Australia Vs Argentina, September 13, Gold Coast

[Brumby Runner]

It seems they are trying to play an up-tempo game from several angles, and this is part of it. If it was specifically NOT part of the plan, I'm sure Hooper, McKenzie, McKay et al would be getting in players' ears to tell them to stop it.
But yeah, there will always be conjecture over these. I think we might be slightly overplaying the quick taps at the moment.

It's like the whole Phipps / Foley thing - if we play at speed, the error rate can be a bit higher. If we take 5 seconds longer at many breakdowns, the defensive line realigns so much better, and against the ABs, Bokke, Argentina and any other top tier nation, you'll struggle to crack it. So we have to accept the pros and cons a bit. I like that we are trying harder to play attacking rugby, and let's face it, in the greasy conditions we created plenty of chances from it. It's just the finesse of the final execution and some of the details that are not quite there yet. I much prefer this ethos to a safety-first, kick it away, chase it badly, get messed up by the counter-attack and so on that we have seen too much in recent years. In the long run, this more positive approach will pay dividends, but it takes time to get all the players believing and trusting the style, and each other, and executing it perfectly.

Chalk and cheese. Run the ball by all accounts in preference to kicking, especially when our kicking is pretty much sub-par in any case. But quick taps when a full arm penalty is awarded is a different kettle of fish altogether. Yesterday, the first tap was taken in our own territory when a penalty kick for touch could have put the Wallabies at or inside the Argies' 20m line and hard on attack. The second was infront and would have been at least a 90% chance of three points. Both decisions were ill advised and in similar circumstances in any test match should be taken as penalties including shots for goal unless we are trailling by more than 3 but less than 7 with only minutes to play. It is not safety first to make good ground or to score points.

 

[cyclopath]

Chalk and cheese. Run the ball by all accounts in preference to kicking, especially when our kicking is pretty much sub-par in any case. But quick taps when a full arm penalty is awarded is a different kettle of fish altogether. Yesterday, the first tap was taken in our own territory when a penalty kick for touch could have put the Wallabies at or inside the Argies' 20m line and hard on attack. The second was infront and would have been at least a 90% chance of three points. Both decisions were ill advised and in similar circumstances in any test match should be shots for goal unless we are trailling by more than 3 but less than 7 with only minutes to play. It is not safety first to make good ground or to score points.

Try reading a little higher up.

I think we might be slightly overplaying the quick taps at the moment.

Why quote something discussing the overall picture, then try to apply it to the specific part of that whole I had already addressed?

 

[Lorenzo]

The wallabies will never execute well enough to play this hang on to the pill style. The basic skills are too lacking and it won't matter how much player buy-in you get, someone will always be prepared to fuck it up by dropping the pill in contact in our own 22 (or something). In the meantime, we can continue to dream of them marching the ball for 70 metre tries whilst in reality the opposition racks up 10 or so points a game that we basically gift them.

 

[cyclopath]

The wallabies will never execute well enough to play this hang on to the pill style. The basic skills are too lacking and it won't matter how much player buy-in you get, someone will always be prepared to fuck it up by dropping the pill in contact in our own 22 (or something). In the meantime, we can continue to dream of them marching the ball for 70 metre tries whilst in reality the opposition racks up 10 or so points a game that we basically gift them.

Jeez, that's pretty pessimistic. I'd like to think it's achievable, but sure, it won't be easy.

 

[KOB1987]

What fucking game were you watching? We dominated possession and territory and bombed multiple tries. Clearly the forwards were adequate and the backs need to take their chances.

so you were 100% satisfied with the performance and the players to feel that this is the right XV (bar forced changes) to take us forward?

 

[KOB1987]

and to clarify TWAS, all I am suggesting is that McCalman stays and Horwill starts for Carter..like I said, fine tuning..

 

[Brumby Runner]

Be fucked the forward pack is lacking balance. We had 75% and 75% territory in the first half.

Our backs let us down tonight as we should have put them to the sword in the first half on that. It's probably an anomaly but they need to capitalise on their opportunities as we will rarely have that dominance.

