England v Australia

[light]

Refrained from commenting during the game but finally had some time to reflect and I'm still optimistic that we can sort this shit out.

Our forwards just aren't good enough. Scrums are piss weak and lineouts are a massive issue once the maul gets rolling. I really hope we discover a quality lock in the next 6 months or we are screwed. That said, the referee was pretty poor at policing scrum infringements, or so I thought.

Hooper had a poor game, particularly after the push over try. A leader would have composed themselves and pulled the team together with a few choice words. Instead, he lost his marbles, swore (which was audible through the effect mic) and started whinging to the ref. I don't mind him in the starting side but his captaincy credentials are questioned far too frequently.

Interesting that Foley and Phipps have the worst rankings on the home page, I thought they had decent games respectively. No idea why they are so low. However, I think Cooper adds a new dimension to our attack though and his combination with To'omua might be the way to go for the WC. Would really like to see Phipps + Cooper at some point but looks unlikely.

AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Horne were great, Folau looks tired and a shadow of the player he was a few months ago. Would have been a good opportunity to try someone else at the back but I feel our alternatives are limited. Hopefully JOC (James O'Connor) or Hunt fix this next year.

Right now we should pray that Pocock returns to even 50% of what he was like pre-injury. God knows we need him, badly.

I have faith that we'll be okay once the world cup rolls around although we could really do with Kane Douglas and a few pot plants.

 

[Pfitzy]

3. The scrum, as I posted on the scrum thread, WTF has Blades done in his time with the Wallabies?

I'm also scratching my head about this. Blades was a decent prop. He knows how a scrum works, even though in his Test heyday it wasn't really as contested as it is now.

However, there are some cases where the technical flaws have existed within players at provincial level and gone uncorrected there before the player was picked at Test level.

My sensei says: harder to correct bad karate than it is to teach good karate.


Habits are formed and put into the brain wiring early on. Very hard to get out, particularly under fatigue, or injury.

 

[Wilson]

THE UGLY:

-Beards. Get rid of them. It's hotter for one and it doesn't scare too many opposition players either. Same with the haircuts. I'm sure Henry could run faster without all that fluff going on and Hooper could conserve a little energy by not having to get the hair out of his eyes every 3 seconds.

This may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on these forums.

 

[Pfitzy]

-Kick off. We are ALWAYS under pressure when kicked off to,

Uh, we can't actually change that bit. if the opposition are executing their kick offs well, unless we obstruct them, which is a penalty in our half by definition.

Agree totally on the pressure we put on their kicks. Foley was misfiring against Ireland and France with his contestable restarts.

 

[Quick Hands]

It's something we definitely need massive improvement in, but it's a sad indictment (on England or the Laws of the game) when the England coach admits they used scrums and mauls to generate penalties and not their primary purpose as a contest for possession.

Absolutey agree. The explicit purpose of the scrum is to provide a simple fair restart of play after a minor infringement. The sanctions are there (PK/FK) to ensure a fair contest (scrum feed, hookers striking etc) or for safety reasons (deliberate collapse etc). IMO teams deliberately holding the ball in for the sole purpose of obtaining a penalty is not in accordance with the spirit of the laws.
http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=20

The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or a stoppage.http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=20

 

[Tex]

Or alternatively we realise that the rules aren't going to be changed any time soon, and as such should remedy what has been a clear weakness in our arsenal.

Another thing that irritates me is unbound offensive forwards loitering in front of and around the ruck, obscuring any fair attempt at charging down the box kick.

 

[Jason Little]

True but where is the odd well-placed high ball with a decent chase..would've come in handy last night.

I agree; a bit of "see how you like it". But maybe it was deliberate to avoid the partisan crowd's judgement of the timing of the impending tackle.

 

[tragic]

This may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on these forums.

I dunno, they are pretty bloody ugly - best confined to lumberjacks and the occasional wannabe hipster.

 

[Brumbieman]

Of course, give me a minute..

Ta-da!

My next trick will be pulling out a tight head prop, another lock and a blindside flanker!

Was thinking about this last night. Beale is on about 500k ish, right?


If we'd told the little shit to follow through on his threat and go play rugby league last year after his drunken assault, we would have had 500k extra to spend on players.

If we split that into 5, and paid 100k extra to some players, how many of these five players would have stayed:

Palmer
PAE

Kimlin
Mowen
Douglas


Now, how welcome would all those players be to our Wallaby team? A couple of rock solid tighthead props, and some big 2nd row/blindside flankers with size, skill and aggression?

