Australia Vs. England, Twickenham, 2nd November 2013

[daz]

I didn't see Link out there being anonymous in the collisions, dropping balls, failing to bind, or falling off tackles. Yes, he needs to shoulder a chunk of responsibility, but there were a lot of players who were rubbish.
.

Well, when he has a moment or two during "training", any chance he could have a chat to Genia, you know, as coaches do, and just quietly suggest Genia puts his fucking box kick in the fucking bin?

Just one place he could start. There are a few others, but hey, baby steps, right?

 

[RedsHappy]

Well, when he has a moment or two during "training", any chance he could have a chat to Genia, you know, as coaches do, and just quietly suggest Genia puts his fucking box kick in the fucking bin?

Just one place he could start. There are a few others, but hey, baby steps, right?

Very valid daz. Genia's consistently poor box kicking for the Reds (I'd estimate that, over the 2010-13 Reds period, his rate of genuinely effective and well-placed box kicks would be 15-20% of total at the most generous) has been a negative feature of Reds play.

Yet clearly being told by endless media outlets that 'he's the world's best no 9' has led Genia to assess his various competencies in this area as far greater than any objective analysis would show.

It's an absolutely reasonable expectation that his national coach would sternly warn him off a tactic he's consistently and recklessly so erratic in delivering.

The relatively low levels of individual player development and growth was unfortunately a hallmark of Link's post-triumph Reds period, when the Reds began a slow deterioration in the calibre of their play (which culminated in the abysmal QF display vs the Crusaders this year). I wondered then as now if Link had fallen into the dangerous habit of indulging not adequately critiquing his players, and I think his time as national coach may possibly be showing this attribute. And just to be clear: dropping players and then re-instating them is not at all necessarily the same as mentoring them through to sustained improvements through detailed constructive critique in one-on-one sessions with the coach(es).

We'll know much more at the end of the EOYT which I've argued is the right moment to properly assess Link's quality as a national coach and selector of a high quality coaching team (though the omens are not at all good to date).

 

[RoffsChoice]

Some observations;
- Genia looks like he needs a break from rugby. His running game has deserted him and he looks flat and tired.
- Why does Mowen pick up the ball on our scrum and pass it to Genia so often?
- We look worse the longer we hang on to the ball. We run out of ideas, shape and energy.

Genia has just looked done since the Lions tour. I don't care what he used to be, the player he is now is not worth a gold jersey.
Mowen picking the ball up for Genia seems to be a call he gets from Genia. All part of the "plan".
There isn't a backup or a plan b. There is the "plan" they are sent out with and they are expected to win using it, no matter what.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Not if you keep your feet within the field of play and the ball never touches the ground or any object that is touching the ground outside the field of play.

The only part of the ball in touch law that I find silly is this bit:



If you're outside the field of play and you touch the ball, it should be out no matter where the ball is in my opinion.

An illustration in the ABs v Japan match. The Japanese winger on one occasion left the ground about 1 - 1.5 m outside the field of play and batted the ball back while in the air. He then landed in the field of play and play-on was ruled. Whether he batted the ball before it crossed the plane of touch I couldn't tell.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

There isn't a backup or a plan b. There is the "plan" they are sent out with and they are expected to win using it, no matter what.

So true.
It seems to me that another area this afflicts is the breakdown: they go out there with a number in mind and that's the number that will be committed to all breakdowns for 80 minutes whether its adequate or not.
As Dwyer says on the front page there are to many players preparing to play the next phase and not the phase that is actually being played - there's an A grade example of this where pressured possession is being wrestled over in a ruck and Mowen (and I think Horwill) just assume the designated position for the next play.
We have to react to what is going on at a given time. In some ways I think that this is actually more about talking than practicing/training. The players need to be immersed in theories and absorb the philosophies of the tactics they are trying to employ. Not just asked or told to execute pre-determined feats of strength.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Not suggesting that the Wobs need to learn to play what is in front of them are you?

The last bloke that suggested that was awarded the DCM after the final B&I Lions test.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Not suggesting that the Wobs need to learn to play what is in front of them are you?

