Can Cheika ball work for the Wallabies?

[Gagger]

To bring it back to game plan a little bit:

I noticed that the Tahs, particularly towards the end of the season, would intentionally not send their kicks into touch out of their 22 sometimes. I feel like this was because their line out was not that strong compared to some other teams, while they backed themselves to defend the counter-attack with their strong scrambling defence and potentially force a turnover. A couple of questions:

a) Do you think that some of the kicks from the 22 that haven't found touch by the Wallabies are intentional?

b) Do you think this tactic could work at Test level?

My answers:

a) No, probably not, though Foley may be somewhat stuck in that mindset, so it might be something of an unconscious thing

b) Yes, to a degree, and against some teams. I think the Wallabies have the same deficiencies at the lineout (maybe even worse, since other Test teams have overall better units), so avoiding them is a positive. I also think that they could develop their counter defence to a point where they can effectively use this as an option. I'm particularly thinking against the Boks, where they have such a strong lineout/are such a threat in the rolling maul and by keeping the ball in play you might be able to tire out their large forwards.

Thoughts?

It's a tactic.

By stats lineout ball is the best attacking ball in rugby because of the space you get. So, handing it over to the opposition inside your half through an exit kick isn't great unless you've got an unusually awesome defensive line out.

However, if you can get hang time or grass on a kick, you've got a chance to get your defensive line up fast enough to get pressure on their return. This will be while the vast majority of their players are on the wrong side of the ball.

At worst they should get messy, stagnant ball (rather than surging onto ball off the top of a line out), at best you can get two or three counter-ruckers over an outside back and force a turnover - which is something you've seen the Tahs do regularly this year.

 

[cyclopath]

It's a tactic.

By stats lineout ball is the best attacking ball in rugby because of the space you get. So, handing it over to the opposition inside your half through an exit kick isn't great unless you've got an unusually awesome defensive line out.

However, if you can get hang time or grass on a kick, you've got a chance to get your defensive line up fast enough to get pressure on their return. This will be while the vast majority of their players are on the wrong side of the ball.

At worst they should get messy, stagnant ball (rather than surging onto ball off the top of a line out), at best you can get two or three counter-ruckers over an outside back and force a turnover - which is something you've seen the Tahs do regularly this year.

I commented on this in the match thread, as it really stood out that most kicks were not going to touch, even when there was ample time to set and make sure it did. Foley appeared to be kicking for space in play, with variable success. At the risk of quoting oneself and appearing conceited.........

He was getting better distance on his kicks from hand than previous weeks, but not getting touch. I'd love to know if Cheika wants the ball in touch or not.

I know the Tahs kept it in play more than not, but wondered if the aim was the same in Test rugby. Maybe so. Obviously it risks a good counter-attack, if the oppo have that in them (NZ) or getting the raw end of a kicking duel. I can see the idea but the application could be fraught with danger. It didn't appear to me that the chase was that good all the time. Needs to be refined. If Grey can get the defence sorted, it would be more interesting.

 

[Gagger]

Think of the extra energy it requires from the pigs (on both sides) every time you do it, versus hoofing to touch.

War of attrition

 

[qwerty51]

I thought it was a poor tactic against Ireland because #1 Rory Best is known poor thrower and we should've targeted him more (and did, Simmons and co. stole a couple) and #2 Ireland were just putting it back up in the air to us.

 

[Lorenzo]

and you seem to read that is more kicking and I read that as better efforts to create options from support runners

at the moment there aren't enough lines being run off the ball from phase play to create defensive doubt

In the full quote he specifically mentions more kicking.

“We’ve got to develop a game that suits Test rugby,” he said. “The plan that we used at the Waratahs doesn’t work here, it’s a different level. The teams we’re coming up against are a lot better, so we have to develop a variation. That’s run the ball and keep defences guessing, but also kick to our advantage, instead of just kicking when we run out of shape or plays."

 

[Pfitzy]

I thought it was a poor tactic against Ireland because #1 Rory Best is known poor thrower and we should've targeted him more (and did, Simmons and co. stole a couple) and #2 Ireland were just putting it back up in the air to us.

