Wallabies v All Blacks, Saturday 19th August, ANZ Stadium Sydney

[KAOPointman]

I feel bad for Kerevi, There is still so much potential there. but I haven't seen a lot of improvement the last 2 years.

If he can get his defence sorted, there is no reason he can't be a world class Centre at either 12 or 13.

Just imagine how good Kerevi would be if he had been in the All Blacks coaching systems.

I've always thought its FAAR simpler then the "coaching" is great for the ABs. Because the world and AUS is now full of NZ coaching and it certainly didn't "transform" Australia.
I insist it's simply they ALL grow up living and breathing rugby, therefore the simple things come easy. That's where they always dominate and others slack...(perfect example is how much impact the NRC has had and that's no where near reaching all the way back to grassroots rugby yet) if they keep pushing that all the way too the lowest levels, the improvements will continue with better more natural rugby players.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

What generous desisions?
The all blacks scored most their trys off forward passes

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

Ours not theirs

 

[KAOPointman]

Its fucking criminal to have to shuffle your INSIDE CENTRE out for defense

If we actually had a 10 who WAS A GOD DAM PLAYMAKER to begin with, we wouldn't need a small 2nd playmaker to cover for the first guys inability to create an envision attack(insert FOLEY here). That then snowballs into only having one guy to maybe switch out of the front defensivline.
I noticed no ones mentioned how many times Foley was defending on the wing or at sweeper last night.....

 

[Quick Hands]

QH, I agreed with you up to the point highlighted.

There were and are better players not in the squad, and there is no doubt at all in my mind that there are much better head coaches going around.

For starters, it was a crazy decision to leave Scott Fardy out of the squad as he is streets better than Hanigan. Even with that brain fart, to persist with Hanigan over the likes of RHP shows a real blindness on the part of the coach. Other players who would be better replaced include Hooper by Hardwick or McMahon until Pocock returns, Phipps by Powell, Foley by Lance, Beale at 12 by Meakes, Kerevi by Kuridrani, Rona by Naivalu when fit, Folau by DHP when fit. And on the bench, Robertson by anyone.

It is not simply that better players are available, but there are many better combinations. The makeup of the backrow has been a shambles just about all year, and previously under Cheika. The centre combination for this game was an obvious debacle waiting to happen.

All of the foregoing deficiencies are attributable to one man, Cheika. Any other head coach would not be son committed to continuing those failures in game strategy and player combinations.

Then the defense coach and his systems are really the pits. It is time for big changes. but I won't be holding my breath.

Accepting your critique on Cheika for the purpose of the discussion (and I agree with at least some of the shortcomings that your have highlighted), but who do we replace him with?

Stephen Larkham, Toney McGann, Richard Graham, Nathan Grey, Chris Hickey, Michael Foley, Tim Lane, Brian Melrose or is there someone else that I've missed? (i'm not having a go, I genuinely asking)

We know that Ewen McKenzie wouldn't touch it with a long pole.

Long time posters might remember that when Link left, there was a thread devoted to naming a replacement. The vast majority of posters wanted Cheika on the basis of his success with the Waratahs. I was something of a voice in the wilderness who said that he should spend a few more years at the Waratahs building on the foundations there before moving to the Wallabies. I actually advocated Eddie Jones for the role and was set upon by all and sundry, who pointed out his failings in his previous reign. When I tried to point out that he had improved as a coach since that time, this was dismissed out of hand. Then came RWC 2015 and the performance of Japan, then came 2016 and Aust v England, then came 6N 2017. Eddie Jones was the man post Link, but like many things in Australian rugby many couldn't look beyond the past to the fuuture.

On the 19th of October 2014, I said: (He = Eddie Jones)

When he coached the Wallabies previously, I was a critic. Maybe, just maybe, he is the right man for the job at the moment.

Churchill was yesterday's man until the time of crisis but he was the man for the crisis.

I'm a big cheika fan and I think he'll make a great Wallaby coach, but I don't think this is his time.

The ideal candidate is an Australian, not currently working in Australia at the professional level, has the experience at the top level, can deal with recalcitrant players and a pathetic governing body and would have the respect (not the approval) of the players.


E. Jones & S. Johnson are the only 2 names that come to mind.
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/co...ckenzie-resignation.14950/page-19#post-679544

 

[notapatrioticboneinme]

The ideal candidate is an Australian,

Enjoyed your post but why this criterion, your reason(s) appreciated, mark

 

[Quick Hands]

Enjoyed your post but why this criterion, your reason(s) appreciated, mark

The memory of Robbie Deans was still fresh in everyone's mind time and having the national team coached by a national is the ideal situation.

