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

[Joe Blow]

Italy are the type of team that can draw us into a dogfight, like Scotland but not as polished. I hope we see some controlled and well considered expansive play, zero tries scored against us and some adjustments at the breakdown to protect our ball.

 

[gel]

Like the Fiji match, we will fail to capitalise on the superiority we should have.

A number of our players lack mental fortitude.

 

[upthereds#!]

An article that supports my constant rants about how we were only looking good when we had the big boys to go toe to toe, so our smaller or wider players could focus on what they excel at! - An actual expert article not a rando btw

I wrote that having carter and hanigan is too light in contact, meaning guys like hoops and higs get caught in in an area they don't excel at.

4. Arnold 5. Coleman
6. Timani 8. Higs 7. Hoops

20. Hardwick

This guy writes that either do that or emulate pooper with a

6.Timani 8. Hardwick 7. Hoops

20. Higs

http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/06/21/wallaby-back-five-taken-five-steps-back/

 

[Tangawizi]

An article that supports my constant rants about how we were only looking good when we had the big boys to go toe to toe, so our smaller or wider players could focus on what they excel at! - An actual expert article not a rando btw

I wrote that having carter and hanigan is too light in contact, meaning guys like hoops and higs get caught in in an area they don't excel at.

4. Arnold 5. Coleman
6. Timani 8. Higs 7. Hoops

20. Hardwick

This guy writes that either do that or emulate pooper with a

6.Timani 8. Hardwick 7. Hoops

20. Higs

http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/06/21/wallaby-back-five-taken-five-steps-back/

I would like too see us give Carter a rest & throw Lukhan Tui on the bench this week.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Scrubber2050]

The Wallabies need a HC and Assistants that can get the best out of the players. A lot of people say it's 80% mental toughness on game day.

Reckon anyone could coach the squad and get the same or similar results as the current mob. Same results would be achievable with anybody being Captain/Coach. The ARU would probably save a couple of mill as well.

The real skill of a HC is getting his players to play their BEST rugby they are capable of playing, week in and week out. This is not happening primarily because I think Chek is one dimensional and is unable to vary his processes. I also think (as I have said before) there are deep "cultural" deficiencies within the group which are unable to be addressed by the current Coaches (maybe excluding Byrne and possibly Larkham - all the rest need to be moved on).

 

[Twoilms]

I think we equivocate and get stuck pulling three separate ways. Do we stack the team for set-piece competence (including players like Mumm, Simmons, Carter), Hard tackling/carrying forwards (Arnold, Timani, Skelton etc) or loose and lightweight backrowers (Hardwick, Hanigan, Hooper, Higginbotham, McMahon).

Don't think Cheika has ever had a balance, including the World Cup. The loss of form of Douglas is a big blow given he was competent in the set-piece and had mongrel.

 

[Scrubber2050]

4918

My reading is that the vast majority of posters talk about the players, errors, some positives, selections, referees decisions etc.

Only a few of the more incisive ones realise that something other than just the different selection of a player or 2, needs to change before we see a marked improvement

 

[Braveheart81]

Only a few of the more incisive ones realise that something other than just the different selection of a player or 2, needs to change before we see a marked improvement

What's the point of talking about a restructure of coaching from juniors all the way up, changing of coaching staff at Super Rugby level and for the Wallabies on a weekly basis?

I think most people see the need for substantial change in a lot of areas to improve the results at the top.

We're going from one weekend to the next with a team announcement looming.

A couple of different selections and a focus on a few aspects of the game are the only reasonable discussions in terms of what can change from last week to this week.

 

[Scrubber2050]

^^^^^
Your deflecting post BH just reinforces my point

 

[Braveheart81]

^^^^^
Your deflecting post BH just reinforces my point

Half the threads on the forum involve in depth discussions about the problems within Australian rugby from juniors to club to Wallabies to coaching and administration.

I'm pretty sure that's not the intention for the match thread.

 

[Scrubber2050]

My post doesn't go on about Juniors, the ARU etc and all the problems associated (validly).

It was a specific criticism aimed at the real problem for the Wallabies. Culture and Coaching.

Too many "yes" men or ladies on here toe the Cheika line and seem to validate his HC position and more importantly his incredibly poor win/loss ratio with excuse after excuse.

It's amusing that some put their heads in the sand.

 

[Slim 293]

My post doesn't go on about Juniors, the ARU etc and all the problems associated (validly).

