Wallabies versus Wales- SFS

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Look it wasn't a performance for the ages, but I thought the basics were all pretty good. Our forwards had yet another good game and we secured our own ball well. Defence was pretty solid. Our issue was converting half-breaks into breaks and breaks into tries. But there is always something to work on.

But I'm tired of having to give a long list of reasons why I am happy after a Wallaby win quite frankly.
.

Well said fella. Anyone would think we've just been spanked 3-0.

My biggest single criticism would be the lack of variety in attack and that's something we'll need to rectify. With Cooper and JOC (James O'Connor) coming back into the mix, I think that will happen. The pack are going alright and our defence is good. However against the Boks and AB's, we'll need to score more.

 

[Ignoto]

In 2 of those of those games, the All Blacks were near perfect, and thats where we need to be to win the 4Ns this year. Its not that the Irish didn't play, it's that the Irish couldn't play because the All Blacks completely dominated them in every facet of the game.

The thing is, the All Blacks were allowed to play in that way because the Irish let them. They fell off tackles and didn't shut down SBW who just created holes left right and centre for Dagg, Savea and Smith to cause chaos.

Watch the Irish and the Welsh and you know what the biggest difference is? The speed in which they leave their line. The Welsh were borderline offside and what did it do? It created pressure on us and stopped our backs from being effective.

Don't get me wrong, the All Blacks looked fantastic, but people aren't really comparing the two teams properly. The quality of opposition is light and day, the lack of fitness showed on the Irish and just let the Kiwis seal off their own ball which further allowed them to twist the knife.

 

[Jiggles]

The first 30 minutes of the first test, the Irish were in the game then the All Blacks kicked up a gear. I don't really agree with your light and day assessment, I think the Welsh were pretty piss poor to be honest and were not what I was expecting at all.

Anyway I've made my points as to why I think these tests are nothing to write home about or be overly happy with, so I wont go on. Hopefully we get a game-plan and start executing the basic things correctly by the August 18, but after watching the Deans circus for 4 and a bit years I doubt it.

 

[gel]

My point is the stats don't match your opinion of Timani. They say he had a good game and I tend to agree.
.

No. You said he had the x factor that differentiated him from all the rest.

He did NOT display that supposed prowess in any way shape or form. In the first half he had a run at a guy one zillionth the size of him and had half a paddock of room to move. He got TACKLED. Didn't run over the defender. Didn't run rings around him. Didn't offload to digby on the outside. Just got tackled.

So, in conclusion, you approve of him because he had an ordinary game, something that all the others running around have had more of and more consistently.

How about you just say the bleeding obvious then... YOU approve of him because he is a tah and that is it. Plain and simple.

 

[gel]

My biggest single criticism would be the lack of variety in attack and that's something we'll need to rectify. With Cooper and JOC (James O'Connor) coming back into the mix, I think that will happen. The pack are going alright and our defence is good. However against the Boks and AB's, we'll need to score more.

Agreed. On the whole,these guys did the job (except for the obvious one mentioned previously ), but the zippy moves are not quite there. I would just like to see mostly the same team to maintain consistency and teamwork and the coordinated attack moves worked on to crack the defenses. I don't like solely relying on KB (Kurtley Beale) or QC (Quade Cooper) to do their magic, because it doesn't always happen and there is no fallback position.

 

[Gnostic]

Well said fella. Anyone would think we've just been spanked 3-0.

My biggest single criticism would be the lack of variety in attack and that's something we'll need to rectify. With Cooper and JOC (James O'Connor) coming back into the mix, I think that will happen. The pack are going alright and our defence is good. However against the Boks and AB's, we'll need to score more.

I won't even bother arguing with those who are willfully blind or perhaps lack the ability to be critical and disguise this with a form of fatalistic optimism.

However TBH you have displayed on plenty of times the ability to offer such reviews. Thinking about the game plan that the Wallabies used not only during this test but also against the Welsh on the EOYT do you really see a place for Cooper? JOC (James O'Connor) perhaps but not at 10, more than likely at 15.

Is a team a collection of the best individuals, or a group formed to provide the best balance to play a particular game plan, which may or may not be the "best" players in each position?

