Wallaby tight five - boys or men?

[tigerland12]

I think there is no doubt we will lose the last 20 against the ABs if Genia goes off. That was one of the biggest areas. The other is having S Fa'ainga, Cowan and Hodgson as subs. If we are lucky with injuries, then we could see a bench of the following come RWC:

TPN
Alexander
Sharpe
Samo
Higgenbotham or Hodgson
Giteau
Mitchell

I cannot see Drew Mitchell being left on the bench, he is just too good, even if that means re-shuffling the backs (ie: O'Connor to 12). I also think Barnes would be a better option to Giteau and that if we persist with a 5:2 split, it'll be either Hodgson or Robinson there, not Samo.

 

[TheNextBigThing]

It wasn't by design - Beale went off injured with a twisted Ankle and all other replacements had been used. Cowan went to 6, Higgers to JOCs wing and JOC (James O'Connor) to 15.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I still agree with the principle whether or not it was forced. Deans would have thought it through before he picked a 5-2 bench with one back and one halfback.

Cowan going to the side of the scrum though seems odd. Why not give him a run in the front-row when there's little to be lost. Kepu has proved himself already and is better around the park anyway. From two weeks as the wallabies third prop, he is yet to pack a single scrum.

 

[tigerland12]

Cowan going to the side of the scrum though seems odd. Why not give him a run in the front-row when there's little to be lost. Kepu has proved himself already and is better around the park anyway. From two weeks as the wallabies third prop, he is yet to pack a single scrum.

Kepu went to flanker and Cowan to loosehead.

 

[Lee Grant]

Agree with fatprop's recent post and that of earlier posts along the same lines.

I wrote in my match report that it was yet another occasion when the Wallabies faded in the 2nd half. I was happy with the first half forward effort though the Boks had a heap of possession. Fortunately they never looked like scoring a try with it.

Last year the Wallabies got a lot of early leads eg. Pretoria, Bloem and Sydney (3N) but the opposition finished more strongly than we did. At Twickenham we couldn't even get the early lead to fade away from.

There's a lot of reasons why teams don't perform well in the physical contests. Some of them are indeed physical and include a lack of fitness, including match fitness of players returning from injury. And there is also a lack of strength, as Bruce keeps advising us, after contact has been made. This matter is not well appreciated, as Bruce keeps saying.

But sometimes fellows are just rugby dumb and hang around too long deciding when and where to make an effort. They appear to be bludgers but they are not.

Good forwards are just like good backs: they have to make the right decisions and act on them instinctively. They know where to make an effort, usually at opponents near the location of the ball, and they have a better idea of when also. When counter-rucking this is usually early, to take advantage of the implacable laws of physics, but sometimes in a fetching situation it can be too early, especially for the 2nd man in (or "tackle assist").

Hopefully selectors take these things into consideration, together with set piece ability and the other stuff, when they pick their forwards. If the bench players don't perform as well as the guys they are replacing, though fresher, it could be a function of correct selection.

Sometimes our zip-zip backs are part of the breakdown problem. When I was a lad, back in the olden times, backs were instructed to make sure that they ran in front of their forwards unless a clear break was on. If isolated in front of defenders, they were told to run sideways to get in front of their pigs before they were tackled.

Our brilliant backs play too much low percentage stuff too often. As I indicated in my match post: sometimes it is better just to go to ground with the pill and in that context, their arriving backline mates should do a lot better than they do at the breakdown.

Accordingly, they should spend some of the next two weeks doing a bit of breakdown work.

But I digress - there is more to a lack of physicality than just at the breakdowns.

 

[Groucho]

Good post Lee. Richie McCaw is the perfect example of a player who instinctively knows precisely how much work to put into every exchange.

Also, JOC (James O'Connor) seems to have realised the value of sometimes taking the conservative option. Several times on the weekend he drove through the tackle area in preference to giving the 50/50 pass. And when on the receiving end of two low passes, he dove to take the ball to his chest instead of attempting the bootlaces pickup. Those are exceptionally good signs of a player who is starting to understand the game in real time.

 

[RedsHappy]

I think it is as much training time/structure as a team, hopefully it can be sorted.

Playing with skilful, high intensity for all of 80 (and/but with a very good bench use) was a key attribute of the 2011 Reds. Indeed, it's one of the big reasons they won so many of their crucial, close matches. If they can do it, why can't the Wallabies? That could be a question worth answering.

Don't tell me the SA team last Saturday was a major class above this year's Cru, Tahs (on a good day), Stormers, and that's why the Wallabies couldn't manage the full 80 as 'Tests are so different to S15'. I think the aforementioned S15 teams could all have readily beaten Saturday's SA team.

 

[barbarian]

Playing with skilful, high intensity for all of 80 (and/but with a very good bench use) was a key attribute of the 2011 Reds. Indeed, it's one of the big reasons they won so many of their crucial, close matches. If they can do it, why can't the Wallabies? That could be a question worth answering.

It is, but I will say that the Reds never brought off all of their key players with 20 to go. That would never happen in a Bled match- Pocock, Genia, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Beale will all stay on the ground for the full 80 you would think. We visibly lost structure without these players (especially Genia) and I would expect the same of the Reds if they benched similar players. Maybe not as bad but you certainly would see a loss of momentum.

 

[vidiot]

The backline in defense for the last ten was Ioane/Higginbotham, Fainga'a, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Higginbotham/Ioane.

With the wingers defending at ten, that's a very strong defensive line. That being said the Boks did score two late tries.

