Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Indeed, but unfortunately he only uses his considerable skills sporadically.
Wobblies v pumas - is Salta at altitude edition
- Thread starter A mutterer
- Start date
- Status
Indeed, but unfortunately he only uses his considerable skills sporadically.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
The three tests a year thing is a relatively modern phenomenon. The ARU wanted to play the ABs as much as possible as a revenue raising exercise - which is quite a good strategy. Where they've fallen down is the other part of the strategy, which is to develop the game so that we have enough talent to match them. Hence being unable to sell out a Bledisloe these days.
In the 60s, 70s and 80s every two years there was an alternate 3 test tour (i.e. a home series every 4 years)
As Australia became more competitive in the late 80s and 90s the frequency of the series increased, firstly to an annual series 1 test home and away and then as part of the tri-nations, then a 3rd Bledisloe was added each year to prevent a drawn series and now the TRC, again with a 3rd decider added.
Forcefield
Ken Catchpole (46)
Funny thing about RWCs is that the number 1 and number 2 ranked teams don't tend to face each other in the final. Sure they did in 2015, but we very nearly got knocked out by Scotland, how about before that?
2011- New Zealand (Ranked 1) beat France (Ranked 4) in the final. France were proper shit in the pools losing to Tonga and New Zealand, won a cripple fight against England in the quarters and profited off a Sam Warburton red card (and still almost lost!) in the semis.
2007- South Africa (Ranked 4) beat England (Ranked 7) in the final. South Africa were pretty average in the Tri-Nations (1 win) and had lost 49-0 (!!!- I don't often pity opposition but that was an exception) to Australia the year before. Two of the least inspiring teams ever to come up against each other in the final.
2003- Pretty sure no rankings at that stage. England were expected to go through but we beat New Zealand after being embarrassed in the Tri-Nations.
Not to paper over some serious bloody cracks in the Wallabies side, form 12 months out from the RWC doesn't necessarily predict much. Form 1 month out/in the pool stages doesn't seem to either. I'm not a big Cheika fan (but also not advocating for him to be dumped), but I actually think his style is probably well suited RWC style competition.
2011- New Zealand (Ranked 1) beat France (Ranked 4) in the final. France were proper shit in the pools losing to Tonga and New Zealand, won a cripple fight against England in the quarters and profited off a Sam Warburton red card (and still almost lost!) in the semis.
2007- South Africa (Ranked 4) beat England (Ranked 7) in the final. South Africa were pretty average in the Tri-Nations (1 win) and had lost 49-0 (!!!- I don't often pity opposition but that was an exception) to Australia the year before. Two of the least inspiring teams ever to come up against each other in the final.
2003- Pretty sure no rankings at that stage. England were expected to go through but we beat New Zealand after being embarrassed in the Tri-Nations.
Not to paper over some serious bloody cracks in the Wallabies side, form 12 months out from the RWC doesn't necessarily predict much. Form 1 month out/in the pool stages doesn't seem to either. I'm not a big Cheika fan (but also not advocating for him to be dumped), but I actually think his style is probably well suited RWC style competition.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Yep. Bringing Giteau back was a master stroke IMHO as well. Overall the defence was pretty excellent too, especially the Wales game. I was at Twickenham that night and couldn't believe how they aimed up with two men down. Dunno what's happened to that since.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Tournament play is a different situation. You can build momentum game to game and it suits Cheika's personality more.
formerflanker
Ken Catchpole (46)
A strategy question on "exiting the 22".
It seems the Wallabies usually hit the ball up several times through the forwards, after catching the kick off.
The takes the breakdown outside of the 22, meaning the kicker cannot put the ball out on the full.
A short range box kick would be suicide from there. Therefore the only option is a long range kick to the waiting "back 3" who now counter attack.
Why the insistence on taking away the option of kicking from inside the 22?
It seems the Wallabies usually hit the ball up several times through the forwards, after catching the kick off.
The takes the breakdown outside of the 22, meaning the kicker cannot put the ball out on the full.
A short range box kick would be suicide from there. Therefore the only option is a long range kick to the waiting "back 3" who now counter attack.
Why the insistence on taking away the option of kicking from inside the 22?
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
They do it every game and it mystifies me.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Fair comment and this may work in Cheika's favour. What I noticed about the Wallabies in the second half on the weekend is how much simpler their game plan was. Very little miracle ball footy and more old fashioned up the guts and *then* spread it wide. Short balls in space and good tactical kicking. That would be better tournament play than what they've dished up this year. How about some more of that!
Forcefield
Ken Catchpole (46)
Maybe we are backing our defenders to tackle the opposition at the halfway line. Better to have a ruck on the halfway than a line-out? Particularly if our forwards are going forward and theirs are retreating?
Basically the same team went toe to toe with Ireland and has been competitive with most others. That's all you need to make a RWC final.
The overall trajectory is down, but they are obviously capable of winning some big games if healthy and playing their best.
I always say every team that's competitive is 5 players away from taking a huge step forward or back. Whether it is 5 new impact players, people being in form etc. Not impossible to see how this could happen.
Add McMahon, the 8, Kerevi, Jones, Dempsey, maybe even Skeleton, better form from Coleman, Hooper, Beale. It can be turned around. Not saying it will, just that it is conceivable. Add in some better coaching and it can right itself somewhat.
The overall trajectory is down, but they are obviously capable of winning some big games if healthy and playing their best.
I always say every team that's competitive is 5 players away from taking a huge step forward or back. Whether it is 5 new impact players, people being in form etc. Not impossible to see how this could happen.
Add McMahon, the 8, Kerevi, Jones, Dempsey, maybe even Skeleton, better form from Coleman, Hooper, Beale. It can be turned around. Not saying it will, just that it is conceivable. Add in some better coaching and it can right itself somewhat.
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
That's been well covered and it's certainly a pertinent point. But no-one cuts us any slack when we have to play without Pocock, Hooper or Folau. Argentina failed to adjust and we capitalised.
Up the Guts
Steve Williams (59)
Trying to drag one of their wingers into the line to create a bit more space as well I’d say.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
As if on cue Nick responds
https://www.news.com.au/sport/nick-...e/news-story/73669d448e4930ab3de73bf4325231c2
ShtinaTina
Alex Ross (28)
what does that even mean?
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Shows the value of a dominant 10 though.
Brumbieman
Dick Tooth (41)
I'm guessing I was talking about the two birds with the dirty look in their eyes? TBH no real idea though, don't even remember that series of posts
ShtinaTina
Alex Ross (28)
I'm guessing I was talking about the two birds with the dirty look in their eyes? TBH no real idea though, don't even remember that series of posts
hmm, odd comment & bizarre way to say it, could've just said it like your reply, your comment made it sound seedy
- Status