlights our challenges in the first half.

The big disappointment being the lack of adaption in that first half.

Between the experienced players and the water boy/coach it shouldn't have taken 40 minutes to adapt

I think part of that was the lack of leadership we had on the field on Sunday morning. Missing Moore, Hooper and Pocock in the forwards makes a big difference.

You'd have hoped that Slipper, McCalman and Giteau could have provided that change in direction in the first half but it never really happened.

 

[fatprop]

I think part of that was the lack of leadership we had on the field on Sunday morning. Missing Moore, Hooper and Pocock in the forwards makes a big difference.

You'd have hoped that Slipper, McCalman and Giteau could have provided that change in direction in the first half but it never really happened.

Was Grey the waterboy for the game?

 

[fatprop]

Playing devils advocate, how long do you play your Plan A gameplan before trying a new one? When do you cut your losses that the game plan you wanted to execute from the beginning never really got momentum?

Yeah, I appreciate big chunks of the game were being played as an opposed training run for the Fiji and other RWC games

I just expect better

 

[dillyboy]

England may play 10 man rugby against us, but we're certainly not going to be playing 10 man rugby against them.

Unless Michael Cheika has inadvertently swallowed John Connolly in a mad Jabba the Hutt moment.

Or has otherwise lost all his marbles.

Ok, so not 10 man rugby as such but playing against England I don't see us being successful at running the ball out from our line - I want the ball as far down the other end as possible to keep them out of a kickable position when we inevitably get penalised against them

 

[Viking]

It is a very good article, it highlights our challenges in the first half.

The big disappointment being the lack of adaption in that first half.

Between the experienced players and the water boy/coach it shouldn't have taken 40 minutes to adapt

I think this highlights a problem with the wallabies for the last 5 years. They have all the skills to execute multiple game plans but they fail at adapting to the opposition especially when the current game plan is being nullified by the opposition.

Seems to me like players are unwilling to stray from the game-plan, and it takes Cheika to blast them at half time to change.

Reminds me of all the chip kicks creeping into the game a few years back, then suddenly they completely stopped. I remember playing a team with fast rush defence thinking "well this is the time to chip kick - they bloody did it aimlessly all the previous games and now when it might actually work they refuse to try it". Like the coach said "knock off the chip kicks" so they completely take it out of their game.

Looks like the same thing with the USA. Gameplan = play wide, which clearly wasn't working and they failed to identify to play tight, or didn't have to guts to change the game plan mid game.

You keep hearing players say "just stick to our structures and our game plan and we know we should get results". As bad as Dean's was I prefer the "play what's in-front of you" attitude.

The game plan should be changed at any moment depending on how the opposition is playing and not on how we think the opposition will play.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Playing devils advocate, how long do you play your Plan A gameplan before trying a new one? When do you cut your losses that the game plan you wanted to execute from the beginning never really got momentum?

We put a couple of tries on them pretty early as well so it wasn't as if thing were going bad right from the start. Plan A was working, at least initially.

 

[Braveheart81]

Playing devils advocate, how long do you play your Plan A gameplan before trying a new one? When do you cut your losses that the game plan you wanted to execute from the beginning never really got momentum?

I think part of your game plan has to always be to try and identify opportunities and take advantage of them.

To execute our game plan effectively we needed protection for our halfback to clear the ball and space out wide. Neither of those things were happening so we had to make them happen.

Some pick and goes and forward pods near the breakdown would have sucked in defenders and created more space and time out wide.

 

[Tomikin]

No A go at Phipps as I think his key to our game plan of speed. But he needs variety to his game. Play the shortside sometimes, if your getting shit Ball bring it tight. Then turn on the jets again. And would it hurt him to Have a run at least as an option.

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

[Jagman]

In the first half of 2014 the Waratahs suffered losses and I remember Chieka saying something along the lines of the players needing enforce the game plan, to stick with it and trust it and not be bullied out of it and forced to play differently by the opposition.

 

[dru]

I agree that they should adapt immediately it is known how the defence is working. I'm not entirely sure this A Game is simply "get it wide". I think it's "get physical and hammer them. Then get them running.

The piggies had their brains on the "hammer" and weren't fast enough to think it through. The Kiwis are really good at this thinking and adapting. The Aussies not so much. But there are always individuals capable of doing the thinking and leading through the situation.

Presumably the top dogs for this are Squeak and Hooper. On Soldier Field the job was Slipper, McCalman and Gitts. I thought Slipper and McCalman played well but really need to think through the decision making. Unless the coach was dictating positional issues as part of building themes and styles. It was after all a warm up.

 

[Groucho]

I note Paul Alo-Emile started for Stade Francais on the weekend. Seems the injury didn't rule him out of the RWC, albeit it would have been a huge risk to take him.

