Italy v Australia, Sunday Nov 10 2013, Stadio Olimpico

[The Red Baron]

I can see why Link has put Simmons at 6. Fardy is out, Horwill, Douglas and Timani are equally as bad as each other, may as well keep two of them on the field plus Simmons.Yes it isn't his usual role, but it may just work.

Simmons has been one of the only tight forwards in recent times (apart from Squeaky) to have a decent workload - and an actual impact at the breakdown. Why not roll the dice with him at 6 then? We could have shifted Mowen to 6 and McCalman to 8, and that might have worked. However having proficient lineout operators in Mowen and Simmons is preferred. When it comes to the scrum, maybe Link thinks 3 locks will be able to provide a solid platform.

I don't know for sure, but what I will say is that a fit Simmons had to be part of the team. Not that he is a world beater, it is just that he is actually performing better than most of our fit piggies - and that is saying something.

Personally, I would have gone for a pack of:

1. Robinson
2. Moore
3. Slipper
4. Simmons
5. Douglas
6. Mowen
7.Gill
8. McCalman

But hey, that's just me. Still feel like I'm moving deck chairs though. I think I might go back and play RWC 2011 on my Xbox. There, I am an inside centre/flyhalf who can kick goals from halfway, slot through gaps like a ghost and my forward pack actually wins clean ball from scrums and rucks..

Maybe I am over this year. The season is way too long nowadays.

 

[Hawko]

I agree but there is a very big risk that the Wallabies woeful accuracy with regard to kicking will mean they don't get the lineouts they want, and then that advantage is largely negated and Simmons has never played 6 at Pro level that I can recall. It could be a master stroke, but it doesn't address the other issues that have been discussed here for the last week and more.

Its probably already been posted but I think Link might have been thinking this way:

1. Italy has a strong scrum, an average lineout and good breakdown work but not much imagination or running flair (Parisse excepted).
2. Link wants to play Alexander and Slipper as his props because of their better workrate. [Me, I'd start Robinson and Kepu because Alexander and Slipper's workrate has not been that much better, if at all.]
3. To bolster Alexander he has Timani and Simmons pushing him, both locks. Horwill, a THL playing at LHL supports Slipper. This will have the effect of strengthening the tight head side of the scrum which is our greatest weakness.
4. Italy kick a lot, so we may get plenty of lineouts. If we get penalised a lot then we will have lots of defensive lineouts. Simmons will strengthen our lineout without weakening our scrum as it would do if he was to be selected as a lock.
5. Italy are not that mobile a pack so we can get away with losing some of our mobility to strengthen other areas. With us now playing a tight six rather than a tight five we may even do better at ruck involvements and cleanouts. [Me, I think we need the extra mobility but this post is trying to track Link's thought process].

This strategy might work against Italy, and maybe Scotland too. But it won't work against the Irish or the Welsh so I think this will probably be a one-off. I agree that this might be a master stroke but unless we make a conscious decision to increase the number of attackers/defenders at the breakdown and drag those forwards back into the tight work where they are supposed to be, it'll be an ugly day at the office again.

 

[Groucho]

engaging the supporter base in the decision making process is just about the worst possible thing to do> ask the tahs how well the fan forum worked out for them
mckenzie is best served by ignoring faults (in public) and showcasing our strengths> giving the perception of being bullet proof even if it sounds absurd
when he shows our weaknesses thats what the papers will write about, thats what oppositions will think about us
look at the abs- you think our perception of them isnt influenced by what they want us to think about them? they tell everyone they're invincible and what do people believe?
think carefully about how this may have influenced the recent election results

you can control how people think about you by controlling the info they are using to form perceptions of you
if link allows one decision to be questioned then every decision will be questioned
dont wanna profile u mate but im assuming your a youngest child and have never worked in management> dont wanna insult you but you have to understand how important this is > try look at it from my point of view, can u see the logic behind it>

I agree with Dumbledore. Link manages the Wallabies, not us. If we're talking management here, then businesses frequently have to explain to the market what they're doing when things go wrong, in order to retain its confidence. The market is us. Avoiding that because you fear your authority over your people might be undermined would be a sign of something seriously amiss. Losing your audience as well as your rugby games is the worst possible outcome.

 

[Gnostic]

This strategy might work against Italy, and maybe Scotland too. But it won't work against the Irish or the Welsh so I think this will probably be a one-off. I agree that this might be a master stroke but unless we make a conscious decision to increase the number of attackers/defenders at the breakdown and drag those forwards back into the tight work where they are supposed to be, it'll be an ugly day at the office again.

