Australia v Argentina - 21 November, Newcastle

[dru]

Geez ZC, just a touch ott.

 

[TSR]

I agree with the first part - I don’t think in tests you go for the points every single time anymore. IMO that is outdated thinking and it should be noted that Australia does not currently have a highly accurate goal kicker in their starting 15.

I am not convinced it is either the captain or the coach that makes the decisions 100% of the time.

This interview from Haskell is informative IMO and makes some other points which are relevant to this discussion.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.joe.co.uk/amp/sport/james-haskell-england-captain-216741

Personally I was happy with Hooper’s decision making and I think it is a distraction to place too much emphasis on this as a contributor to the loss. At the end of the day bad execution at critical times let us down and that seemed to be spread across the team. While this is disappointing in one sense I just think it is a reflection of a relatively inexperienced side trying to get used to a completely new game strategy and with a lack of cohesive combinations. But if we want to win games like that being able to execute better will be the thing that turns the tide, IMO. One thing notable in the game was that our exits after scoring were 50/50 so if we’d kicked more goals we may have just given up more points to match. It is all sliding doors stuff.

There is a decent amount riding on these last two games. I am somewhat surprised that Rennie seems to be getting very little by way of a honeymoon period. Average punters and seasoned journalists alike seem to have an expectation of success from the outset, which is unrealistic, IMO. However if Australia can win the RC in its first outgoing this will surely have to provide some level of comfort to those expecting success.

One last observation on Hooper’s decision making - my impression of Rennie in the post game PC is that he was far more disappointed with the teams execution than Hooper’s decisions.

 

[cyclopath]

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.

Right up there with some of the most incoherent rubbish I've read lately on here.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Right up there with some of the most incoherent rubbish I've read lately on here.

 

[Dctarget]

Argentina paying $7.50 for a win, lot of confident kiwis out there swaying those odds.

 

[Froggy]

I don't know why I keep saying this, however I will. There is a whole lot more to being a captain then making sure a couple of obvious on-field decisions meet the approval of all the armchair critics. Right at the top of all these is leadership. Some people, while they might be great students of the game, just don't have it. And when someone does, when you are with them around the group it really becomes clear. Why does someone as young as Liam Wright become captain of the Reds when there are any number of older, more experienced heads around him? Because Thorne sees in him a natural leader. Why didn't Shane Warne, an automatic selection and a guy with an incredible cricket brain not become captain of the Australian cricket team? Because he didn't display the traits of a natural leader.
This is why McKenzie, Cheika, Gibson and Rennie have all selected Hooper as captain. We can see and make pretty educated comments about what we see players are doing while playing the game, but we can't possibly get an insight into who, when the group are together, emerge as the natural leaders.