• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Wallaby tight five - boys or men?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Newter

Guest
I say boys. In the first quarter of this Test the Springboks were flying into the ruck collision zone and totally dominating over the ball. James Horwill battled more or less alone, and more or less lost that battle. Driven backwards in the tackle, time after time. The rest of the tight five were either a bit too late, or a bit too off balance, or didn't have low enough body height or hadn't timed their run into contact properly. Sekope Kepu was the only one who really stood up and did his job properly.

My impression is that Moore and Alexander are, like many Brumbies in days gone by, running centers trapped in front rowers' bodies. Their speed to the ruck battle and technique was far inferior to the Boks'. Sure they run the ball well, and have great hands and run the right angles, but is that what we need from them? I'd rather have seen them make two or three dominant tackles each rather than the tries they scored.

Simmons will be great in a year or two but is still just a boy. He should have stopped that try on his goal line with a simple one on one tackle, but didn't have the power to dominate. England will eat him up for breakfast.

Everything else in the team is working fine, but this is our achilles heel again just as it was in 2007.
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
Well, boys is a bit harsh. But as you say, England have a side that could really dominant these guys. I kind of see Australia as 3rd in the world behind NZ and ENG at the moment.
 
N

Newter

Guest
I sort of understand what you are saying but you have picked a poor example. The wallabies dominated the impacts in today's test.

No, they just held onto the ball a lot better. Big difference, and it cost SA the game.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
i don't think tonight was a very good example of what you are suggesting..
the wallabies even scored 3 or 4 counter ruck turnovers
 

gone

Ted Fahey (11)
Well, boys is a bit harsh. But as you say, England have a side that could really dominant these guys. I kind of see Australia as 3rd in the world behind NZ and ENG at the moment.

We were behind more than that before King Robbie took over...
 
N

Newter

Guest
i don't think tonight was a very good example of what you are suggesting..
the wallabies even scored 3 or 4 counter ruck turnovers

In the first quarter of this Test when the Boks were fired up and still confident, they weren't allowing any tricky turnovers. Our forwards were getting clearly beaten. It was only some outstanding footwork and speed from Quade and other backs that put us up on the scoreboard. Until Quade made that break off a right foot step in his own half and the first try went in, we were under heavy pressure.

Then the turnovers came but only after Smit's almost-men began to lose belief. That first quarter was more like what we'll be facing in the remaining Tests this year.
 

DPK

Peter Sullivan (51)
DPK, international players, especially Saffas, never fuck off: they are fucked off.

Normally I'd agree. But I think the Springboks showed up tonight a tad lethargic, with the attitude that meant if they were competitive they'd push to the hilt, but as soon as the game seemed a little out of reach they were just going through the motions.
 

Larno

Ward Prentice (10)
Well, boys is a bit harsh. But as you say, England have a side that could really dominant these guys. I kind of see Australia as 3rd in the world behind NZ and ENG at the moment.

Before the England-Ireland game in the Six Nations this year the form of the Ireland forwards in the tournament up to that point had me dreading what the mighty pom pack would do to our bunch of shrinking violets. Come kick off they were all over them.

The Ireland pack and the Wob pack are similar and hence I think it's only a matter of your lot not believing that they can shaft the opposition in the tight stuff holding them back from doing so.
 

da_grubster

Ted Fahey (11)
Well, boys is a bit harsh. But as you say, England have a side that could really dominant these guys. I kind of see Australia as 3rd in the world behind NZ and ENG at the moment.

3rd best tight 5? I wouldn't say so. A full strength SA tight 5 is very strong. I think Aus are close to France and Ireland but the tight 5 is likely to be the reason why you don't win the RWC.
 

Riptide

Dave Cowper (27)
I say boys. In the first quarter of this Test the Springboks were flying into the ruck collision zone and totally dominating over the ball. James Horwill battled more or less alone, and more or less lost that battle. Driven backwards in the tackle, time after time. The rest of the tight five were either a bit too late, or a bit too off balance, or didn't have low enough body height or hadn't timed their run into contact properly. Sekope Kepu was the only one who really stood up and did his job properly.

Disagree. Wallabies generated quick ball, Boks were slow and ponderous. Dominating collisions on defense begins with making the right read and tackle technique. Wallabies were strong, Boks were not. With the ball, the Boks just ran bang up into contact making it easy for Wallabies defenders to man up and hit targets. Then Boks had to commit numbers to win slow ball.

After the game, Elsom spoke that the key to the easy win was that the Wallabies won the collisions. IMO, they did so comfortably.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top