Ireland v Australia, Dublin, 16 Nov 2013

[I like to watch]

Not sure whether you are trolling or just trying to make yourself sound big and important..in either case just shushh and say something intelligent and without being so negative for once.

Is that ironic or hypocritical?
Your last 3 post on this thread have all been negative.
Play the ball not the man.
Try and stay on the topic.

 

[thierry dusautoir]

I really like how hooper has been playing the last couple of games but I think Gill should start. With hooper on to close out the game as it opens up. I only say this as Ireland will try and choke tackle and will turn the game into a shit fight come ruck time.

I feel gill has has better breakdown skills and gets isolated less, this isn't a criticism of hooper it's just that his running style can get him in trouble against teams employing this tactic as it did this year against South Africa.

 

[scaraby]

Is that ironic or hypocritical?
Your last 3 post on this thread have all been negative.
Play the ball not the man.
Try and stay on the topic.

how have they been negative.???..read again...you have basically come out and said that anyone who has a view here is basing it on there super 15 team...how's that not playing the man?...Timani plays for TAHS doesnt he? so am i being negative or am i supporting my own Super team...get your own house in order champ...yes thats me being condescending....

 

[I like to watch]

Two disparaging posts about Timani,then a schoolboy bleat at me,would be 3 negative posts.
My comment about views on the locks performance was not being critical of any individual posters,but merely an observation that we all tend to magnify some things depending on our pre existing biases.
Correct Timani is a Tah,and you classify yourself as a Tah supporter.
In my defence I tend to gloss over your contributions as I have found them to be limited in value and interest in other threads.
I suggest we call rule 10 on this.
Why don't you go to my profile and click ignore,so you don't have to read my posts,as I intend to do on yours.

 

[tranquility]

I know this is a tired argument.

But I have said it all along and I am happy to place it as much signature to wear it - Gill will be a better player than Hooper if he isn't already.

Hooper has terrific leg-speed, is super busy, gets through a mountain of work etc. Yet he just doesn't have the same nous, or polish.

Liam just follows the rucks, very rarely does he get caught in the wider channels. His pick and drive technique is exemplary, he is a strong defender and his ruck work is first rate. Not just his pilfering, but his organising on our own ball adds alot of what the coaches like to call "detail" to our offensive game. That means he protects the ball well, knowing when to take the space or attach himself to the player on the ground.

He is so accurate on defensive rucks that even when he doesn't win it cleanly he disrupts the ball so much for the opposition. He also has that timing ability to smash the halfback as soon as the ball is out, much like McCaw. As opposed to Pocock who is stronger but not as quick, most of his turnover's are actually turnovers and not penalties. The advantage of this is that we can actually play with the ball, and as everyone knows the best attacking ball is turnover ball.

Hooper is clearly the more battle hardened of the two, but in the long run has more limitations to his game.

I hope Liam gets a start either this week or next, as they are both such good players and it is a waste to be only utilising and giving such crucial experience to one of them.

 

[scaraby]

Two disparaging posts about Timani,then a schoolboy bleat at me,would be 3 negative posts.
My comment about views on the locks performance was not being critical of any individual posters,but merely an observation that we all tend to magnify some things depending on our pre existing biases.
Correct Timani is a Tah,and you classify yourself as a Tah supporter.
In my defence I tend to gloss over your contributions as I have found them to be limited in value and interest in other threads.
I suggest we call rule 10 on this.
Why don't you go to my profile and click ignore,so you don't have to read my posts,as I intend to do on yours.

I just went back and read my posts...and apart from suggesting that Timani and Horwill have a rest I also suggested that the rest of the team should remain intact.....I also suggested that all Timani needs to play 60 odd tests is a bit of specific coaching....i havent posted a schoolboy rant for 35 years. I also made it public on another thread that a Wallaby is a Wallaby and we should all be a litle bit careful about bagging them..go and look.

this is your post
I wouldn't rave about how either of them are playing.
It seems to me,most of the comments,both positive and negative,are in correlation with each poster's super club allegiances.
ie you guys only talk up/down your own players...........................

if you cant see how condescending that is then go back to the scholarship thread (read schoolboy rant thread) and post your anti scots tirade to your hearts content........i won't be there.........

