Australia v Italy, Suncorp Stadium, 24th June 2017 @ 3:00pm

[Viking]

Good analysis here. Foley has his flaws but is prob the best option imho. Cooper brilliant but erratic and suspect defence. Good option in the last 20 min when you need to roll the dice.

Foley has been average the past few games but when on song he controls the backline well.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Shows how bad our state of rugby is when we got Foley the best option. What ever happened to Jono Lance?

 

[cyclopath]

Shows how bad our state of rugby is when we got Foley the best option. What ever happened to Jono Lance?

Not playing well and injured.

 

[KAOPointman]

There's no question Cooper reads the game better than Foley, but QC (Quade Cooper)'s form this year has been horrifically bad. It's unbelievable that he's in the squad, even mores that he's on the field.

Foley's a very capable, test level 10 with a consistently poor kicking game and ordinary defence which make him substandard. He's way better than any other option in Australia at the moment though.

I'm assuming you don't actually watch every game but get your run downs through media dribble......because if you think quades form this year wasn't heavily injury effected, while still being pretty good in an often unluckily beaten team, your joking.
That Foley game run down I did wasn't the first time and it shows how horrible a game Foley had....yet around here....not a peep about it. Me thinks far to many comments and opinions are heavily swayed by what ever the media says....I'm assuming not many actually WATCH the players to see form? :0

 

[KAOPointman]

Yet when I said earlier in this thread that Foley had a 'dissapointing' game someone disputed it.I don't think Quades the solution, I don't know who is, but Foleys form is concerning heading into the TRC.

How can Quade not be the at least short term solution. Foley has been playing terrible....yet still Quade gets no game time. When he comes on there's a bright spark in the back line. Last nite even Foley pepped up with Quade there and looked much better. Funnily enough Foley even performed better all of a sudden with Quade beside him. He started popping balls that weren't OBVIOuS, and attacked the line....even getting a try.
We were playing "rugby minnows" let's not forget....

 

[Quick Hands]

5. The franchises who recruit the fairly average foreign players think it's a better way to win games in the impending season.

Which is probably closest to 1. above. It's a short term fix, well it's meant to be anyway, but it massively impedes on the development of our own players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And on the evidence, this part of the plan isn't working either.

 

[Micheal]

Oh, and this mind set that everything has to revolve around "a" playmaker, I am not sure if that is actually the case anymore.

The best description I have seen for the way the ABs play is from the NRL and called "contract football"




Swap "NRL" for the "Wobs" and .........

How many times last night was it Barrett or Cruden that the play revolved about? To me those decisions are spread throughout the side and that makes it much harder to break down

I think this is a fantastic point.

Whenever our team performs at a level that isn't of the standard deemed "appropriate" by "fans", the 10 is always the first to be blamed, especially if that attack isn't on song.

But should this be the case?

Looking at the BIL vs. AB game from last night, which was an absolutely outstanding test match with fantastic skills across the park, how often did their 10s feature in the attacking master class that was shown?

Not often. Offence is no longer the domain of a 'play maker' and why should it be? Imagine if we relied exclusively on Foley or Cooper to provide spark in attack and they had an off game? The team would be compromised.

All of the fantastic pieces last night in the BIL vs. ABs game were the result of "contract" football whereby every player took ownership of the offence.

I'm sick of every poor performance being blamed on a lack of spark / structure being provided by Foley / Cooper / (insert name here). What about the other 14 players on the field?

Edit: our best attacking pieces were actually a result of "contract" rugby:

+ Naivalu's 1st try: Genia recognised an opportunity and took a quick tap, sent it wide to Foley who sent it wide to Horne. Horne drew two defenders and gave a great pass to Naivalu, who turned on the after burners.

+ Folau's 1st try: came off some nice interplay by the whole team following Foley's inside ball to DHP off the lineout. Good decision making from Coleman, Horne etc. sucks in defenders and allows Genia to exhaust the short side with a pass to DHP, who draws and passes and puts Folau through in the corner. NO

+ Folau's 2nd try: Hunt slides into second play maker and throws Stephen Moore a settler in the midfield. He takes the ball to the line and identifies space outside him. He throws a beautiful cut-out pass to Folau on the outside who strolls in for the try. Fulfilling his role as second play maker well (which is a compliment, not a substitution, for Foley's role).

