Scotland v Australia - Sunday 26 November 1:30am AEDT

[cyclopath]

I hope to be as tedious as the plethora of Waratahs' supporters who constantly rationalise the poor performances of our head coach both on and off the field. Maybe, one day, some of it might sink into their pre-conditioned brains.

How about not lumping everyone into one basket? I know you hate anyone and anything to do with the Waratahs - a cursory view of your posting history says as much. But tarring everyone with the same brush hardly enhances reasonable discourse.

 

[TOCC]

So, in the past 18months Wallabies have conceded a record number of points against:

-New Zealand
-Italy
-Japan
-Ireland
-Scotland
-England

Theres some serious issues there....

 

[Highlander35]

Tupou tried hard but really couldn't get into the game. The replacement props for the Scots had it over our bench props well and truly.

You see, that's worrying for Tupou, because Bhatti is our 6th best loosehead, and I'd put him at 7th in terms of scrummaging. You were a man down though.

 

[Derpus]

So, in the past 18months Wallabies have conceded a record number of points against:

-New Zealand
-Italy
-Japan
-Ireland
-Scotland
-England

Theres some serious issues there..

Yeah, Nathan Grey. Every man and his dog knew where we were headed with Grey on. he turned in a decent defensive performance in Dunedin and that was it, he got a free pass for the year.

 

[cyclopath]

Absolutely. Our whole game plan is highly inflexible.

We go a man down our game plan can't adapt because players can't handle 1 v 1 tackles, and scoring points is harder

weather is wet, our game plan can't adapt because we need to score tries but handling is poor in those conditions.

A key player or two is absent, our game plan can't adapt, because that that requires 10 structural changes.

it's like we have one "running rugby" game plan that only suits perfect weather , a certain starting xv, and a certain opposition. Test rugby needs 2 things we absoluely lack. All 15 players who can tackle, and a good kicking game (both general and goalkicking).

I agree 15 players who all tackle well would be great.........but, it's interesting to watch other teams in defence and quite a few move players around as well. It's easy to dismiss it as hiding them, but there is some advantage in placing key attacking players in certain positions, otherwise why would many teams do it? We should do it better. I think it's too many players shuffling, aided and abetted by relatively poor one-on-one tacklers as you say. I don't believe it cannot be made to work - look at the ABs - but clearly we are not making it work well enough or consistently enough. We've been saved by good cover in a few games, but it's tenuous. Kicking - Mick Byrne may have made a few small gains, but the decision making around kicking and especially accuracy remain very sub-standard. Again, peeling off 60m downfield kicks is awesome, but a 30-40m one into the exact right place might be even better. Neither is no good!

 

[ArmchairGeneral]

I still think the best thing that could've happened to Australia Rugby was us to be dumped out of the 2015 WC by Scotland. We've been papering over the cracks for too long and these last two years have brought those cracks into full light. At least we would've had more serious soul searching earlier. We are lucky to have such a soft pool run this time.

 

[TOCC]

Absolutely. Our whole game plan is highly inflexible.

We go a man down our game plan can't adapt because players can't handle 1 v 1 tackles, and scoring points is harder

Wallabies had lost that game before Kepu even went off, they were playing woeful in the first 30mins, they had one play of consistent phases which lead to a try but besides that they were forcing passes, missing tackles, inaccurate at the breakdown and weren't chasing kicks. They may have had a chance had Kepu remained, but the performance in the second half wasn't just because they were physically down a man, for a few players when they saw that red card they emotionally and mentally checked out.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It is a mystery to me how Cheika sees the plan.
He plays Beale at 12 as a second 5/8 playmaker.
He plays Hodge at 10 as primary playmaker.
When he moves Beale to 15 he doesn’t then pick a second playmaker at 12, rather he picks a bloke who’s passing is dire and seemingly has no short kicking game.
To me this means you have to change the whole style of game or take the risk that Kerevi will never set up his outside man so you will be less threatening wide and since we never kick strategically in this set up the rush defence crushes us.
It’s surely easier to stick with the plan and move Hodge to 12, assuming you think Hodge is your alternate 10 which necessarily implies he can be the playmaker or 2nd playmaker.

 

[Ruggo]

I'm not sure what was worse, the Wallabies performance or the last five pages of absolute crap I have just read in this thread.