The last bloke that suggested that was awarded the DCM after the final B&I Lions test.

I probably am - but I'd give them a few hints as to what that entailed rather than assuming they understood.
And it wold not take me 5 years to work out that they didn't understand what I meant.

 

[S'UP]

If I hear the words "work in progress", "we need to execute better", "we need to take our chances" and the best one "it is a learning experience" I think I will scream. It's about application and desire, nobody seams willing to actually to the really hard work, that extra effort, they are happy with what's expected. Do something that isn't expected like lift your game to another level when needed. the Wallabies forget the first premise of rugby is "a contest over the ball" they should have been down at the JGC trials on the weekend and watched boys over commit at all rucks and mauls, win the ball then get up and be at the next ruck/maul over and over again to the point of exhaustion. why did they do this to win the ball and hence win the game. Do what it takes, something that I think the 500k plus players of Australia rugby have forgotten. Not that the PR people would let us think that, but thats another story.

 

[Braveheart81]

So true.
It seems to me that another area this afflicts is the breakdown: they go out there with a number in mind and that's the number that will be committed to all breakdowns for 80 minutes whether its adequate or not.
As Dwyer says on the front page there are to many players preparing to play the next phase and not the phase that is actually being played - there's an A grade example of this where pressured possession is being wrestled over in a ruck and Mowen (and I think Horwill) just assume the designated position for the next play.
We have to react to what is going on at a given time. In some ways I think that this is actually more about talking than practicing/training. The players need to be immersed in theories and absorb the philosophies of the tactics they are trying to employ. Not just asked or told to execute pre-determined feats of strength.

It seems that the key part of the Wallabies game plan is relying on the opposition playing with the game plan that our game plan is designed to play against.

Maybe Link has just been forgetting to send the opposition the game plan they're meant to be using?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

the key part of the Wallabies game plan is relying on the opposition playing with the game plan that our game plan is designed to play against.

Do you happen to have a copy of the game plan that our game plan is designed to play against?
I gather it involves always entering through the gate and not contesting the ball once it appears lost

 

[Braveheart81]

Do you happen to have a copy of the game plan that our game plan is designed to play against?
I gather it involves always entering through the gate and not contesting the ball once it appears lost

I do, but it so secret, we can only discuss it under the cone of silence.

 

[Muglair]

circa 2005 a friend of mine (sort of a friend, only a back) used to think the scrum problems arose because the back 5 were too busy concentrating on what line to run in the 2nd phase after the scrum. He also didn't think much of front rowers as coaches being a good idea.

Over the years I have warmed to his simple ideas.

There is a substantial amount of intellectual snobbery about the intricacies of rugby, I especially love the different game plan every week for each opponent. 39 pages cannot be wrong, we would be a lot more successful if we executed a simple game plan and basic rugby skills well. Not a big ask for professional athletes.

 

[Blackers13]

So true.
It seems to me that another area this afflicts is the breakdown: they go out there with a number in mind and that's the number that will be committed to all breakdowns for 80 minutes whether its adequate or not.
As Dwyer says on the front page there are to many players preparing to play the next phase and not the phase that is actually being played - there's an A grade example of this where pressured possession is being wrestled over in a ruck and Mowen (and I think Horwill) just assume the designated position for the next play.
We have to react to what is going on at a given time. In some ways I think that this is actually more about talking than practicing/training. The players need to be immersed in theories and absorb the philosophies of the tactics they are trying to employ. Not just asked or told to execute pre-determined feats of strength.

Also at the scrum. The Wallaby loosies all but detatch once the ball goes into the channel and stop pushing. The Poms simply put on a second shove putting unbearable pressure on the tight 5, we pop and hence give away 5 or 6 penalties. Why didn't they react and hold the weight to counter the second shove after the first or second time it happened? Because it wasn't in the game plan apparently, which seemed to rely on winning quick ball or moving quicker into defence. The Poms just whent heave and we didn't react.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

circa 2005 a friend of mine (sort of a friend, only a back) used to think the scrum problems arose because the back 5 were too busy concentrating on what line to run in the 2nd phase after the scrum. He also didn't think much of front rowers as coaches being a good idea.