I agree with everything in your post Hawko. A totally reasonable line of thought. The only problem is if Italy doesn't kick as much and plays an accurate driving game. As I said the Australian kicking has been atrocious for many years so I see no advantage there. Also throughout the RC the Australian Lineout whilst secure on its own ball hasn't dominated or really even competed against the opposition, even with two jumping locks in Simmons/Douglas/Horwill and two genuine backrow options in Mowen and either of Fardy/McCalman.

Further I have serious concerns regarding the running game of the Wallabies as well. Against a good defence the Wallabies are pretty much ineffective. I saw some stats yesterday that showed the Wallabies had the most runs in the RC for the second lowest metres gained (only the Pumas how less metres and they run significantly less). Whilst NZ had the least runs for the most overall metres gained. That includes the blowout game against the Pumas. It is a big concern. Italy is usually a very good defensive side and one that the Wallabies have traditionally struggled to breakdown. I am unsure that with the running game they have been producing with all the flaws we have discussed on GAGR, and the inaccurate kicking game that has been prevalent for many years now, if the thinking you have outlined (and I agree that is most likely the rationale for the selection) will result in material gains for the Wallabies.

 

[Gnostic]

I agree with Dumbledore. Link manages the Wallabies, not us. If we're talking management here, then businesses frequently have to explain to the market what they're doing when things go wrong, in order to retain its confidence. The market is us. Avoiding that because you fear your authority over your people might be undermined would be a sign of something seriously amiss. Losing your audience as well as your rugby games is the worst possible outcome.

This tour for mine was a critical watershed for the code in Australia. Interest has been dropping like a stone and I would have to say only those directly involved Rugby fans are now watching. The group I used to watch the games with (which includes a few ex-players of low levels) has pretty much stopped watching. Some of them don't even know the scores of the games have left the game entirely. This tour was the attempt to re-invigorate the fan base with something more than the one off test wins, working towards a close significant goal. That crashed and burned in the first game and I think the Pulveriser had his head in his hands saying F5$#^&*.

I think it would help (it certainly couldn't hurt) if Link came out after games and explained some decisions in terms of we were trying to do X. No defensive posture or trying to justify decisions, just explain exactly what the rationale was with a selection or tactic. No need to try and justify, that is a path to no-where. Just state this was the aim and the method we chose to get there, the fans can then argue all they want about whether the aim, the pathway, the skill sets etc etc etc were sufficient to achieve the stated goal, and even if the goal was correct. This would certainly help the engagement that was discussed IMO, and this really does need to be driven a bit by the media in the questions delivered at the pressers, though Link could take control a bit and direct his answers away from direct closed responses.

 

[jay-c]

ok i think the lines have been blurred a bit here>
in terms of engaging with the fans, like what hes done while at the reds through social media - im all for it
i take issue with the idea of him justifying his position/decisions or including fans in the decision making process ie. the waratahs fan forum
but hey we can all have a different opinions- some people might think the fan forum was a success
anyways we got a game on our hands, one which as has been said the wallabies wont get much glory if they win, but it will be a disaster if they lose

 

[Brumby Runner]

Its probably already been posted but I think Link might have been thinking this way:

1. Italy has a strong scrum, an average lineout and good breakdown work but not much imagination or running flair (Parisse excepted).
2. Link wants to play Alexander and Slipper as his props because of their better workrate. [Me, I'd start Robinson and Kepu because Alexander and Slipper's workrate has not been that much better, if at all.]
3. To bolster Alexander he has Timani and Simmons pushing him, both locks. Horwill, a THL playing at LHL supports Slipper. This will have the effect of strengthening the tight head side of the scrum which is our greatest weakness.
4. Italy kick a lot, so we may get plenty of lineouts. If we get penalised a lot then we will have lots of defensive lineouts. Simmons will strengthen our lineout without weakening our scrum as it would do if he was to be selected as a lock.
5. Italy are not that mobile a pack so we can get away with losing some of our mobility to strengthen other areas. With us now playing a tight six rather than a tight five we may even do better at ruck involvements and cleanouts. [Me, I think we need the extra mobility but this post is trying to track Link's thought process].

This strategy might work against Italy, and maybe Scotland too. But it won't work against the Irish or the Welsh so I think this will probably be a one-off. I agree that this might be a master stroke but unless we make a conscious decision to increase the number of attackers/defenders at the breakdown and drag those forwards back into the tight work where they are supposed to be, it'll be an ugly day at the office again.