Should we have managed him better? Would he have been a better option that Toby Smith?

Smith's pretty good. I'd like to see how he develops. Hopefully Alo-Emile will come back. It'd be a real downer to see him with a coq on his chest.

 

[swingpass]

PAE struggled quite bit with the Toulon scrum, looked overweight and under done. Got popped out on a couple of occasions midway through second half.
Think taking an extra LHP was always the option once they decided on 2 hookers and Sio as the back up.

 

[Groucho]

Playing devils advocate, how long do you play your Plan A gameplan before trying a new one? When do you cut your losses that the game plan you wanted to execute from the beginning never really got momentum?

I think in the case of the Eagles defence, the reaction should pretty much be on a ruck-by-ruck basis. A rush defence becomes progressively more risky, the fewer players there are in the defensive line. So the attacking team should respond straight away by drawing more forward defenders into the breakdown contest. It's not a matter of curtting your losses, but one of realignment.

 

[Groucho]

I think this highlights a problem with the wallabies for the last 5 years. They have all the skills to execute multiple game plans but they fail at adapting to the opposition especially when the current game plan is being nullified by the opposition.

Seems to me like players are unwilling to stray from the game-plan, and it takes Cheika to blast them at half time to change.

Reminds me of all the chip kicks creeping into the game a few years back, then suddenly they completely stopped. I remember playing a team with fast rush defence thinking "well this is the time to chip kick - they bloody did it aimlessly all the previous games and now when it might actually work they refuse to try it". Like the coach said "knock off the chip kicks" so they completely take it out of their game.

Looks like the same thing with the USA. Gameplan = play wide, which clearly wasn't working and they failed to identify to play tight, or didn't have to guts to change the game plan mid game.

You keep hearing players say "just stick to our structures and our game plan and we know we should get results". As bad as Dean's was I prefer the "play what's in-front of you" attitude.

The game plan should be changed at any moment depending on how the opposition is playing and not on how we think the opposition will play.

Yeah, that's what I meant to say.

 

[Groucho]

In the first half of 2014 the Waratahs suffered losses and I remember Chieka saying something along the lines of the players needing enforce the game plan, to stick with it and trust it and not be bullied out of it and forced to play differently by the opposition.

That's true, but adapting isn't the same as being bullied, unless you adapt then fail to re-enforce your own strategy. When they're playiong well, the Tahs are very good at hitting it up close to the ruck to create space for their ball-in-hand attack.

 

[Viking]

In the first half of 2014 the Waratahs suffered losses and I remember Chieka saying something along the lines of the players needing enforce the game plan, to stick with it and trust it and not be bullied out of it and forced to play differently by the opposition.

It's not a about being bullied out of it but more in the lines of creating opportunities the most effective way. For example if the game plan is to play with ball in hand, but as the game pans you realise the fullback is always out of position and our line-out is dominating - then why wouldn't you start kicking more? Seems to me like the current players fail to identify and act on these opportunities. Think about how rare we see cross field kicks to Folau?

Presumably the top dogs for this are Squeak and Hooper. On Soldier Field the job was Slipper, McCalman and Gitts. I thought Slipper and McCalman played well but really need to think through the decision making. Unless the coach was dictating positional issues as part of building themes and styles. It was after all a warm up.

Moore needs to lead the forwards thats for sure, although at the Brumbies he seems to look for Poey to do this - which is okay cos poey will most likely be there and Hooper is getting better.

In the backs it should surely be the chief playmaker, the flyhalf.

I know Cooper gets a lot of shit but I think he can identify those opportunities a lot better then most. For example - The last Bled NZ were rushing out of the line - he immediately put in a chip kick early in the game - putting doubt in the NZ defence from the start of the game. It all went pear shaped from there but I like the fact the chip kick had purpose and intent. Compare this to To'omua who put in 2 horrible chip kicks which were made out of desperation rather then purpose.

Not that it matters as his form is quite poor at the moment. But I'd like to see our chief playmaker (most likely Foley) make some nice tactical decisions.

 

[Joe Blow]

Its very surprising to hear we were playing a game based on spreading the ball wide, quickly and at every opportunity with that pack.
I would have thought that we had the cattle with Palu, McCalman, Douglas, Simmons, Slipper, TPN & Holmes to go right up the middle and make it work effectively. McMahon is a very direct player as well. I assume if the pack is like that against Uruguay then we we will go forward before we attempt to go wide. We may not need to go wide that much.
As for the rush defense, a couple of chips in behind would slow that down. Foley did a good one that nearly came off and should have done a few more in quick succession.

We lacked leadership in the first half. That has been our downfall in most of our losses to lesser ranked sides in the last 10 years. Gateau should have been the one to redirect our game if Slipper didn't see it was needed.