Who's to Blame?

[JJJ]

Says a lot when we can't win a half against Scotland with a fucking cyclone behind us.

ETA: on the positive side, at least we've finally found a tighthead prop who can keep his side of the scrum up and steady. Finally! One can only hope he won't be tarred by the loss in Dean's view as Beau Robinson seemed to be by the Samoa loss.

 

[tragic]

Anyone considered that no one is to blame except ourselves. Maybe we are just not good enough.....

 

[Ash]

Don't you think the Scots players seemed more adept in the conditions than the Wallabies? To me it seems a valid point, that players who have experience playing in such conditions would probably be more adept to excel in those conditions. The Brumbies on the field seemed to probably be the pick of the Australians, maybe because Canberra is such a bloody cold and windy place to live and train. Or maybe the reason they were best on the field is the reason they are winning the Aussie comp, that their players are in the best form. Which ever way you think about it, it all leads back to selection choices made by one Robbie Deans which was the basis for my first post.

The scheduling made selecting the team a team consisting of mostly Brumbies impossible, unless you think White really would have rested half his team in a crunch game against the Rebels. There's also no guarantee that the Brumbies, who are in good form currently but probably not where they were a month ago, would've done any better despite probably being more used to the conditions.

I was amazed that Moore, Timani and Dennis started, to be honest. Playing in those conditions as a forward is not pleasant at all, and you want all the recovery you can get both before and after. There was a reason why a fair amount of team were Reds (and a couple others) players who otherwise wouldn't have gotten a cap.

Even so, most of those Reds you mentioned are backs, not forwards, and they were never going to have a major impact on this cyclonic game. The only Reds forwards were Higgers and Slipper.

Weather like that is a massive leveller. When the Scots defend like that and give away so few penalties, particularly in the second half, it's not as easy as you think for an under strength Wallabies team, with some key players backing up after a few days rest, who have only been together for a few days.

edit: Not saying that the Wallabies shouldn't be expected to win those games. But anyone who before the game didn't realise that it was a real banana peal waiting to be slipped on should take off the blinkers.

 

[Penguin]

Don't you think the Scots players seemed more adept in the conditions than the Wallabies? To me it seems a valid point, that players who have experience playing in such conditions would probably be more adept to excel in those conditions. The Brumbies on the field seemed to probably be the pick of the Australians, maybe because Canberra is such a bloody cold and windy place to live and train. Or maybe the reason they were best on the field is the reason they are winning the Aussie comp, that their players are in the best form. Which ever way you think about it, it all leads back to selection choices made by one Robbie Deans which was the basis for my first post.

You're not taking into account that the Brumbies only played a few days beforehand in S15 and that the weather is more unpredictable as it is predictable.
Reds players have shown in S15 that they can perform well enough in rubbish weather also.

Will just have to agree to disagree. But Aussie players from all provinces have always been crap at playing to these kind of weather conditions as a team.

 

[redstragic]

Anyone considered that no one is to blame except ourselves. Maybe we are just not good enough...

And we weren't as evidenced by the scoreboard. I am sick of the rebuilding, sick I the excuses, the lack of clarity. Just get out there and win Wallabies.

 

[Penguin]

Councils for closing grounds when it's raining in Australia so our players are limited in their experiences in those types of conditions.

Happened just last weekend in Brisbane, Souths postponed against Sunshine Coast after constant showers overnight. Really really not necessary & doesn't help us further up the tiers.

 

[Dam0]

I am hesitant to blame it all on the strategy. The Wallabies had plenty of chances in the second half and should really have been able to score a try through their forwards. I think it was the lack of execution that really cost them. They were unable to get consistent quick ball that is the key for attacking rugby. It was a combination of a lack of aggression at the breakdown and urgency when the ball was cleared that did it for me.

Having said that, I would have taken the shots at goal, and looked to take a drop kick a bit earlier.

I also have an idea of what Deans is talking about when he talks a bit cryptically about DNA. The All Blacks would never have lost that game, they would have found a way to win, by fair or foul means if necessary. I think Deans is a bit exasperated that his Wallabies keep losing against teams they should never lose to.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Anyone considered that no one is to blame except ourselves. Maybe we are just not good enough...

I think everyone is saying that.

 

[gel]

I also have an idea of what Deans is talking about when he talks a bit cryptically about DNA. The All Blacks would never have lost that game, they would have found a way to win, by fair or foul means if necessary. I think Deans is a bit exasperated that his Wallabies keep losing against teams they should never lose to.