Hawko, every game that Fardy has played No 6, the team has had a tight 6 rather than a tight 5. Fardy plays in the second row with the Brumbies and I would venture to a much greater effect than Rob Simmons has for the Reds. And I would suggest there isn't a great difference in their lineout abilities either. I think this is the flaw in the strategy yo have outlined above. This is not a new strategy by Link at all to my mind. And I don't expect Simmons at 6 to be anywhere near as effective as Scott has been in his tests to date, so it looks to me like a bit of a backwards step from the usual pack we've seen in the RC and last week. I would have much preferred Simmons (or Douglas or both) to have come into the second row in place of Timani who really is invisible for 99% of a game, move Mowen to 6 and bring either McCalman or Dennis in at 8. Better in my view to have players in their rightful positions rather than experimenting in positions they have not actually played in at this level before.

Surely, the power needed in the scrum would be provided and sustained if the backrow were instructed to stay bound and keep pushing until the ball comes out?

 

[Gnostic]

@jay-c

The Tahs fan forum was a success. Not in the direct sense, but in the fact that it brought home to the Tahs management that the coaching team and they had lost the fans base utterly. The ridiculous statement by Hickey that the statistics showed the Tahs were actually one of the most successful sides in Super Rugby under he and Foley was actually a wake up call. They realised from that forum that those that stuck around did so through base loyalty for a history and ideal they had much invested in. The Wallabies are fast approaching the same nadir.

It isn't about justifying anything, it is about explaining some reasoning, especially the some of the more mystifying decisions, and this could help to keep the faith and goodwill of those who are bordering on giving up on the side and in some cases the game. Have a look at the forum, there is a pervading level of despondency about the Wallabies that I haven't seen since the final days of Foley at the Tahs.

 

[jay-c]

oh come on mate that fan forum was a bloody disaster on almost any level imaginable- your drawing a long bow if your gunna link the tahs recent turn around to the fan forum- it was 2011 wasnt it?
the single person responsible for the tahs turn around is cheika 2013 and the main issue was the boring style of rugby that several successive coaches employed in the 5 or so years before
all the fan forum did was highlight the problems and give the tahs some of the worst publicity seen in this country> it fueled the following for league and distanced rugby from so many people
id go so far as to say that event had a greater imact on ticket sales and interest in rugby than any other single event in australian rugby history

edit>>> the the tahs management stated foleys job was safe for the final year of his contract- it was him who left the tahs > they got lucky with cheika, it wasnt a lesson they'd learnt in 2011 that they'd taken taken two years to act on

 

[BDA]

A three-way Australia, New Zealand and South Africa all to win by 13 or more pays out at about 15-1. Pretty good odds I reckon.

cant see the Boks winning by 13+

 

[RoffsChoice]

Confidence is shot right now but still hoping for the win. If we are great and then back it up against Ireland I'll be happier.

 

[Bruce Ross]

oh come on mate that fan forum was a bloody disaster on almost any level imaginable- your drawing a long bow if your gunna link the tahs recent turn around to the fan forum- it was 2011 wasnt it?
the single person responsible for the tahs turn around is cheika 2013 and the main issue was the boring style of rugby that several successive coaches employed in the 5 or so years before
all the fan forum did was highlight the problems and give the tahs some of the worst publicity seen in this country> it fueled the following for league and distanced rugby from so many people
id go so far as to say that event had a greater imact on ticket sales and interest in rugby than any other single event in australian rugby history

Thus far the "tahs turn around" away from "the boring style of rugby ... employed in the 5 or so years before" hasn't been reflected in ground attendances.

Here's the stats on average crowd size:

2008 25,494
2009 23,872
2010 24,204
2011 20,493
2012 20,937
2013 16,651

2013 was a particularly notable year for the 'Tahs as we recorded our lowest ever crowd of 11,206 against the Rebels, despite it being the Super Rugby debut game for Rugby League superstar Israel Folau.

I cannot agree that the fan forum "had a greater imact on ticket sales and interest in rugby than any other single event in australian rugby history". That distinction surely belongs to the recruitment of Roger Jason Allen as CEO in November 2010.
.

 

[I like to watch]

Ouch!
Cruel but fair.
He shouldn't take all the blame Bruce.
He does report to a board that allowed the franchise to flounder year after year.
Is he still there?

 

[Bruce Ross]

I totally agree with you, Iltw, that CEO Roger Jason Allen "shouldn't take all the blame", and that the board should be included among the miscreants. But I would also be very critical of the unpaid interns who have been tasked with keeping the joint going for the past couple of seasons. Lift your game, you lazy Gen-Yers.

As for whether our glorious leader is still there I know not. My snout at Driver Avenue assures me that his salary is still being paid into his bank account each month but my man wasn't aware of any signs of actual activity.
.

