Wallabies 2019 Thread

[wamberal]

They are also the 6 nation's champions and a better team than us, with a way better coach.

They are also a lot smarter. We are dumb, dumb, dumb.

 

[KOB1987]

They’re now ranked no.2 because they beat us.

I’m sorry but you seem to be using the rankings to justify the losses since they’re higher ranked teams, but the rankings are a byproduct of the losses. Rankings are a lagging indicator, and had we won the rankings would paint a different story.

No no I'm not using them to justify anything. I'm using them as a benchmark to show that a narrow loss to the 6 nations champions isn't the end of the world and that it doesn't necessarily come down to poor selections and coaching. As a couple of others have since pointed out it could just be that they were, on the night, better than us. If we had beaten them, yes the current rankings would now indicate that, appropriately, we were better than them. But we didn't. I'm also saying that we're only 2 games into the tournament, so I'm not judging our RWC performance just yet.

 

[Braveheart81]

The Wallabies are 4 wins and 3 losses from 7 tests in 2019.

We've beaten the three sides we've started favourite against (Argentina, Samoa and Fiji), lost to three sides we were underdogs against (South Africa, New Zealand in NZ and Wales) and won one upset against the All Blacks in Perth.

The Wales game was a pretty good indication of where the Wallabies sit and why they started favourites against us. We struggle with consistency and rarely produce more than a half of good rugby. I think we quite clearly have the capacity to play at a higher level than Wales but the dross we also readily produce is far worse than anything they come up with. Overall their consistency makes them a better team than us, but not by much.

I don't think we need to improve a lot to challenge the 2-5 ranked teams in a neutral setting like the RWC. We mostly just need to erase the clangers we regularly make that leak tries. Turn that horrible half of rugby into merely an average one and we're right in the contest. One thing we do have going for us is a strong bench and excellent fitness and I think if we're there at half time we have a strong chance of closing out games even against slightly more favoured opposition.

 

[molman]

The Wallabies are 4 wins and 3 losses from 7 tests in 2019.

We've beaten the three sides we've started favourite against (Argentina, Samoa and Fiji), lost to three sides we were underdogs against (South Africa, New Zealand in NZ and Wales) and won one upset against the All Blacks in Perth.

The Wales game was a pretty good indication of where the Wallabies sit and why they started favourites against us. We struggle with consistency and rarely produce more than a half of good rugby. I think we quite clearly have the capacity to play at a higher level than Wales but the dross we also readily produce is far worse than anything they come up with. Overall their consistency makes them a better team than us, but not by much.

I don't think we need to improve a lot to challenge the 2-5 ranked teams in a neutral setting like the RWC. We mostly just need to erase the clangers we regularly make that leak tries. Turn that horrible half of rugby into merely an average one and we're right in the contest. One thing we do have going for us is a strong bench and excellent fitness and I think if we're there at half time we have a strong chance of closing out games even against slightly more favoured opposition.

You take the two intercept tries out of our last two games and we start to look good on the scoreboard, not to mention some of the soft penalties or mishaps that afford other teams 3 points or a chance at the corner. We just seem to undo our good work too often which is I why I think so many of us get frustrated because the potential is there. I actually think we could challenge 1-5 rank teams not just 2-5 if we're playing our best game.

 

[VassMan]

The potential is definitely there. It's just that we consistently seem to undo our good work. Wish I had the answer to make it stick! If we can build over the next two games then we've got a chance over England.

 

[KOB1987]

The potential is definitely there. It's just that we consistently seem to undo our good work. Wish I had the answer to make it stick! If we can build over the next two games then we've got a chance over England.

That sums up my thinking too.

 

[Talking Rugby]

Hi guys.

We hear at Ten speaks are making a wallabies focused world cup podcast called Talking Rugby with Matt Burke. Here's the link to the show page: https://play.acast.com/s/talking-rugby the show is also available on the regular podcasts streaming services ie: itunes, spotify.

i know its generally bad form to just show up on a forum and post what could be considered spam. However we think it's a great podcasts and some of the chats Matt has been having have been very insightful and i thought some genuine wallabies fans, or even haters would enjoy the banter.

I recommend the Hooper and Nic White chats!

Sorry if this has broken any rules etc but i hope you guys find and enjoy the pod.

cheers.

 

[formerflanker]

Is Matt available to play? We need a circuit breaker.

