Wallaby tactics

[WB3]

Gitteau is too good an attacking player to leave out of the side BUT, when he's at 10, the rest of the attack doesn't seem organised. He's no clever-optional-taking, organising General that's for sure.

Once Cooper comes back, I wonder if the radical step could be to put Gitteau at 15. Crazy talk, I know, but there are some attractive parts to it. Let him organise the kick return attack. Give Cooper a bigger, bash-them-em-up-the-middle option at 12. ACC to stay at 13.

Perhaps that is all too crazy. One thing for sure, I can't wait for Cooper to be back and playing again. I dread games with Gitteau at 10.

I said the same thing one time. I think it could work, but given that Kurtley played so well (and his defense held up) I think it would be an unnecessary change. I'd rather have Giteau at 12 or benched and keep Beale at 15. I think AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) seemed a bit lost at 13 last night. He didn't have that same spark. I'd rather him at 15 in the long term.

JOC (James O'Connor) presents problems for me - he is brilliant individually at times but is being exposed positionally on the wing. He has played 12 (I believe) and given his friendship and combination with Cooper he should be considered there (at least on the Spring Tour). That would give us two of the most evasive and skillful blokes going around in the midfield and it would either be awesome or completely shithouse.


As for the topic of this thread:

The Wallabies seemed to take poor tactical options in general play. They were playing only one phase in each direction before bringing the ball back the other way, obviously hoping to find the ABs had realigned poorly. This won't work if they don't force the teams to commit defenders and get quick ball. It also needs to be done off the back of 2 or more quick phases. (Eg, go right quickly twice and then return left, hopefully with a disorganised defence, forwards marking backs etc).
This tactic is most effective if the Wallabies can force the ABs to commit their centres to tackles - running one pass wide of the ruck isn't enough. A forward runner off of 10 and then a quick hit up on the same side can help drag the defence across and hopefully have committed a centre in the first phase.
The way the Wallabies atttempted a poor, bastardisation of this strategy.

Also, the way they ran forwards 2 or 3 metres wide of the ruck from a standing start was shocking. They need to hit the ball moving, in pods and use some of the AB-style aggression in their cleanout to ensure Genia gets quick ball. When the Blacks or so well aligned close to the ruck a second pass may be more effectiv in helping get across the advantage line.

In conclusion they lacked tactical nous in all aspects and Giteau and Genia both did poorly in directing what was an already lacklustre forward effort.

 

[Gnostic]

I look at the imbalances in this team and it mirrors the ABs in both the 99 RWC and 2003 RWC. Those were teams that on paper should have destroyed all in their path. But they had fundamental weaknesses - playing players out of position. eg. Cullen at 13.

Some players are gifted and can truly play more than one position Mat Burke started at 13, was No1 fullback in the world and went back to 13. Larkham, Campo, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper). Remember Horan was probably the best 12 ever and he was pretty dismal at Flyhalf where as Lynagh was a very good 12 and No1 in his day at 10.

In the last two tests we have played JOC (James O'Connor) on the wing and four tries FOUR have been scored down his wing. If that does not indicate that he was targetted I don't know what does. Giteau has been playing at 10 for five years on and off. He is not a 10 at test level. Some would say Mumm is not a lock, but I would dispute this, I would say he is a small lock who can at provincial level play 6. He is not a test 6 he doesn't have the impact required and Elsom as out of form as he is still provides more.

 

[Bruce Ross]

The up tempo ball in hand game requires quick thinking, inteliigence in the play making positions and almost a "total football" approach. That is, like in the MacQueen days, forwards and backs being able to run, pass and carry and change the angle and method of attack when the opportunity arises. It requires very high levels of skill, fitness and togetherness to pull that off. The All Blacks have it right now and we don't.

Just a couple of points, TBH. I don't recall the Macqueen era being characterised by "forwards and backs being able to run, pass and carry and change the angle and method of attack when the opportunity arises." Rather it was a time of inches-thick playbooks à la American football, and recycling the ball through countless phases.

