and so onto France

[RugbyReg]

The thing about Digby is that he has now played 3 test matches and played damn well in each. His debut was that dreadful test at Suncorp last year v Wales when it was 3-0 (or something at halftime) and we ended up winning 30-0. He was basically the only positive in the first half and looked dangerous, and safe, all game.

Then v Italy I was impressed with his work as well. Eager and effective.

Then again on the weekend, made even more impressive considering the circumstances.

 

[PhucNgo]

South Africa was the team that took longest to adjust but they were well behaved at Twickenham, for them. If "the protocols" are refereed with authority they have the merit of being able to change the behaviour of players.

That's an excellent suggestion Lee, "The Protocols" has a much better ring to it than The Proteas. :fishing

 

[Lee Grant]

Gee Lee, that is a massive over-reaction from a bit of an attempt to wind up NTA.

Fair enough - any effort to wind up NTA can't be all bad.

 

[cyclopath]

Well I'll fess up and say I wasn't aware of the IRB edict to penalise players for going off their feet at the breakdown so I withdraw some of my criticism of Joubert. However, I think Lindomers post covered it off well in that Joubert was penalising players for going off their feet after the ball had been won and when it was of no consequence.

My biggest criticism of Joubert and the NH edict in regard to players going off their feet is the complete pendancism employed in the ruling of it. In several cases, players have gone off their feet in the clearout as they hit defending players and drive them backwards and fall over from momentum, or, as in one case against France that Joubert awarded a penalty for, there was a counter ruck which was driven backwards but the attacker fell over because he lost contact with the player he drove back / held off from the ball.

There are dominant ruck situations whereby the attacking team member should be excused if he doesn't keep his feet, but it seems those cases are somewhat harshly treated.

It's pedantry, Ash. (Sorry, couldn't resist! ;D). But otherwise completely in agreement.

 

[Lindommer]

You pedantic bastard, Pedallist. ;D ;D ;D

 

[formeropenside]

You pedantic bastard, Pedallist. ;D ;D ;D

not to be confused with pederasty, however

 

[cyclopath]

You pedantic bastard, Pedallist. ;D ;D ;D

not to be confused with pederasty, however

Ahem, ah yes, indeed.

 

[Cutter]

South Africa was the team that took longest to adjust but they were well behaved at Twickenham, for them. If "the protocols" are refereed with authority they have the merit of being able to change the behaviour of players.

That's an excellent suggestion Lee, "The Protocols" has a much better ring to it than The Proteas. :fishing

Nice work.

 

[Gagger]

Has been interesting during the week with Deans talking about Burgess' performance and backing it up with selection.

He also seems to see that if you want a 9 to pull the ball out of the ruck so quickly and not do a Cordingly/latter day Gregan "scout for options" before going for a run, then you need to give him heads up from behind and options for offloads. Obviously a lot of that falls to Giteau, but it can't all be down to him. Barnes also being there would probably have helped.

I remember Burgess going for successful darts in the 3Ns, getting isolated behind enemy lines and turned over. I think he's become wary of this and has started getting caught having a look for support.

Deans also quoted saying he had a chat to Burgess at half time. Amongst other things probably told him to just forget about the run and ship it. result: Hynes try.

 

[Scotty]

I have a bad feeling that Burgess doesn't have the necessary peripheral vision. He doesn't seem to see options early enough, and it isn't always the fault of his support. Happy for him to prove me wrong of course.

 

[Ash]

Watched my taped version of the game last night, thanks to not wanting to sit through the breaks in the FoxSports replay (and wanting to rewind it).

Some notes.

Geez, I don't understand how anyone said Burgess did OK. He was appalling. Tune seemed to think the forwards didn't protect him enough, but he got scragged too many times after taking two steps and then wondering what the hell to do with the ball. And then there was his passing, including THAT pass, dropped high balls (which he has had a problem with a while for) and some missed tackles. The best thing he did all night was two turnovers. Probably his worst game all year.

The backline struggles for any width with Mortlock at 12. He doesn't have a long passing game, nor can he time his passes particularly well when he has multiple runners available. Credit to Mortlock though, he is making a good fist of 12 (or as good as he can do) with his limitations. Nothing wrong with his and Gits' wonderful hands for the Hynes try.