 

[jay-c]

ahh touche' bruce
happy to be corrected
but id like to hear your opinion on if you thought the fan forum was a success? and if you think this type of fan involvement and subsequent widespread media coverage of how hopeless and disconnected they were to their fan base is a good thing?
you live in nsw, you saw the papers at the time- im sure you saw as well as i how it turned fans on the fence away from the game and how it galvinised league supporters in their dislike of union<

 

[Ash]

Two points.

1: Scrum perception.

I think the English front row was better than us, and did do a number on us. However, Link does have a point about perception. I think this was highlighted by two scrums with English feeds that Clancy simply reset instead of awarding a penalty or feed to the Wallabies - which he no doubt would've done if the English fed.

The first was, I think, in the first half, or early second half. The English hooker missed the hook. Robshaw actually tried to hook instead, and the whole English scrum deteriorated on the their TH side with Slipper driving through. The scrum wheeled about 120 degrees with the English going slightly back before collapsing. Bizarrely, Clancy gave the English a reset. Would love to have known what went through his mind there.

The second was the second last scrum of the game, when Robinson knocked on five metres out. The first attempt was wheeled about 120 degrees or more with the English again collapsing. Clancy gave a reset to the English, incorrectly. Next scrum they got one over us and they got a penalty.

Of course, winning all of our own ball stably (other than one half arm for pushing early) does indicate there was some other issue at hand. England definitely got one over the Wallabies in a few scrums, but I think Clancy only watched one team.

This makes the complaint a bit bitter: yes we were soundly beaten in some scrums, but at the some time the ref had the perception that only one team was at fault.

2. Glen Jackson is referee, the Italians will aim to make the breakdown a mess.

Glen Jackson is one of the most inconsistent refs around, especially in the scrums and ruck area.

The Italians in the same game last year made our rucks a complete mess, and we simply kicked it back after a phase or two all day with completely brain dead play.

The good thing about Jackson is that he is a SH ref, and SH refs seem to rule more harshly on teams on purposely make rucks a complete mess (or that may be my perception). The downside is that he could rule on anything that either team may have, or may not have, done.

I guess I can see why Link went with Simmons, as he knows what the Italians will simply aim to make our breakdown, particularly tighter ones, a complete mess by playing to the edge of the law and beyond. Why he stuck with Timani instead of Douglas, who would make a difference around the breakdowns, is beyond me though.

Jackson will be the wildcard here around the breakdown, I think. No idea what he will do. If he actually decides to blow his whistle for offences, I think that will favour the Wallabies.

 

[Dumbledore]

The market is us. Avoiding that because you fear your authority over your people might be undermined would be a sign of something seriously amiss. Losing your audience as well as your rugby games is the worst possible outcome.

That's a bingo.

 

[Dumbledore]

I think it would help (it certainly couldn't hurt) if Link came out after games and explained some decisions in terms of we were trying to do X. No defensive posture or trying to justify decisions, just explain exactly what the rationale was with a selection or tactic. No need to try and justify, that is a path to no-where. Just state this was the aim and the method we chose to get there, the fans can then argue all they want about whether the aim, the pathway, the skill sets etc etc etc were sufficient to achieve the stated goal, and even if the goal was correct. This would certainly help the engagement that was discussed IMO, and this really does need to be driven a bit by the media in the questions delivered at the pressers, though Link could take control a bit and direct his answers away from direct closed responses.

This is what I was getting at. Good post.

 

[KOB1987]

Clearly the choice of Simmons at 6 is about trying to dominate the lineout (that part will work) and I reckon you'll see Hooper at 8 / Mowen at 7 on our attacking scrum (depending on the field position), essentially giving us a 4 man 2nd row. If our scrum is going forward we can't be penalised for collapsing or standing up (wheeling though, yes). I think Link is trying to prove that it's not always our fault....

 

[Braveheart81]

That distinction surely belongs to the recruitment of Roger Allen as CEO in November 2010.
.

Jason Allen is the CEO. I agree with all your points though.

ahh touche' bruce
happy to be corrected
but id like to hear your opinion on if you thought the fan forum was a success? and if you think this type of fan involvement and subsequent widespread media coverage of how hopeless and disconnected they were to their fan base is a good thing?
you live in nsw, you saw the papers at the time- im sure you saw as well as i how it turned fans on the fence away from the game and how it galvinised league supporters in their dislike of union<

I don't know that the Fan Forum really changed anything. Things were already in a state of disarray and the sentiment from fans and the media towards the team had been terrible for a while.

It certainly wasn't a positive thing but I don't think it really made anything worse. Fans were already deserting in numbers and the Tahs were fairly relentlessly smashed in the press (and not without justification).