 

[Richo]

@tranquility, you might be right, but both Link and Deans agreed that Hooper was a better pick to start. It will be very interesting to see if Gill gets a start against Ireland or Scotland, and what impact he has. While I like Hooper, we've lacked a dominant physical force at the breakdown since Pocock went down.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think part of Gill's problem currently is that we completely lack good ball runners and Hooper has consistently been our best forward at getting over the advantage line.

I'd speculate that Gill's chances of wearing the 7 jersey would increase if Higginbotham was playing 6 and Palu 8.

 

[emuarse]

Why Gill must play against Ireland:

'At Eden Park two years ago, a shell-shocked Wallabies were disrupted at every turn as Ireland, led by flanker Sean O'Brien, either shut down rolling mauls or stole the ball at the breakdown to completely nullify their attack'.

This game is what he's made for, and it is a good time to give Hooper a rest.

Read more: http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/w...11/story-e6frf55l-1226757561971#ixzz2kJdLPmdl

 

[Gnostic]

Guys like Timani and Palu seem to be very easy targets for people of this board to call them lazy, etc. People expect to see them barging their way through the opposition for 80 minutes. Truth is Palu does more work than most of our forwards and Timani's work rate is generally ok (very poor against England but better on the weekend).

From my point of view, it's not Timani's work rate that is his problem, and he's one of the few bloke in gold that makes a lot of dominant tackles. It more his deficiencies with ball in hand. He needs to learn how to use his size better to get the team over the advantage line. That's something he can work on.

I doubt he has a great future with the wallabies in any event.

4 tackle attempts - 3 completed. (Dominant 0 in my assessment)
8 runs - 7 in tight for total of 32m (2nd only to Hooper in tight and metres per run in tight was beaten by Hooper and Simmons proving that effectiveness is not a factor of weight)
9 Ruck involvements

http://www.rugbystats.com.au/matches/rugby/match25459.html

This brings a total of 21 involvements. Do people regard this as a high workrate?

32 Metres in tight with ball in hand, even though it is the second best in the side, is woeful IMO.

I have to say I went looking for these stats purely to support my opinion that Timani just doesn't do anything to warrant selection. I still hold that view as IMO he just doesn't fill the core skills required from a 2nd row and his effectiveness at what he has been selected for is a myth, but there can be no doubt that he is the best (excepting Moore) of a very bad lot. What I did not expect is the paltry workrate of other forwards. In particular Alexander and Slipper. Both are selected purportedly for their mobility, well where is the evidence of this? Castrogiovanni - an old pensioner and the archetype of the European style prop who can actually perform his core duties beat them on all of these points.

 

[Gnostic]

I know this is a tired argument.

But I have said it all along and I am happy to place it as much signature to wear it - Gill will be a better player than Hooper if he isn't already.

Hooper has terrific leg-speed, is super busy, gets through a mountain of work etc. Yet he just doesn't have the same nous, or polish.

Liam just follows the rucks, very rarely does he get caught in the wider channels. His pick and drive technique is exemplary, he is a strong defender and his ruck work is first rate. Not just his pilfering, but his organising on our own ball adds alot of what the coaches like to call "detail" to our offensive game. That means he protects the ball well, knowing when to take the space or attach himself to the player on the ground.

He is so accurate on defensive rucks that even when he doesn't win it cleanly he disrupts the ball so much for the opposition. He also has that timing ability to smash the halfback as soon as the ball is out, much like McCaw. As opposed to Pocock who is stronger but not as quick, most of his turnover's are actually turnovers and not penalties. The advantage of this is that we can actually play with the ball, and as everyone knows the best attacking ball is turnover ball.

