Wallaby Coaching Staff

[Inside Shoulder]

Both Larkham and Grey should shoulder some blame (responsibility) for lack of individual ball skills for the former and some defensive errors for the latter.

You can only blame Grey for defensive errors that were errors in the system - he's not to blame for a brain fade in an otherwise sound system.
I wouldn't be blaming Larkham for, say, Fardy dropping the ball twice in a row even though he actually has him at provincial and national level.
Everyone is going to make mistakes but that's why you shouldn't be picking guys who have mistakes in their DNA: Skelton immediately comes to mind as an example. You have to wonder about a bloke who, clearly in my view, deliberately collapses a maul.
Although I have a lot of time for Stephen Moore i thinks it very hard to captain a side under pressure from 2.

 

[dru]

I thought game 3 was fantastic rugby with a crap result. Also think we are under rating England. That said 3-0 loss to NZ wouldnt be acceptable.

There have been some quirky selections, we can be inspired but look off after 3-0. Cheika has been caught out a couple of times now with the bench strategy, ie finishers which can leave injury cover exposed. Its a gamble which has paid handsomely but not last weekend.

Cheika got into the head space of the players in the run to RWC, I didnt see it happening here.

I'm happy to see Cheika put this down to learning, and continue to support him, but I wonder if his coaching crew needs expanding. He seems to take a lot on directly.

I'm for simply giving them some breathing space.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Everyone is going to make mistakes but that's why you shouldn't be picking guys who have mistakes in their DNA: Skelton immediately comes to mind as an example. You have to wonder about a bloke who, clearly in my view, deliberately collapses a maul.

You don't think they are coached to bring them down in that situation?

 

[dru]

What is the rule with maul wrecking? I thought you could tackle the player with the ball even in a maul.

 

[Braveheart81]

What is the rule with maul wrecking? I thought you could tackle the player with the ball even in a maul.

No. You can only hold them up.

You can't intentionally collapse a maul even if you are on the ball carrier (or in Scott Fardy's case last week, trying to rip the ball from the ball carrier's hands to the ground).

 

[The torpedo]

3-0 loss to NZ anyone wouldn't be acceptable.

Cheika has been caught out a couple of times now with the bench strategy, ie finishers which can leave injury cover exposed. Its a gamble which has paid handsomely but not last weekend.

What has happened to Cheiks with his subs? He used to be really good and now he is shit at them.

 

[TOCC]

I will put my hand up for kicking coach..

I dont actually have any technical expertise in the area, but i can encourage the players through motivational talks like "kick it further, no, i said furtherer" and "just kick better, it can't be that fucken hard"

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You don't think they are coached to bring them down in that situation?

I hope not - against the super boot.
Besides which I'm pretty sure Cheka would have said if he coached him to do it you should do it secretly: even I could see what Skelton was up to.
Maybe we need better cheats.
In any event skelton is a penalty magnet and seems to attract them even when he isn't doing anything wrong - i.e. the player in the air fiasco.

 

[Quick Hands]

I will put my hand up for kicking coach..

I dont actually have any technical expertise in the area, but i can encourage the players through motivational talks like "kick it further, no, i said furtherer" and "just kick better, it can't be that fucken hard"

Sounds like you already are the kicking coach with advice like that.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I hope not - against the super boot.
Besides which I'm pretty sure Cheka would have said if he coached him to do it you should do it secretly: even I could see what Skelton was up to.
Maybe we need better cheats.
In any event skelton is a penalty magnet and seems to attract them even when he isn't doing anything wrong - i.e. the player in the air fiasco.

I just assumed it's tactical, once the maul gets going your "least valuable" forward brings it down. Hope you con the ref but if not give up the three and cop the card if it comes (and it should have on the weekend).

It happens so often on televised games that any other alternative just seems impossible.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I just assumed it's tactical, once the maul gets going your "least valuable" forward brings it down. Hope you continue the ref but if bit give up the three and cop the card if it comes (and it should have on the weekend).

It happens so often on televised games that any other alternative just seems impossible.

usually there is little bit of difficulty in identifying the culprit

 

[No4918]

Jeez thought we scored more tries than them.

Suppose the Defence Coach should have issued a long handled butterfly net to catch the kicks as they sailed between the uprights...

Over the three tests - the good guys scored 10 tries, the bad guys 9.

Big deal. One more try and we win on some weird system by apparently being more attacking. Nup.

No tier 1 team should score 40 points and lose.

 

[liquor box]

Need to add the following:


Richie McCaw - breakdown coach (just for the banter )

How to never be judged off side coach

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Where is all the money coming from for all these extra skills coaches?

We are not England 2003 who can afford to have 52 coaches in their entourage including Colours Consultant, Zodiac Reader, Post Try Celebration Coach, iTunes Playlist Selection Advisor, et al.

 

[dru]

Where is all the money coming from for all these extra skills coaches?

We are not England 2003 who can afford to have 52 coaches in their entourage including Colours Consultant, Zodiac Reader, Post Try Celebration Coach, iTunes Playlist Selection Advisor, et al.

Hugh, does Cheika have the same level of support that Link or Dingo did? I might be wrong, but I undetstood that Cheika downsized as a matter of choice. If so its a choice that possibly needs to be reconsidered.

