Wallabies v England in Melbourne, 18 June

[Viking]

Which is kind of ironic given his stupid call to take the points instead of the line out the week before. He'd be better served to make a quick decision on what he thinks he should do and then do the opposite!

Agreed. He is a leader on the field but not great with refs and not great with making decisions.

A solid Captain would be nice.

Moore is he is even worse with ref's, he seems to irritate them easily. Plus I feel he is very emotional at times - easily gets into niggle. Not an very inspiring player.

Poey is great with refs, well respected from all, but then he also makes silly decisions game management wise.

I wish we had a Ben Mowen type Captain. He was damn good.

 

[The torpedo]

Agreed. He is a leader on the field but not great with refs and not great with making decisions.

A solid Captain would be nice.

Moore is he is even worse with ref's, he seems to irritate them easily. Plus I feel he is very emotional at times - easily gets into niggle. Not an very inspiring player.

Poey is great with refs, well respected from all, but then he also makes silly decisions game management wise.

I wish we had a Ben Mowen type Captain. He was damn good.

Slipper? Or even Horwill (unlikely)

 

[Forcefield]

I don't want to sound grim or reactionary, but what really is the big deal about Cheika? He came into a squad in 2014 and did nothing with it. He won a contracted 4 nations (which I will point out Deans also did in 2011) and he finished the RWC exactly where we were seeded to finish- 2nd. So what is the big deal? I get that stacks of guys are injured or in poor form, but there were still some shit selections in my books. Why the fuck was Palu within a country mile of the Wallabies?

Convince me that Cheika is the big deal that everyone makes him out to be.

 

[Viking]

This is it for me. Spot on. One of the things I have always hated about Union and I've been playing for 34 years. There is nothing in it for the catcher. He has up to 15 guys running at him ..some with no intention of catching the ball (eg. Bryan Habana). He either knocks it on under the pressure (and there is massive pressure) or takes it and gets smashed..or if you're like Folau, who is probably the best in the world at it, you may occasionally break through. The kicker gets all the glory.but why? OK, England do it well and Australia don't, so there is some skill involved no doubt, but to constantly kick and wait for the other team to make a mistake just seems so negative to me. Unfortunately it does win you games.

Note: Before anyone slings back in anger, I agree that kicking is an important part of the game ... just don't agree with it being your number 1 tactic. All that hard work to break through a line of 15 big men as opposed to going over them and then charging at some poor defenseless guy - it just doesn't do it for me. Yes, Australia does it. All teams do it. But when it's your number one plan and you can win a game from that plan then I feel something is wrong with the world of rugby.

Yes, call it sour grapes if you want.

England won on their defense. Fair enough. Their defense was absolutely outstanding. But in the other half of the game - attack - they had nothing. Australia was definitely better..they just couldn't score. Even with all Australia's handling errors they were still the better attacking side and tried to play positive running rugby. So the better defensive side beat the better attacking side. So, I agree wholeheartedly Seb. England were far from brilliant (apart from their defense and that superior kicking game). Unfortunately Australia were worse. But I would be bored shitless if I were an England fan.

Unfortunately for Australia the rules of rugby don't seem to favor the team attacking with the ball in hand sometimes. Having said that, NZ would still manage to win and Australia simply couldn't. They just kept doing the same thing over and over. No creativity or imagination. The English reserve hooker (with his little kick-ahead) had more creativity than the entire Australian side.

One thing I learnt from the game - always get the first punch in .because if you throw the second one you will get penalized. I just hate that rule. I know very few people who would stay suitably calm in the situation not to want a modicom of revenge or to stick up for his mates. But Moore was still a knob to do that as captain. Astounding though that two previous penalties in the same play get overturned for Moore's indiscretion. I was actually surprised Robshaw wasn't put on report for his neck-roll in the first game. I have seen worse get penalized in Super rugby.

I'll probably read this tomorrow and wonder what the heck I was talking about.

Nice post Swandive. But I disagree with a point, we were clearly not the better attacking team. We had 20 plus phases and couldn't break the line. I think some-one said we have zero line-breaks in our stats and over 60% possession. Just because we had the ball more and didn't kick doesn't make us better attackers.

Yes England used the High ball every chance they got, but their was also multiple counter attacking opportunities, or territory gain opportunities we failed to take with either poor kicks or poor decision making.

 

[Viking]

Slipper? Or even Horwill (unlikely)

He'd be my first choice. Or I'd probably just go with Poey and give him another go.

