The Wallabies Thread

[RoffsChoice]

Individual brilliance can really make the difference (Pocock v South Africa in the 2011 RWC, Barnes in all three Wales games in 2012, Foley v England in the 2015 RWC), but it's dominance and control that wins you a rugby game.

If you have an impenetrable defence, a breakdown presence that secures your own ball and slows down or steals the opponent's, and a set-piece that wins all its own ball and steals half the opponent's, then chances are you'll win the game. And most, if not all, of that comes from having the better forward pack. Teach your backs to position themselves defensively, make sure they can tackle, and then beef up the forward pack.

Not saying that's the only way to win. Obviously we have a bit of a history of winning games when we turn them into a shootout, and the effect of shock-and-awe has kept us in plenty of games. But the list of tier one sides that don't prioritise a good defence, set piece, and forward pack are us, Scotland, and Italy, and that's not the best list to be on.

 

[Lorenzo]

I agree generally that rugby is won in the pigs, but the inside backs have a pretty critical role to play in terms of what happens to the ball when they have it.

 

[Bobby Sands]

Why don't you just accept that we lose because we are shit all round and not because of a few marginal selections that you disagree with.

Because I refuse to accept losing on principle.

In order to try to solve a problem and change an outcome, you need to change parts of the process.

It's really not that complex.

 

[RoffsChoice]

I agree generally that rugby is won in the pigs, but the inside backs have a pretty critical role to play in terms of what happens to the ball when they have it.

Obviously you have to do something with the ball, but even a team that just retains possession and runs in a straight line will probably break the line or win a penalty eventually. You want to do more than that, I'm not going to say that I'd enjoy a backline doing nothing but crash ball, but you can win with that, and probably won't without defence, territory, and set piece.

 

[Lorenzo]

Believe me, I'm on board with 10 man rugby at this point. No argument here.

What I actually meant was that you can have forward parity or dominance and still balls it up by doing chip kicks or bombs in your own 22 and nonsense like that.

On the flipside, if you are a bit smart you can keep yourself in the match even if you are beaten in the pack.

 

[Up the Guts]

Because I refuse to accept losing on principle.

In order to try to solve a problem and change an outcome, you need to change parts of the process.

It's really not that complex.

I would say the first step towards solving the problem is accepting that changing a couple of positions isn’t going to improve the Wallabies. If there were better 10s than Foley they’d be in the side, if there was a better backrow combination we’d have it in place.

 

[Lorenzo]

I would say the first step towards solving the problem is accepting that changing a couple of positions isn’t going to improve the Wallabies. If there were better 10s than Foley they’d be in the side, if there was a better backrow combination we’d have it in place.

Sorry, but this just isn't correct. You are effectively saying that Chieka's selections are perfect and that without 23 new stud players, there is no way in which we might improve. That is a pretty big call, given that we've been facing the same structural problems for rugby's entire existence as a pro sport, and Chieka hsa the equal worst record of the lot of them.

Can people imagine if Greg smith been given the same latitude as Chieka, and had 5 years to figure out what to do instead of 1? We'd never have seen McQueen's bold moves (like playing a fullback at 10) and we'd quite possibly be sitting here talking about a 25 year Bledisloe drought instead of a 15 year one. McQueen didn't get a whole new generation of players, he basically had the same group of players to pick from that Smith did.

Forums weren't a thing then, but the attitudes were the same in 1997, in the shadows of an unsuccessful 1995 campaign and 3rd place in the 1996 and 1997 tri nations. We don't have the cattle. The stars from 1991 have all gone/are injured and we are doing the best we can with the players available. All the promising young players go to league. Deckchairs on the titanic and all that.

 

[Slim 293]

So, in the example you’ve given you’ve highlighted a change in coach, not the players, as was being discussed............

 

[Lorenzo]

So, in the example you’ve given you’ve highlighted a change in coach, not the players, as was being discussed....

My post was, I guess, partially in response to the "it's all hopeless, we won't be ranked higher than 5th for another 20 years because of RA's long term neglect and there's no point attempting to improve at the wallaby level" attitudes that have become increasingly prevalent.

