Australia v Argentina - 21 November, Newcastle

[formerflanker]

I’m ok with the scratches . I grew up with them, as I’m sure many others here did. I’ll take 50 scratches for a fullback that gives a fuck.

I'm assuming you grew up in the era of using the feet for rucking.
No room for those scratches (sorry - badges of honour) in today's game.

 

[TSR]

Daugunu is steadily working himself out of a jersey eh. Big fall from his first game.

Personally I doubt it. He was the best winger at super rugby and has demonstrated he can make an impact at test level - and not only in his first game.

But he does have some issues to address and Rennie does have options so he could find himself outside the 23.

If he misses the next test there is a long time before the next international so plenty of time for the pecking order to be adjusted.

I do think we should be cautious in summing players up as ‘not suitable for test rugby’ on small sample sizes without insight into how they approach their own development in camp.

 

[Derpus]

^^^
I think he is clearly good enough but he's had neutral to negative impacts in his last 3 games. That's what i meant by working himself out.

 

[Rebel man]

They didn't outscore us with a man down. We got 3 points to 0 in those 10 mins (Sanchez missed) then another 3 a few minutes after they got 15 men. I agree though that we didn't dominate those 10.

Second, totally agree about the Pumas 2 not getting a YC immediately. If you're saying BPA wasn't excused for not hearing the ref then how can he be allowed to just continue to hold tight onto the ball with the ref yelling "let go" and "penalty" plus White hitting him. That was probably the part when I got the angriest during the whole match and thought was very poor reffing.

The ref was pathetic that’s a card every day of the week. Lying on your back bear hugging the ball in the ruck when the halfback is trying to clear the ball is so obviously a professional foul. Was a disgraceful decision to allow him to stay on the park

 

[KOB1987]

I'm assuming you grew up in the era of using the feet for rucking.
No room for those scratches (sorry - badges of honour) in today's game.

Disagree. If someone is cynically lying on the ball they need to be discouraged from doing it again. Head and nuts have always been off limits and that gentleman’s rule stays in place.

 

[rugboy]

Personally I doubt it. He was the best winger at super rugby and has demonstrated he can make an impact at test level - and not only in his first game.

But he does have some issues to address and Rennie does have options so he could find himself outside the 23.

If he misses the next test there is a long time before the next international so plenty of time for the pecking order to be adjusted.

I do think we should be cautious in summing players up as ‘not suitable for test rugby’ on small sample sizes without insight into how they approach their own development in camp.

With the signing of Vunivalu and hopefully the continued development and rise of Ramm, if Daugunu doesn't get the chance to play next test he could have a fight on his hands to remain in the squad moving forward.

His main issue is the difference between his best and worst is too great for test level. Rennie has shown early he wont persist with those type of players.

Even in super rugby, he was outstanding often but also had some shockers.

He was great in the first Bledisloe, although as Derpus mentioned since he has more a negative impact on the teams performance.

 

[Pfitzy]

Our line out was 81% to their 75% - it was not the problem at least not on a list a major items.

The numbers don't tell the story tho - **where** the 19% failures occurred are critical. BPA had trouble stringing consecutive throws together when we were in the red zone.

When you think back to our scrum dominance in the first half, some of those lineout decisions could easily be scrums.

 

[Pfitzy]

Interesting call on Hooper. I thought he actually could do that under the laws.

Listening to Williams he did penalise Hooper for taking him past the ball (he didn’t actually take him that far), he got him for cleaning a guy who wasn’t part of the breakdown because there wasn’t one. But he was part of the tackle, which Williams seemed to subsequently admit to Hooper. As far as I understood the rules he is therefore fair game.

Any refs on here want to give me their view?

I don’t mind in any case - if the ref got it wrong at full speed so be it. Just interested on what the correct ruling is.

I think the decision was correct - Argie player (Kremer?) wasn't in possession of the ball so Hooper had no right to take him from that position. That's obstruction. There wasn't a ruck or any kind of maul-thing, and if there was you could do Hooper for being offside anyway.

 

[Derpus]

The ref was pathetic that’s a card every day of the week. Lying on your back bear hugging the ball in the ruck when the halfback is trying to clear the ball is so obviously a professional foul. Was a disgraceful decision to allow him to stay on the park

100%. But Hooper is as much of a mug for not knowing no-decision wouldn't make a decision.

Sometimes i think we are completely incapable of understanding that different situations require different approaches. Never learn from ours or other teams mistakes. All very Cheika 'i don't analyse the opposition'

 

[Highkicks]

My take is that was a very frustrating result in which we just weren’t able to finish things off and as the game went on it sapped us and invigorated them. Has to be said that Argentina are a very good defensive team and they deserve a lot of credit for the last two weeks. Actually thought we were great in the first half, we dominated almost across the board.

A few thoughts:

Hodge - I absolutely love at 10. Maybe I have a different view of a 10 than a lot of people here but this is by far his best position for me. He is a well rounded and considered player with a cool head, with a good kicking game to boot. Move him anywhere else in the backline and his lack of ball running ability and skill under the highball make him a weak option. Not solely on him but we are winning the territory battle and I for one love it.

Paisami - What a great game from him. I feel like people think being hard running and a ball player are mutually exclusive but he is showing otherwise. Exactly what I’d want from a 12 and I look forward to seeing him play over the years.

Philip - Another huge game, I’d have him as our top lock, overseas options included.

Selections - I think Rennie has made some pretty big mistakes here across all the games, mostly in terms of the bench. Having Lolesio on the bench for the first game, when he stated afterwards that he wasn’t confident in him, given it was a close game was incredibly dumb. Did he plan on losing and throwing him on at the end to experience that? Liam Wright has shown nothing but more importantly, unless he is coming on at 7 isn’t the style of player you want on the bench. Gordon likewise has shown nothing, incredibly slow getting the ball out and also poor at his box kicks, which he is apparently selected for. Hosea should probably have got experience at some point too.