Australian Rugby is just so full of shit weather it be the rugby or the fans. Bitching and pea heated shit is was you get most. It explains a lot of our woes.

That was well played Scotland. Skill, pace and execution were all of a high standard and it is very clear they did there homework on us. It's all well and good to say how crap the Wallabies were but they played as well as the opposition allowed them to play. Scots had a good game plan and they executed well. For several years Scotland have looked to play at pace but they never really had the skills to execute it and they were always trying to play expansive off of slow ball. It's clicked for them and they play high quality rugby off quick ball. They hunt as a pack and play for each other like you would expect from a quality team. They are a quality team and frankly they are a better rugby side that us at this point in time. Jonny Grey and Hugh Jones for mine were outstanding.

 

[dru]

I find myself trying to be kind to Cheika. And failing.

Still it's not true that he has achieved nothing in 2017. Our front row is being recognised in Europe as scrummagers. We have tested (ad neauseum) second row options along with 6 and 8 alternatives. There should be enough history to make firm decisions now. There is a recognisable structure and game plan. There remains some confusion on elements but there is good evidence that a structure does indeed exist.

Unfortunately Cheika lost the emotional intelligence battle probably 18 months ago and the devolution has been predictable. And his improvements in no way overcome his limitations. Selections that few outside the coaching group can fathom, ineffective defence. The distant (away from the halves) playmaker is something we are getting used to, but the implementation inconsistencies are bewildering. The discipline record matches the volatile coach.

After Bled# 1 his job was on the line, or should have been. He deserved a leave pass after the mid season tests. Not just for Bled #3 but for the general improvement. Stuttering and chaotic, but improvement. Most of us approached the EOYT confident that the scrutiny over his job could put behind.

But this has not happened and Cheika is not the ideal HC to take us forward. He may, still, be the only bloke to take us forward. The concern at this point is whether Cheika works out things himself and resigns. This may be better for him as an individual. But we could be screwed.

They should hunt for an international over the off season.

 

[TOCC]

It is a mystery to me how Cheika sees the plan.
He plays Beale at 12 as a second 5/8 playmaker.
He plays Hodge at 10 as primary playmaker.
When he moves Beale to 15 he doesn’t then pick a second playmaker at 12, rather he picks a bloke who’s passing is dire and seemingly has no short kicking game.
To me this means you have to change the whole style of game or take the risk that Kerevi will never set up his outside man so you will be less threatening wide and since we never kick strategically in this set up the rush defence crushes us.
It’s surely easier to stick with the plan and move Hodge to 12, assuming you think Hodge is your alternate 10 which necessarily implies he can be the playmaker or 2nd playmaker.

I don’t think 10-12 was our problem this match

 

[Slim 293]

I don’t think 10-12 was our problem this match

Individually, collectively.......... they weren't the problem, but certainly part of the problem.

 

[tragic]

I'm not sure what was worse, the Wallabies performance or the last five pages of absolute crap I have just read in this thread.

Australian Rugby is just so full of shit weather it be the rugby or the fans. Bitching and pea heated shit is was you get most. It explains a lot of our woes.

That was well played Scotland. Skill, pace and execution were all of a high standard and it is very clear they did there homework on us. It's all well and good to say how crap the Wallabies were but they played as well as the opposition allowed them to play. Scots had a good game plan and they executed well. For several years Scotland have looked to play at pace but they never really had the skills to execute it and they were always trying to play expansive off of slow ball. It's clicked for them and they play high quality rugby off quick ball. They hunt as a pack and play for each other like you would expect from a quality team. They are a quality team and frankly they are a better rugby side that us at this point in time. Jonny Grey and Hugh Jones for mine were outstanding.

I agree to an extent.
But to be fair there were 3 tries that come to mind created plain and simple by schoolboy errors from Australia.
I know the arguements will fly that pressure creates errors but shit passes, massive defensive holes, rushing up and not taking your man are not caused by pressure. It's basic skill deficiencies and sheer stupidity.
Scotland played well and we were beaten in all aspects of the game, but we also gave them points on a platter.

 

[TOCC]

Individually, collectively.... they weren't the problem, but certainly part of the problem.

They conceded 50 agains Scotland, everyone was part of the problem.

That game and the one against England were lost in the forwards, the second row were ineffective, McCalman played like him old self, Kepu got carded, Moore showed why he is retiring and Sio looked like he was on one leg.