I guess then we need to think about whether they're aiming to win every game via a targeted plan, or instill the foundation of fitness and mental approach to the game plan that week serve next year

 

[Lorenzo]

Winning is not priority number 1 and isn't going to be. The top priority is playing the ball in hand style. We can't expect to consistently beat teams that concern themselves solely with winning until we do the same.

 

[It is what it is]

Winning is not priority number 1 and isn't going to be. The top priority is playing the ball in hand style. We can't expect to consistently beat teams that concern themselves solely with winning until we do the same.

What a silly statement.
If you were training a boxer for a guaranteed world title fight series late next year how would you approach it?
Would you work incessantly on his defence, fitness, endurance, skills and mental toughness in lead up bouts in preparation, or as I suspect, just tell him to go into every fight swinging wildly and go for the win by knock out?
Maybe you're so good you could have the perfect fighter ready for each and every fight they ever have.
You don't have a clue about Cheika or the hunger of this Wallaby squad for success in RWC 2015 making statements like this.

 

[Groucho]

What a silly statement.
If you were training a boxer for a guaranteed world title fight series late next year how would you approach it?
Would you work incessantly on his defence, fitness, endurance, skills and mental toughness in lead up bouts in preparation, or as I suspect, just tell him to go into every fight swinging wildly and go for the win by knock out?
Maybe you're so good you could have the perfect fighter ready for each and every fight they ever have.
You don't have a clue about Cheika or the hunger of this Wallaby squad for success in RWC 2015 making statements like this.

Although there's a germ of truth in what Lorenzo says (a small germ, perhaps, since the original post was clearly ntended to be sarcastic - let's award it a poliovirus which so small it was once deemed invisible). We all know that consistently winning comes from focusing on excellence in execution rather than focusing on winning. A game plan is a good example of that. Provided we choose ball in hand because it's better (rather than because it's fashionable) then it's perfectly reasonable to focus directly on it.

 

[Lorenzo]

What a silly statement.
If you were training a boxer for a guaranteed world title fight series late next year how would you approach it?
Would you work incessantly on his defence, fitness, endurance, skills and mental toughness in lead up bouts in preparation, or as I suspect, just tell him to go into every fight swinging wildly and go for the win by knock out?
Maybe you're so good you could have the perfect fighter ready for each and every fight they ever have.
You don't have a clue about Cheika or the hunger of this Wallaby squad for success in RWC 2015 making statements like this.

I think statements like the below are instructive. Kicking bombs is out, regardless of whether the situation calls for it or not. The first priority is style, not result. I think at this point that's pretty clear.


But while Cheika agrees, saying the Wallabies will begin to introduce variations in their kicking game as they become more confident under his coaching, they will never follow the Northern Hemisphere tactics of kicking high and hoping for a mistake.
“It’s not our game,” he said. “I don’t want to kick bombs.”

 

[Lorenzo]

Although there's a germ of truth in what Lorenzo says (a small germ, perhaps, since the original post was clearly ntended to be sarcastic - let's award it a poliovirus which so small it was once deemed invisible). We all know that consistently winning comes from focusing on excellence in execution rather than focusing on winning. A game plan is a good example of that. Provided we choose ball in hand because it's better (rather than because it's fashionable) then it's perfectly reasonable to focus directly on it.

Sarcasm? I meant it. It comes through in what Pulver says publicly about "running rugby" and it's starting to come through in what Cheika says publicly as wallaby coach. There are people on this board that openly admit to wanting "running rugby" regardless of result over having Jakeball win the world cup.

I don't think Cheika is open to a horses for courses approach. If it's pissing down with rain I think we'll still see this bosh-it-up-and-drop-the-ball in our own half.

 

[Bairdy]

I know it works. I've seen it work for the Waratahs.

But they had a two full pre-seasons and all of 2013 (perhaps some of 2014) to get it right. With the limited preparation time the Wallabies have can his systems be put into place with out picking 23 Waratahs?

We seem to be leaking points while the new defence system beds in. This is not what I'm refering to in this post. I'm certain that aspect will improve. It's more the attacking style of play that I'm interested in hearing peoples opinions of.


Please keep you state bias out of it. This is a Wallaby question.