That said, coaches enjoy different results with different players (at times). The first step is acknowledging you haven't got it right yet, which might be Chieka's problem. The post I was responding to suggested that we know Foley is the best 10 because he's playing, which might not be right, but might need a new coach to correct.

 

[Derpus]

Your 'radical change' of team involves bringing back a 10 who for much of those 16 years consistently failed against the All Blacks.

Brilliant brilliant argument. Sack the coach (at a cost of millions) and bring in a change agent (at a cost of millions) to bring in a 10 who failed historically in the Bledisloe.

 

[Lorenzo]

I'm not advocating for Cooper. You mentioned his name, and I pointed at that he has had about as much success as Foley. I wonder if you thought changing 10s was pointless when Cooper was playing?

In any event, you have said that we should basically give up trying to beat the All Blacks. Perhaps we should try to beat Scotland at home, and get within 20 points of them away? Or does RA's long term neglect give Chieka a pass for that, too?

 

[Derpus]

He doesn't get a pass for any of it. He doesn't get a pass for three years of terrible results and even worse defence. Nor does Foley for being pretty bloody mediocre.

The point is, what the fuck do we do about it? All the solutions are systemic and long term. Our shit coaching pathways mean we have no better realistic coaching options. Our shit financial position means we can't really afford to sack him. Our shit player pathways mean underperforming players retain their spots because we have no depth.

I just don't get what you want. We can make minor changes to the starting line-up and coaching team but it's just fucking around on the fringes and won't do jack fuck shit all against the All Blacks who's third string side would give us a run for our money.

 

[Lorenzo]

He doesn't get a pass for any of it. He doesn't get a pass for three years of terrible results and even worse defence. Nor does Foley for being pretty bloody mediocre.

The point is, what the fuck do we do about it? All the solutions are systemic and long term. Our shit coaching pathways mean we have no better realistic coaching options. Our shit financial position means we can't really afford to sack him. Our shit player pathways mean underperforming players retain their spots because we have no depth.

I just don't get what you want. We can make minor changes to the starting line-up and coaching team but it's just fucking around on the fringes and won't do jack fuck shit all against the All Blacks who's third string side would give us a run for our money.

I don't disagree with much of your post, but shouldn't we be trying to stay ranked 3rd rather than 6th? Or should we pack it up entirely because we can't beat the ABs 40% of the time?

Are losses to fucking Scotland at home foregone conclusions because of the systemic problems we have, or are there still things we can do to ensure we stay competitive at the wallaby level at least with teams that aren't New Zealand, despite the challenges facing the game at every level above GPS?

Fucking hell - we have always had no money, a shit structure (no national club comp in which to blood players and coaches), a very small base (private schools), and a massive battle to retain eyeballs (the other 3 sports) and players (league early on, more recently overseas). But for the most part it hasn't been this bad.

 

[Derpus]

But they are trying? Of course they are trying. They all looked pretty gutted to me after Bled 1.

 

[wamberal]

Fucking hell - we have always had no money, a shit structure (no national club comp in which to blood players and coaches), a very small base (private schools), and a massive battle to retain eyeballs (the other 3 sports) and players (league). But for the most part it hasn't been this bad.

I think it is pretty obvious that the Irish and Scottish, in particular, are both a lot better than they were in the early days of lawful professionalism. We actually adapted a whole lot quicker in the pro era precisely because we were able to import a lot of ideas from league, particularly in defence.


We should aim for the top, but not be too surprised when we run about where we are now. We are up against some very strong competition, both home (from the other codes) as well as internationally.

 

[Derpus]

I think it is pretty obvious that the Irish and Scottish, in particular, are both a lot better than they were in the early days of lawful professionalism. We actually adapted a whole lot quicker in the pro era precisely because we were able to import a lot of idea from league, particularly in defence.


We should aim for the top, but not be too surprised when we run about where we are now. We are up against some very strong competition, both home (from the other codes) as well as internationally.

In the grand scheme of things this is probably a good thing. It's just hard to cop because we are the ones who suffer. Competition is good for the sport, current AB dominance not so much.

 

[RoffsChoice]

So, in the example you’ve given you’ve highlighted a change in coach, not the players, as was being discussed....

