Where did we go wrong? Wallaby Recovery thread.

[Athilnaur]

I haven't watched a replay yet, kudos to those who had the stomach to, so I'll reserve some comment on players till I do, but I thought i might make some observations about the game.

Firstly, possession was fairly close, with 53% to the kiwis, 3 mins 20 to our 2 mins 52, in the 22. But the kiwis did a lot less with that possession. Yes, less. 79 runs for 544 metres to our 120 runs for 894.

And people complain about turnovers, but they were pretty even, 17 by kiwis, 20 by us. We edged them in the lineouts. Now that is fantastic news and Simmons can take a bow. But lost out in general play.

The kiwis were a little better at tackling, but neither side was great, 75% kiwis to 69 Aussies, but the kiwis made a huge amount more tackles, 146 to our 90.

In short both sides were close-ish, with the kiwis edging us out in percentages, but it is what they did with the ball that mattered. Their execution was far better, playing a tighter game at a very fast tempo and worked combinations. We threw the ball around to try create breaks, which we did, but with isolated carriers. We were too wide, too fast, too often.

When your execution is that poor it is the result of a mismatch between the players selected and the plan selected. The gameplan was wrong. Had to be.

Finally, For me motm wasn't McCaw, tho he was everywhere. As I mentioned I haven't watched the replay but my sense is the real guy who tore us up was Conrad Smith in the 50 minute period.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I haven't watched a replay yet, kudos to those who had the stomach to, so I'll reserve some comment on players till I do, but I thought i might make some observations about the game.

Firstly, possession was fairly close, with 53% to the kiwis, 3 mins 20 to our 2 mins 52, in the 22. But the kiwis did a lot less with that possession. Yes, less. 79 runs for 544 metres to our 120 runs for 894.

And people complain about turnovers, but they were pretty even, 17 by kiwis, 20 by us. We edged them in the lineouts. Now that is fantastic news and Simmons can take a bow. But lost out in general play.

The kiwis were a little better at tackling, but neither side was great, 75% kiwis to 69 Aussies, but the kiwis made a huge amount more tackles, 146 to our 90.

In short both sides were close-ish, with the kiwis edging us out in percentages, but it is what they did with the ball that mattered. Their execution was far better, playing a tighter game at a very fast tempo and worked combinations. We threw the ball around to try create breaks, which we did, but with isolated carriers. We were too wide, too fast, too often.

When your execution is that poor it is the result of a mismatch between the players selected and the plan selected. The gameplan was wrong. Had to be.

Finally, For me motm wasn't McCaw, tho he was everywhere. As I mentioned I haven't watched the replay but my sense is the real guy who tore us up was Conrad Smith in the 50 minute period.

Bloody good post.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[cyclopath]

Athilnaur - top post. The essence of the ABs difference is that they use the ball and opportunities they get much better than most.
Classic example for me was that fluffed opportunity when Cooper got tackled, and not specifically having a go at him, but the ABs score tries with those. Quade and his supporters were all over the place. Same with Lilo and Hooper getting all messed up. The little chances have to be taken better. Familiarity will help, and I don't doubt we'll get better.

 

[Braveheart81]

Classic example for me was that fluffed opportunity when Cooper got tackled, and not specifically having a go at him, but the ABs score tries with those. Quade and his supporters were all over the place. Same with Lilo and Hooper getting all messed up. The little chances have to be taken better. Familiarity will help, and I don't doubt we'll get better.

Richo and I were talking about this on Saturday night.

The big difference between the All Blacks and the Wallabies is that the All Blacks keep things far simpler and trust each other to be in the right place and do the right things.

QC (Quade Cooper) was weaving back and forth and in my opinion trying to do far too much. In the end, him and Hooper ended up tripping over each other as Cooper was tackled.

When the All Blacks have an opportunity like that they generally keep it very simple. The player with the ball just tries to run a straight line, draw the defender in front of them and then rely on the support player being in the right place to make the pass.

It seems to be a recurring theme that our players don't have enough trust in each other. The ball runner doesn't trust that the support player is going to be in the right position so they try and do too much or hedge their bets by both trying to beat the man and try and position their support player which invariably fails.

The trust theme was also evident in the first try when JOC (James O'Connor) dropped off his wing to support AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) in a tackle when it wasn't required.

Now the trust issue with the support player may be a symptom of the fact that too often, we don't have a support player there but all our players need to improve what is happening in these situations. If support players aren't there often enough then it is even more important that when they are there and the opportunity presents itself that we put them away.