Secondly, you mention the requirement for "very high levels of ... fitness". This is obviously true but I firmly believe that the Wallabies have been focussed on the wrong type of fitness as I argued five weeks ago in an article, "Wallabies: the right conditioning for the 3Ns?", on the GAGR blog. This was written in a response to a newspaper report that "the Wallabies conditioning coach will monitor the entire squad with GPS tracking devices that will record the intensity of their training."

The current training approach appears to place overwhelming emphasis on aerobic fitness; an intensification of the tendency of Australian rugby to place less emphasis on strength and physicality than any of the other major rugby countries. Little wonder that we are out-muscled at the breakdown and lack the capacity to fracture the defensive line and create opportunities to off-load to rampaging support players.

 

[Juan Cote]

It is hard to see any game plan apart from keeping the ball off the opposition. That's great and they can do that pretty well but there seems to be a diminishing return in terms of attacking threats as each phases passes.

The Reds played a similar style but when nothing was on, or everything had become too disorganised, they kicked the ball to touch and forced the other team to start again. It worked against the Saders, Chiefs, Bulls and Stormers. Why all of a sudden has playing field position become such a no-no for the Wallabies?

It was interesting to see the Wallabies at the start of last night's game play very much like the Reds - forward hit-ups and favouring the short-side. The All Blacks didn't touch the ball really until about the 4th minute. What happened however was the longer the game went the more the Wallabies favoured forward hit-ups in mid-field which offered nothing in attacking threats.

One thing the Reds did well and the Wallabies do not is pick-and-drive. The Wallabies seem to be favouring the Tahs tactic of allowing for 2 or 3 piggies to set up for a crash ball with the option being a pass behind these players to a play maker who passes to a straight running back in mid-field.

Either way, the problem seems to be there are very few players in motion creating other options. Not once can I remember the back three trailing Gits looking for an inside ball or at least presenting an option other than the obvious crash ball.

As mentioned in an earlier post above, it worked well when the Wallabies had monster centres but sadly now we don't. Ant Fainga'a had a good Super 14 and made plenty of yards but that was because there were plenty of attacking options around him so he was rarely gang-tackled. Last night he and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) were like Lemmings off a cliff with the number of times they charged at the AB's with no other options around them.

The Wallabies had enough quality possession to win the game but they are bereft of attacking nous. Under Robbie, the 'playing what's in front of you' mantra has become just as static and predictable as the pre-programmed Eddie Jones style.

 

[Gnostic]

Because Giteau after playing more than 5 years at 10 still cannot kick with any consistant accuracy from hand hence last week not finding touch and this week kicking dead. Contrast that with Beale and his turning the Blacks around with the little grubbers in behind.

 

[barbarian]

I think it was the backline play that got me.

The best example is when Weepu threw that forward pass on the AB line. We had a scrum 5 out, great opportunity. It was pretty solid, and the backline gets good ball. But instead of a good set move (of which the ABs had a few) Giteau just threw a short flat ball to O'Connor, who jinked a bit and then got smashed by McCaw in midfield. It was classic under 7s stuff- 'I don't know what to do, here Rabbit you have a go'.

When the ABs had repeated phases in the forwards and then went to the backs, more often than not they would have organised something. A few decoy runners, Mils coming from deep, a flat line for a kick chase, or something else. On the multitude of occassions we had phases in the pigs and then went wide, Gits had nothing. No-one was running, there were no decoys, set plays, inside balls or anything. Obviously no-one was taking any leadership or showing any initiative.

That is where we desperately missed Quade.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It is a bit of a myth about the Macqueen days being an up tempo game plan. There were periods of course as there always had been. His game plan 98-2002 was based around the brick wall defensive system of Muggo and the constant recycle. Hence we ended up with very big centres (Horan wasn't that big but his skill set him apart from everyone else) in the form of Herbert and then Morty and a sort of homogeny of roles elsewhere apart from set peice. His great fortune was at the time he had great athletes in the pigs who were able to execute his game plan. The best example is Eales, a true lock but IMO the only true lock Oz has ever produced with the work rate and skills to play 6 and 8 whch he did in tests.