TWAS I agree. The starting pack was on top and gave plenty of opportunities to the backs in this game. Poor decision making in the backs cost us at least two or three tries. The bench pack wasn't anywhere near as good.

I have long questioned Ben McCalman's ability at test level, but yesterday he definitely (and defiantly) had a good one. A lot of posters are still criticising Sam Carter but he had a lot of good involvements and a couple of bad ones in this test. For example, in the first 10 - 15 minutes of the second half, he
. took the kickoff and set up a strong rolling maul;
. had two hitups and got over the gain line on each occasion;
. made a couple of tackles;
. hit about 4 rucks, some effectively and others not quite so; and
. took a lineout and set up another maul that made good ground.

All this before Rob Simmons was even noticed in the second half. Not that I'm having a roast about Simmons (for a change) but just illustrating that for much of the match Carter was more involved than Rob. I recall in the first half seeing Sam make at least 4 or 5 hitups and getting over the gain line on each occasion. He was not perfect and did miss a tackle or two, and fell off a couple of rucks without having much impact, but neither was Simmons.

 

[Lorenzo]

Jeez, that's pretty pessimistic. I'd like to think it's achievable, but sure, it won't be easy.

You must have been watching for long enough to see it as incredibly unlikely?

It's not pessimism, either. It's a belief that we are better of playing the game in the oppo half no matter how much it aggravates the fox sports commentary team that we aren't playing Super-Rugby-ball in our own 40.

The more time you spend in your own half, the more kickable penalties you concede. That is factual, and it doesn't matter how disciplined your breakdown is or how good the ball handling is.

The kicking and the kick chase has been ordinary for a long time but that doesn't mean that those things aren't very valuable tools, it just means we need to get better at them.

 

[A mutterer]

i might get killed for suggesting this but anyway -

last night reminded me very much of the tahs earlier in the season, attempting to play up tempo/flashes of brilliance/flashes of brain farts/leaving points on the park/failure to close out/but looking dangerous when playing running rugby.

while it was frustrating to watch at times, the reminder about the junior nature of our total caps put things into perspective a little better for me.

the forwards actually turned up and look to have had a meat (as opposed to marshmallow) diet, and mac looked good as a lock. the front row was very strong and i think that it bodes well for next year with squeaky yet to return. carter will likely get a talking too, i'm reserving judgement on simmons because if he did it last night it makes me even angrier about his previous few outings. big kev and higgers are pushing hard from the bench, as did hodgson.

the backline in that first half was looking good, and i liked the breaks we made, izzy run the pill after not doing so for awhile.

i'm not sure the 6-2 split worked well last night, and emptying the bench early with the personnel we had (i'm looking at you white) was part of the reason the argies stormed home. and cowan - learn to fucking bind properly, we were lucky to get away with a few there.

overall a pass/room for improvement mark.

 

[Marcelo]

Fuck there is some morons on here. How the hell is Hooper supposed to rack up a billion turn overs when we've got the fucking pill. We had 75% possession and territory on the first half for fucks sake.

Yeahhh! I'm watching too many morons here. The first half was amazing!

 

[Brumby Runner]

Try reading a little higher up.



Why quote something discussing the overall picture, then try to apply it to the specific part of that whole I had already addressed?

I have a problem with the qualification "slightly". Neither tap should have been taken in this instance and nothing excuses Phipps for his errors.

Otherwise, I did read your post as saying that the taps were examples of playing positive rugby instead of the safety first approach. If I've done you a disservice, then I am contrite.

 

[Gnostic]

Wobs were again simply lazy off the ball, no one in motion, no one running different lines, no one working hard to create support.

To look at how the above should be done, look at the ABs Vs Boks.

Decent running lines creates the Bok's try, great, hard work made McCaw's try

We see most kicks to Folau, and no one is working hard to get back the create options, the Boks kick the the ABs and two or three ABs backs are sprinting back to create support options or chase the kick.

