• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Australia v Argentina - 21 November, Newcastle

TSR

Mark Ella (57)
The best team is not necessarily the best 15 players. There are combinations, different skill sets and game plans. You choose your 15 and then reminding 8 players based on a 40 minute strategy. We have two excellent THs. We need to use them both as neither is an 80 minute player. TT is still a work in progress.
AAA, BPA and Slipper was an excellent starting front row. It would be great if AAA could play both sides? Sio is serviceable but he has flaws. It’s too soon for Bell to start.
I agree with the notion that the best 15 don’t necessarily make the starting team when it requires a player to be shoehorned into a different position. But that is not what you proposed. You proposed Ala'alatoa should replace Tupou because Tupou was not at his best on the weekend and AAA is technically better and has a better motor.

I’m disagreeing on the basis -
- we are talking a straight 1 on 1 choice between two players. If you are going to bring combinations into it, Tupou has Super Rugby combination with the starting hooker, AAA does not
- Tupou didn’t play his best game on the weekend (who is at their best every week?) but I maintain he still played better than AAA on the weekend and was a positive contributor to the period during which the Wallabies looked their best
- I disagree entirely AAA has a bigger motor and I believe Tupou has comprehensively proved that over the season
- AAA is technically better in some aspects, but Tupou is technically better in others. Not least being scrummaging. I don’t think AAAs advantages in other areas outweigh his where Tupou is superior

My argument here is not with the notion that selections don’t take into account a range of factors it is with two specific points -
- that AAA should be promoted to the starting team because Tupou didn’t play at his best. IMO Tupou was still clearly better
- that Tupou should be a bench weapon. Tupou was prominent in the early stages. I’d much rather use my best players first and for longer.

At the end of the day we didn’t take advantage of the early momentum. He played his part in that with a couple of penalties which is where he needs to improve, but he was by no means the key reason we didn’t have the lead we should have had at half time.
 

Teh Other Dave

Alan Cameron (40)
That said, I don't know why some LHPs have taken up this habit of binding short, and then pulling in - your elbow is then pointing at the ground and looks bad when things collapse. You could hear the AR call "gold gold" when it went down on the second one

Refs look specifically at this - TH bind on jersey behind the sleeve, and keep their elbow up. Dropping his bind is always going to attract the penalty.

I reckon Ledesma would have died a little bit inside, he turned Sio into an excellent prop. Don't get me wrong, I think he had a cracking game, just lost shape later in the game (as you pointed out).
 

Up the Guts

Steve Williams (59)
I agree with the notion that the best 15 don’t necessarily make the starting team when it requires a player to be shoehorned into a different position. But that is not what you proposed. You proposed Ala'alatoa should replace Tupou because Tupou was not at his best on the weekend and AAA is technically better and has a better motor.

I’m disagreeing on the basis -
- we are talking a straight 1 on 1 choice between two players. If you are going to bring combinations into it, Tupou has Super Rugby combination with the starting hooker, AAA does not
- Tupou didn’t play his best game on the weekend (who is at their best every week?) but I maintain he still played better than AAA on the weekend and was a positive contributor to the period during which the Wallabies looked their best
- I disagree entirely AAA has a bigger motor and I believe Tupou has comprehensively proved that over the season
- AAA is technically better in some aspects, but Tupou is technically better in others. Not least being scrummaging. I don’t think AAAs advantages in other areas outweigh his where Tupou is superior

My argument here is not with the notion that selections don’t take into account a range of factors it is with two specific points -
- that AAA should be promoted to the starting team because Tupou didn’t play at his best. IMO Tupou was still clearly better
- that Tupou should be a bench weapon. Tupou was prominent in the early stages. I’d much rather use my best players first and for longer.

At the end of the day we didn’t take advantage of the early momentum. He played his part in that with a couple of penalties which is where he needs to improve, but he was by no means the key reason we didn’t have the lead we should have had at half time.
My issue is pre-planning when 'Nela will come off. It looks like they're saying beforehand, you've got 40-50 minutes, go nuts. It's no surprise to me that he's then giving away penalties as a result of being too aggressive. If he's still dominating in the scrums after 50 minutes and making his tackles leave him on. AAA is an excellent player but it's not u10s, we don't have to give them equal game time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TSR

Joe Blow

Peter Sullivan (51)
I agree with the notion that the best 15 don’t necessarily make the starting team when it requires a player to be shoehorned into a different position. But that is not what you proposed. You proposed Ala'alatoa should replace Tupou because Tupou was not at his best on the weekend and AAA is technically better and has a better motor.