It was a specific criticism aimed at the real problem for the Wallabies. Culture and Coaching.

Too many "yes" men or ladies on here toe the Cheika line and seem to validate his HC position and more importantly his incredibly poor win/loss ratio with excuse after excuse.

It's amusing that some put their heads in the sand.

Yeah, nah.........

Half the threads on the forum involve in depth discussions about the problems within Australian rugby from juniors to club to Wallabies to coaching and administration.

I'm pretty sure that's not the intention for the match thread.

 

[formerflanker]

What????

Why the fuck does Foley need someone breathing down his neck in order to perform?

Surely, being a professional athlete he is motivated to be better than his opposition and Excel in his chosen sport?

His goal surely can't be just to be picked, but rather to outplay the opposing team. He should be striving to be better than every other 10 in the world, not just get picked.

Does he not want to crush his enemies? Or see them driven before him? Or hear the lamentations of their women?

Where would you select Conan?
3 or 8?

 

[formerflanker]

... its up to the coaching team to get him in the headspace to have several good performances, back-to-back.

I think the bench is the best place to bring that confidence out of him, at least for the foreseeable future.

More game time for Quade is our common ground.
Australia needs two top-flight men challenging for 5/8.
I hope Cheika has the right strategy to achieve that.

 

[fatprop]

What????

Why the fuck does Foley need someone breathing down his neck in order to perform?

Surely, being a professional athlete he is motivated to be better than his opposition and Excel in his chosen sport?

His goal surely can't be just to be picked, but rather to outplay the opposing team. He should be striving to be better than every other 10 in the world, not just get picked.

Does he not want to crush his enemies? Or see them driven before him? Or hear the lamentations of their women?

although many a coach has wished all their players were fighting for a contract all the time, good healthy competition for spots is important

but Foley is just so far ahead of the other options at the moment

 

[RedsHappy]

The Wallabies need a HC and Assistants that can get the best out of the players. A lot of people say it's 80% mental toughness on game day.

Reckon anyone could coach the squad and get the same or similar results as the current mob. Same results would be achievable with anybody being Captain/Coach. The ARU would probably save a couple of mill as well.

The real skill of a HC is getting his players to play their BEST rugby they are capable of playing, week in and week out. This is not happening primarily because I think Chek is one dimensional and is unable to vary his processes. I also think (as I have said before) there are deep "cultural" deficiencies within the group which are unable to be addressed by the current Coaches (maybe excluding Byrne and possibly Larkham - all the rest need to be moved on).

S2050 - as you infer - assuming a broadly equivalent athletic and rugby-playing level of squad, it's absolutely the case that elite coaching is the differentiating factor in attaining (or degrading) superior game results over time. It's been proven time and time again.

Further, and to this very point, when we as fans or rugby analysts or both look at a rugby player or team of players in action, we are really looking at two separate dimensions of time and space. These dimension unite in the moment of play, but they are different.

One is actually, physically what we see happening here and now with player x or team y. On the day, in the moment of immediate observation, how do they kick, run, tackle, swerve, work in pods, etc, etc. Do they do that well, not so well, or plain badly.

Two, and whether we acknowledge it or not, we watch just as much in that same moment of observation what might be called the embedded history of that player x's rugby life cycle to that very moment. Namely, the calibre and type of rugby institutional history player x has endured and been exposed to in terms of coaching quality and depth, nationally preferred modes of play (consciously or unconsciously designed and practiced over past periods of time), types of teams, support systems, physical training, team cultures and core values and so on.

That dimension two, that embedded history, is just as important and interesting to understand as is dimension one, 'the skills in the now'.

Outside innate rugby playing abilities, I would argue that the most important element in that embedded history, that second dimension of observable data, is the quality of rugby coaching that player has experienced up to the moment of actual play as we observe it. (And btw that history of rugby coaching more broadly reflects the institutional history of the rugby system that creates that complex coaching lineage or coaching infrastructure.)

So, whilst I fully respect all posters here commenting upon the 'in the now' factors like who should play 8 next Test match and how should this 8 play etc, it should also be respected by all posters here other posters' free rights to comment and analyse what we see - week to week, match to match and trends relating thereto - in that second dimension of rugby playing data I refer to above.