My point is that if the Wallabies want to play the brick wall defence game they started with in the RWC then there is no place for Cooper and perhaps only one of JOC (James O'Connor) or Beale on the field at any one time. Furthermore if that is the game plan I do not understand why they do not play with the best long tactical kicker in Oz, M. Gerrard. Now if fast ball movement is the name of the the game then Cooper should play and players like AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) have no place in the starting 15 as he is too slow to provide the outright pace needed and rarely beats anybody one on one. So unless the game plan is going to change I don't know if you will see Cooper back in the 15 and if he is back there will that game plan allow him to use those skills or will he be constrained and forced into a plan that he isn't suited for ala RWC and then shoulder the blame for a failed attack?

 

[barbarian]

No. You said he had the x factor that differentiated him from all the rest.

He did NOT display that supposed prowess in any way shape or form. In the first half he had a run at a guy one zillionth the size of him and had half a paddock of room to move. He got TACKLED. Didn't run over the defender. Didn't run rings around him. Didn't offload to digby on the outside. Just got tackled.

So, in conclusion, you approve of him because he had an ordinary game, something that all the others running around have had more of and more consistently.

How about you just say the bleeding obvious then. YOU approve of him because he is a tah and that is it. Plain and simple.

Haha.

Where did I say he had the x-factor? I said that before the game as an attempt to try and justify his selection, which I did not particularly agree with.

It seems like your expectations of the bloke were astronomically high. You wanted him to be the second row godzilla, smashing heads and scoring tries. Look I wanted him to be that too. I thought he might be able to do it one day. But I didn't expect a MoTM effort FFS.

But I'll settle for a good second rowers game- made his tackles, a couple of hitups, good work shifting bodies at the ruck. He also had a few nice touches that we haven't seen from the other Aussie second rowers- a linebreak create through a good offload in contact. Clearly Deans sees these glimpses and likes what he sees. I can't blame him.

But yes, if it makes you feel better, I approve of him only because he is a Waratah. Tom Carter for president, yada yada yada.
.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Yes we have just won a series, in some respects, by a bees dick, but we won.

No one in Gaggerland should be under any illusion that there is a tsunami of Darkness building up on the horizon.

That is why we are perhaps so critical of missed opportunities in this series.

If I was Dingo, I would be rather apprehensive.

History tells us that we have a healthy disregard for the supposed divine rights of those from the land of the Long Flat Vowel and do enough to beat them against the odds, and have been doing so with regularity since the early eighties. Really pisses the Lords of Darkness off.

Bring it on.

 

[Gnostic]

The thing is, the All Blacks were allowed to play in that way because the Irish let them. They fell off tackles and didn't shut down SBW who just created holes left right and centre for Dagg, Savea and Smith to cause chaos.

Watch the Irish and the Welsh and you know what the biggest difference is? The speed in which they leave their line. The Welsh were borderline offside and what did it do? It created pressure on us and stopped our backs from being effective.

Don't get me wrong, the All Blacks looked fantastic, but people aren't really comparing the two teams properly. The quality of opposition is light and day, the lack of fitness showed on the Irish and just let the Kiwis seal off their own ball which further allowed them to twist the knife.

The Irish were shot ducks yesterday, it was obvious after the first 5 minutes. There was just nothing left in the tank. I do not doubt that they tried hard but the extra 5% that we saw in the first two tests just wasn't there. So in that regard the Irish did let the ABs play. The Irish did however show in the first two games the level of intensity and accuracy that will be required in the forthcoming series.

I also said in the NZ thread that after the second test lost the NZ press and fans were critical of the ABs game in a number of areas. Almost miraculously they come out firing on all cylinders and particularly the weak areas from the previous test were addressed. The contrast in how other country's critique their teams is amazing. Look at the Wallabies, after the Scotland test there were posts amounting to abuse and singling out of players etc. Rarely was there true review in a wholistic fashion. Then follow the three "wins" and anybody offering anything but the "positive" view point is derided, belittled or dimissed. It is a big reason why good players and coaches fail to develop and fail to achieve in Oz IMO. If real critique was forced on the Tahs would Foley, a technically astute coach who has the loyalty of his players, be fighting and unlikely to retain his position? It is likely that the poisoned chalice of Oz Rugby (the Tahs) will claim another scalp and it will be because few dare to tell the truth and those that do are shouted down by officials and vested interests.

 

[Jnor]

I don't really get a lot of the negativity around here either. There are areas that need working on and our inability to score more than a handful of tries and the state of the scrum are probably our two biggest worries.