I’m disagreeing on the basis -
- we are talking a straight 1 on 1 choice between two players. If you are going to bring combinations into it, Tupou has Super Rugby combination with the starting hooker, AAA does not
- Tupou didn’t play his best game on the weekend (who is at their best every week?) but I maintain he still played better than AAA on the weekend and was a positive contributor to the period during which the Wallabies looked their best
- I disagree entirely AAA has a bigger motor and I believe Tupou has comprehensively proved that over the season
- AAA is technically better in some aspects, but Tupou is technically better in others. Not least being scrummaging. I don’t think AAAs advantages in other areas outweigh his where Tupou is superior

My argument here is not with the notion that selections don’t take into account a range of factors it is with two specific points -
- that AAA should be promoted to the starting team because Tupou didn’t play at his best. IMO Tupou was still clearly better
- that Tupou should be a bench weapon. Tupou was prominent in the early stages. I’d much rather use my best players first and for longer.

At the end of the day we didn’t take advantage of the early momentum. He played his part in that with a couple of penalties which is where he needs to improve, but he was by no means the key reason we didn’t have the lead we should have had at half time.
I’m thinking more along the lines that both starts for TT this year have been an average performance. When he has come from the bench he has been near MOTM level. AAA can do the same job early but cannot have the same impact late....if that makes sense. Obviously either are capable of starting but so far it has served us well with TT coming off the bench compared to starting.
True AAA has a combination with FF (Folau Fainga'a) as well, but it was not the greatest combo in Super Rugby AU.
 

Drew

Bob Davidson (42)
There are pluses and minuses in the tight head side, but both are strong. Loose head, less so.
 

Hardtackle

Charlie Fox (21)
[quote EDIT: I'd even consider bringing Tupou on at say 35mins in the first half. That would more impact out of him.[/quote]


This is the way i'm thinking too. Bring him on when their front row is knackered - say 30-35. AAA can come back on if TT gets injured.
 

Jimmy_Crouch

Ken Catchpole (46)
[quote EDIT: I'd even consider bringing Tupou on at say 35mins in the first half. That would more impact out of him.

This is the way i'm thinking too. Bring him on when their front row is knackered - say 30-35. AAA can come back on if TT gets injured.[/quote]

Was talking to my oldman about this tactic at the NZ game. No risk in trying it.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Sio's issue really is in the scrum where he gets pinged for hinging as tiredness sets in. But there are quite a few posters who seem to criticise his whole game for apparent lack of involvement.


I think that was clearly Sio's best game so far this year (which is only 4 games, three of which were off the bench).

His form has been down and was the reason he got dropped for Bell. His form was better here and I expect he'll start again in the final test of the year.
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
I think that was clearly Sio's best game so far this year (which is only 4 games, three of which were off the bench).

His form has been down and was the reason he got dropped for Bell. His form was better here and I expect he'll start again in the final test of the year.

Rennie left him on too long, IMO. His main errors came after 55+ minutes so he was probably rooted. Not everyone has Taniela's ticker.
 

Zero_Cool

Arch Winning (36)
I'd be interested to hear what people thought about the captaincy decisions that Hooper made. I've seen quite a bit of chatter looking at options to replace Hooper. The media have thrown Willson out as an option (he hosed it down). I think pretty obviously now is not the time to change captain, given we have only one game for the year left; then you'd have a year of Super Rugby where you have no idea who's going to do what.

But do people think Hooper should be removed as captain? Was his decision making good or not? What about his dealings with the referee?
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
I'd be interested to hear what people thought about the captaincy decisions that Hooper made. I've seen quite a bit of chatter looking at options to replace Hooper. The media have thrown Willson out as an option (he hosed it down). I think pretty obviously now is not the time to change captain, given we have only one game for the year left; then you'd have a year of Super Rugby where you have no idea who's going to do what.