We see Phipps continually providing quick service and the rest of the side is just struggling to provide one runner, no one running a dummy lines, nothing. At best we get a pop pass, between two forwards.

We have units like Hooper and Foley make breaks and have to slow down and struggle to find anyone to pass to

Beale comes on and the first thing was a great dummy inside line, unfortunately it was the last thing he did well

We must do better, no excuses, they have been together for weeks and they look lazy

I would however say I think it is more the attack structure being used. With so many backline players from the Tahs, even they are not running the deep support lines that saw the Tahs attack the best in the Super Comp this year. Also on kick defence the numbers retiring just isn't the same. I doubt very much the players have got lazy, they are playing to script. It is the script that is shit.

 

[ChargerWA]

i might get killed for suggesting this but anyway -

last night reminded me very much of the tahs earlier in the season, attempting to play up tempo/flashes of brilliance/flashes of brain farts/leaving points on the park/failure to close out/but looking dangerous when playing running rugby.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing this morning. It specifically reminded me of the Force game here in Perth. Pushing too many passes in greasy conditions.

If the Tahs trajectory is followed by the Wobs then watch out the teams on the EOYT.

 

[cyclopath]

I have a problem with the qualification "slightly". Neither tap should have been taken in this instance and nothing excuses Phipps for his errors.

Otherwise, I did read your post as saying that the taps were examples of playing positive rugby instead of the safety first approach. If I've done you a disservice, then I am contrite.

But we don't know whether this is part of their plan or not, and THAT was the point in the first part of my post, which was specifically about quick taps. Has McKenzie, or anyone else come out and said "No, we don't want players taking quick taps."? Given that half-backs invariably are the ones who get their hands on the pill more often, he'll do it. I think it's happening too much, but I don't believe it is, in and of itself, an inherently bad play, if used judiciously.
The rest was a point about playing a faster attacking style overall, and the potential benefits thereof, not particularly about quick taps. You'll note I was talking about kicking the ball away which is clearly more in general play, not giving up kicks at goal, which I clearly would prefer they take.
In any event, I doubt anything would dissuade you from your antipathy to Phipps' play, whether he's doing this under a plan or not.

 

[Gnostic]

I'll do my ratings again this week and a second post to qualify the results with some overall thoughts.

1. Slipper - 8 A very solid set piece against perhaps the best scrum in the world ATM. Hasn't compromised his work around the field at all. He is a certain starter now IMO and as with an uninjured Moore will be one of the first picked.
2. TPN - 8 up to his injury the front row really held and even dominated the Argies, though some penalties could have been interpreted differently I suppose. His defence was much more measured and his injure just pure shitty luck.
3. Kepu - 8 His best game this year. Anchored the scrum very very well. I expected the Argies to dominate but the Wallabies turned this around. Also ran very well, and if the proper structures were in place off loads were available, (more on that later).
4. Carter - 5 will give him 5 for a solid set piece, could be a 6 but I just cant do it. Regardless of what Link says the second row is totally ineffectual, excepting this game where they had a very good set piece.
5. Simmons - 6 the lineout was the best it has been all year and the scrum also very good. Gets one more point than Carter for the simlpe fact that this is the first game I can remember for a long while he hasn't given away at least one stupid penalty.
6. Fardy - 5 there is something wrong in the balance of the backrow. It just doesn't do anything except tackle on the advantage line. There is no dominance in attack or defence.
7. Hooper - 6.5 scored two tries, one in a good scavenger role, one playing as a 12. Again Hooper is brilliant at what he does but the balance is just wrong.
8. McCalman - 6 tried hard there is no doubt, but as with Fardy and Hooper, it is about balance. Also about how they have been told to play.
9. Phipps - 8.5 some people love to point out the few errant passes, one of which was thrown by Fardy to To'omua but I've seen attributed to Phipps here. The fact is as Cyclo pointed out some way back up the thread, with his speed of clearance there will be a few errors, a watching of the ABs game showed much the same from Smith. If the Wallabies want to attack there is no other player in Australia for 9, unless Genia can find the form he showed 3-4 years ago.
10. Foley - 8 loses a mark for bombing a try with a bad decision to dummy 10 from the line. Maybe should be 1/2 a mark. Apart from that his kicking from the tee was top class and the comment for Phipps is also true here with regard to errors and speed of the attack.
11. Horne - 7 I'd love to see a winger with real top end pace in the Australian side, especially with the defensive pattern they are playing, if the opposition gets on the outside of the 13 it takes real pace to run them down ad nobody in the backline has it, except Beale and his defence has always been suspect, except ironically at the Tahs this year. (where has that gone KB (Kurtley Beale)). Apart from that Horne is executing the task he is given.
12. To'omua - 7 again executing the task he is given, but I'd like to see him working a lot harder off the ball.
13. Kuridrani - 7 not as dominant as last week but carried strongly. Again the structure is determining the lack of second touches and depth support IMO.
14. Betham - 6 did well for a first starting test and will be better for it. I like Betham's play and he has worked hard to eradicate the error rate he had with sloppy carries.
15. Folau - 6 some poor security with his carries and nobody on his shoulder is making life hard for Folau. I'd also say that not being able to attack from deep effectively because of that lack of support is leading to more kicking, and some of it pretty poor.