Speaking of that try, that would have to be the highlight of the Wallabies' tour. Fantastic build up play from the forwards and then perfectly taken overlap with quick hands from the inside backs. Burgess doesn't deserve some of the credit people gave him here for organising it: it was a set move and the forwards were screaming for the ball just after the previous ruck was formed. Burgess' quick clearing of the ball worked a peach, though.

Mumm and MMM. The fight between them for the 6 jersey should be a cracker. Both have very high workrates, both are good in the lineout, with 3M perhaps the more skillful and explosive, but Mumm is more a grafter in the tight and a better scrummager at lock. Both had some wonderful clean outs against France. My money would be on 3M to hold down the 6 jersey ahead of Mumm, if on natural ability alone, but for one thing: he's always crocked. I am of the mind that if either of these two can develop further next year, then they will be more of the type of 6 that I'd like in the Wallabies, as opposed to Elsom, who is a little loser and not as strong in the tight, but is a better ball winner on the deck.

 

[Ash]

Oh, and on the second viewing when I could rewind at leisure, I found it much harder to be critical of Joubert's reffing.

 

[fatprop]

Watched my taped version of the game last night, thanks to not wanting to sit through the breaks in the FoxSports replay (and wanting to rewind it).

Some notes.

Speaking of that try, that would have to be the highlight of the Wallabies' tour. Fantastic build up play from the forwards and then perfectly taken overlap with quick hands from the inside backs. Burgess doesn't deserve some of the credit people gave him here for organising it: it was a set move and the forwards were screaming for the ball just after the previous ruck was formed. Burgess' quick clearing of the ball worked a peach, though.

Mumm and MMM. The fight between them for the 6 jersey should be a cracker. Both have very high workrates, both are good in the lineout, with 3M perhaps the more skillful and explosive, but Mumm is more a grafter in the tight and a better scrummager at lock. Both had some wonderful clean outs against France. My money would be on 3M to hold down the 6 jersey ahead of Mumm, if on natural ability alone, but for one thing: he's always crocked. I am of the mind that if either of these two can develop further next year, then they will be more of the type of 6 that I'd like in the Wallabies, as opposed to Elsom, who is a little loser and not as strong in the tight, but is a better ball winner on the deck.

Aus were doing the same structure in the first half, but it was breaking down.

Burgess is trying to work at speed and isn't waiting at all for a look, when it works we gain metres, when it doesn't ..........................

As Deans said if they want to play at speed they have to talk to Burgess and tell him where they are, otherwise we can revert to Gregan style, no digging for the ball and lots of delay looking at the options. You clealry get better options that way, but against a defense that has had time to re-set.

 

[Scotty]

The issue isn't always option, fp, it is Burgess more recent lack of commitment to an option. Too much indecision.

If he sees an option, he should just give it. If he sees a hole he should just go for it.

The concern I have is his ability to see an option - is this the problem, or is indecision the issue? Only time will tell.

 

[Pfitzy]

The problem is when your options amount to tight forwards standing 10m away and flat-footed, with no backs calling for it, what are you supposed to do?

 

[Lindommer]

Geez, I don't understand how anyone said Burgess did OK. He was appalling. Tune seemed to think the forwards didn't protect him enough, but he got scragged too many times after taking two steps and then wondering what the hell to do with the ball. And then there was his passing, including THAT pass, dropped high balls (which he has had a problem with a while for) and some missed tackles. The best thing he did all night was two turnovers. Probably his worst game all year.

1. Fact: Burgess started the game having just recovered from a dose of 'flu. Can't you bastards from north of the Tweed read the relevant match reports (in case you missed it there were others affected by the same lurgy. What? you missed it? I give up). Fortunately for Burgess Deans was aware of his ailment and timed his substitution accordingly.

2. Fact: he didn't have his best game. Admitted. Refer to first sentence of point 1.

3. Fact: after a gentle word in Burgess' shell-like at half time by his observant coach, who was mindful of his physical condition, yer man cut everything out of his game other than quick passing. Result: try to Hynes.

4. Fact: the slow old bastard who replaced him in the second half made no mistakes, and brought nothing to the Oz attack other than a perfectly lined up set of backs. Against another set of backs who lined up opposite them in a perfect complementary formation. After they'd had all the time in the world to enjoy their coffee and croissants. Result: nothing.

5. Fact: with Burgess at half back we won in Paris.

For those who criticise Burgess, whom do we replace him with? Deans sees something he wants: speed of thought and action. There's no one within cooee of Burgess on the Australian rugby landscape. If his potential replacements are that good, check where their teams finished on the Super 14 table. No one stood out, which is why Deans was forced to take old stagers like Cordingley and Sheehan. Burgess' performances this year remind me of Rodney Marsh's efforts in his first year with the Oz keeper's gloves: a rough year for a young talent but most definitely worth perservering with.