 

[Viking]

I don't want to sound grim or reactionary, but what really is the big deal about Cheika? He came into a squad in 2014 and did nothing with it. He won a contracted 4 nations (which I will point out Deans also did in 2011) and he finished the RWC exactly where we were seeded to finish- 2nd. So what is the big deal? I get that stacks of guys are injured or in poor form, but there were still some shit selections in my books. Why the fuck was Palu within a country mile of the Wallabies?

Convince me that Cheika is the big deal that everyone makes him out to be.

He won coach of the year last year, and we played attractive rugby through-out the RWC.Most consider the RWC a success. It was in my books. Thats where the hype came from.

But now we are seeing he only has one strategy and that is being worked out quick by smart coaches.

Cheika is good at Cheika-ball, now he has to prove he can do anything else.

And stop bloody having man-crushes for Foley, Palu, and Mumm.

 

[Istanbul]

I don't want to sound grim or reactionary, but what really is the big deal about Cheika? He came into a squad in 2014 and did nothing with it. He won a contracted 4 nations (which I will point out Deans also did in 2011) and he finished the RWC exactly where we were seeded to finish- 2nd. So what is the big deal? I get that stacks of guys are injured or in poor form, but there were still some shit selections in my books. Why the fuck was Palu within a country mile of the Wallabies?

Convince me that Cheika is the big deal that everyone makes him out to be.

No arguments here - not a fan of the way he carries on in the coaching box.

 

[Tex]

To misquote Top Gun, our game plan was writing cheques our skills/fitness/brains/guts couldn't cash.

What an abject headless nonce of a performance. Some will reference a pyrrhic victory based on stats and possession, but as Hugh noted in his wrap, all the ball in the world means squat if your strategy is bunk.

What a disappointing night for the fans.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[ExiledinBorders]

England won on their defense. Fair enough. Their defense was absolutely outstanding. But in the other half of the game - attack - they had nothing. Australia was definitely better..they just couldn't score.

I what sense was their attack better. They had far more possession but did very little with it. Last week I would agree that Australia looked good in attack - this week they had very little. In the end they were reduced to endless one man out runs at the English defence. That is the easiest thing in the world for a top class defence to deal with (says the man sitting in a chair with a beer in his hand!)

P.S. What an appalling pitch! World Rugby need to bring in a rule that internationals between Tier 1 teams must be played on hybrid pitches.

 

[Tex]

Why is Moore captain? If leading from the front is a criteria for selection we don't need a niggly scrappy cheap shot merchant like him with the skipper's armband.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Tex]

One last download of mental diarrhoea before bed... AAMI Park is a glorious stadium for rugby but for two critical points: the turf and the toilets.

Joubert, for all his cock ups, should be praised for using his head and adapting the scrum to the disgraceful conditions.

Maybe Al Baxter can explain why the men's toilets don't have urinals, but in a sell out match (ground record - congrats Melbourne rugby fans) you shouldn't have to wait 10min today drain the snake.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Viking]

I what sense was their attack better. They had far more possession but did very little with it. Last week I would agree that Australia looked good in attack - this week they had very little. In the end they were reduced to endless one man out runs at the English defence. That is the easiest thing in the world for a top class defence to deal with (says the man sitting in a chair with a beer in his hand!)

P.S. What an appalling pitch! World Rugby need to bring in a rule that internationals between Tier 1 teams must be played on hybrid pitches.

Absolutely. Our attack was completely one dimensional.

A poster already mentioned this, But just image if we did not have Falou - how bloody poor would our backline be. Zero creatively, Zero line-breaks, Zero threatening players. The best we can do is nearly make a half-break...nearly.

 

[Viking]

Sums up our attack.

 

[Gus11]

England Fan and Saracens season-ticket holder here. Nice Forum.

From my perspective, we've won today, and last week, because our front 5 were dominant.

This is a rare joy for us.

Dan Cole owned Slipper all game and IMHO Slipper was lucky not be carded for constantly bringing down the scrum. Are you guys blind to this for some reason?

Same story last week.

At the world cup, your scrum was on top, and you won the game.

 

[Gnostic]

He won coach of the year last year, and we played attractive rugby through-out the RWC.Most consider the RWC a success. It was in my books. Thats where the hype came from.



But now we are seeing he only has one strategy and that is being worked out quick by smart coaches.



Cheika is good at Cheika-ball, now he has to prove he can do anything else.



And stop bloody having man-crushes for Foley, Palu, and Mumm.

For mine the RWC was an outperformance. I fully expected a loss to Wales and England, except England imploded under Farrell and Lancaster stuffing their tactics and selections and Gatland has about as much imagination and adventure as a rock. That said the Wallabies did play some brilliant rugby, so yes the RWC was a success.