 

[John S]

Hi guys.

We hear at Ten speaks are making a wallabies focused world cup podcast called Talking Rugby with Matt Burke. Here's the link to the show page: https://play.acast.com/s/talking-rugby the show is also available on the regular podcasts streaming services ie: itunes, spotify.

i know its generally bad form to just show up on a forum and post what could be considered spam. However we think it's a great podcasts and some of the chats Matt has been having have been very insightful and i thought some genuine wallabies fans, or even haters would enjoy the banter.

I recommend the Hooper and Nic White chats!

Sorry if this has broken any rules etc but i hope you guys find and enjoy the pod.

cheers.

Wonder if there could a GAGR and TR podcast crossover?

 

[Adam84]

No no I'm not using them to justify anything. I'm using them as a benchmark to show that a narrow loss to the 6 nations champions isn't the end of the world and that it doesn't necessarily come down to poor selections and coaching. As a couple of others have since pointed out it could just be that they were, on the night, better than us. If we had beaten them, yes the current rankings would now indicate that, appropriately, we were better than them. But we didn't. I'm also saying that we're only 2 games into the tournament, so I'm not judging our RWC performance just yet.

I just think arguing that Wallabies were beaten by the 2nd ranked team is a little null and void when that current ranking is a direct result of the Welsh win over the Wallabies.

You’re argument was that this losses needed to be put into perspective of the teamS rankings, but the rankings are a lag indicator of what has occurred so of course they’re going to reflect the recent win and loss success. I don’t think that offers anymore perspective to the Wallabies performance or justifies the performance of the wallabies against those teams.

 

[cyclopath]

I just think arguing that Wallabies were beaten by the 2nd ranked team is a little null and void when that current ranking is a direct result of the Welsh win over the Wallabies.

You’re argument was that this losses needed to be put into perspective of the teamS rankings, but the rankings are a lag indicator of what has occurred so of course they’re going to reflect the recent win and loss success. I don’t think that offers anymore perspective to the Wallabies performance or justifies the performance of the wallabies against those teams.

You don't think Wales' record in recent times against other teams has any bearing on their higher ranking? They were ranked #1 recently without playing us since last year. I mean, that probably suggests they are a pretty good team, I would think. Lag indicator and all.

 

[KOB1987]

It's going around in circles a bit but the point I was making was lost in translation a bit. To simplify it, as BH pointed out, the only game we have played which didn't go as per bookies expectations (I used world rankings at the time of the game) was our flogging of the All Blacks. So, over the season, we are slightly ahead of par with at least 3 games yet to play in the tournament. A lot of people seem to be getting a bit carried away with a narrow, unlucky loss to a team ranked higher than us, considering how poorly we played in the first half. A lot of the same people are saying it's poor coaching and poor selections that was the problem, I'm saying the players need to take responsibility.

 

[Up the Guts]

A lot of the same people are saying it's poor coaching and poor selections that was the problem, I'm saying the players need to take responsibility.

Yeah, for me, the Eden Park game was the time to pile on criticism of the coach and game plan when it appeared we had absolutely no plan b in the wet and were trounced in every metric. In this game, most of the criticism centres around the Genia intercept pass, and how this demonstrates an unimaginative coach with only one style of play, when really it was a basic player error given it wasn't the first intercept Davies had attempted. Foley really shit the bed as well and even if he'd had a mediocre game like he did against South Africa things would have looked a lot better.

 

[Adam84]

You don't think Wales' record in recent times against other teams has any bearing on their higher ranking? They were ranked #1 recently without playing us since last year. I mean, that probably suggests they are a pretty good team, I would think. Lag indicator and all.

Well no, thats not what i said.

Using the current Wales WR (World Rugby) Ranking of No.2 as a justification, or reason as to why we should be accepting of Wallabies loss to Wales is null point. Wales weren’t ranked No.2 last week, they have since jumped to No.2 as a direct result of the win over the Wallabies. Conversely had the Wallabies beaten Wales, the Wallabies would have leapfrogged Wales in the ranking. Regardless of Wales recent record In the 6 nations, Australia would have jumped them had Australia won.

Yes you can use World Rugby rankings as a benchmark to forecast forward, but using current world rugby rankings to justify or provide “perspective” on previous losses is a ridiculous concept, because those current world rankings are where they are today as a result of those previous wins or losses.