The ineffectiveness of the forwards was made worse by a poor game plan, or at least the poor implementation of game plan from the halves. Against rushing defence trying to play as flat as they were causes issues, that’s why there were so many bloody handling errors from Australia. Players were taking a look at the opposition instead of eyes on the ball, no one was hitting the ball with speed thus the forwards couldn’t get across the advantage line. I’m expecting similarly miserable stats from the forwards as those we saw last week.

Kicking was the other flaw in the game plan implementation, against rushing defence there is space behind, the Wallabies found thst space on the 20th phase for Kuridranis 1st try, and in a similar fashion for his 2nd try but besides that it was absent or poorly executed.

And finally discipline, before Kepu’s try McCalman was penalised for foul play when he cleaned out through a ruck leading with the shoulder. Then Kepu did the exact same thing. But also the lack of discipline when it came to forcing passes, Scotlands second try came about because Hodge tried to pass when it wasn’t on. He wasn’t the only one, unfortunately his resulted directly in a try.

 

[tragic]

It is a mystery to me how Cheika sees the plan.
He plays Beale at 12 as a second 5/8 playmaker.
He plays Hodge at 10 as primary playmaker.
When he moves Beale to 15 he doesn’t then pick a second playmaker at 12, rather he picks a bloke who’s passing is dire and seemingly has no short kicking game.
To me this means you have to change the whole style of game or take the risk that Kerevi will never set up his outside man so you will be less threatening wide and since we never kick strategically in this set up the rush defence crushes us.
It’s surely easier to stick with the plan and move Hodge to 12, assuming you think Hodge is your alternate 10 which necessarily implies he can be the playmaker or 2nd playmaker.

You're worried about our attack? Really??
Under Deans we were defensively solid but couldn't buy a try.
Now we score enough to win but leak points like a sieve
Fix our defence,dumb penalties and cards and the rest can take a back seat for a while.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don’t think 10-12 was our problem this match

Foley’s pass leading to, I think, the first try?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You're worried about our attack? Really??
Under Deans we were defensively solid but couldn't buy a try.
Now we score enough to win but leak points like a sieve
Fix our defence,dumb penalties and cards and the rest can take a back seat for a while.

No, but everyone has identified the defence and discilpline issues - they’re the same problem in a way with different consequences: playing guys in positions for which their skills don’t suit them and putting the whole thing under pressure by requiring blokes to defend in different positions.
Also despite the theory being ok, the fact of the last 2 games has not shown Beale coming into first or second receiver much which has contributed to the disjointed look. If you’re not threatening on attack the chances are your defending more.

 

[Derpus]

It is a mystery to me how Cheika sees the plan.
He plays Beale at 12 as a second 5/8 playmaker.
He plays Hodge at 10 as primary playmaker.
When he moves Beale to 15 he doesn’t then pick a second playmaker at 12, rather he picks a bloke who’s passing is dire and seemingly has no short kicking game.
To me this means you have to change the whole style of game or take the risk that Kerevi will never set up his outside man so you will be less threatening wide and since we never kick strategically in this set up the rush defence crushes us.
It’s surely easier to stick with the plan and move Hodge to 12, assuming you think Hodge is your alternate 10 which necessarily implies he can be the playmaker or 2nd playmaker.

Or just leave Beale there and stick Hunt at fullback, being the obvious switch to everyone but Cheika.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Slim 293]

You're worried about our attack? Really??
Under Deans we were defensively solid but couldn't buy a try.
Now we score enough to win but leak points like a sieve
Fix our defence,dumb penalties and cards and the rest can take a back seat for a while.

Our attack was certainly one of the better aspects of our play this year...... but it was rubbish last night. I'm pretty sure at one point we ran the same set piece move in back to back lineouts.

 

[dru]

I don’t think 10-12 was our problem this match

TOCC, I think your analysis of the game is pretty spot on. The 10-12 issue though is not simply about 10 and 12. The play maker at 15, while we know it can work well, it also opens opportunities for the opposition. It is a lot easier to isolate a play maker at 15 than at 12. This then places stress across the whole back line. Especially with a 12 who in not renowned for his passing skills. A similar issue is the well discussed barn dance. This has certainly been simplified and the players have gained familiarity with the process. But it is another risk. Take a player out of the equation and those stressors become much easier for an opposition to take advantage of.