You mean like, realize it wasn't working at the 60-65 minute mark and used the bench players as fresh options and change?

Like the way Deans did versus Samoa?

Like the way Deans did versus Ireland?

Like the way Deans did last night versus Scotland.

NOT using your full bench is a clear sign that you are not using every asset at your disposal in order to win.

Not using your full bench is also an indicator of a lack of game plan... Not a clear indicator, but an indicator nonetheless.

His success at super rugby level is something to truly admired, but I strongly doubt that coaching a week in, week out team is even remotely the same as coaching a team to play the one off games.

Also I don't want to hear "learning experience", "a lot to take away from that game in order to build", "work towards", etc anymore.

Enough time has passed. The Deans plan should be self evident by now surely (and it isn't).

The only consistency under Deans is the ability to lose to significantly lower ranked teams. Consistently.

 

[barbarian]

I dispute that. I thought the bench was used just fine. I would much rather have had Stephen Moore on the pitch in the last 10 than Saia Fainga'a.

The backline changes would not have made a bar of difference. Maybe Phipps should have been brought on as Genia was playing poorly, but I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer a bad Genia to a standard Phipps.

 

[vidiot]

I dispute that. I thought the bench was used just fine. I would much rather have had Stephen Moore on the pitch in the last 10 than Saia Fainga'a.

The backline changes would not have made a bar of difference. Maybe Phipps should have been brought on as Genia was playing poorly, but I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer a bad Genia to a standard Phipps.

It would have been a dice roll, and despite their mediocrity, they were 6-6 and playing in the Scotttish quarter until the last few minutes. It seemed like they would fall over the line. Waratah/Force style. Oops.

 

[qwerty51]

Anyone considered that no one is to blame except ourselves. Maybe we are just not good enough...

The thing is we're the closest team to the All Blacks, we have the best winning record against them in recent times (however poor that may be). We beat Wales twice last year who went on to win the 6N. We've beaten the Springboks 6 times from the last 7. That's an incredible record. We're clearly good enough. However, we always find a way to play to the opposition and lose to teams we shouldn't.

 

[Athilnaur]

In regards our supposed standing as the no2 rugby country and our trinations record of last few years: hate to say it but I think our streak of wins against the boks is about to end. There's been a bit of rhetoric here we are the second best team, but let's not kid ourselves. RSA are a sleeping giant that no longer snors and Australia is a country where union is a distant third.

I wonder if Deans will get any credit if we manage to win the 4nations. Nah.

Ath.

 

[tragic]

The thing is we're the closest team to the All Blacks, we have the best winning record against them in recent times (however poor that may be). We beat Wales twice last year who went on to win the 6N. We've beaten the Springboks 6 times from the last 7. That's an incredible record. We're clearly good enough. However, we always find a way to play to the opposition and lose to teams we shouldn't.

Fair enough, although I would argue that the All Blacks are still a class above - they have consistency, and still manage to win ugly on an off night playing smart rugby.
We on the other hand have been the masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I agree we have the potential, and a good night can beat anyone. The stars have to align however, because on a bad night we can lose to anyone.
Despite being the 2nd ranked team I would hazard a guess we have lost to more lower ranked teams than the rest of the top three (although I would be happy to stand corrected on that one) That lack of consistency comes down to individual fortitude and ability.
In my mind that means we aren't good enough..... yet.

 

[tragic]

Anyone considered that no one is to blame except ourselves. Maybe we are just not good enough...

Of course I may be just convincing myself that we are overrated so that my expectations are lowered and my psyche is less battered when we bottle it... and I am more overjoyed when we overcome our inevitable inconsistency and mediocracy to win against the odds...

 

[Garry Owen]

We did that. I thought the basic plan was good - as evidenced in the first half. Pick and go, done well got us out of our 22 and half very nicely. Trying to hold the ball for 20 phases would always be tough, but they did it pretty well. Second half, we got into good position the same way, started to make some holes ( Barnes inside ball to Ioane) and should have capitalised. But we tried to do too much at the wrong times, when there was slow or back foot ball was not the time for moving it wider or going one out.
We should have taken the 3.
We should have kept them there with little grubbers or chips behind the fast defence if needs be.
The execution at critical times was poor, and some bad decisions made by players who probably should do better.
So yeah, maybe a Plan B, but I don't think what looked like Plan A was busted, just not done as well as it should have been.
I'm not apologising for the coaches necessarily, but I don't think they went about that all wrong, planning wise.