 

[Thomond78]

The problem is when your options amount to tight forwards standing 10m away and flat-footed, with no backs calling for it, what are you supposed to do?

Kick Nathan Sharpe up the arse.

Well, if in doubt, why not do something that everyone can appreciate...? :thumb

 

[Scotty]

For those who criticise Burgess, whom do we replace him with? Deans sees something he wants: speed of thought and action. There's no one within cooee of Burgess on the Australian rugby landscape. If his potential replacements are that good, check where their teams finished on the Super 14 table. No one stood out, which is why Deans was forced to take old stagers like Cordingley and Sheehan. Burgess' performances this year remind me of Rodney Marsh's efforts in his first year with the Oz keeper's gloves: a rough year for a young talent but most definitely worth perservering with.

Easy L, no need to get so defensive - is he a relative. No one is saying he is not worth sticking with, but no-one is saying he had a good game on the weekend (including you). I'm sure I'm the same as most and just hope that his game becomes more rounded, so the benefits he brings to the team can be achieved more regularly. I thought he was awesome in HK, but he has dropped off a bit since then.

He should also have some competition from other halves next year, including the younger and less experienced Lucas.

 

[Scotty]

The problem is when your options amount to tight forwards standing 10m away and flat-footed, with no backs calling for it, what are you supposed to do?

Either give it or don't. Don't go to throw it, decide against it then turn back and get barrelled.

 

[Ash]

For those who criticise Burgess, whom do we replace him with? Deans sees something he wants: speed of thought and action. There's no one within cooee of Burgess on the Australian rugby landscape. If his potential replacements are that good, check where their teams finished on the Super 14 table. No one stood out, which is why Deans was forced to take old stagers like Cordingley and Sheehan. Burgess' performances this year remind me of Rodney Marsh's efforts in his first year with the Oz keeper's gloves: a rough year for a young talent but most definitely worth perservering with.

Easy L, no need to get so defensive - is he a relative. No one is saying he is not worth sticking with, but no-one is saying he had a good game on the weekend (including you). I'm sure I'm the same as most and just hope that his game becomes more rounded, so the benefits he brings to the team can be achieved more regularly. I thought he was awesome in HK, but he has dropped off a bit since then.

He should also have some competition from other halves next year, including the younger and less experienced Lucas.

Actually, there were two people on this board saying he had a good game (Lindommer was not one of them, of course). And yup, I read where he had the 'flu. He may have been affected and short of a gallop - but if he was so badly affected, he would have been subbed earlier or not played.

Of course, Lindommer brought provincialism into it. They're the Wallabies: like Lindommer claims, I support who is chosen, and Burgess is the only choice right now. But his performances on this tour have highlighted that he's not the next Catchpole or Hipwell or even Gregan in his pomp unless he puts in a lot of work and has time to develop - and people are forgetting that Burgess is already 25 years old, yet he hasn't even had a full S14 of real experience. Burgess brings quick, dynamic play from the back of a ruck, but right now he's also bringing lots of indecision and wonky passes. Unsurprising when you look at the poor guy's top level experience.

Remember, Lindommer, the way he played we won despite having Burgess at halfback in Paris, and we won despite having Burgess at Twickenham. But Burgess will be better for it, the development for him would be nearly priceless.

On this trip - of course he should be perservered with. Although you're being overly harsh on Ol' Glass Foot once he came on, he is off anyway and only worth keeping around to mentor Burgess. Cordingley working with Burgess all tour to get nice crisp passes in front of the man? That's worth something.

Lucas? I think Lucas and Burgess will be fighting it out next year for the starting scrumhalf spot, assuming Lucas gets a fair shot at the Reds. But Phibbs or Holmes at the Brumbies and Valentine at the Force are all capable of putting in a stirling S14 and having a claim on the position. If there's anything that the last two Bledisloe games and the EOYT have shown, it's that Burgess does not have a mortgage on the halfback spot. But that's hardly surprising - here's a guy who has really worked for a few years to get his chance, but so far he does not even have a full year of top level provincial experience and people here are claiming he's the new halfback test level messiah and marking him as above criticism.

Right now, the best way to go fishing is to criticise Burgess... :fishing