Wallabies v England in Melbourne, 18 June

[swingpass]

well once a Marlin always a Marlin

 

[hammertimethere]

At the start of the year I was looking forward to To'omua cementing a role at 12 for the Brums and Wobs for a while. Then he signed overseas and picked up the knee niggle which caused him to have a few shit games in a row. And now he's fresh from an operation... I don't know, I think he'd be best on the bench if at all.

I think we can't look at the back row in isolation. It's fair that the stated problems were having the right ball runners off 2nd and 3rd phase as well as lineout wobbles. But Poey's replacement doesn't need to solve all of those.

I think McCalman has to come in to 8, with Gill on the bench but you also promote Kepu (who's an excellent ball carrier from a standing start). That way we make the best of a bad situation by adding some lineout ability, while retaining some of that on ball skill-set (even if off the bench) and looking to bring up the ball carrying.

 

[swingpass]

one option not so far canvassed is Slipper to start and Smith to the bench. Sio has struggled all year if my reading of the Brumbies forum is correct or am i wrong ?

 

[Slim 293]

Nah, Sio has scrummaged well for the Brumbies this year.............

He just got schooled on the weekend.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Talk of another 2 x 7 is crazy.

It worked at RWC because we had 2 x exceptional players that HAD to be in the team. With Pocock injured Chek will revert to a real 8. Talk of Gill (who I really like as a player) is farcical - it will not happen.

Slipper for Sio for sure - I disagree with Slim re his performance this year. He seems to have lost that "enthusiasm"
Lilo for Kerevi
McCalman for Poey

Hopefully Horne us OK - any news on that front ????????

 

[Lindommer]

Sio played well for 45/50 minutes, until the hard old nut Cole tried a few extra tricks. Dunno why he wasn't subbed after the second scrum went down, the next one was the carding scrum. If Slipper had come on at the 50/55 minute mark things would probably have been very different at scrum time. In fact I reckoned the bench Oz front row bested the Poms. If Scott starts his subbing will have to be much better thought out next week.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Sio played well for 45/50 minutes, until the hard old nut Cole tried a few extra tricks. Dunno why he wasn't subbed after the second scrum went down, the next one was the carding scrum. If Slipper had come on at the 50/55 minute mark things would probably have been very different at scrum time. In fact I reckoned the bench Oz front row bested the Poms. If Scott starts his subbing will have to be much better thought out next week.

Only "played well" for those 45/50 minutes because there were fuckall scrums. even then he got done.

not worth the risk to me. Happy for Smith to get a bench spot over him.

 

[The torpedo]

Sio played well for 45/50 minutes, until the hard old nut Cole tried a few extra tricks. Dunno why he wasn't subbed after the second scrum went down, the next one was the carding scrum. If Slipper had come on at the 50/55 minute mark things would probably have been very different at scrum time. In fact I reckoned the bench Oz front row bested the Poms. If Scott starts his subbing will have to be much better thought out next week.

Fully agreed. Sio is only 24 and he's played only 17 tests. He's gonna have bad games at prop. Dan Cole is 29 and already has 63 caps for England (Cole's been playing since 2010). Sio is gonna get hammered in the scrum sometimes. Key is for it to not happen consistently (a la Ben Alexander at test level)

 

[Slim 293]

Only "played well" for those 45/50 minutes because there were fuckall scrums. even then he got done.

There are many other elements to rugby than scrums..............

And Sio did win the first scrum penalty against Coles...........

After that he got bested.

 

[Scrubber2050]

There are many other elements to rugby than scrums......

And Sio did win the first scrum penalty against Coles.....

After that he got bested.

I actually thought he hit the ground first.

FYI a props first responsibility is the scrum, the rest follows.

 

[Slim 293]

FYI a props first responsibility is the scrum, the rest follows.

Well, that is a simplistic way of dismissing the point..........

 

[Slim 293]

Anyways, I don't think anyone is discounting the fact that Sio had a poor night in the scrum, probably should've been subbed earlier, and there's a good case to start Slipper next week............

But I think people are getting a little hysterical in suggesting that he should be dropped from the side.

 

[Braveheart81]

But I think people are getting a little hysterical in suggesting that he should be dropped from the side.

Agreed. There is no way you'd drop Sio from the 23.

I would start Slipper though. Slipper was the starting LHP until Sio produced some outstanding form last year and was justifiably ahead (and Slipper was down on form somewhat through injury).

My take on it right now is that Slipper's form is better so he should start.

 

[The torpedo]

I actually thought he hit the ground first.

FYI a props first responsibility is the scrum, the rest follows.

Exactly

EDIT: that being said, Sio shouldn't be dropped from the 23

 

[Simon.]

I really don't understand all the talk I've seen in the media about making big changes to the backline, the need to bring a second playmaker in to 12 to "take the pressure off" Foley.

He didn't seem to be under any pressure in general play. We carved the Poms up, made consistent metres in attack, outscored them 4 tries to 2 until the last minute when we were chasing the game, and it could easily have been 5+ tries. Both of their tries were soft - off a fumbled poor pass, and off a poorly-defended maul.

We lost the game for two reasons. First, our goalkicking, which is a recurring theme, and second our failure to adjust to Poite's unique brand of refereeing, which is unfortunately another recurring theme.

That's it. We might have been beaten at the breakdown and seriously struggled at the scrum and lineout, but what mattered in the end was we missed our kicks while giving them 18 gift points.