But do people think Hooper should be removed as captain? Was his decision making good or not? What about his dealings with the referee?
Is this a question, or a statement? Who are the "media" saying this?
 

Joe Blow

Peter Sullivan (51)
First half in a test against tier one oppo with the game in the balance...............take the points every time, every time no question.
It’s test rugby FFS. Respect it and take the points.
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
I'd be interested to hear what people thought about the captaincy decisions that Hooper made.]

In professional sport, the captain does not make decisions about whether or not to kick for goal, the coach does. It just beggars belief that the coach just sits there, in his box (with a pretty comprehensive selection of communication devices and channels) and lets the captain decide a hugely strategic question like this. WTF do people think that the "water boys" do when they run out onto the field regularly? Water the farking daisies?

But do people think Hooper should be removed as captain?


No.
 

Zero_Cool

Arch Winning (36)
I disagree that there is ever a one size fits all solution -- always take the points or always build pressure is always wrong (except when it's right haha). But rugby should be more nuanced.

A good example of this is a really good example of Hooper getting it so very wrong. In general you want to build pressure (be it score board pressure or line pressure), obviously when you kick penalty goals you put the other team under pressure to also score -- typically goals, because they are more available, 2 to 3 penalties is equivalent to a try (IMO that ratio is criminal and why penalties should be reduced to only being worth two or the difficulty of a penalty goal be increase -- removing the kicking tee). Scoring tries (facilitated by kicking to the corner or packing a scrum or even a quick tap) builds more scoring pressure but is less consistent. Obviously you want to score a try because that's worth 5 to 7 points plus it gets you all those points in one go so teams feel more pressure to have to score a try in return.

Anyway on to the poor decision making from Hooper, right before halftime the Wallabies had 3 or 4 penalties (some after the half time siren), and should have had a yellow card for cynically killing the ball that was ignored (likely because as always we had pissed off the ref, whatever). Now in that half the Wallabies had Argentina under incredible pressure controlling the possession and the territory. We had taken at least 2 kicks to the corner, and a 3rd or 4th penalty was awarded, Argentina is then put on a yellow card warning for repeat infringements. Hooper at this point makes a really really big deal about this to the referee. Argentina were under an incredible amount of pressure they had been defending doggedly all half. The decision is kick the goal, kick to the corner (and get the lineout) or take the scrum, (quick tap would have been pointless here). Hooper decided despite having kicked to the corner a number of times prior to that to finally despite Argentina being out on their feet, despite having kicked to the corner at least twice before he elects to take the 3 points.
So here you have the Wallabies building line pressure -- basically to breaking point, he significantly damages his relationship with the referee about the looming yellow card AND then after all that build up he walks away with only 3 points.

Think about it from Argentina's perspective. They've been under pressure for basically the whole half, you are gallantly holding out the Wallabies attack, you have given away a number of penalties in a row, you are on a yellow card warning.... And they take the 3, you have just been let out of jail. Had Hooper continued the attack Argentina more than likely would have cracked.

Perhaps Hooper doesn't have the faith in his lineout (although at that point it had been quite good) then why not go to your dominant scum that had already won a penalty? Instead Hooper takes all that line pressure he build up, and cashed it in for 3 points, no yellow card, and all in all let Argentina off the hook. Sure other times when there is a cheap penalty 40 out and you've not really got anything going take the 3. But when you've got the opposition under pressure press the attack.

This is the problem with Hooper's captaincy (in addition to his worst in World Rugby relationships with the Referees * more on this), he makes terrible decisions about what to do with the pressure his sides build, often he goes for goal when he has a side on the ropes (giving up that pressure), or he continues to press too long when it's obvious a team isn't going to crack.

As for the referees having played, refereed and coached a few sports it's obvious the referees hate him, he is combative and arrogant, as well has having an appalling reputation that wasn't helped by having a coach who only enhanced those negative traits. Perhaps he got a bit or a let off with the new coach etc. but obviously that is over. I'm personally friends with one former Wallabies Captain (only for a handful of games nothing major, and actually is from NSW), and he is mortified by a lot of Hooper's behavior on the field, his treatment of the referees is distasteful. Frequently he will walk away and try to hide when the referee is calling him over to address an issue, he'll pretend not to hear them, etc. In addition to the obvious disrespect he shows the referees when dealing with them.
 