+ Naivalu's 2nd try: Genia scutters across field and meets defenders. He transfers this pressure to his outside men (probably not the best decision but alls well that ends well) by throwing Foley a nothing pass. Foley puts it between his legs to DHP with great awareness, DHP takes the ball to the line, draws two defenders before offloading to Hunt, who throws a cut out to Naivalu who strolls in.

+ Foleys try: Genia gives it to Foley, who squares in attack and takes the ball to the line whilst looking inside for Hanigan. This commits the defender to Hanigan and he goes over from about 7m out.

+ Hodges try: Powell gives the ball to Carter, who gives it to Quade on a second man play. Quade gives it to Foley who takes the line on, commits 2-3 defenders before giving it outside to DHP in space (DHPs defender had to come in to cover Foley). DHP runs into space, draws a tackler and gives it to Hodge, who turns on the after burners and the rest is history.

So Foley touched the ball in:

+ 4 of our 6 tries (including the one he scored).
+ He also set up the linebreak that directly lead to our second try.

But more importantly, many many players touch the ball in these tries and it was largely a group effort. These were largely great tries and they were really just simply stuff (as the ABs do so well). Identify opportunity, draw and pass, draw and pass, try.

Thats the attack we should be looking for, not wonderous cut outs and inside balls and no look passes and huge steps.

 

[Micheal]

I'm assuming you don't actually watch every game but get your run downs through media dribble..because if you think quades form this year wasn't heavily injury effected, while still being pretty good in an often unluckily beaten team, your joking.
That Foley game run down I did wasn't the first time and it shows how horrible a game Foley had..yet around here..not a peep about it. Me thinks far to many comments and opinions are heavily swayed by what ever the media says..I'm assuming not many actually WATCH the players to see form? :0

What a ridiculous "holier than thou" attitude:

1. Even if Quades formed has been affected through injury, it has been affected. These persistent injuries don't magically dissipate come test season.

2. Foleys form has been "pretty good" in a similarly beaten team. I don't think you can categorise the Reds as unlucky - they have systematic issues across the park as all Australian franchises do.

3. Foley, by any stretch of the imagination, didn't have a "horrible" game.

4. Asserting that you are the only person who actually watches the game isn't helpful, nor is it even slightly consistent with the truth. You do not have a divine insight or ability to interpret the game that we don't have, nor are the rest of us just mindless sheep, it just happens that we have different opinions on the game. It isn't as black and white as you'd like it to be so the dogma isn't suitable here.

Lastly, in regard to your assertion that we were playing a "minnow" - we weren't. Italy is the lowest ranked tier 1 nation but they are still a tier one nation. That being said, the gap between tier 1 and Fiji / Japan / Georgia is closing.

 

[TOCC]

I wouldn't say Foley played horrible, but based on his error count and game management I would say he played poorly..

i do wonder what the reaction would be if Quade had made the same number of errors, people seem to be more forgiving towards Foley for his errors, perhaps because historically he has a lower error rate where as Quade has been known to crumble.

 

[cyclopath]

I think this is a fantastic point.

Whenever our team performs at a level that isn't of the standard deemed "appropriate" by "fans", the 10 is always the first to be blamed, especially if that attack isn't on song.

But should this be the case?

Looking at the BIL vs. AB game from last night, which was an absolutely outstanding test match with fantastic skills across the park, how often did their 10s feature in the attacking master class that was shown?

Not often. Offence is no longer the domain of a 'play maker' and why should it be? Imagine if we relied exclusively on Foley or Cooper to provide spark in attack and they had an off game? The team would be compromised.

All of the fantastic pieces last night in the BIL vs. ABs game were the result of "contract" football whereby every player took ownership of the offence.

I'm sick of every poor performance being blamed on a lack of spark / structure being provided by Foley / Cooper / (insert name here). What about the other 14 players on the field?