The backline was pretty solid through the game defensively, with or without Higginbotham. :

Soft tries through the "guts" are disconcerting and are a mark against the forwards on the field at that stage. Apart from Higginbotham. Of course.

 

[RedsHappy]

It is, but I will say that the Reds never brought off all of their key players with 20 to go. That would never happen in a Bled match- Pocock, Genia, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Beale will all stay on the ground for the full 80 you would think. We visibly lost structure without these players (especially Genia) and I would expect the same of the Reds if they benched similar players. Maybe not as bad but you certainly would see a loss of momentum.

Thanks, but I was not referring especially to last Saturday's match but rather to a number of the preceding posts (eg LG's) that rightly lamented how in recent years the Wallabies have almost made a habit of fading in intensity or application in 2H (or some part thereof) of key games, and we have continued on to lose those games. One might argue that the 'second half fade away or lose focus' syndrome was a key defining feature of recent years' Wallaby losses, whatever the reasons for it. My main point being that the Reds mastered the art of not letting this happen to them, and they won numerous matches through never dissipating (in the last 20 mins) their desire, intensity and focus and thus nearly always finding a way to win.

 

[Richard D. James]

While I agree the Wallabies forwards were very good, I did notice that the Boks were making fairly easy metres in the beginning of the game through pick and drives. Yes we were able to use aggressive defence to turn the ball over occasionally but I'm still concerned the All Blacks will just grind out wins in the last 20 minutes of games like they always have.

Regardless, I'm certainly feeling more optimistic this week than I was last week.

 

[disco]

Alexander is a seagull and is the weak link in our tight five. He's constantly parked out in the backline and without Slipper/Robinson we can't afford a player like that. His scrummaging is also below-par, and against England and New Zealand he will be targeted.

That's why Deans has kept him as tighthead rather than Kepu as I believe that Deans will drop Alexander for Slipper when he returns & leave kepu as loosehead.

 

[tranquility]

Kepu is a rare athlete isn't he? He will be very valuable to the Wobbs if he stays healthy...

 

[Scarfman]

That's why Deans has kept him as tighthead rather than Kepu as I believe that Deans will drop Alexander for Slipper when he returns & leave kepu as loosehead.

Cunning. In fact, as cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University.

 

[Gnostic]

Thanks, but I was not referring especially to last Saturday's match but rather to a number of the preceding posts (eg LG's) that rightly lamented how in recent years the Wallabies have almost made a habit of fading in intensity or application in 2H (or some part thereof) of key games, and we have continued on to lose those games. One might argue that the 'second half fade away or lose focus' syndrome was a key defining feature of recent years' Wallaby losses, whatever the reasons for it. My main point being that the Reds mastered the art of not letting this happen to them, and they won numerous matches through never dissipating (in the last 20 mins) their desire, intensity and focus and thus nearly always finding a way to win.

Contrast with the Tahs who sometimes didn't show up for half a game, sometimes the first half eg Auckland.

 

[Newter]

I'm sorry Newter, but you must have written this post either before this game, or after another one.

I've just watched the first 20 through again, and there are precisely 0 rolling mauls from the Saffas and they turn the Wallabies over precisely 0 times at the breakdown during the first 20

They have a couple of runs off the back of the lineout / free-kick, but actually one of those ends up in an Aus turnover at the tackle from Smit that then creates BAs try. There's also the beautiful counterruck near the sideline from the Wallabies in the 13th minute, and another turnover in contact when Kepu and Moore smash Dannie Roussow on the charge at the 20th minute. There's also a great shortside set of hit ups/interchange by the wallabies that goes 40metres around the 16th minute mark.

I'm getting some footage together so I can post it later if you really need it, but you're way off the mark on this one.

Mate I've had another look at that first 20 minutes myself, and it's clear as daylight. The two most powerful forwards on the field were Springboks: Danie Roussow, and John Smit.

Yes, we had many strong runs. But what I would give for one or two of those guys in our pack.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Cunning. In fact, as cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University.

Cunning as in "cunning stunt"? I envy the people who are able to divine so much cleverness and guile in even the most enigmatic of Deans's decisions. Given that he is so clever he must surely be the most unlucky of coaches not to have a better win-loss percentage.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Cunning doesn't equal winning, Bruce....

In my next life I too want to be able to read the tea leaves and justify every single manoeuvre the coach of the rugby team I support as part of some grand plan.

 

[tranquility]

Cunning as in "cunning stunt"? I envy the people who are able to divine so much cleverness and guile in even the most enigmatic of Deans's decisions. Given that he is so clever he must surely be the most unlucky of coaches not to have a better win-loss percentage.

This reeks of something bitter and twisted. Sorry Bruce.

 

[Jnor]

Cunning as in "cunning stunt"? I envy the people who are able to divine so much cleverness and guile in even the most enigmatic of Deans's decisions. Given that he is so clever he must surely be the most unlucky of coaches not to have a better win-loss percentage.

You might want to look at scarfie's tagline, Bruce. Oh, and this, if I'm not mistaken...

 

[Gagger]

Mate I've had another look at that first 20 minutes myself, and it's clear as daylight. The two most powerful forwards on the field were Springboks: Danie Roussow, and John Smit.

Yes, we had many strong runs. But what I would give for one or two of those guys in our pack.

So we've moved from "the Wallabies got owned at the collision in the first 20" to "the Boks made a coupla nice runs"?

Funny you should pick Smit and Roussow, because they both lost the ball in contact even in the couple of runs they made in the first 20.

Just to be sure - by the "first 20" do you have another definition, like in the pre-game show?