As I have posted in the Wallabies thread and Tahs threads since last year, the one dimensional game plan is fundamentally flawed and easily countered. Even with what should be overwhelming territorial and possession stats they are losing games, because the play is just so predictable. It is no better than the dross Hickey and Foley served up and is not a complete Rugby side.

BUT and this is a huge BUT, you and others single out Foley and Mumm (and Palu who didn't play and wasn't in the 23) and Phipps. Who else is there? Lilo who has the form of a limp chook with the Brumbies and injected two parts of SFA in his time so far. Phipps for his errors was at every breakdown, a fresh Frisby was late to nearly every one when he came on. Mumm is replaced by who as a 6/lock? Kimlin is gone. Jones form has been average. Timani? Mumm's form has been poor but better than Timani. The issues are not with any of the players named. The issues are the tactics that see Foley isolated as the only kicking option so the Pom could stack three defenders on him when they tried to exit. The problem is that there are no test grade kickers in all of Australian Rugby (uninjured - Beale and Harris would have been in the side if either had been available).

Watching the Welsh V Abs game I have to say the ABs would have put 50 on the Wallabies tonight and I have no doubt the score would have been similar to that of England if Wales had played the Wallabies.

I must say I prefer this to the boring as shit risk free game plans we have seen previously, but it is so frustrating to see test sides trotted out with fundamental skill deficiencies that have been discussed so extensively for years.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Agree Seb, that's why I said earlier that we were brainless. I can't believe Cheika would go in with that as an actual game plan, so I can only conclude that our on field leadership and play makers froze in the big moments. It was absolute bush league stuff at times when we had ball in hand. We kept getting stymied and still went back to the same tactics. The Wallaby team in the RWC last year didn't play like that, we worked our way out of tough situations and played our footy. Tonight we played England's game, partly because they forced us to and partly because we lacked the wit to try anything else.

 

[Swandive]

I what sense was their attack better. They had far more possession but did very little with it. Last week I would agree that Australia looked good in attack - this week they had very little. In the end they were reduced to endless one man out runs at the English defence. That is the easiest thing in the world for a top class defence to deal with (says the man sitting in a chair with a beer in his hand!)

P.S. What an appalling pitch! World Rugby need to bring in a rule that internationals between Tier 1 teams must be played on hybrid pitches.

Good poiint but what did England do in attack. Pretty much kick it every time. Australia didn't break through but at least had a crack at it. As I said the defense was superior than the attack.

 

[Slim 293]

I may have missed it, but what did Fardy do which was so exceptional in the line outs? Wallabies had one good rolling maul, the rest were ineffective, they had poor maul defence, I don't remember them stealing any but I do remember the Wallabies losing one.

He had one lineout steal, deflected at least one other English throw, and was a general nuisance on England's lineout............

Like everyone else he was shite around the ground, but was quite good in the lineout.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I don't normally complain about the refereeing but I had to protest about Joubert's three absolutely stunning calls tonight:

- The penalty against Moore when there were two offences from England in the one incident, one of which could have been a card. That would have been three points.
- The advantage expiring right on half time. WTF? Since when does penalty advantage expire? Again, three points to us.
- The shoulder charge on Foley, saying he ran off his line and drew the contact. Bollocks he did. Three points to England when the game was in the balance.

Overall I thought he had a good game, but fuck me dead they were appalling decisions. A better team than ours would have overcome them though.

 

[HighPlainsDrifter]

Cheika probably needs to reassess the Wallaby set up . The coming together of 50 plus players in the first instance seems to be back firing , I would think it is a fair expectation from all Australian players in the Super 15 competition that the form players deserve to go into camp ...say 30 with say a rolling 4 earning a spot based on their current performance , and keep the squad fairly tight in the lead up to a test series , I fear the long drawn out "beauty parade" can tend to create a siege mentality where players feel more inclined to play for themselves than go through their fear factor and play for their mates . I just get the sense that Cheika's endeavor to create a team in his "mould" or style of play is eating away at the fabric of the confidence of the test team in themselves and each other . It may be that that the current crop of Wallabies are seen more as Temporary Australians than as a "group who are indebted to each other to play above themselves ". I just think that if players get the feeling they are lucky to be there you just don't get the best in a team dynamic sense as against a group of players who can look each other in the eye knowing they have well and truly earn't their spot in the team . And despite the gushing from many quarters on our World cup experience . we came up short . to see the silverwarwe and glassware cabinets remain bare of late. I thought it was a coaches job to gather the best players in their positions and mould them into a cohesive unit . Look , I think most of the players are up for it but I fear that even if you have a handful who are not quite there in feeling as a part of the program it will severely undermine our efforts on the pitch . I think Cheika is a great coach - just not a very good selector .