You'll note, I never said it was an absolute, just the ideal.

 

[Viking]

We were in a position to get close and win at one stage. Because we started playing attacking rugby. Luckily for us it worked. It could of went against us and had a bigger score on us but it didn't.
We still have positives

Beale
Kurindrani looked ok.
Lots of injuries atm as well.

Negitives far outweigh the positives though. That's for sure.
Kerevi should be one of our best players. He was terrible. What the hell happened to him
Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

No. Because New Zealand let us.

 

[Slim 293]

In hindsight, Jake White might have been what the Wallabies needed but obviously there was the Deans factor, and Link was deservedly next in line............

But White is pretty good at overhauling the culture within a team, surrounding himself with quality assistants and making sure the basics are all done well.

There was the fear of "Jakeball," but I think it's a bit of a furphy and we all forgot how much good teams kick the ball.

Anyways, that's all history......... Cheika was the obvious choice after Link was driven out and there's no real clear solutions considering the entire awful state of Australian rugby.

 

[Viking]

You really think the All Blacks "switch off"? I don't. I have not seen much compelling evidence that they are in the habit of doing that. I thought in the first half the ABs played very solid football, without being freakishly brilliant, against an absolutely shambolic defence. They are that good because they play solid rugby, doing the basics right, most of the time. But they're not invincible, and they can be pressured.
In the second half, I thought our defensive alignment improved just a little bit (Kuridrani solidified the midfield appreciably), and the line-speed did too, and the ABs made some errors, which we saw they can and will, under some pressure, against the Lions. Our attack managed to capitalise, partly on the back of some faster recycling in phases, and opportunism (incidentally, just how the ABs score quite a few of their tries).
The second half revival does not mitigate the first half disaster (basically defensively), but it is too convenient to pin it on the ABs switching off. I think our bench gave us more than theirs gave them, relatively.
Does that give any of the coaches a pass mark. No bloody way. Not even close. But there was undoubtedly some much better play in that second half.

Compelling evidence they were in a habit of doing that? To be fair, they were put in a position they had never been in before - up 50 points to one of there biggest rivals in rugby history before half time.

So they don't switch off after 20+ points like most teams, we learnt it takes 50+ points for them to do that.

A new position for them to be in, they will learn from it and put 100 on us next time

Look, I'm not saying our attack was poor by any means, or the second performance was horrible. It was solid. But if we play like we did in the second half, for the entire match, despite the scoreline I think we will still lose.

We need to lift up another gear in attack, and we obviously need to lift up 10+ gears in defence (and develop a kicking game too) if are to compete consistently.

At least the set-piece was solid and Foley kicked his goals.

 

[tragic]

No. Because New Zealand let us.

I don't buy it.
Credit where credit is due.
The pendulum swung, and it was not all the ABs doing.
We looked threatening it attack even in the first half when they were tearing our defence apart. We just didn't have the ball.
It wasn't just a consolation try in the end ffs.

 

[Shiggins]

No. Because New Zealand let us.

No they didn't. We played our way back into the game the All blacks didn't say "let's let them score some trys bro " fair enough they might of started to back off in intentionally but we also lifted our game

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

 

[Viking]

I don't buy it.
Credit where credit is due.
The pendulum swung, and it was not all the ABs doing.
We looked threatening it attack even in the first half when they were tearing our defence apart. We just didn't have the ball.
It wasn't just a consolation try in the end ffs.

I completely disagree. It's like winning the third game in a 3 match series, a dead rubber.

Even though we would all like to believe every player plays each test match with 100% commitment, it just isn't not true.

Maybe its a subconscious thing, but teams switch off without even realising it. Same way many teams lift in grand finals.

 

[CTPE]

If we actually had a 10 who WAS A GOD DAM PLAYMAKER to begin with, we wouldn't need a small 2nd playmaker to cover for the first guys inability to create an envision attack(insert FOLEY here). That then snowballs into only having one guy to maybe switch out of the front defensivline.
I noticed no ones mentioned how many times Foley was defending on the wing or at sweeper last night...

Foley is still our best option at 10 from a pretty shallow talent pool. The player we missed most last night was KHunt at 12 - terrific defender, great talker, runs hard at the line with ball in hand but can also slot in as 2nd playmaker with his deft passing and kicking game. In his absence Hodge to 12, TK 13, KB (Kurtley Beale) 22.