That plan A was busted in Murrayfield Scotland, last time we lost to them. Unfortunately our coaches, and some supporters have chose to pull the blind down on that one.

 

[Garry Owen]

I felt Barnes and Genia played too conservatively. Their desire to hang onto the ball by keeping it close to the rucks, precluded the use of the short kick behind the defensive line and the use of Ioane and Tomane out wide.

Deans should be given credit for blooding the young guys. I thought they played well.

But Deans should not have to wear any blame for the conservative game plan that played to Scotlands strengths, nor for the resulting retarding of those said young guys confidence after blooding them to a loss to the lowly Scots?

 

[Gnostic]

Let me say in those conditions, and there I got a full taste of how bad it was, (It wasn't cyclonic not matter what some here like to say) the tactics were correct. The execution was woeful. One out runner hammering the line. Hammering with a kiddies toy squeaky mallet. The runners were flat foot and static when they recieved the ball. and soon after the defender. How were they ever going to breach the line with static attack. Nobody was in motion and the runner was even pointed out by Genia (I almost typed Gregan there I wonder why?) I know the ready excuse is that Deans had this side for what two days. The fact is he selected his favourites at the exclusion of players in better form in some cases so they knew how he would want to play the game. The fact is that the TEAM showed no energy and no real drive. Their static ruck to ruck game is just rubbish and does absolutely nothing at all. It doesn't tie up defenders as the one or two at each ruck are replced by the one or two from the ruck before it is so slow. Inavariably more Wallaby forward are committed to each ruck to maintain the ball than are committed by the defenders. It is just dumb rugby, if one lowers the name to call it hat. Just stupid useless, aimless play.

One thing about the Wallabies attack, the Scots were offisde most of the time, yes they were fast off the line but that line was at least half if not a full metre offside most of the time. This isn't just in this game, it is endemic at all levels of Rugby at the moment IMO. More than anything else I hope to see the IRB crack down on the offside line at all phases. That will do a huge amount to improve the attacking fortunes of all teams.

 

[Garry Owen]

The funny thing with Robinson's quote is that his game plan was exactly the same as Robbies.

I reckon Robbie would have liked to have seen it go a bit wider a couple of times but Genia's play was pretty poor and didn't help this at all.

I still think Andy Robinson has hardly got the record that would make me want to start changing much.

BR,

I'd say that's Robinsons point. He realises Scotlands limitations, and the WB's outlandish potential, and can't fathom why we didn't use our strengths.

Yes, that is the Scott's game plan and they do it well. We do not....bleeding obvious to all except those that matter?

 

[Garry Owen]

Much like many of the posts, I don't think it came down to an individual having an off game, I thought it was the team just not being able to deal with the conditions and play accordingly. After the first 'clearing kick' in the first half, I would have thought that would be put in the pile of 'not going to work for the next 40 min'. Barnes got some good position early in the first half with a kick stabbed low to the ground, so I thought they had actually started to adapt, but it didnt turn out that way. The defence when the scots had the ball in that initial half was brilliant. they were camped in the wallabies 22 for a while. Unfortunately, the Scots were much, much better at the breakdown. In attack the numbers piled in to secure the ball, barring the few times when pocock made the tackle and won the penalty. In defence they had much more urgancy, coming through the ruck and spoiling the ball for Genia.

Genia had an average game. In the second half when he started to give quick ball to the forwards and having a couple of snipes it made such a difference. But that quick ball was stifled by a massive boot coming through from Gray or one of the other scots coming through the ruck.

Barnes didn't look anywhere near confident of getting the ball out to Harris or beyond. More often than not when there was the opportunity go wide he would step of his outside foot. Became predictable very quickly. He had some deft kicks including the cross field one to Ioane that had me momentarily out of my seat. He was also solid in defence and he hit quite a few rucks when one of the forwards got isolated. I thought it was one of his better games this year. but thats not saying too much.

Obviously it was a battle for the forwards to play out (seriously, who'd wanna be a back in a game like that!?) but I thought scotland were deserved winners. Even in the last few minutes, there was no urgency to the wallabies defence. They didnt try to counter ruck, they didnt rush up to try take the scots behind the ad-line. They looked very complacent.

Hopefully they can play with a bit more urgency against Wales.

Unfortunately the recipe to knock over the WB's has become well known.

A. Slow the WB ruck ball as much as the Ref will allow.

B. Rush up defense on the WB backline.

Oppositon coaches worked it out some time ago, but our coaches haven't been able come up with a plan to counter it. Why?