I don't think that the '99 team with its homogenous backline and fairly slow backrow could live with the tempo of game being played now.

They didn't use a lot of backline moves either, with the most regular set peice move the inside ball from Gregan to Melon. Most of the tries got ground out or came off first phase, think Mat Burke's 1998 try at Christchurch after 20 odd phases.

With the breakdown laws now 20 phases is almost impossible if an opponent contests the breakdown (and rightly so look back on those games and check out how many rucks Oz just killed and sealed off). That game plan was old and outdated when Jones inherited the team and his problem was that he tried to continue with it and sacrifice forward power to get more pace and continue the game plan. Hence Bill Young @ prop and the continued homogeny in the backs.

Not sure I agree with all of that, though you make some good points Gnostic.

Agree completely about the defensive wall. That was a key foundation to our play back then. You said it yourself about the level of athleticism in the pack and that is my point. The kind of up tempo game requires huge amounts of aerobic capacity as well as strength in the forwards. We had that back then. That's the reason we were able to recycle the ball so much and create pressure: our big blokes had the engines to do it. It also requires skill and accuracy at the breakdown too, especially playing against the likes of Back and Kronfeld.

The back row had a genuine fetcher (Wilson and then Smith), a ball running eight (Kefu) and an enforcer blindside (Mellon). That's good enough to win your share of the pill and make the advantage line enough times to win games.

In terms of big backs, I agree that at outside centre that was certainly the case: Little, Herbert and Mortlock were all big guys. Roff was too, but Larkham, Burke and Horan weren't huge fellas. But we had enough size to crash over the gain when we needed to.

 

[#1 Tah]

The title of this thread is an oxymoron.

 

[Scarfman]

Gnostic - agree with every word. Almost everyone is beig played out of position. Very frustrating.

On Genia - one of the great things he has done in the past is throw flat passes to his runners. Not sure what the fuck is happening with him. He looks miserable. Let's see what happens when QC (Quade Cooper) comes back.

On tactics - I agree with fatprop that we played pretty well. All is not lost with this style. But we need to VARY the approach a bit, so desperately need QC (Quade Cooper) back to add a bit of x-factor, and also need to remove Giteau from (field) kicking responsibility. Effective kicking is so important and we have been tragic at this for years. The lineout is one place we can genuinely challenge the ABs, and we should work on that plan. As a lock, the best part of Mumm's game is the lineout, and same with Sharpe.

 

[disco]

So what happens if you play in a game with fuck all scrums and fuck all lineouts - like the last coupla weeks?

You don't need set piece for a set move, watch the Reds v Hurricanes (you tube) when Rod Davies is just hanging around A.Fainga'a waiting for QC (Quade Cooper) to send a long flat ball on the gainline so Fainga'a just has to catch & pop pass back inside.

The Reds were 4-5 phases up when they put that move on.

The wallabies in the glory days of Larkham loved that double inside ball when ever they got static ball which usually would get them 5 metres over the gain line.

 

[Scarfman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OUSzUJX9hY

Nice move from Genia, too. Need some of that.

 

[Gnostic]

My point Hornet is that the 99 pack was much stronger but didn't have the aerobic fitness of this team and didn't need it. They ground from one breakdown to the next where they effectively held the ball moving it by inches sometimes. 20+ phases for Burke's try was hardly exciting back play. We still seem to be doing that and with the breakdown laws being what they are (and should be) 20+ phases against a team that contests the breakdown will be rare, in fact 7+ phases in each game would be a long way down on previous years (last year was an abberation with the kick chase game of the Bok). The requirments now are different if you want to play that up tempo game in the forwards.

I would like to see a balanced team. People in position. Strength in the Pigs speed and imagination in the backs. Not this homgenous crap with "creative" forwards who run like backs but cannot breach the gain line. I also question the aerobic fitness of this squad as if they were aerobically fit why were they standing 3 metres from the the gain line to received the ball flat footed. No bodies in motion as Dwyer used to say.