 

[Viking]

No they didn't. We played our way back into the game the All blacks didn't say "let's let them score some trys bro " fair enough they might of started to back off in intentionally but we also lifted our game

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

We lifted. They dropped. Pretty simple really.

Don't expect the All Blacks to drop next time.

 

[Viking]

Foley is still our best option at 10 from a pretty shallow talent pool. The player we missed most last night was KHunt at 12 - terrific defender, great talker, runs hard at the line with ball in hand but can also slot in as 2nd playmaker with his deft passing and kicking game. In his absence Hodge to 12, TK 13, KB (Kurtley Beale) 22.

Is Jono Lance still injured or something?

 

[Viking]

To extend your point Seb, name me a player in Australian professional rugby who has shown significant improvement in the past two years.

Therein lies the problem.

EDIT: And if you are able to name one, then try and name 15.

Coleman.

If you can call that improvement, maybe it's just finally getting exposed.

Actually, I will say Beale has improved.

 

[tragic]

I completely disagree. It's like winning the third game in a 3 match series, a dead rubber.

Even though we would all like to believe every player plays each test match with 100% commitment, it just isn't not true.

Maybe its a subconscious thing, but teams switch off without even realising it. Same way many teams lift in grand finals.

The ABs are clearly in the heads of supporters as much as their opposition.
Sublime in attack
Only let in tries when they take their foot off the pedal.
They're just untouchable.
Don't know why we bother really.

 

[ShtinaTina]

Sad thing is, that the players will probably cop the media and fan wrath of shit selections, when really it should be the person making those selections.

Exactly.

 

[cyclopath]

Compelling evidence they were in a habit of doing that? To be fair, they were put in a position they had never been in before - up 50 points to one of there biggest rivals in rugby history before half time.

So they don't switch off after 20+ points like most teams, we learnt it takes 50+ points for them to do that.

A new position for them to be in, they will learn from it and put 100 on us next time

Look, I'm not saying our attack was poor by any means, or the second performance was horrible. It was solid. But if we play like we did in the second half, for the entire match, despite the scoreline I think we will still lose.

We need to lift up another gear in attack, and we obviously need to lift up 10+ gears in defence (and develop a kicking game too) if are to compete consistently.

At least the set-piece was solid and Foley kicked his goals.

I don't doubt it, in fact the learned fellow I was watching the game with said exactly the same last night, and I agreed.
I think that if we improve our defence markedly, while not holding my breath, I believe we will put more pressure on the ABs (and other teams) and opportunities arise. The ABs are not supermen, they are just very well drilled in skills, structures and fitness and so execute at a higher level of efficiency than others most of the time. But they are not infallible. We cannot look at attack and defence in isolation, and have to credit the consequences of improving one upon the other. The Wallabies won a World Cup on belligerent and efficient defence, albeit in another era. The flow-ons from having that aspect much better are significant.
Of course, there is massive scope for improvement in all facets of the game. And there needs to be. We probably won't see it under the current regime.
The more I see I think Cheika is a great motivator, and would be good being involved in the setup, but not running it. I honestly don't know who would currently be better, that is realistically available (before someone says McKenzie etc...). It's a problem.
I have nothing to say about Grey really, that has not been said, but I am baffled that the guy that organised the Tahs defence in 2014 when it was a big factor, has seemingly completely lost all ability to develop a coherent defensive plan. But he has.

 

[Dan54]

Well just got home after being away and thought I would add some thoughts.
that was a hiding in the first degree, and although I was hoping the Wallabies would put up a good battle (being tied uo in rugby over here etc), at halftime I was quite happy if the ABs just cantered away with it, as I don't think anything will be done about Wallabies coaching team until somebody at the top realises just how bad they are!! Yes I believe the ABs switched off in 2nd half, you only had to see how relaxed their bench was.
Did the Wallabies actually have a back row playing? If they did they were bloody ineffective, in what world does anyone think it any good having that Hanigan on the field in a test match, he may be ok some day, but don't destroy his confidence etc by trying to make him into something he not ready to be yet ie; an international rugby player, one AB try he was actually hiding behind the goalpost upright or look like he was. Look at how Squire was brought in , learn how the squad plays etc so when you starting, you don't look out of your depth! And I think perhaps the midfield defence was some of the worst I have seen by a top tier nation for quite some time. Anyway all in all pretty poor by Wallabies, and hard to know how good ABs were1