We made plenty of line breaks in that game but failed to capitalise. We have to start getting the fundamentals right which is always being there in support and for the ball runner to keep it simple, run straight and trust that the support player is going to be in the right position when the time comes.

 

[RedsHappy]

Before any of us rush to conclusions re Saturday night's outcome, I'd recommend a good read of Scott Allen's outstanding analytic essay:

http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/08/20/wallabies-video-analysis-perception-versus-reality/

 

[Richo]

QC (Quade Cooper) was weaving back and forth and in my opinion trying to do far too much. In the end, him and Hooper ended up tripping over each other as Cooper was tackled.

[snip]

We made plenty of line breaks in that game but failed to capitalise. We have to start getting the fundamentals right which is always being there in support and for the ball runner to keep it simple, run straight and trust that the support player is going to be in the right position when the time comes.

I think it was Lilo who got tangled up with Hooper, but Quade made a similar error, holding the ball too long and running his outside man into touch rather than straightening, giving the ball, and running support.

Earlier this season, the Tahs were making a lot of mistakes with support runners missing in action or passes going to no one. Eventually, they got it together. I'm sure we'll see progress on this front with Link.

 

[lewisr]

QC (Quade Cooper) was weaving back and forth and in my opinion trying to do far too much. In the end, him and Hooper ended up tripping over each other as Cooper was tackled.
.

Yeh I think thats a fair point on his weaving (that was lilo as Richo pointed out). But I also reckon it's part of the way he plays the game. At his best you do often see him hold onto the ball longer than a traditional 10 because it's his speed and footwork than can commit even 3 players and then the 50-50 offload either results in a line break or a turnover. So in my opinion, I do think it would be classified as too much in a traditional sense, but the fact we were 20+ points behind and had nothing to lose, I was fine with him running it more and weaving. After all, To'omua had played the opposite for the whole game so its better that he gets on and changes things up.

Just my opinion! We all know Quade doesn't play the traditional flyhalf role all the time. I don't really want him to either, because its what gives him his edge. In fact, his best moments are when those seemingly stupid offloads are picked up by a support player. 2011 reds did that brilliantly and I hope Link reignites it in the wallabies. Really lacked that awareness of who was around us on saturday night.

 

[cyclopath]

Before any of us rush to conclusions re Saturday night's outcome, I'd recommend a good read of Scott Allen's outstanding analytic essay:

http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/08/20/wallabies-video-analysis-perception-versus-reality/

Very thorough from Scott, as usual. Similar conclusions to those reached by a few. Some differences, but I have to say I find it hard to wade through all those stats. It's like an Eddie Jones wet dream!! Kudos to him for the time taken to produce them.
In any event, he seems to agree with many who reckon Mogg and MMM should be off, and JOC (James O'Connor) stay on wing, Folau to fullback and probably Fardy on. Seems a sensible number of changes in focussed positions. We'll see.

 

[Ignoto]

But he fluffed a lot of things in his cameo on Saturday - you simply can't consistently do this if you want to be the starting 10, when there is another bloke ahead of you who doesn't.

Perhaps I missed a few things due to the extra beer I had to drink from the 50th minute mark. Could someone point out what Quade stuffed up? The biggest error I saw was a restart kicked out on the full.

 

[RedsHappy]

One of the elements that IMO is made patently clear via Scott A's analysis referenced above is that our Wallabies remain condemned by the same old demons of inconsistent forwards work in tight, uneven to awful intensity levels by our back row, ineffective work-rates and poor technical accuracy at the breakdown, etc.

This chronic problem area contributed meaningfully to Saturday night's negative result.

It will certainly not be fixed by external critique and 'try better next week' messaging from on high. It has to be fixed by excellence of technical coaching applied week-in, week-out within the coaches team.

To me, it's screamingly obvious that Deans' post RWC forwards coach(es) have not proven to be consistently good enough, and on Saturday's remarkably poor defensive display (as it was in BIL Test 3 btw), Scrivener's assigned role as defence coach looks very questionable. And I've said for years here that our national coaching group badly needs a full-time kicking and catching coach, not just to provide place kicking depth (what if Lilo gets injured?, see BIL Test 1), but just as importantly re game-altering skills of kicking from hand, restarts, grubbers, etc.

IMO Link must rapidly improve the depth and calibre of his coaching group or I promise us all that we will be sitting around in a year's time desperately wondering why Link is Deans Mk II. (Elite rugby teams are, organisationally speaking, just like really good businesses now, success is a function of a complete managerial capability across all key functions and support processes; the position of CEO or Head Coach is just one of many important roles that will determine the quality of medium-term outcomes and the very best sports personnel still require technical development, analysis and further education as to how they can improve either individually or in combination.)