 

[Brumbieman]

People stop bitching about the scrum laws.

If we were kicking arse at them, we'd love them.

How about we start paying tighthead props some of the money that over rated, jumped up little shits with " X FACTA!!!!" get, and value them instead.

 

[brokendown]

better off throwing some bucks at a world class scummaging coach

 

[Brumby Runner]

Haven't seen it yet.

I know he's capable of being a good THP. But good enough? And if he was good against England, why not anyone else?

Of course the second row he has to work with is a factor as well.

Yeah - the second row is crucial, but I think he has probably been reading the criticism on this site and has responded.

 

[Jason Little]

This may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on these forums.

Just for a laugh (..because there were few of those during the game/series..)


"A 100-meter sprinter can use up to 20 percent of their total energy expenditure overcoming air resistance, or the drag exerted on their frame due to friction between he and the air. (A 400-meter runner, who’s traveling more slowly, would use a bit less energy to fight through the air.)
Flowing locks increase air resistance insofar as they boost a runner’s surface area. More hair creates more opportunities for friction between the runner and the air, so a full-headed athlete would have to work harder to maintain the same speed as a bald one. And since Olympic sprinters are already close to maxing out in terms of effort, any situation that requires them to do more work has the potential to extend their times.



But hair is pretty light, so athletes know it’s the styling, not the quantity, of their tresses that could dash their hopes. Hairdos like ponytails, braids, and or buns, which comb the mane behind the neck, have little effect on overall surface area, while hair that sticks out from the sides of the head increase it (and might also whip into the runner’s eyes)."
Katy Waldman

 

[Tah and feathered]

Two things I did notice about the English scrum this week. They do not strike the ball (Hooker strike). They walk over it. When the Wallabies held their initial push the ball sat there and they did not attempt to strike.

Secondly David Wilson the English THP bond onto Slipper's arm at every scrum we had a view of. Exactly the offence that Al Baxter finished his career on, in the same manner. Slipper yelled and gestured at the ref and the touch judge numerous times but nothing was done and Wilson was not spoken to.

Now the Wallabies scrum was well and truly beaten and they retreated quite obviously, but these types of offences going totally unpoliced gives weight to the theory that the Wallabies are being judged on reputation.

There was a scrum where the English hooker stood up in the scrum and then a prop and to me that is a penalty to Aust but there was no penalty and the commentator said the English front row came up because of the pressure they were putting on the wallabies and the same thing happened in the Ireland test.
Am i wrong in my understanding that the first team that pops in the scrum is a penalty to the other side?

 

[Brumby Runner]

My thoughts on this game, and that could be extrapolated for the tour.

1. Defence - after a shaky start the system is starting to work well. The English, Welsh and Irish had a real problem breaking it down and didn't really make breaks of their own, being tackled on or around the gain line. All their yards came from kicking, and that moves onto a fundamental flaw in the Wallabies.
2. Back three - the only fullback/back three player in Australia that can kick, as mentioned above, is Mogg. The problem is the bad aspects of his game. Why is it that even though this problem has been apparent since before the 2011 RWC, it has not been addressed? How is it that individual players like AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) who has been in the system for so long has not improved in key aspects of his game (his passing is still woeful in general as his propensity to ball hog). How can a player come frm AFL and not be able to kick both long and accurately? This allows a Jake Ball approach to be so dominant against the Wallabies as they really only have one option when they take the kick from the opposition and the defensive set up of the opposition proves it, they send through one chaser on the kick receiver to pressure but then just line up behind with nobody really deep as they know no return kick will be coming. There is no complete game available to the Wallabies because of fundamental skill deficits in the Wallabies. People may blame Chieka for selections of the back three but point me to a player in Australia who could rectify this flaw.
3. The scrum, as I posted on the scrum thread, WTF has Blades done in his time with the Wallabies? Players like Alexander have not improved at all since he came into the setup. His leg positioning remains terrible as it has been his whole career. It is easy to blame him for it, but I doubt he goes into a test wanting to get reamed and humiliated and would welcome additional feedback to allow him to unleash his undoubted strength (I am amazed he can compete against some of the best props in the would with such a woeful set up). The entire pack is just far too inconsistent in the setup. It is compromising them from the start.
4. The Backrow - it was obvious that Chieka was hunting for a 6 all tour. Maybe that will be Jones. It certainly isn't McMahon. There is no balance, as so many have noted across the backrow. There is no complete coverage of the skill sets required in the backrow three, similar to the lack of coverage in the required skill sets for the back three of 11,15 &14.