BUT, this series I think I have seen some of the most patient and composed rugby yet produced by this Wallaby outfit. Often it wasn't pretty, lacked sparkle and sometimes basic things went wrong, but the team never lost composure and - most importantly - they got the job done.

For the first time in a long time I had faith that they would win the game from behind yesterday afternoon. I know there was a lot of guff last year about self belief and a 'we can beat anyone' attitude but these results point a good way in that direction for mine.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Does anyone outside the chosen few Gaggerland wangers actually read the free advice posted here?

Where I work, we pay some media monitoring mob to send us a daily summary of the industry media mentions (Articles in the Paper, transcripts from mentions on TV and Radio). Not sure if I can recall seeing any summary of web mentions.

Presumably the 'Tahs and Wobs receive similar. In terms of web mentions about the Wobs/'Tahs it wouldn't take too long or be too hard to get a summary of criticisms/feedback for the coaching and administrative staff at 'Tah land or the St Leonards Bunker.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some registered Gaggerlanders who are actually ARU/'Tah employees masquerading are punters.

 

[Athilnaur]

Gnostic, while I rarely agree with you views I think that was the most cohesive post I have seen challenging the thinking of Deans and Co selections. No surprise then that I did see a place for Gerrard in the team. But at the end of the day without two of JOC (James O'Connor), Ioane, and Beale you needed another attacking weapon.

For me that attacking weapon is JOC (James O'Connor) on the wing not at 12. By having a steel midfield and wingers/fullback (Ioane, JOC (James O'Connor), Beale) who aren't afraid to go looking while the midfield challenges defences with good running lines (a big if I grant you, but I saw some good progress here vs Wales and we have seen it from the Brumbies many times) you field a very dangerous team.

I can see JOC (James O'Connor) at 13 because he is a superb tackler of runners in space, but we would lose some dominant tacking to shut down aggressive flankers and centres, when he frequently moves into the 13 space on attack anyway.

Beale was rusty, but that will come off fast.

To continue the analogy, the best swords have hard and soft steels.

 

[Braveheart81]

I also said in the NZ thread that after the second test lost the NZ press and fans were critical of the ABs game in a number of areas. Almost miraculously they come out firing on all cylinders and particularly the weak areas from the previous test were addressed. The contrast in how other country's critique their teams is amazing. Look at the Wallabies, after the Scotland test there were posts amounting to abuse and singling out of players etc. Rarely was there true review in a wholistic fashion. Then follow the three "wins" and anybody offering anything but the "positive" view point is derided, belittled or dimissed. It is a big reason why good players and coaches fail to develop and fail to achieve in Oz IMO. If real critique was forced on the Tahs would Foley, a technically astute coach who has the loyalty of his players, be fighting and unlikely to retain his position? It is likely that the poisoned chalice of Oz Rugby (the Tahs) will claim another scalp and it will be because few dare to tell the truth and those that do are shouted down by officials and vested interests.

The World Champion All Blacks are the number one ranked side by a considerable margin and were playing eighth ranked Ireland.

We are ranked second and played the 6 Nations champions Wales who are ranked fourth in the world.

There is a reason why we should be more positive about beating Wales in a close game than the Kiwis were about the closeness of the second test.

 

[cyclopath]

As is the mod "I'm so impartial, reasonable, tolerant and all-knowing" persona. Internet tough guy , have I threatened you or something? Furthermore there can be no irony; there are no Brumbies bar McCabe in the starting XV and he nearly bled to death after 20 mins (the self-serving Brumby cvnt!) .

I apologise. I was quite wrong. You apparently don't grasp irony at all. Threatened? Umm, no, not by you. Just referring to your literary style.

 

[ChargerWA]

It seems like the negativity on here is partly a reaction to the perceived superior performance by the Darkness.

You can only play the opposition you are facing, and to extrapolate that the Wallabies will be hopelessly out gunned in the 4N's by comparing the two games is bad analysis.

But more to the point, why all of a sudden the expectation of lofty standards in a team coached by Robbie Deans?

 

[gel]

Haha.

Where did I say he had the x-factor? I said that before the game as an attempt to try and justify his selection, which I did not particularly agree with.

It seems like your expectations of the bloke were astronomically high. You wanted him to be the second row godzilla, smashing heads and scoring tries. Look I wanted him to be that too. I thought he might be able to do it one day. But I didn't expect a MoTM effort FFS.