16. Hanson - 7.5 scrum lost some of its edge but he held well against a world class pack.
17. Cowan - 7.5 as with Hanson. It is also great to see the depth in the Australian Front row. Sio will face some stiff competition on the LH side.
18. Alexander - 5 came on and conceded a scrum penalty. I think his time is coming to an end, especially with Link looking to develop Sio into a TH.
19. Horwill - 5 no real impact, which is disappointing after last weeks effort.
20. Higgers - 5 as for Horwill, I had hoped to see much more impact from him as I think he should be starting in place of Fardy.
21. Hodgeson - 7 came on and was a rock at the breakdown. Shows the real difference between an on baller and the mode that Hooper plays.
22. Beale - 5 made no impact, and IMO was the same as last week. I have been saying for years now that Beale isn't a 10 (or a 12 despite his success there for the Tahs where the structures were very different). I see that through the week Bob Dwyer also thinks this saying that Beale should be on the wing.
23. White - 7 very good defensive effort. He would be starting if the Wallabies were seeking to play a defensive and conservative game.

More to follow.......

 

[KOB1987]

22. Beale - I have been saying for years now that Beale isn't a 10 (or a 12 despite his success there for the Tahs where the structures were very different). I see that through the week Bob Dwyer also thinks this saying that Beale should be on the wing.
More to follow...

oh good, Bob is on my side

and if AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) aint fit for Capetown I reckon we'll see it..

 

[Train Without a Station]

I'll do my ratings again this week and a second post to qualify the results with some overall thoughts.