Hooper is clearly the more battle hardened of the two, but in the long run has more limitations to his game.

I hope Liam gets a start either this week or next, as they are both such good players and it is a waste to be only utilising and giving such crucial experience to one of them.

On looking at the stats Hooper makes the most tight metres of any forward in the pack. Makes a mockery of the "mobile" props and the need for big forwards to have go forward IMO. I think Gill is a far better 7, but I can now see from these stats why Hooper is being selected. If he is omitted then there will be almost no go forward from the pack at all. Why the bulk of this pack has been persisted with all year is now the mystery. Ineffective is the kindest descriptor for the bulk of the Australian pack.

 

[Brumby Runner]

agree
those stats prove 1 thing and that is that Douglas, Simmons and Fardy should be the locks this weekend. Timani's fabled hitting the ball up is wrong he is either way too low and nose dives or way to high and flat footed and gets pulled up within a metre but on the weekend Horwill was worse.
Wholesale changes to the backline?.drop Cooper?Genia? To'omua???? Folau????????.did Folau look tired to anyone..? They are finally getting some combinations together. can we leave them where they are.

I agree with almost all of this. For the Irish test, leave the backline alone but certainly consider resting Will from the Scotland test.

Backline combinations are starting to be seen. Give them all another opportunity this week to build on where they're at.

Forwards still a different proposition. I'd start Robbo and maybe move Slipper to TH - otherwise stay with Benny A to see if he has really improved against what I believe will be a stronger scrum. Fardy back at 6 with Simmons replacing Timani in the second row. Douglas on the bench as backup for Horwill if he doesn't lift his game. Could also live with Gill at 7 but happy to see Hooper start so long as Gill gets good game time.

 

[Richo]

On looking at the stats Hooper makes the most tight metres of any forward in the pack. Makes a mockery of the "mobile" props and the need for big forwards to have go forward IMO. I think Gill is a far better 7, but I can now see from these stats why Hooper is being selected. If he is omitted then there will be almost no go forward from the pack at all. Why the bulk of this pack has been persisted with all year is now the mystery. Ineffective is the kindest descriptor for the bulk of the Australian pack.

The stats certainly make for interesting read. With all the usual caveats about them not showing the whole story, it's interesting to compare the work rate of the props.

Slipper: 60 mins, 6 tackles, 3 runs (12m), 3 r/m, 2 penalties
Alexander: 54 mins, 7 tackles, 3 runs (3m), 2 r/m
Robinson: 20 mins, 8 tackles, 1 run (3m), 1 r/m, 1 penalty
Kepu: 27 mins, 6 tackles, 2 runs (7m), 2 r/m, 2 penalties

At least in terms of work rate, these stats suggest that the talk of "no difference when the props came on" isn't quite accurate.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Can someone enlighten me as to Ireland's current ability?

 

[Quick Hands]

On looking at the stats Hooper makes the most tight metres of any forward in the pack. Makes a mockery of the "mobile" props and the need for big forwards to have go forward IMO. I think Gill is a far better 7, but I can now see from these stats why Hooper is being selected. If he is omitted then there will be almost no go forward from the pack at all. Why the bulk of this pack has been persisted with all year is now the mystery. Ineffective is the kindest descriptor for the bulk of the Australian pack.

I think you're right and Hooper's work with the ball goes to his favour at selection time. Deans and McKenzie seem to have come to the same conclusion and Hooper also seems to rate highly in the players' estimation as well. Gill unlucky that he misses out to balance the pack, I hope he gets plenty of game time against Scotland.

The mobile props who are "good around the park" theory has always been a ridiculous proposition and I'm not sure why it's become the orthodoxy at all levels of the game in Australia. I do believe that having the previous generation of limited props providing technical advice to the current generation is doomed to fail. Someone like Topo Rodriguez, Os Du Randt et al is needed to (a) get the current crop of props up to speed and (b) ensure that the next generation are fully prepared for international rugby.

