Hickey and Foley plan at the Tahs.
How conveniently you forget that it was almost identical to the McKenzie plan at the Tahs. He practically began the whole trend. And please, don't wank on about a particular move our philosophy that proves where Link was different. I know he said almost the same thing to journos that Hickey did: we are playing the game we can.
He played a ten man game at NSW because those were the cattle he had. No one gave a fuck then because they won more than they lost and made finals. He plays a different game at Queensland because he has different cattle.
The problem Hickey had is that people became disillusioned with it by then because the shine was coming off i.e. he was losing. Foley was just shit and nobody liked the bloke.
I argued strongly against it then that it would indeed grind out some close fought victories and just as many close fought losses with a few inexplicable capitulations thrown in. They never sought to dominate and dictate the play and this Wallabies set up doesn't either.
You don't actually make any sense. We have had this conversation before, but do you honestly think that - in this series, after these two close and thrilling games - the public cares what style we play as long as we win?
You're constantly calling for us to play exciting rugby, when it's just not warranted in certain instances. You drone and blare and gargle on about what it's doing to the finances when all that matters next Saturday to the ARU coffers is that they sold out the stadium and that the team wins. In a thriller preferably, but they'd take a thrashing of the men in red just as well.
The fact is we HAVE played some exciting rugby. We've thrown it wide, busted it up in close, scrummed it, mauled it, and done basically everything there is in the game to take victory. But you're still not happy.
It's no surprise. You're basically a Quade apologist and a retcon specialist.
-----------------------
I hate autocorrect ...