I'd strongly advocate that L Fisher - Australia's best forwards coach by far - is immediately recruited to the Wallabies (even if he also works for the Brumbies in the Super period), and that we approach Mick Byrne to leave the Blues and ABs and return to Australia to assist his country's national team - he's known as one of the best in the world for kicking, catching, restarts etc.

I also noted with interest that at the end of Saturday's match Clarkie remarked that in fact the ABs' defence coach is an Australian, a ..... McLean (I think he said) from Victoria. Perhaps we could do a lot worse that luring him back here, or re-appointing the excellent P Blake who transformed the Wallaby defensive structures and capability in the 2010-2011 period yet who was summarily sacked post RWC.

Link's total coaching team was absolutely critical to the Reds 2010-11 revival and title win. Notably, as soon as that actual group for various reason was disassembled in 2012 the Reds went into a period of gradual decline from mid-2012 through to two debacles of QF losses in 2012 and 2013. Link seemed to stop paying attention to detail and individual player development (and little real player development occurred in the last 2 years within the Reds) and focussed more on big picture work, or so it seemed.

Link must now go back to one of his proven talents (one that way exceeded Deans' ability in this area of management) - assembling a complete group of highly qualified, highly motivated support coaches spanning all the critical elite rugby team functions. Inherited mediocrity and inadequate coaching depth must be quickly abandoned. Only in this manner will a true Wallaby revival occur, one that can be both sustained and consistent.

 

[Richo]

Good post, RH.

I'd imagine that the current crop of assistants will be under a lot of scrutiny. Their contracts probably end after the EOYT, and it would make sense for Link to build his own team in earnest after that.

 

[cyclopath]

Fair enough. What about the disjointed attack? Should McKay be questioned too? I take your point about about specialists and structure, but it's tough to overly critique some of these people on 1 Test. Poaching Kiwi ranks, the Brumbies etc is nice in theory, but might be hard in practical terms. The standout candidates for all these specialties seem a tad thin on the ground.
I hope they can be found. We certainly need to make this a matter of urgency.

 

[Dam0]

^^^I think Brian "Aussie" McClean's nickname is just a bit of a jibe. He was born in Victoria, but was brought up in Wellington and has done all of his coaching in NZ. He has been in and around the NZ top level scene for 20 years, starting out as assistant coach for Canterbury in 1993 then head coach there and with the Crusaders for a brief time before heading to be assistant coach at the Hurricanes. He is a 'behind the scenes' kind of a guy for most of his career, a bit like Wayne Smith.

Mick Byrne on the other hand is a former AFL player who you lot let get away. He's ours now and you can keep your dirty hands off him. He is assistant coach at the Blues now, I don't think he has much of a role with the All Blacks now. I understand he is an old mate of Sir JK's and he assisted him with Japan as well as with the All Blacks, which caused an issue in the 2011 RWC when we played Japan. .

 

[RedsHappy]

Fair enough. What about the disjointed attack? Should McKay be questioned too? I take your point about about specialists and structure, but it's tough to overly critique some of these people on 1 Test. Poaching Kiwi ranks, the Brumbies etc is nice in theory, but might be hard in practical terms. The standout candidates for all these specialties seem a tad thin on the ground.
I hope they can be found. We certainly need to make this a matter of urgency.

Yes, after a reasonable period, McKay should most certainly be closely examined. Little innovation or re-development occurred within the Reds' attack in 2012-13. The degree to which JMcK is culpable there is somewhat speculative, but the concern is absolutely valid on both his and, importantly, Link's part. Links' inability to re-build the Reds in this period and its very disappointing final book-end of the QF v Cru away has been under-analysed as to origin and reasons. (An interesting question btw is whether Larkham - unshackled from J White's strict pattern design - might have been a better choice than McKay.)

I was aghast at all the Wallaby/ARU big talk pre Bled 1 re 'hybrid game plans', 'innovative attack strategies', 'Link plotting for years as to how to beat the ABs'. 'ageing ABs may not have it any more', etc, I was sure it'd blow up in our faces, just as it did. There was little semblance of a really well-designed new Wallaby attacking pattern; a 10 just thrusting the wall wide with weak support and poor phase execution is no real attacking pattern with any depth.

Poaching from other teams' coaches is awkward yes, but on more than one occasion, it has to be done and has been done. Difficulty should never an excuse for not achieving the best outcomes and the essential required resources.