 

[disco]

Nice move from Genia, too. Need some of that

Yeah he seems a little off the pace ATM I assume he must be injured.

How quick is Rod Davies & Will Chambers. Chambers beat Rico Gear in a 40 metre sprint & Corey Jane had no hope of catching Davies.

Beale is quick also I thought Carter would have run him down last night because I remember Carter Running down Mat Rogers in 2006 pretty easily.

 

[Gnostic]

Davies looked easily the fastest in the S14, his in and away against the Crusaders in Brisbane was just amazing he just opened up the gap like a back would against a front rower not another winger. The only other winger in Oz I would think could stay with him off the mark over 40 would be Turner. Even Ioane doesn't have the top end pace of Turner or Davies.

 

[Gnostic]

Even Adam Ashley-Cooper admits "enough's enough" - but the Wallabies' Mr Fixit is pleading with Australia's fickle rugby fans to keep the faith with the country's most maligned national sporting team.

Ashley-Cooper says being a member of only the second Australian team in more than a century of trans-Tasman rivalry to lose nine straight Bledisloe Cup Tests to New Zealand is extremely tough to bear.

But he is adamant after Saturday night's gallant 20-10 defeat in Christchurch that the Wallabies are close to turning the corner and very much on track for a successful 2011 World Cup campaign in the Shaky Isles.

"Over the last nine games, the results don't reflect the closeness in the teams, the narrowness," Ashley-Cooper told AAP on Sunday.

"The losses don't reflect how tight it is between the two Test teams. It hurts, but we're definitely due and we know that and I think once we finally get that win, it will be huge for us.

"It's good to know that we're not peaking yet - we want to peak next year - but, as a team, everyone knows that we're building and that we're getting better.

"If we can continue doing that, then next year holds great hope for us." Australia are currently ranked third in the world rugby standings behind only New Zealand and South Africa, who the Wallabies thumped 30-13 a fortnight ago in Brisbane.

Ashley-Cooper, though, says it feels like unless they are top dogs, the Wallabies constantly seem on the nose with the bulk of Australian supporters.

"And the times you feel it the most is when you're losing to these buggers," the backline utility ace said before departing Christchurch.

"And it's happened obviously so frequently over the last couple of years, so I hope the fans can stick with us and still be proud of us because there's still an opportunity to finish second best in the world this year and that's our main goal now." The Wallabies have a three-week break before rounding out their 2010 Tri Nations campaign with two Tests against South Africa in Pretoria and Bloemfontein and a third for the year against New Zealand in Sydney on September 11.

Ashley-Cooper says notching successive wins in the Republic for the first time since 1963 is now the Wallabies' immediate goal.

"We'll take a lot of confidence out of beating them in Brisbane and hopefully we can get two in a row on the road over there," he said. "It's been a while since we've gone back-to-back there.

"Enough's enough really. We need to start winning.

"We had a good week here and we wanted to be a different team to the team that turned up in Melbourne (last week and lost 49-28 to New Zealand).

"We did that, but it was probably just around that 65, 70-minute mark where we really could have turned the sword, but it didn't happen.

"Everyone knows it - enough's enough and that's the way we're going to be approaching it with South Africa and certainly when we meet New Zealand back in Sydney.

The highlighted parts are pretty ordinary from AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper). He cannot call us fickle. We have been "sticking" with the Wallabies since 2003 even when hope of victory in a lot of games really isn't a rational belief. Pull your head out mate and do some passing drills, you know when you make a break or half break and hand the ball on to another player to take it on and not throw it over the touch line.

He and the Wallabies are kidding themselves big time if they think they were ever in the game against the ABs this year. Last year in Wellington was the last time they were in with a realistic chance. The sooner they recognise the realities the sooner they can deal with the problems. They are good enough (if in form people are played in position Robbie Deans) to beat anybody but to say they have been close in the last 12 months is just a bald faced lie.