Namely, what we see, negatively or positively, as to how a players' (or team's) immediate life history and playing capability is being affected by the calibre of the coaching they are receiving and how this is impacting upon the underlying quality of what that player is able to do and contribute to team outcomes.

This whole second dimension of observable data will be much less immediately dynamic and volatile than is that of swapping a team of 23 around from one Test to another, but in terms of outcomes and results, it is absolutely no less valid.

 

[RedsHappy]

Half the threads on the forum involve in depth discussions about the problems within Australian rugby from juniors to club to Wallabies to coaching and administration.

I'm pretty sure that's not the intention for the match thread.

I sort of buy this but.........

Having posted here for now 7 years, the problem I have often seen with your request as above over that period has, for me at least, darker overtones.

Historically, the 'don't mention the coaching issues or critique the coaching' on game threads was often the subtle proxy for conservatively- and heavily status-quo-supporting inclined posters in groups of like-minded posters to attempt to sneer at, stigmatise away and/or effectively bully or drown out posters who wished to raise serious issues with the coaching quality of the coaches that were often the de facto personal or beloved favourites of the posters doing the sneering and drowning out in self-organising wolf packs.

I have seen this happen time and again on GAGR, it was once a dark side of this site. And like or not, the posters making those early critiques of various HCs or ACs were often proven right in the medium or longer term. But no one ever mentions that, the caravan moves on.

 

[dillyboy]

Where would you select Conan?
3 or 8?

9 - we could do worse....

 

[Braveheart81]

I sort of buy this but...

Having posted here for now 7 years, the problem I have often seen with your request as above over that period has, for me at least, darker overtones.

Historically, the 'don't mention the coaching issues or critique the coaching' on game threads was often the subtle proxy for conservatively- and heavily status-quo-supporting inclined posters in groups of like-minded posters to attempt to sneer at, stigmatise away and/or effectively bully or drown out posters who wished to raise serious issues with the coaching quality of the coaches that were often the de facto personal or beloved favourites of the posters doing the sneering and drowning out in self-organising wolf packs.

I have seen this happen time and again on GAGR, it was once a dark side of this site. And like or not, the posters making those early critiques of various HCs or ACs were often proven right in the medium or longer term. But no one ever mentions that, the caravan moves on.

Talk about the coaching, selection and tactical issues that are relevant for this game or from the last game to this game.

It's frustrating when the same argument happens in every single thread (even when it is an entirely valid argument which this is).

There are fundamental issues in Australia rugby that deserve lots of discussion and they get it, but that hardly seems to be the topic for every match thread.

The reality of the situation here is that we had a game last weekend and a game this weekend and there is only room for minor changes between the two.

Any critique of the head coach that doesn't relate to tactics or selections in one particular match might be entirely correct, but is there really benefit having that same discussion in every match thread?

We have long running threads discussing the Wallabies, Super Rugby, ARU and could certainly add one about Cheika or the Wallabies coaching staff in general which seem like exactly the places to discuss longstanding fundamental issues.

Posters being told they have their head in the sand for only discussing the one match in question and the potential tweaks to the team and game plan from last week to this week unless they also address the fundamental issues in coaching and Australian rugby seems ridiculous to me.

Should we start each post in each match thread by posting a half page analysis of everything we think is wrong with the Wallabies/Reds/Waratahs etc. so we can then make the point that we think there should be two changes to last week's side?

 

[Brumby Runner]

BH, although I think you are largely right about confining the discussion to the topic of the thread, taken literally that would mean no posts at all about the team makeup until it has been announced only a day or two before the game, and lately almost on game day by the delayed announcement of the reserves bench.

There are many aspects to the makeup of the team and the game plans constructed by the coaching staff that can be and deserve to be aired form the earliest moments leading to the next game. And a lot of those comments are quite rightly critical of the skills being shown by players either in or not in the squad, and of the coaching structures being followed in games.

For example, imo it is quite within the bounds of the thread topic to discuss the poor kicking outcomes that were apparent last week and have been for probably over 2 years now, and that discussion will inevitably come back to the longer term inadequacies of the players involved and the lack of action by the coaches to try to rectify the problem.

Same can be said about the very poor defensive patters on display last week and how they form part of an ongoing pattern that hasn't seen any improvement over 2016 and 2017.

Criticism of the coaches, particularly, and players who constantly show deficiencies in their play or game management should not be discouraged or banned just because it is aimed at, or suggests, longer term issues with a few of the favoured personalities involved.