 

[cyclopath]

Well no, thats not what i said.

Using the current Wales WR (World Rugby) Ranking of No.2 as a justification, or reason as to why we should be accepting of Wallabies loss to Wales is a null point, because the current ranking is a direct result of defeating the Wallabies. Wales weren’t ranked No.2 last week, they have since jumped to No.2 as a direct result of the win over the Wallabies. Conversely had the Wallabies beaten Wales, the Wallabies would have leapfrogged Wales in the ranking.

Using current world rugby rankings to justify or “perspective” previous losses is a ridiculous concept, because those current world rankings are where they are today as a result of those previous wins or losses.

Yeah, I get how the rankings work, and it's not saying we should "accept" the loss, but Wales were #1 only in the past few weeks. So the loss, which was bloody close, is actually an expected outcome. The differences between 1-4 are tiny, then a gap to 5 then to us. We are clearly a step or two below Wales / Ireland / England and NZ. Based on results over the past 1-2 years at least. The point that I, and others are making, is that the rankings do, in fact, differentiate between us and teams ranked above us quite well, based on the actual differences. And these reflect form over a reasonable period.

 

[Derpus]

Yeah, I get how the rankings work, and it's not saying we should "accept" the loss, but Wales were #1 only in the past few weeks. So the loss, which was bloody close, is actually an expected outcome. The differences between 1-4 are tiny, then a gap to 5 then to us. We are clearly a step or two below Wales / Ireland / England and NZ. Based on results over the past 1-2 years at least. The point that I, and others are making, is that the rankings do, in fact, differentiate between us and teams ranked above us quite well, based on the actual differences. And these reflect form over a reasonable period.

Replace Ireland with SA. I suspect Ireland are on the slide a little.

 

[Adam84]

Yeah, I get how the rankings work, and it's not saying we should "accept" the loss, but Wales were #1 only in the past few weeks. So the loss, which was bloody close, is actually an expected outcome. The differences between 1-4 are tiny, then a gap to 5 then to us. We are clearly a step or two below Wales / Ireland / England and NZ. Based on results over the past 1-2 years at least. The point that I, and others are making, is that the rankings do, in fact, differentiate between us and teams ranked above us quite well, based on the actual differences. And these reflect form over a reasonable period.

You may not have, but my comment was in response to someone else who had inferred that.
Again these comments about the gap between the ranks are made after the loss over they weekend, had Australia won on the weekend, they would have actually leapfrogged Wales and South Africa into 4th. Retrospectively arguing these rankings and the correlation to why a team won is a pointless, self gratifying endeavour as the rankings reflect the results.

Evidentally I dont place as much emphasis on rankings as other do on here.

 

[KOB1987]

You may not have, but my comment was in response to someone else who had inferred that.
Again these comments about the gap between the ranks are made after the loss over they weekend, had Australia won on the weekend, they would have actually leapfrogged Wales and South Africa into 4th. Retrospectively arguing these rankings and the correlation to why a team won is a pointless, self gratifying endeavour as the rankings reflect the results.

Evidentally I dont place as much emphasis on rankings as other do on here.

Again, I wasn’t saying that I was satisfied with losing. I was firstly pointing out that based on world rankings at the time (i.e last Saturday) it was the expected outcome that we suffer a narrow loss. But my main point was that people were blaming poor coaching and poor selections as the reason for the loss, completely absolving the players who were given the opportunity to catapult us to #3, of any responsibility, even though it was the expected outcome (based on world rankings and bookies odds). Anyway, I’ll let it lie now.

 

[Adam84]

Again, I wasn’t saying that I was satisfied with losing. I was firstly pointing out that based on world rankings at the time (i.e last Saturday) it was the expected outcome that we suffer a narrow loss. But my main point was that people were blaming poor coaching and poor selections as the reason for the loss, completely absolving the players who were given the opportunity to catapult us to #3, of any responsibility, even though it was the expected outcome (based on world rankings and bookies odds). Anyway, I’ll let it lie now.

Sure, but you mentioned Wales were ranked No.2, which was their ranking after the game, not at the time(i.e last Saturday).

I think players have received their fair share of criticism as well, it’s not just the coaching and selection, just look at the criticism directed at Bernard Foley.

 

[TSR]

The thing I love about the rankings is that they are a great conversation starter.