 

[Pfitzy]

One of the elements that IMO is made patently clear via Scott A's analysis referenced above is that our Wallabies remain condemned by the same old demons of inconsistent forwards work in tight, uneven to awful intensity levels by our back row, ineffective work-rates and poor technical accuracy at the breakdown, etc.

I saw a fancy chart and a bunch of stats that talked up some players who didn't deserve talking up and talked down the best bloke on the pitch in gold.

"Involvements" is all well and good if you're talking about being a good Dad by attending family events, but if you turn up drunk and abusive you're better off not being there.

Its what you do when you get there. If Horwill gets to a ruck first but fails to clear someone out because of poor technique, then what is the point? If McMeniman arrives first at a ruck but half a second behind three black shirts, then its useless. If four of them get there, secure an uncontested ball that the ABs had no interest in challenging for, then don't disperse for the next ruck, then how can anyone call that "involvement"? Its like the fat 46yo prop at my old club leaning on rucks and trotting from scrum to scrum.

In essence you're right - our back row was outplayed, but let's not shoot the guy who had the most effect on the game.

 

[fatprop]

I am going to try to use another term "economy" the ABs have it, we don't.

We spend too many to get clean ball while the AB's spend less and Ab's decision making on when the invest units at the moment is just fantastic; while we need to do it many more times for the same success rate.

 

[RedsHappy]

I am going to try to use another term "economy" the ABs have it, we don't.

We spend too many to get clean ball while the AB's spend less and Ab's decision making on when the invest units at the moment is just fantastic; while we need to do it many more times for the same success rate.

100% fp. As you've rightly said in other ways as well re Wallaby breakdown work over many years here.

The question is: how to fix it? Like all of us I have seem the massive impact that L Fisher has had on the calibre of the Brums' breakdown work since Jake appointed him. Are the Brums not now the best forwards pack in Aus in broken play in general and at the ruck in particular? Were they that way in 2011 - hell no! This rate of improvement is of course in part about selections and player development - but excellence of specialist coaching has played a huge part.

And btw, to my more general points above, the great skill of J White has been in significant part the choice of the right support coaches and S&C personnel. Great credit to his leadership of the entire Brumbies enterprise.

 

[RedsHappy]

I saw a fancy chart and a bunch of stats that talked up some players who didn't deserve talking up and talked down the best bloke on the pitch in gold.

"Involvements" is all well and good if you're talking about being a good Dad by attending family events, but if you turn up drunk and abusive you're better off not being there.

Its what you do when you get there. If Horwill gets to a ruck first but fails to clear someone out because of poor technique, then what is the point? If McMeniman arrives first at a ruck but half a second behind three black shirts, then its useless. If four of them get there, secure an uncontested ball that the ABs had no interest in challenging for, then don't disperse for the next ruck, then how can anyone call that "involvement"? Its like the fat 46yo prop at my old club leaning on rucks and trotting from scrum to scrum.

In essence you're right - our back row was outplayed, but let's not shoot the guy who had the most effect on the game.

All excellent points, but, using your analogy, so often we seem to have a game-klling combination of less Dads turning up and yet more abuse per Dad when they get there .

 

[fatprop]

The Brumbies were no better at Kiwi sides when it mattered either, it is a technical and attitudinal issue to me.

The Reds chose to go around the issue, by low tackles and reach overs for turnovers while moving the ball away from contact quickly on attack, the Brumbies by flooding and if in doubt giving away penalties, the Tahs, by waiting for a dominant tackle before flooding.

We don't have units trained to instinctively, to get low and cleanout effectively - and that ain't going to change in the next week.

 

[Braveheart81]

I saw a fancy chart and a bunch of stats that talked up some players who didn't deserve talking up and talked down the best bloke on the pitch in gold.

"Involvements" is all well and good if you're talking about being a good Dad by attending family events, but if you turn up drunk and abusive you're better off not being there.

Its what you do when you get there. If Horwill gets to a ruck first but fails to clear someone out because of poor technique, then what is the point? If McMeniman arrives first at a ruck but half a second behind three black shirts, then its useless. If four of them get there, secure an uncontested ball that the ABs had no interest in challenging for, then don't disperse for the next ruck, then how can anyone call that "involvement"? Its like the fat 46yo prop at my old club leaning on rucks and trotting from scrum to scrum.

In essence you're right - our back row was outplayed, but let's not shoot the guy who had the most effect on the game.

I agree with much of this.

I find Scott Allen's analysis a bit strange as his arguments and evidence doesn't really match his conclusion.