For me the Wallabies were on a hiding to nothing with the resignation of Link. Even though this tour is a considerable failure in terms of results there are some positive we can look for.
1. Defence - if the Wallabies had somebody who could kick in the back three, and some actual pace (Speight is filling that whole but more is needed) the offensive kicking game from the NH opposition would be challenged and likely changed.
2. The attack - with some improvements in skills execution and a couple of personel changes in the squad I think they will be a far more dangerous side than anything seen under Link or Deans.
3. Chieka - he has had four tests/five games to totally bed in a radically new system. It has worked to some degree, and I think the Wallabies are a far better chance of getting out of the Pool stages of the RWC than they were two months ago. I am given this confidence because the side as it stands offers more threat and his comments before and after the game are telling us that he sees the forward issues and will be bringing in coaching that will fix those issues.

I like your summation and agree with most of it, but I'm not as sure as you are that the defensive setup is really working. There are quite a few posters pointing out that Henry and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) have been caught out in defense in their games on the wing, and I think some overhead shots last night show why. The backline is so compacted in defense, our winger is lining up against the second or third attacker from the sideline. This has led to both the Irish and the English making good ground on occasions down the sideline, and the main reason there haven't been more tries scored against us has been the effectiveness of the cover defense imo. The compacted defensive line also seems to explain why the kicking option has been good for our opponents with a good proportion of their tries coming off kicks down the sideline in behind our widest defender.

The other reason there haven't been so many line breaks against us has been the solid rush defense/tackling of Matt To'omua and Tevita Kuridrani shutting down a lot of their backline moves.

 

[KOB1987]

I like your summation and agree with most of it, but I'm not as sure as you are that the defensive setup is really working. There are quite a few posters pointing out that Henry and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) have been caught out in defense in their games on the wing, and I think some overhead shots last night show why. The backline is so compacted in defense, our winger is lining up against the second or third attacker from the sideline. This has led to both the Irish and the English making good ground on occasions down the sideline, and the main reason there haven't been more tries scored against us has been the effectiveness of the cover defense imo. The compacted defensive line also seems to explain why the kicking option has been good for our opponents with a good proportion of their tries coming off kicks down the sideline in behind our widest defender.

The other reason there haven't been so many line breaks against us has been the solid rush defense/tackling of Matt To'omua and Tevita Kuridrani shutting down a lot of their backline moves.

Aren't these some of the elements of the new defensive set up that actually indicate it is working?

 

[Brumby Runner]

There was a scrum where the English hooker stood up in the scrum and then a prop and to me that is a penalty to Aust but there was no penalty and the commentator said the English front row came up because of the pressure they were putting on the wallabies and the same thing happened in the Ireland test.
Am i wrong in my understanding that the first team that pops in the scrum is a penalty to the other side?

My understanding (not being a scrum guru) is that there is no specific offence relating to a front rower popping up in the scrum, rather that they are obliged to remain bound to their supports at all times. It is likely that a prop or hooker popping will lose his bind and that is the reason for a penalty but popping is not an offence per se.

 

[Slim 293]

Was thinking about this last night. Beale is on about 500k ish, right?


If we'd told the little shit to follow through on his threat and go play rugby league last year after his drunken assault, we would have had 500k extra to spend on players.

If we split that into 5, and paid 100k extra to some players, how many of these five players would have stayed:

Palmer
PAE

Kimlin
Mowen
Douglas


Now, how welcome would all those players be to our Wallaby team? A couple of rock solid tighthead props, and some big 2nd row/blindside flankers with size, skill and aggression?

While I agree with your overall point, spending $100K on Palmer to not play rugby would not be a wise investment...........

 

[Brumbieman]

While I agree with your overall point, spending $100K on Palmer to not play rugby would not be a wise investment.....

Better than paying a player to get suspended all the time and white ant rugby in this country.

 

[Quick Hands]

People stop bitching about the scrum laws.

If we were kicking arse at them, we'd love them.

How about we start paying tighthead props some of the money that over rated, jumped up little shits with " X FACTA!!!!" get, and value them instead.

Or how about all the scrum laws are enforced, not just the ones which suit certain teams?