But I'll settle for a good second rowers game- made his tackles, a couple of hitups, good work shifting bodies at the ruck. He also had a few nice touches that we haven't seen from the other Aussie second rowers- a linebreak create through a good offload in contact. Clearly Deans sees these glimpses and likes what he sees. I can't blame him.

But yes, if it makes you feel better, I approve of him only because he is a Waratah. Tom Carter for president, yada yada yada.
.

The thing I take exception to is that you said:

"Timani is a big, hard bastard who can bang heads and run over people with the ball. That is something you cannot say of any other Aussie second rower at the moment."

and

"Yeah, but how is the ability to run over people a bad thing?"

and this is why you justified why you thought he was selected over the others.

However now, you will "settle for a good second rowers game- made his tackles, a couple of hitups, good work shifting bodies at the ruck".

If you were willing to settle for that, then why do you feel OK about dropping Simmons to the bench? Why not settle for Pyle instead? Or any of the other guys running around playing solidly for that matter? You said as much, I know, but I still don't see why you needed to try to justify his selection. It truly boggles my mind.

He had his opportunity to run over a MUCH smaller guy and didn't, because he can't lift to the higher level of test rugby where the opposition know how to defend against guys bigger than themselves.

I would be inclined to think that he will eventually improve into whatever wrecking ball he could be, but until that day he should NOT be robbing others of the opportunity to shine when they are ALREADY delivering better than he does.

 

[barbarian]

Look mate it's clear you have made up your mind on this so there is no real point in me replying.

All I will say is Timani did everything Simmons did in the first two tests, and on top of that gave three offloads in the tackle, one of which created a linebreak.

For his third test I'd suggest it wasn't a bad day's work. Could Pyle or Douglas have done better? Maybe. We'll never know.
.

 

[Garry Owen]

In short I think all is pretty good in Wallaby world at the moment.
So I'm pretty happy- something I now expect to be slammed for in following posts.
.

No slam here. Just Respect.

But I'm feeling that we supporters are in danger of have our expectations dumbed down by the mediocity of the Deans tenure. The talent in our ranks is obvious, but our game is lacking in plenty, including structure, basic executions, and a discernable game plan. Our backline attack seems to revolve around relying on one or two of our stars' flashes of brilliance, but falls to pieces because of the lack of support, or basic skills. We don't seem to have any idea of how to utilise our strengths, or even put our champions into situations to best take advantage of their skills. Our inabilities in this area really makes us laughable to the rugby world at large.

We have scrummagers in our ranks , but they aren't getting (opportunities like this series) to gain necessary experience to take on the SANZARS, and it's no suprise when players are thrown in at the last moment, and become overwelmed by the occasion. Our lineout has promise, but TPN chokes on the big occassions, and we cannot correct basics like kickoff receives.

To say all is good, you really need to step back and look at us in comparison to the other SANZARS which is a better litmus. Both SA and NZ, off the back of their last week wins had the confidence to bring in changes to attempt to increase their depth with a view to the upcoming RC. We were primarily concerned with a win. And watching the games over the weekend, I'm not feeling optimistic of our chances, but we only have to lose a couple more players due to injury, and it could easily turn embarrasing.

BB, we've known better days, and will again. But to say all is well, your not aiming near high enough.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

..... Could Pyle or Douglas have done better? Maybe. We'll never know.
.

If Black Caviar had stopped for a crap, it would not have won at Royal Ascot. It didn't stop for a crap, so we'll never know.

Idle speculation.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Agreed. On the whole,these guys did the job (except for the obvious one mentioned previously ), but the zippy moves are not quite there. I would just like to see mostly the same team to maintain consistency and teamwork and the coordinated attack moves worked on to crack the defenses. I don't like solely relying on KB (Kurtley Beale) or QC (Quade Cooper) to do their magic, because it doesn't always happen and there is no fallback position.

Definitely. We rely far too much on moments of brilliance from our admittedly brilliant individual players. I'm old enough to remember the days when we ran beautiful moves that sliced open defences. And that's even in the battle hardened defences of the pro era too.

At some point we've started to play a fifteen man version of league and I'm frankly not that in love with it. With that said, we do show glimpses every now and then of great moves in first phase play. A lot of them come from Cooper's fantastic passing and I look forward to him challenging for the 10 jersey again, because I think our attack functions best when he is involved.