 

[Quick Hands]

Can someone enlighten me as to Ireland's current ability?

They seemed very good against Samoa, although the Samoans make too many basic errors to succeed at test level. Like Tonga and Fiji they need technical assistance to become competitive. (The talent is there - just have a look at the number of Tongans/Samoans/Fijians playing test and super level in NZ and Aust). But I digress, Ireland played a very clinical and high speed game of rugby against Samoa, aided by basic errors by the Somoans. Ireland seemed to make less mistakes and have less lapses than the Wallabies did against Italy. The Irish backline was far superior to what we saw from the Italians and the forwards looked tough and well-drilled. Ireland should provide a realistic gauge as to how the Wallabies are travelling.

 

[Dan54]

Well I would think Irish are still a bit behind Wallabies. They have a new coaching team, seem to be heading in right direction, but a little way from being on top of their game I would think.

 

[Hawko]

Well I would think Irish are still a bit behind Wallabies. They have a new coaching team, seem to be heading in right direction, but a little way from being on top of their game I would think.

The same words could be used of the Wallabies. Perhaps that's the point and I missed the irony but for me if the Wallabies don't step their game up from last Saturday, I don't expect them to win.

 

[Quick Hands]

Well I would think Irish are still a bit behind Wallabies. They have a new coaching team, seem to be heading in right direction, but a little way from being on top of their game I would think.

Quite possibly, Saturday will tell us how far the Wallabies and Ireland have progressed and how far they still need to go.

 

[Gnostic]

I think you're right and Hooper's work with the ball goes to his favour at selection time. Deans and McKenzie seem to have come to the same conclusion and Hooper also seems to rate highly in the players' estimation as well. Gill unlucky that he misses out to balance the pack, I hope he gets plenty of game time against Scotland.

The mobile props who are "good around the park" theory has always been a ridiculous proposition and I'm not sure why it's become the orthodoxy at all levels of the game in Australia. I do believe that having the previous generation of limited props providing technical advice to the current generation is doomed to fail. Someone like Topo Rodriguez, Os Du Randt et al is needed to (a) get the current crop of props up to speed and (b) ensure that the next generation are fully prepared for international rugby.

I don't understand the "mobile" props argument or while it still persists given the continual debate and lip service paid to fixing the scrum from all Australian coaches at all levels. Even if they were saying it just to shut people up and lull them into believing that something was being done to fix this aspect while they targeted other strengths it cannot justify what we are seeing in the stats. I think that we can all agree that the decline in the Australian set piece really started to come to the fore during the reign of E. Jones. His mode of play (no matter we think of it - and I hated it, but it was far more complete than what we have had since) called for "mobility" and his prop selections really had to produce that eg. Bill Young. IMO that set the tone and a whole generation of Australian props looked at the KPIs that got the likes of Young, Dunning et. al. selected and trained for that. Now a decade later we are still reaping the harvest, but now with confusing messages and props that are ineffective at both the set piece and in general play.

Before the Lions series GAGR published a couple of opinion pieces from me about backlines and filling core skill sets first. Whilst I called for an end to the two play maker model and the selection of a true 12 and not a second 10 at 12 I think we can actually agree that To'omua has been playing in a manner which ticks the boxes of a true 12. In the same way we could analyse the core skill sets of every position in the forwards. Whilst my narrow view as publish requiring certain skills in certain positions is naive short sighted, those skills are now being met through a combination of all the backs. Perhaps a complete and more mature viewing of the backline would be to ensure that all the skill sets are adequately covered in combinations, though certain position must be able to fill their core roles.

Looking from 1 to 8 in a similar manner there are glaring weaknesses in this pack that have not been addressed this year or in previous years under Deans. That coupled with the continuing poor execution of basic skills is the limiting factor of the Wallabies. Taking this view I have more hope that the Wallabies can be fixed and results achieved than just looking and saying player X is poor and has poor technique.