Jim Williams BONED

[waratahjesus]

I suggest that this thread has really lifted the bar in terms of wandering off topic. The link between Jim Williams and Quade Cooper is tenuous in the extreme. But please feel free to carry on.

I can assure you it happened organically if that's any conciliation Bruce

 

[Newter]

Your inside info goes some way to restoring my faith in Deans: the planned kick off is clearly the correct option for nearly all kick offs. The short kick off is overrated. i had assumed that the plan was a short kick and Cooper botched it (which can happen).
The question your info raises, though, is how can a bloke think that he can just change the plan on the field - he's not the captain and his piggies were no doubt all expecting something approximating a deeper kick. Thus it is an utterly selfish unfathomable effort. Assuming its true his cards would be marked for mine and he'd have to prove he'd matured enough to stick to the plan.

You should read Rod MacQueen's book, "One Step Ahead". One of the first things he did at the Brumbies was stop them kicking off to the same spot every time. Instead, they would kick to the shortest isolated player in the opposition.

I suspect Quade saw an opportunity, and you can see that Ioane knew about it because he was running onto the ball at the time it flew out. Just a bad miscue, not a betrayal of the team!

 

[Newter]

Sorry Newter, I completely disagree with your first paragraph there. I know some Wallabies personally. The first mistake Cooper made was the kick off. Agree, it wasn't fatal, however it set the tone. According to the guys I have spoken too, the kick off was supposed to be deep, landing just in front of the AB's 22 with a lot of hang time to allow the Wallabies to make a tackle outside the 22 and force the AB's to make a decision in possession, kick deep and keep it in coz it couldn't go out on the full or try to run it with a blitz defence coming at them. As we all know QC (Quade Cooper), kicled short and out on the full. My Wallabies mates are still trying to work out why he attempted to kick short. Also, think to the bomb Cruden put up to Cooper about a minute prior to the first try. Cooper was out 'defending' on the right wing. The AB's won a lineout about 35m out from Wallabies line, their instinct all year would be to run it from there, instead the bomb goes 40m across field to Cooper, he was owned in the tackle and turned the ball over. A few plays and a lineout late, the AB's scored. Now cast your mind to when McCaw nailed Genia in the second half from turn over ball. AB's were in possession, we won a turn over, Genia picks the ball up and had absolutely no-one to pass it too because Cooper was still on the wing 'defending' and McCaw came from an onside position (hard to believe I know), smashed Genia and drove him back 10m and out over the sideline. Maybe not a fatal mistake as you mention, but coupled with a few incidents they all proved fatal. By your own admittance, he made 4 or 5 mistakes in the semi................how many did Cruden make? Think you'll find the difference fatal.

Cruden and the All Blacks in general kept their mistakes astonishingly low. They were very good. Hats off to them.

I just think it would help everyone to watch that semi-final again. You can do it for free at www.rugbyworldcup.com. You'll notice that Quade does at least as many if not more positive things for the team than negative ones. His errors were more of the embarrassing sort than seriously damaging to the team.

Put it this way, we didn't lose the semi-final because of Quade Cooper.

As for the kick-off, if Quade's short kick off had landed a meter inside the sideline, rather than a meter over it, and Digby had collected it at speed, won the collision or a half break and the three other players near him got the quick recycle, would your Wallaby insiders have complained about it then?

 

[Newter]

Also it's plainly obvious re-watching those games that the forward pack had some outstanding moments in both knock-out matches. Jim Williams did a very good job and left the pack in a much better position than how he found it.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You should read Rod MacQueen's book, "One Step at a Time". One of the first things he did at the Brumbies was stop them kicking off to the same spot every time. Instead, they would kick to the shortest isolated player in the opposition.

I suspect Quade saw an opportunity, and you can see that Ioane knew about it because he was running onto the ball at the time it flew out. Just a bad miscue, not a betrayal of the team!

I have.

This was not a s15 game and rod macqueen was no longer the coach.

You're assuming there was no direction about where the kickoff had to go.

It is hard to imagine a worse start: even if he wanted to pull a bootleg play why couldn't he play the percentages at such an important tournament in the most important game? Because he is a law unto himself and thinks he knows better than people with more experience and brains.

Did you see any of his games when he was the U21 5/8 in the World championship - anyone who did would have had misgivings about his big game psyche.

 

[Bullrush]

Also it's plainly obvious re-watching those games that the forward pack had some outstanding moments in both knock-out matches. Jim Williams did a very good job and left the pack in a much better position than how he found it.

For Jim to have done a good job, you would have to take all those outstanding moments, string them all together and hit the loop button cos there aren't a lot of games where his pack dominated.....