I'll go through the positions:
LHP: Sio is nailed on, though I hope Slipper or JP Smith offers some competition. Robertson has potential, but isn't up to the level of test rugby yet and should be kept away from it.
HK: Tatafu is nailed on, and we have a good young group coming through. Of the young guns, I have the most hope for Uelese, but Fainga'a and Latu also show a lot of promise. Fainga'a has the advantage over Latu in set piece work, I would say.
THP: Amazing depth out of nowhere. Should be Kepu with either Ala'alatoa or Tupou as reserve, but could honestly be any combination. We should just work out who combines best with Sio and Tatafu.
LK: Coleman a definite starter, and the main prerequisite for the other player should be forming a partnership with Coleman. That should rule out Simmons and Carter. Matt Philip is an obvious candidate, Rory Arnold has shown he can partner and has a great skill set, and Izack Rodda is a good workhorse. My preference would be Philip to start, Arnold off the bench, but I'd be happy to reverse that order.
BSF: One of the worst outcomes of picking Hanigan for the Wallabies last year is the contempt in some quarters for the guy. He's been a proper loose forward for the Tahs this season and I would be picking him or Ross Haylett-Petty at 6. McCaffrey came back guns blazing but I'm not going to pick him off of one season. Samu is not the lineout option we need in this position. I'm also interested to see how Dempsey recovers from his injury.
OSF: Hooper or Pocock, they should both be starting. We can win a lineout with three options, and Pocock can control the ball at the back of the scrum, so it's not an issue.
N8: Probably Pocock just to fit both our class 7s in the side. Timu and Naisarani excite me, but I want them to show more at Super level first.
SH: Genia or bust. Joe Powell and Nick Phipps are not what we want as a reserve scrumhalf. Powell never does well off the bench, and Phipps is not up to scratch. Not that we have depth at 9, but I'd be picking either Gordon or Prior.
FH: Foley is nailed on, but I hope To'omua can push him for it, if only to give Foley that push to perform.
WG: Koroibete and DHP are established, with Maddocks really knocking at the door. I think the best way to fit Hodge in, if that's our goal, is to play him in the DHP role, so I'll count him in the wingers. Muirhead could be something but needs to show more at Super level.
IC: Beale or bust. Hodge or Paia'aua to replace him should it hit the fan.
OC: Tevita Kuridrani and Petaia are the only real 13s with any Super experience; Kerevi knows how to tackle, but has basically zero awareness around his defensive positioning or when to make the tackle, Rona really fell apart at the end of the Tahs season, and Hodge is playing the same Jordie Barrett role that was brutally exposed when the Crusaders beat the Canes and then what they did to us in Sydney.
FB: Folau, Folau, Folau. DHP as injury cover, with Banks as a development option.


So my lineup right now would be:

1. Scott Sio
2. Tatafu Polota-Nau
3. Sekope Kepu
4. Matt Philip
5. Adam Coleman
6. Ned Hanigan
7. Michael Hooper
8. David Pocock
9. Will Genia
10. Bernard Foley
11. Marika Koroibete
12. Kurtley Beale
13. Jordan Petaia
14. Dane Haylett-Petty
15. Israel Folau

Subs: Folau Fainga'a, JP Smith, Allan Ala'alatoa, Rory Arnold, Ross Haylett-Petty, Ian Prior, Matt To'omua, Reece Hodge.

 

[Up the Guts]

Fucking hell - we have always had no money, a shit structure (no national club comp in which to blood players and coaches), a very small base (private schools), and a massive battle to retain eyeballs (the other 3 sports) and players (league early on, more recently overseas). But for the most part it hasn't been this bad.

Times are changing and other nations like Scotland and Ireland with small player bases, limited funds etc. are doing the grassroots and the organisational work much better while we're being left behind.

 

[Lorenzo]

Scotland has gone down to Fiji and the USA in the last 14 months, and thumped us in the meantime. Let's not get too carried away.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Times are changing and other nations like Scotland and Ireland with small player bases, limited funds etc. are doing the grassroots and the organisational work much better while we're being left behind.

Ireland had arevenue equaivalent to $135m AUD last year and Scotland had $100m. We generate around $120m each year normally.

They aren't really playing with limited funds any more. The timezone and market they're in are going to equalize a lot of these things over time

Edit - rereading I see I agree with you!. no argument with what they are doing with that money though