I think if Foley had made his kicks and Fardy & co had adjusted to Poite, everybody would be lauding Kerevidrani as a big success. The focus this week needs to be on the forwards - the breakdown, the scrum, and the abysmal lineout. I'm fed up with watching the ball sail clean over the top with no jumpers.

 

[TOCC]

And, the fact is that we did have a 2nd play maker for the majority of the match, Lealifano played 50min at 12... That wasn't the reason we lost...

Wallabies displayed poor discipline and turned the ball over far too easy at the rucks by letting the big boppers get isolated..

 

[Groucho]

The Wallabies lost because they played excruciatingly badly at crucial moments. There was plenty of excellent play, both in attack and defence, but as Simon says, most of their tries were against the consistent run of play.

That's not an excuse: it's a criticism. Rearranging the team won't stop Folau from thowing a howler of a pass at the back, and it won't help Foley kick more goals.

What the team should be working on this week is execution, not experimenting with new combinations to fix problems that weren't why we lost, otherwise we run the risk of finding new ways to lose.

 

[RedsHappy]

I really don't understand all the talk I've seen in the media about making big changes to the backline, the need to bring a second playmaker in to 12 to "take the pressure off" Foley.

He didn't seem to be under any pressure in general play. We carved the Poms up, made consistent metres in attack, outscored them 4 tries to 2 until the last minute when we were chasing the game, and it could easily have been 5+ tries. Both of their tries were soft - off a fumbled poor pass, and off a poorly-defended maul.

We lost the game for two reasons. First, our goalkicking, which is a recurring theme, and second our failure to adjust to Poite's unique brand of refereeing, which is unfortunately another recurring theme.

That's it. We might have been beaten at the breakdown and seriously struggled at the scrum and lineout, but what mattered in the end was we missed our kicks while giving them 18 gift points.

I think if Foley had made his kicks and Fardy & co had adjusted to Poite, everybody would be lauding Kerevidrani as a big success. The focus this week needs to be on the forwards - the breakdown, the scrum, and the abysmal lineout. I'm fed up with watching the ball sail clean over the top with no jumpers.

Good post Simon.

It's deeply unfashionable at present to be critical of any aspect of Cheikaworld but I said before the RWC and would say again: this HC has some remarkable strengths but a notable weakness - in the context of what's required to succeed at the top levels of international rugby - is the completeness of the design of his Assistant Coaches group.

If the Wallabies are to remain at No 2 and have a serious crack at the ABs I believe Cheika needs a proper specialist forwards coach - Ledesma is not this, despite his excellent scrummaging skills - who's expert at line out and broken play, and he badly needs a properly credentialed kicking coach. L Fisher and S Lierich come to mind as candidates, Malone is not it. Or the exceptional M Byrne for both kicking and general skills perhaps now that he's back home in Australia and having been so highly regarded by the ABs.

It's notable how EJ (Eddie Jones) has brought in and used multiple specialist coaching skills already in his short England reign - Ella for attack, G Smith for the breakdown (note how Haskell is today openly proclaiming how much Smith's recent technical advice has helped him improve his skills and general game) and Wilkinson for kicking skills. Do we think these investments have not aided England?

In fairness to Cheika it may be that the ARU is constraining his $ coaching budget. This would not surprise one bit as so much ARU cash is going into little else than propping up failing franchises thus directly or indirectly bleeding resources away from core skills and coach development and such like programs. But if it exists such a financial constraint on our HC would be massively mistaken and shortsighted.

 

[Groucho]

I'm also wondering whether we really lost at the breakdown. Does anyone have the possession stats?

We seemed to have the ball for an awful lot of time (and have an awful lot of fast ball in attack) for a team being consistently beaten there. Especially considering the 15-8 penalty count against us.

I think that impression might be the result of the crucial field position of their steals, like the one by Itoje in front of the sticks.

 

[The torpedo]

Good post Simon.

It's deeply unfashionable at present to be critical of any aspect of Cheikaworld but I said before the RWC and would say again: this HC has some remarkable strengths but a notable weakness - in the context of what's required to succeed at the top levels of international rugby - is the completeness of the design of his Assistant Coaches group.

If the Wallabies are to remain at No 2 and have a serious crack at the ABs I believe Cheika needs a proper specialist forwards coach - Ledesma is not this, despite his excellent scrummaging skills - who's expert at line out and broken play, and he badly needs to properly credentialed kicking coach. L Fisher and S Lierich come to mind as candidates, Malone is not it. Or the exceptional M Byrne for both kicking and general skills perhaps now that he's back home in Australia and having been so highly regarded by the ABs.

It's notable how EJ (Eddie Jones) has brought in and used multiple specialist coaching skills already in his short England reign - Ella for attack, G Smith for the breakdown (note how Haskell is today openly proclaiming how much Smith's recent technical advice has helped him improve his skills and general game) and Wilkinson for kicking skills. Do we think these investments have not aided England?

In fairness to Cheika it may be that the ARU is constraining his $ coaching budget. This would not surprise one bit as so much ARU cash is going into little else than propping up failing franchises thus directly or indirectly bleeding resources away from core skills and coach development and such like programs. But if it exists such a financial constraint on our HC would be massively mistaken and shortsighted.

I think Cheika is the forwards coach and Ledesma is the set piece coach. Other than that I would hire Jonny Wilkinson as a kicking and skills coach, and poach Dean Benton from the poms as a fitness coach (and head trainer).