 

[KOB1987]

I'm not too concerned about the performance and am actually pretty upbeat about the future, we are a very green team and the coach is entitled to experiment at this stage of the cycle. Aside from Hooper, Koroibete and possibly AAA & Hodge, our most experienced players are either injured or out of form / in their twilight days. Upside is massive.

 

[Forcefield]

I wouldn’t say it was a turning point for me. The reality is we should have been ahead by 20 at that point and the game in the bag. A bit rough to call it a turning point which lays too much responsibility at Dauguni’s feet for mine.

But it was a bad option and Rennie commented specifically on the Wallabies running the ball back and turning it over in the PC, so no doubt Daugunu will get to have his moment in the post game review. And fair enough. I disagree with the notion he is not up to this level but, like a lot of the Wallabies proved in this game, too many of them aren’t making consistent good decisions at this level. Hardly surprising given the number of caps. I’m confident they’ll improve under Rennie because he will have no problems moving them on if they don’t.

I chose my words carefully. I think that penalty also lies at feet of Hanigan. If he'd retreated a bit more in the first place, or not come in from the side (but I doubt he'd have cleared the Argies out without doing so). The point wasn't to have a go at Daugunu specifically, but to highlight the deviation from a formula that was working.

 

[Up the Guts]

I thought Valetini looked good in the few minutes he had. He made several of the rag doll tackles that were his trademark when he first burst onto the scene in the NRC. I wouldn't mind a look at him starting at 6 with Hanigan as reserve lock.

That said, I'm not sure defence was really an issue for us. Did the Pumas ever get 5 out? There have been plenty of comments made on the attacking work of Paisami and Petaia but I thought their defensive work warrants special mention. Paisami especially was excellent on the drift, the shot he put on Matera out wide after holding off to cover the inside man was exceptional. These two could form a special combination going forward.

 

[eastman]

We didn't draw that game because of not taking penalty goals or poor defence- we tied because we failed to show any penetration in attack when we had the ball for more than 30 minutes inside the Argentinian half - probably a reflection of the limitations of our inside backs.​

​

With Hodge and Paisami you know you are going to get huge commitment in defence, aggression and urgency however you're unlikely to get much creativity or width in your game (outside of structure). How many linebreaks did we make in that game? I can only remember Wright's from counter.​

 

[Dctarget]

How many linebreaks did we make in that game? I can only remember Wright's from counter.

We made 4 linebreaks. 3 of them were in the first 30 I think.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

I'm not too concerned about the performance and am actually pretty upbeat about the future, we are a very green team and the coach is entitled to experiment at this stage of the cycle.

As I've crapped on about earlier, we did very well for 60 minutes. It was the crashing thud of the last 20 that kills me. It's as if suddenly our footy heads came off. And I'm not talking about mistakes in execution under duress, which I think are signs of a side getting the hang of the speed and intensity of test rugby.

I'm talking about not altering line out calls when it's clear the opposition have set up to steal a throw to Simmo. Panicked kicking when receiving a sub-par clearance kick on the half-way line. Not backing your pigs when they'd pretty much seen off the threat of Matera.

I don't think the issue was Hooper either. Yes he went for the try in tbe first half, but guess what? He still pointed to the sticks at the end of that sequence, and kept opting for the points in the second stanza.

I'm hoping the above was not a result of Rennie having a tactical kicking game plan that was poorly executed (I think that's less likely after the first half). I suspect it's the failure to stick to a game plan that was actually working, and was a reasonable prototype against Northern Hemisphere sides.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

Eastman, there will be games where we fail to crack the line, particularly in dour northern 'spring' tours. It's being able to cope with that and keep putting pressure on their D. We didn't do that despite having the ascendancy in nearly all stats. Argentina taught us all about resilience and making the most of our opportunities last night.

I'm hoping it makes me a better person too, although the Sunday sesh I'm about to embark on suggests otherwise.

 

[Joe Blow]

According to Rennie they went away from the game plan in that last period. Hooper confirmed it.
They needed to be patient and keep playing for territory, plug the corners. It feels like we really let Los Pumas off the hook.

 

[Adam84]

We didn't draw that game because of not taking penalty goals or poor defence- we tied because we failed to show any penetration in attack when we had the ball for more than 30 minutes inside the Argentinian half - probably a reflection of the limitations of our inside backs.​

​

With Hodge and Paisami you know you are going to get huge commitment in defence, aggression and urgency however you're unlikely to get much creativity or width in your game (outside of structure). How many linebreaks did we make in that game? I can only remember Wright's from counter.​

Absolutely!
Hodge is not a playmaking 5/8. He simply doesn’t have a good enough passing game, and even struggles to pass it left to right. Paisami is equally not a playmaker 12, but I actually thought he showed some passing skills yesterday that I hadn’t seen from him before, so it was a step up, but still between the two of them the outside back simply aren’t getting any real quality ball.

We’ve got two world class attacking players in Petaia and Koroibete, and Wright who looks decent himself, but they aren’t getting clean ball, or opportunities for them to show their talent.

 

[Derpus]

We’ve got two world class attacking players in Petaia and Koroibete, and Wright who looks decent himself, but they aren’t getting clean ball, or opportunities for them to show their talent.

Not sure i'd class Petaia as world class just yet. I wonder if he is going to end up being a bit like AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) when he played 13. Pretty brilliant attacker but wasn't big on passin to the ol' winger.