Over the years I have warmed to his simple ideas.

There is a substantial amount of intellectual snobbery about the intricacies of rugby, I especially love the different game plan every week for each opponent. 39 pages cannot be wrong, we would be a lot more successful if we executed a simple game plan and basic rugby skills well. Not a big ask for professional athletes.

Since you bring up the problems with backs one thing I think should apply is that the backs are not allowed any "moves" (even simple switches) until they can train without dropping it or throwing a shit pass. Earn the right to practice the moves you never employ in a game.

 

[Braveheart81]

any rulebook aficionados about?

Q: With the Brown feet-on-the-line fiasco. Could he have caught the ball with one foot in, one foot out and deemed it to be out on the full? Or can't that happen from a penalty kick?

If any part of him was outside the field of play or touching the line when he caught the ball, the ball is deemed to have gone out.

As it was from a penalty kick, the side the puts the ball out is irrelevant, it is an Australian lineout throw regardless.

Brown had to have no part of his body touching the line or outside the field of play when he caught the ball (or alternatively if he'd batted it back in) for it not to have gone out.

 

[nugget]

If any part of him was outside the field of play or touching the line when he caught the ball, the ball is deemed to have gone out.

As it was from a penalty kick, the side the puts the ball out is irrelevant, it is an Australian lineout throw regardless.

Brown had to have no part of his body touching the line or outside the field of play when he caught the ball (or alternatively if he'd batted it back in) for it not to have gone out.

thanks braveheart, i realised it was a dumb question because a penalty kick can go out on the full. Took my dumb arse question down but too slow. Thanks anyway.

 

[mudskipper]

This is a clanger... didn't AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) realise that England were at their home ground and were always playing to win.... Jeez I think this guy has totally lost it... Did he really say something that dumb???

The Wallabies' loss to England was all the more disappointing because they did not see it coming, Adam Ashley-Cooper said.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/wallabies-did-not-see-loss-coming-says-adam-ashleycooper-20131104-2ww3z.html#ixzz2jeX8QlHS​

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

The guide I use when I'm reffing when a player leaps in the air to keep the ball in play is:

"Is more than half of his body in touch?"

If Yes - He makes the ball dead if he touches the ball beyond the touch line.

If No - Play on if he touches the ball beyond the touch line.

So if I was the AR for the Wallabies test, from that angle and at that speed I think I would have called play on as well. It is a very close call and the way Brown does it makes him look in the field of play.

Of all the things to criticize the refs for, people are choosing this extremely borderline case that could go either way as some kind of 'good example of poor officiating'. Some of the commentators doing this should know better that's for sure.

 

[Braveheart81]

This is a clanger... didn't AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) realise that England were at their home ground and were always playing to win.. Jeez I think this guy has totally lost it. Did he really say something that dumb???

The Wallabies' loss to England was all the more disappointing because they did not see it coming, Adam Ashley-Cooper said.​

​

​

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/wallabies-did-not-see-loss-coming-says-adam-ashleycooper-20131104-2ww3z.html#ixzz2jeX8QlHS​

Look at the actual quotes he gave. The line that they've seemed to base their article around isn't a quote. It seems to be their summary of everything else he's said.

 

[daz]

The guide I use when I'm reffing when a player leaps in the air to keep the ball in play is:

"Is more than half of his body in touch?"

If Yes - He makes the ball dead if he touches the ball beyond the touch line.

If No - Play on if he touches the ball beyond the touch line.

So if I was the AR for the Wallabies test, from that angle and at that speed I think I would have called play on as well. It is a very close call and the way Brown does it makes him look in the field of play.

Of all the things to criticize the refs for, people are choosing this extremely borderline case that could go either way as some kind of 'good example of poor officiating'. Some of the commentators doing this should know better that's for sure.

Are we talking about Brown being on the line when he caught the ball?

If so, not sure what this has to do with the Brown case.

If not, don't mind me.