1. Slipper - 8 A very solid set piece against perhaps the best scrum in the world ATM. Hasn't compromised his work around the field at all. He is a certain starter now IMO and as with an uninjured Moore will be one of the first picked.
2. TPN - 8 up to his injury the front row really held and even dominated the Argies, though some penalties could have been interpreted differently I suppose. His defence was much more measured and his injure just pure shitty luck.
3. Kepu - 8 His best game this year. Anchored the scrum very very well. I expected the Argies to dominate but the Wallabies turned this around. Also ran very well, and if the proper structures were in place off loads were available, (more on that later).
4. Carter - 5 will give him 5 for a solid set piece, could be a 6 but I just cant do it. Regardless of what Link says the second row is totally ineffectual, excepting this game where they had a very good set piece.
5. Simmons - 6 the lineout was the best it has been all year and the scrum also very good. Gets one more point than Carter for the simlpe fact that this is the first game I can remember for a long while he hasn't given away at least one stupid penalty.
6. Fardy - 5 there is something wrong in the balance of the backrow. It just doesn't do anything except tackle on the advantage line. There is no dominance in attack or defence.
7. Hooper - 6.5 scored two tries, one in a good scavenger role, one playing as a 12. Again Hooper is brilliant at what he does but the balance is just wrong.
8. McCalman - 6 tried hard there is no doubt, but as with Fardy and Hooper, it is about balance. Also about how they have been told to play.
9. Phipps - 8.5 some people love to point out the few errant passes, one of which was thrown by Fardy to To'omua but I've seen attributed to Phipps here. The fact is as Cyclo pointed out some way back up the thread, with his speed of clearance there will be a few errors, a watching of the ABs game showed much the same from Smith. If the Wallabies want to attack there is no other player in Australia for 9, unless Genia can find the form he showed 3-4 years ago.
10. Foley - 8 loses a mark for bombing a try with a bad decision to dummy 10 from the line. Maybe should be 1/2 a mark. Apart from that his kicking from the tee was top class and the comment for Phipps is also true here with regard to errors and speed of the attack.
11. Horne - 7 I'd love to see a winger with real top end pace in the Australian side, especially with the defensive pattern they are playing, if the opposition gets on the outside of the 13 it takes real pace to run them down ad nobody in the backline has it, except Beale and his defence has always been suspect, except ironically at the Tahs this year. (where has that gone KB (Kurtley Beale)). Apart from that Horne is executing the task he is given.
12. To'omua - 7 again executing the task he is given, but I'd like to see him working a lot harder off the ball.
13. Kuridrani - 7 not as dominant as last week but carried strongly. Again the structure is determining the lack of second touches and depth support IMO.
14. Betham - 6 did well for a first starting test and will be better for it. I like Betham's play and he has worked hard to eradicate the error rate he had with sloppy carries.
15. Folau - 6 some poor security with his carries and nobody on his shoulder is making life hard for Folau. I'd also say that not being able to attack from deep effectively because of that lack of support is leading to more kicking, and some of it pretty poor.

16. Hanson - 7.5 scrum lost some of its edge but he held well against a world class pack.
17. Cowan - 7.5 as with Hanson. It is also great to see the depth in the Australian Front row. Sio will face some stiff competition on the LH side.
18. Alexander - 5 came on and conceded a scrum penalty. I think his time is coming to an end, especially with Link looking to develop Sio into a TH.
19. Horwill - 5 no real impact, which is disappointing after last weeks effort.
20. Higgers - 5 as for Horwill, I had hoped to see much more impact from him as I think he should be starting in place of Fardy.
21. Hodgeson - 7 came on and was a rock at the breakdown. Shows the real difference between an on baller and the mode that Hooper plays.
22. Beale - 5 made no impact, and IMO was the same as last week. I have been saying for years now that Beale isn't a 10 (or a 12 despite his success there for the Tahs where the structures were very different). I see that through the week Bob Dwyer also thinks this saying that Beale should be on the wing.
23. White - 7 very good defensive effort. He would be starting if the Wallabies were seeking to play a defensive and conservative game.

More to follow...

Nope

 

[boyo]

What fucking game were you watching? We dominated possession and territory and bombed multiple tries. Clearly the forwards were adequate and the backs need to take their chances.

Are you trying to emulate the bloke in your avatar picture?

 

[Mr Doug]

Haven't read all the pages from 25 to this one, however, the 'low point' of the experience for me was when the crowd of around 14,500 was displayed on the electronic boards, and 'high point' was when Mrs Doug got a hug and a kiss from 'cousin Sam' (Carter), when we caught up with him after the match! A great night and a great crowd (in character, if not in numbers). Not like a Suncorp Stadium crowd, where you have to keep standing up for the tossers who are there to drink and not watch the match. Up and down as they go to get their booze, up and down as they come back with their booze, then up and down as they go to take a pee, then up and down when they come back, with another tray of beers! None of that last night!
Phipps stood out last night, and as I said some weeks ago (and was howled down by a couple of 'expert #15s' on this forum), Folau is still very green and has much to learn about our game.

 

[KOB1987]

Nope

your ratings to follow presumably..