Linky :-http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/were-getting-there-say-the-wallabies-20100808-11ptl.html

 

[Ruggo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OUSzUJX9hY

Nice move from Genia, too. Need some of that.

That we will see when quade gets back. All blacks were only able to stack the deck in defence against Genia and shut down those options because Gitau is so unthreatening at first reciever. No way will they be able to get away with that when they have to cover Quade with the same vigour.

 

[cyclopath]

"It's good to know that we're not peaking yet - we want to peak next year - but, as a team, everyone knows that we're building and that we're getting better.


"Enough's enough really. We need to start winning.


At least they realise they're not peaking. And winning would be good.

 

[Scotty]

Well I think while we held onto the ball better and defended better than last week we are still a long way from the All Blacks. They pretty much decided to kick the ball away and trust their defense against our non existent attack. I have no doubt they could have stepped it up to score more points if they really wanted to.

I am still of the opinion that both the performances from the wallabies against the blacks were of similar standard, it is just that everything went the ABs way in Melbourne and they got a few dodgy tries in the first half which blew out the margin. QC (Quade Cooper) may have made a difference of say one try in either game, but the ABs are still at least a 7 point better side, consistently.

I'm still pissed off at Kaplans inability to ref the breakdown though. Wow, you have got a lot more material this week Scarfie. If you can be so inclined, I'd like to see a vid of the McCaw playing the ball on the ground incident around the 17 minute mark where Kaplan warns him but fails to penalise and compare it to the seemingly completely legal steal of the ball from Pocock that gave the ABs their shot at goal in the second half.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Just a couple of points, TBH. I don't recall the Macqueen era being characterised by "forwards and backs being able to run, pass and carry and change the angle and method of attack when the opportunity arises." Rather it was a time of inches-thick playbooks à la American football, and recycling the ball through countless phases.

Secondly, you mention the requirement for "very high levels of ... fitness". This is obviously true but I firmly believe that the Wallabies have been focussed on the wrong type of fitness as I argued five weeks ago in an article, "Wallabies: the right conditioning for the 3Ns?", on the GAGR blog. This was written in a response to a newspaper report that "the Wallabies conditioning coach will monitor the entire squad with GPS tracking devices that will record the intensity of their training."

The current training approach appears to place overwhelming emphasis on aerobic fitness; an intensification of the tendency of Australian rugby to place less emphasis on strength and physicality than any of the other major rugby countries. Little wonder that we are out-muscled at the breakdown and lack the capacity to fracture the defensive line and create opportunities to off-load to rampaging support players.

I would argue the first point you make about the "run and carry", but not the other two Bruce. My recollection of how the Brumbies and Wallabies played back then was a lot of athletes in the pack carrying the ball up, passing in the tackle, good recycling and a lot of switches in play (mainly in the backs). Ch 7 had Jason Little talking about the game we won in 1998 and a couple of those tries were classic MacQueen era rugby: lots of phases, recycling, the inside ball or switch and huge defensive pressure.

Your other points are very well made and I agree with you totally. Anyway, enough about the past, it's what we do now that's important.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

The highlighted parts are pretty ordinary from AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper). He cannot call us fickle. We have been "sticking" with the Wallabies since 2003 even when hope of victory in a lot of games really isn't a rational belief. Pull your head out mate and do some passing drills, you know when you make a break or half break and hand the ball on to another player to take it on and not throw it over the touch line.

He and the Wallabies are kidding themselves big time if they think they were ever in the game against the ABs this year. Last year in Wellington was the last time they were in with a realistic chance. The sooner they recognise the realities the sooner they can deal with the problems. They are good enough (if in form people are played in position Robbie Deans) to beat anybody but to say they have been close in the last 12 months is just a bald faced lie.

Linky :-http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/were-getting-there-say-the-wallabies-20100808-11ptl.html

Definitely not fickle, I'm with you 100% on that. Long suffering more like it. Every seeming new dawn has proven false so far.