Silverado

Dick Tooth (41)
I disagree that there is ever a one size fits all solution -- always take the points or always build pressure is always wrong (except when it's right haha). But rugby should be more nuanced.

A good example of this is a really good example of Hooper getting it so very wrong. In general you want to build pressure (be it score board pressure or line pressure), obviously when you kick penalty goals you put the other team under pressure to also score -- typically goals, because they are more available, 2 to 3 penalties is equivalent to a try (IMO that ratio is criminal and why penalties should be reduced to only being worth two or the difficulty of a penalty goal be increase -- removing the kicking tee). Scoring tries (facilitated by kicking to the corner or packing a scrum or even a quick tap) builds more scoring pressure but is less consistent. Obviously you want to score a try because that's worth 5 to 7 points plus it gets you all those points in one go so teams feel more pressure to have to score a try in return.

Anyway on to the poor decision making from Hooper, right before halftime the Wallabies had 3 or 4 penalties (some after the half time siren), and should have had a yellow card for cynically killing the ball that was ignored (likely because as always we had pissed off the ref, whatever). Now in that half the Wallabies had Argentina under incredible pressure controlling the possession and the territory. We had taken at least 2 kicks to the corner, and a 3rd or 4th penalty was awarded, Argentina is then put on a yellow card warning for repeat infringements. Hooper at this point makes a really really big deal about this to the referee. Argentina were under an incredible amount of pressure they had been defending doggedly all half. The decision is kick the goal, kick to the corner (and get the lineout) or take the scrum, (quick tap would have been pointless here). Hooper decided despite having kicked to the corner a number of times prior to that to finally despite Argentina being out on their feet, despite having kicked to the corner at least twice before he elects to take the 3 points.
So here you have the Wallabies building line pressure -- basically to breaking point, he significantly damages his relationship with the referee about the looming yellow card AND then after all that build up he walks away with only 3 points.

Think about it from Argentina's perspective. They've been under pressure for basically the whole half, you are gallantly holding out the Wallabies attack, you have given away a number of penalties in a row, you are on a yellow card warning.. And they take the 3, you have just been let out of jail. Had Hooper continued the attack Argentina more than likely would have cracked.

Perhaps Hooper doesn't have the faith in his lineout (although at that point it had been quite good) then why not go to your dominant scum that had already won a penalty? Instead Hooper takes all that line pressure he build up, and cashed it in for 3 points, no yellow card, and all in all let Argentina off the hook. Sure other times when there is a cheap penalty 40 out and you've not really got anything going take the 3. But when you've got the opposition under pressure press the attack.

As to the argument 'this is all coming form the coach' perhaps -- but that would mean he's had 3 coaches Gibson, Cheika, and Rennie who all make the same error. And actually the Fox commentary teams have commented a number of times about Hooper's poor decision making around these situations.

This is the problem with Hooper's captaincy (in addition to his worst in World Rugby relationships with the Referees * more on this), he makes terrible decisions about what to do with the pressure his sides build, often he goes for goal when he has a side on the ropes (giving up that pressure), or he continues to press too long when it's obvious a team isn't going to crack.

As for the referees having played, refereed and coached a few sports it's obvious the referees hate him, he is combative and arrogant, as well has having an appalling reputation that wasn't helped by having a coach who only enhanced those negative traits. Perhaps he got a bit or a let off with the new coach etc. but obviously that is over. I'm personally friends with one former Wallabies Captain (only for a handful of games nothing major, and actually is from NSW), and he is mortified by a lot of Hooper's behavior on the field, his treatment of the referees is distasteful. Frequently he will walk away and try to hide when the referee is calling him over to address an issue, he'll pretend not to hear them, etc. In addition to the obvious disrespect he shows the referees when dealing with them.
Ok then, you don't like him. I get it. Do yourself a favour and watch the last minute of the first half when Kafer lauds the decision to go for the lineout which would have resulted in a try if the Banks pass wasn't forward. As it was the kicked 3 kicks at goals in the 1st half
 
Top