For crying out loud, how much would it cost to bring in an AFL kicking coach for a couple of months?

Honest, lets get a grip. We're not talking about a cost that will destroy rugby in Aus.

 

[Viking]

I think everyone is missing the point a little.

It's not entirely Foley's fault for missing a few kicks.

It's not entirely Moore's fault for missing a line-out throw.

Sure we can simply say "learn to kick better" or "be more clinical at the line-out"

But in my opinion that is BS. When you have poor strategy then the odds are always going to be against you and MISTAKES WILL HAPPEN.

In the game of inches, small advantages matter. What Cheika is doing is sacrificing too many fundamentals of the game in order to play his "running rugby" style. This is exactly the same mistake Eddie Jones made by sacrificing the scrum back in 2003.

Let's use the line-out as an example.
4 jumpers verse 2 and a half jumpers. Now it's not impossible to win your line-out with half the amount of jumpers, I mean it happens regularly at rugby BUT the odds are against you.

If anyone knows anything about probability then you will know the longer the game plays out then the more likely the odds will play-out - Why I am saying this is because you might not notice the slight disadvantage in one single game. For example you could win 4/6 lineouts compared to say 5/6 which doesn't seem so bad. It's one line out right? But as the series goes on then that soon becomes 12/18 compared to 15/18. That is a big difference.

At the end of day, Cheika's style of rugby forces the odds to be against us. They are slight disadvantages in many areas of the game, Line-out, Kicking, Scrum etc.

Just because it is possible to win against the odds - eg. One jumper in the line-out CAN win verse 4 jumpers if they are clinical enough -but how god damn inefficient it that?

He is asking the forwards to be "fitter" because they need to hit twice as many rucks and do twice as much work as their opponents.

He is forcing Foley to kick under shit loads of pressure because he is the only kicker in the team.

He is making our line-out be twice as efficient as their opponents as we have less jumpers.

The list goes on... Realistically they are slight advantages, but their are many and overall at the end of the game they give England the advantage

I believe we have the right players. You look at England V Aust Man to Man. Most players are close if not better then their counter-parts, or at least capable of being better.

But when you ask Fardy to do the job of 3, and he ends up dropping the ball - maybe you should stop and think, the reason he dropped the ball is because he is fatigued as fuck from an inefficient game style.

It's not big changes that are necessary. Small tweaks in the game, getting back to the fundamentals and we are back in business. Cheika is a smart man I'm sure he'll work it out.

 

[dru]

Seb, what you say is accurate, I can only agree around the jumper selection in game 3.

I think, though that the missing piece is the available players, depth and injury. From the start of this series locks were always a vexed issue. Plenty available, but no stand outs other than perhaps Simmo. With this issues ahead of him choices had to be made, and presumably the compromise in jumper numbers was considered the best that could be done.

Ditto the start of the series regarding Beale and To'omua.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Rob Simmons is getting a lot of praise again for his time in the third test. To an extent, it is earned, in that he had two or three very good ball carries which was unusual. However, he contributed largely to the first England try by missing a tackle, then lazily getting back on side after two more rucks only then to miss the tackle on Vunipola to set up Coles for the try.

His point of difference has always been his lineout capabilities. In that aspect of his game, he did not perform any better than Sam Carter in the second test where IIRC we didn't lose a lineout on our throw. Add to that, Carter's efforts in hitting most rucks by some margin, then it seems clear to me that Rob is now losing his essential status in relation to lineout work.

I think both Coleman and Arnold were impressive in their debuts, and given good time off the bench against NZ and/or SA and starting time against the Argies, they will develop into worthy test players in time.

 

[Viking]

Rob Simmons is getting a lot of praise again for his time in the third test. To an extent, it is earned, in that he had two or three very good ball carries which was unusual. However, he contributed largely to the first England try by missing a tackle, then lazily getting back on side after two more rucks only then to miss the tackle on Vunipola to set up Coles for the try.

His point of difference has always been his lineout capabilities. In that aspect of his game, he did not perform any better than Sam Carter in the second test where IIRC we didn't lose a lineout on our throw. Add to that, Carter's efforts in hitting most rucks by some margin, then it seems clear to me that Rob is now losing his essential status in relation to lineout work.

I think both Coleman and Arnold were impressive in their debuts, and given good time off the bench against NZ and/or SA and starting time against the Argies, they will develop into worthy test players in time.

Simmons was impressive in the 3rd. But that was it an anomaly or was it a sign of increased aggression and ball carrying abilities. We won't find out for a while given his injury.

It was a short stint so it's hard to judge - consistency is key with these sorts of tings. Right now I wouldn't be calling him a good ball-carrier just yet. Arnold, Coleman, and practically every other lock bar Carter still ahead of him in that area.

But their is hope.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Simmons was impressive in the 3rd. But that was it an anomaly or was it a sign of increased aggression and ball carrying abilities. We won't find out for a while given his injury.

It was a short stint so it's hard to judge - consistency is key with these sorts of tings. Right now I wouldn't be calling him a good ball-carrier just yet. Arnold, Coleman, and practically every other lock bar Carter still ahead of him in that area.

But their is hope.

Simmo's better play in the third test is attributed to one thing and one thing only.

The fact that Chek dropped him for the second match was a huge wake up call for a bloke that let complacency take root

That also needs to happen to a couple of others