To refer to the OP, Cheika-Ball can work for the Wallabies, provided it makes the following modifications:

• The players are instilled with the same mindset which was present in the Tahs: increased physicality, working hard on and off the ball for 80 (85 minutes if defending a lead of 7 or less against the ABs).
• There is variation in the attack for when a swarming, rush defence used by Wales, France, England, and Ireland to an extent is employed against us, or we are simply not getting over the advantage line ball in hand. For example, the All Blacks utilised - albeit ineffectively for 60-65 minutes - cross-field and chip kicks to put the Wales defence in two minds. An effective, well-executed kicking game has to be an essential part of our attack, because it asks more question of the defence and makes our attack ball-in-hand more potent.
• Picking tight-five players that are competent at set-piece time first and foremost. I am more receptive to backrowers being picked for their work in the loose (duh who'd have thought) but do not agree with picking a tighthead who is a liability at scrum time, or a lock that can carry but is a liability in the scrum and who rarely jumps. If you would not start with them, why would you want them to close out the game? Meat and potatoes before gravy at test level.
• We are more clinical and ruthless off turnover ball. Ireland schooled us on taking their chances, even when they did not create a lot on attack. Cheika imposing an attitude that promotes working hard on and off the ball will hopefully prompt the backs to get back to offer up support and options on kick receipts more often, and the forwards to show more urgency to provide support to the ball carrier (as dummy runners or a passing option), at breakdowns etc.

On the Foley v Cooper debate and who is the best flyhalf to direct the attack under Cheika, I would say that currently Foley is doing the job at the moment, and deserves to be the incumbent. He has been erratic when the pressure has come on (e.g. vs France), but people seem to willfully forget when comparing Cooper and Foley that the former has 50-odd caps, and the latter a third of that.

I personally think that Cooper will be the eventual first-choice flyhalf, provided he alters his play-style to that required of Cheika, and is in form, because his out-of-hand kicking game and specifically the distance he gains is a point of difference. It is the difference between being hot on attack 5-10 metres out from the opposition try-line, or attacking from outside their 22.

With that being said, I'm content we have two able, healthy flyhalfs available.

 

[mxyzptlk]

To refer to the OP, Cheika-Ball can work for the Wallabies, provided it makes the following modifications [...]

Which Wallaby forward will provide the same kind of physical, gain-line-attacking, ball-turn-overing, manic aggression that Potgieter did to help provide the Waratahs that nothing-but-ball-in-hand platform?

 

[Bairdy]

Which Wallaby forward will provide the same kind of physical, gain-line-attacking, ball-turn-overing, manic aggression that Potgieter did to help provide the Waratahs that nothing-but-ball-in-hand platform?

If that isn't a rhetorical question, I will say I don't have a clue

 

[fatprop]

Which Wallaby forward will provide the same kind of physical, gain-line-attacking, ball-turn-overing, manic aggression that Potgieter did to help provide the Waratahs that nothing-but-ball-in-hand platform?

I don't think you can ever get that direct option.

I would like to see the whole pack work towards Potgieter style attributes and attitude

essentially go work hard or go home

 

[Gagger]

With the final selection it looks like Chieka has a good idea who he thinks can deliver the game plan

 

[Train Without a Station]

With the final selection it looks like Chieka has a good idea who he thinks can deliver the game plan

Did you need to say that today? It looks like he had a good idea before he got on the plane.

 

[Gagger]

Which is why he started Genia and Cooper in the first Baabaas game?

 

[Train Without a Station]

Kind of like Hodgson who he made captain? Obviously weren't token gestures.

Based on what we have seen, other than McMahon having a blinder and Higgers getting injured, getting selected in the run on for that if there was another option in your position was an indication you weren't needed.

 

[Gagger]

While you have your conspiracy "before he got on the plane" theory going, how about this alternative -

Cheika thinks QC (Quade Cooper) and WG have excellent ability and as soon as he could gave them a starting opportunity in the less pressurised environment of a Baabaas match.

They weren't quite up to it and the back line looked better when they were subbed out.

That's a pretty good data point, especially when you have a game the next weekend.

He reverses the selection and they beat Wales. Foley has a good game and kicks us to victory.

Since then Cooper has been given increasing game time, but other than an offload to Simmons, has shown little. Presumably he's not blowing minds at training in the new patterns either.

Foley meanwhile, together with the rest of the team has struggled at times, but still provided attacking performances that deliver 3 tries.

Seems reasonable, and requires little to no tin foil