The game evolves and moves on from the rote structures of the past. The ABs have multiple players who "make the play" - Barrett, Williams, A Smith, B Smith - and pretty much all their players can catch, draw and pass so that it doesn't usually matter who is in the movement, it keeps going. Same with turnovers - they don't play a designated pilferer, but many of their players are opportunists who will do it if it's on. Or counter-ruck. The point is, they are flexible in their approach to capitalise on the chances that present themselves.
We should be aiming at what they do. But until we have players at all levels training and thinking that way, and we have a level of conditioning to do it, trying to play their way is going to be a hit and miss affair. We're years behind them.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Well, another embarrassing performance against a minnow.

Italians should have had 2 more tries and we one. Australia still would have won but FFS.

Sio and Smith were just terrible. They both have enough experience but were shocking.

Thank God for Folau and Foley's kicking.

Chek must be shaking in his boots (he should be) in anticipation of the RC when we met some First Tier teams.

In 3 years there has been fuckall improvement. Anyone (including those guys on here being one eyed Chek supporters) who thinks we have should seek professional help

Shit I am disappointed

 

[TSR]

I'm not having a go at Foley because I don't understand how the game is played.

I'm having a go at him because he isn't performing to the level of an international 10.

His performance doesn't exonerate his teams mates or the coaching staff - nor does it mean that he should be dropped for an inferior option, but I'm genuinely amazed that anyone would suggest his performances are up to par.

 

[TOCC]

The game evolves and moves on from the rote structures of the past. The ABs have multiple players who "make the play" - Barrett, Williams, A Smith, B Smith - and pretty much all their players can catch, draw and pass so that it doesn't usually matter who is in the movement, it keeps going. Same with turnovers - they don't play a designated pilferer, but many of their players are opportunists who will do it if it's on. Or counter-ruck. The point is, they are flexible in their approach to capitalise on the chances that present themselves.
We should be aiming at what they do. But until we have players at all levels training and thinking that way, and we have a level of conditioning to do it, trying to play their way is going to be a hit and miss affair. We're years behind them.

Another reason why I believe Folau should move from fullback to wing, he doesn't have the playmaking ability of DHP or Hunt, having a fullback who can inject themselves as a second playmaker or linkup on a counter attack is something the All Blacks do well that Australia doesn't.

 

[cyclopath]

I wouldn't say Foley played horrible, but based on his error count and game management I would say he played poorly..

i do wonder what the reaction would be if Quade had made the same number of errors, people seem to be more forgiving towards Foley for his errors, perhaps because historically he has a lower error rate where as Quade has been known to crumble.

If Quade scored one try, set up another, made all his touch kicks, kicked 5 from 6 and made pretty much all his tackles would it be a pass game or poor?
For me, I would call it a pass.
Plus, having watched the game again, I'm not convinced that "analysis" presented earlier is entirely accurate.

 

[cyclopath]

Another reason why I believe Folau should move from fullback to wing, he doesn't have the playmaking ability of DHP or Hunt, having a fullback who can inject themselves as a second playmaker or linkup on a counter attack is something the All Blacks do well that Australia doesn't.

I'm with you about Folau on the wing.
I suspect we might see it when / if Beale plays in later Tests. I would hope we see Hunt stay at 12, Folau wing and Beale at 15 if he plays. Meantime, DHP there works. Having seen Naivalu I really hope we keep him on one wing at least - that pace is too good to not use.

 

[Rebels3]

I have come to the conclusion it's neither the players, nor the coach but instead it's a reflection of an Australian rugby that has struggled to move on from philosophies and methods from a bygone era.

Super rugby coaching is horrendous, I actually feel sorry for cheika and the garbage he inherits from these muppets. The players honestly are giving it their all and on the criterias on and off the field asked of them they genuinely believe they are achieving them. They are as fit as these metrics are asking them to be, probably because it's the same level of fitness to reach World Cup '99 levels. All in all my feelings on the wallabies and Australian rugby can be summed up in a few words

Choreographed
Inflexible
Out dated
Fit but not elite fit

 

[D-Box]

DHP looks to me like he is the one playing the traditional 15 role in attack

Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk

 

[Micheal]

If Quade scored one try, set up another, made all his touch kicks, kicked 5 from 6 and made pretty much all his tackles would it be a pass game or poor? Plus, having watched the game again, I'm not convinced that "analysis" presented earlier is entirely accurate.

Shamelessly quoting my post above, as I edited it with an analysis of all our tries.

So Foley touched the ball in:

+ 4 of our 6 tries (including the one he scored).
+ He also set up the linebreak that directly lead to our second try.

 

[Viking]

I think this is a fantastic point.

Whenever our team performs at a level that isn't of the standard deemed "appropriate" by "fans", the 10 is always the first to be blamed, especially if that attack isn't on song.

But should this be the case?

Looking at the BIL vs. AB game from last night, which was an absolutely outstanding test match with fantastic skills across the park, how often did their 10s feature in the attacking master class that was shown?

Not often. Offence is no longer the domain of a 'play maker' and why should it be? Imagine if we relied exclusively on Foley or Cooper to provide spark in attack and they had an off game? The team would be compromised.

All of the fantastic pieces last night in the BIL vs. ABs game were the result of "contract" football whereby every player took ownership of the offence.

I'm sick of every poor performance being blamed on a lack of spark / structure being provided by Foley / Cooper / (insert name here). What about the other 14 players on the field?

We aren't expecting them to "feature" in every try. We are expecting them to learn how to pass, catch, and kick.

So you asked "how often did their 10s feature in the attacking master class that was shown?" - directly a few times only.

But how often did they pass, kick, and catch without fucking up? Well they are pretty damn consistent at that.

Now I dunno about you, but i can forgive a prop for not being able to pass. I can't do it for a flyhalf.

Sorry but I won't lower my expectations.

 

[KAOPointman]

Watching the replay now - so far you got the first 2 wrong, so I am less inclined to trust the accuracy of this assessment fully. Ala'alatoa knocked it on - the pass was in front of him; the offside was called against no particular player buy Foley was one of the furthest behind the gain line when it was called so I think you're guessing.
Foley didn't have an amazing game, but had an OK game and I think few players really stood out for mine. I gave him a point in the 3-2-1s simply because he scored 1 try, set up another and kicked 5/6. He made his touch kicks, variable in distances, true. He made tackles. But unspectacular. You mention playmaking, but Cheika plays 2 playmakers and has them shifting around - did it when at the Tahs, does it now if he can. Is it the best option? That's an argument for another time, but maybe, maybe not.
I've been very supportive of Quade in the past but not even his most ardent fan could argue he has been in good form this year.
We have no real 10 options beyond them.

See now this is what irks me...I'm all for a fair debate...but let's keep to the facts.
The 1min knock on was NOT Alan A.....its was Foley on the clean up.....the Reff called playon after Alan A drooped it backwards.....then as Foley went back to clean up he knocked on. Your just listening to the commentators who called it wrong.
And the offside did involve Foley as the "replay" frozen clearly shows, but your right...the actual penalty wasn't given to any particular player as more then one were offside....but my analysis was on Foley......who is shown in an Offside position when he shouldn't be. Even if it wasn't Foley pinged....he is still shown offside and therefore risking a penalty right on our try line. (Foxtel replay 2:07)

And your comments about cheika playing two playmakers is out of context. FOLEY plays 10.... Our playmaker position. He is expected to have solid handling skills and dangerous attacking skills. Neither have been on show for awhile now. Hunt is a inside centre and is our 2nd playmaker...and offered far more on attack then Foley did....always does. Maybe Hunt should play 10 then.......

 

[TOCC]

If Quade scored one try, set up another, made all his touch kicks, kicked 5 from 6 and made pretty much all his tackles would it be a pass game or poor? Plus, having watched the game again, I'm not convinced that "analysis" presented earlier is entirely accurate.

Mate the first 10mins were horrible and against the All Blacks that would have been an easy 14 points, his first two passes went to ground which gave Italy territory twice, first one was 3 points to Italy and second one was a disallowed try where Foley fell for a dummy

His clearing kicks are poor, going for touch he barely made 20m(why is he even kicking for touch), why hasn't Cheika delegates to someone with more distance