 

[Rugrat]

Would the wallabies improve by Jim staying? My belief is no so renewing his contract would be pointless. The wallabies didnt lose the world cup due to Quades kick off. They lost it because Deans didn't use his bench well and because the selectors picked injured players. They also took the wrong squad. No need to take Phipps should have taken Lucas as he can play 9,10 and 15 actually he can cover any back line position at a push. Not saying you start him but would have had him. Quade should have been replaced during games when he was failing. He either starts well and has a cracker or he has a shocker. Never plays himself in. He also had too much control out there during games. Genia runs the back line at the reds not Quade. No way was Genia doing box kicks without instruction. He is an intelligent rugby player. He was under instruction. mcCallum is very average and we need him to improve. Quade can tackle 80 percent of the time, enough said. We beat the Ab in Brisbane because of a home ground advantage that inspired our lads to lift, Auckland was a disaster in the tri nations (I was there) and the wc semi was similar. No belief or confidence. FYI that is the head coachs fault. Using the same theory as Jim. Will the wallabies improve with Deans there? No, unless he improves his bench use and player selections,but thanks to the rugby and management genius that is John Oniel we shall have a dead man walking as coach and CEO for the next 2 years. Hang your heads Aru board members.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

They didnt have the world cup to lose.
He shouldn't be there.

 

[Bullrush]

Still don't get the Genia love. He's been great at Super Rugby but apart from a good first year, his international form is pretty average really.

I don't buy the "No way was Genia doing box kicks without instruction" line. Intelligent players don't stick to silly tactics. As the old saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

The Wallabies are an enigma for me looking past the RWC. On paper they have the talent and the players to be No.1 in the world but will it all come together for them and if so, how long will that take?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it takes a further 2, probably 3 years for all the pieces to come together.

 

[Rugrat]

Genia is a quality 9 and best in australia by a long way. Box kicks by Genia occurred in more than one game unfortunately. Your cliche should be aimed at the coaches that didn't learn. Genia was under instruction as part of the on going game plan during the tournament to do this. FYI if you think that a coach has no way of communicating with a player to change tactics during a game you are kidding yourself. Blame players for errors and missed opportunities. Blame the coach for tactics and set piece plays. box kick is a set piece. Bloody stupid but set piece non the less.

 

[Bullrush]

Box kick is set piece? Don't think so. The set-piece is the scrum and line-up. You know how many players in each team are involved in the set-piece and can attack accordingly. You can't even determine exactly where your own team may be at a ruck or maul let alone your opponent - barely anything 'set' about it at all.

I never said that coaches can't communicate with players on the field. Dunno where you got that from. You can believe what you like about whether Genia was under instruction or not - that's up to you but ultimately, he's the one standing over the ruck picking up the ball not Deans. I also never said that he wasn't the best 9 in Australia - my point is that he has been average on the international stage for the last 2 years.

BTW - I would have taken Gits long before I took Lucas if you wanted a utility back who could also cover 9. I think I would have taken Gits anyway and left someone else out - probably Horne.

 

[fatprop]

Really?? Jim's had about 3 years with these forwards and I'd say they're still the weak spot most of the top teams look to exploit eg Samoa, Ireland.....

While Dingo may have got off lightly, Jim didn't exactly cover himself in glory........

scott wisemantel was on the rugga matrix podcast (he is part of the samoa couching group)

have a listen, they just played smarter and we didn't react to a decent game plan

 

[Schadenfreude]

I don't buy the "No way was Genia doing box kicks without instruction" line. Intelligent players don't stick to silly tactics.

Unless you're QC (Quade Cooper) ... then you get railed either way you go

 

[waratahjesus]

They were "playing what's in front of them" so by this we can deduct that our playersarnt personnanly smart enough to win and our coaches are smart enough to install a game plan that leaves them without responsibility.

 

[Bullrush]

They were "playing what's in front of them" so by this we can deduct that our playersarnt personnanly smart enough to win and our coaches are smart enough to install a game plan that leaves them without responsibility.

And this is what I don't get. Deans apparently coaches players to 'play what's in front of them' but Genia keeps box-kicking cos that's the coach's tactic.

So which is it? Are they coached to play what's in front of them or to a very confined game plan which they apparently cannot deviate from?

Just to be clear, I'm not a Deans fan AT ALL (anyone who's seen my posts on him over 2011 should know this) but he wasn't the one kicking the ball out on the full at kick-off or box-kicking away every attacking ball. Criticise his squad selections, his game day selections, his use of the bench....but decide which coaching approach he was using before criticising that too.

 

[Slim 293]

I think it's pretty clear that the boxkicks were a coaching tactic to gain field position

I doubt Genia consciously stopped playing his natural game to resort to boxkicks at every play.

 

[Slim 293]

And one of the reasons why this tactic failed so miserably was because we didn't have our best lineout operator on the field to pressure the opposition.

 

[Bullrush]

I think it's pretty clear that the boxkicks were a coaching tactic to gain field position

I doubt Genia consciously stopped playing his natural game to resort to boxkicks at every play.

So the whole 'play what's in front of them' is just bollocks.

 

[Slim 293]

They're not mutually exclusive...

The way the backline ran with ball in hand would display that...

 

[Inside Shoulder]

They're not mutually exclusive...

The way the backline ran with ball in hand would display that...

Not sure i understand the 2 things that you say are not mutually exclusive but if you mean the pre-determined tactic of box kicks and playing whats in front of you they must be pretty close to mutualy exclusive.

Any predetermined tactic necessarily detracts from the idea that the players should adjust their tactic to what the opposition is actually doing.

The problem with the box kicks was not so much that we lacked "our best lineout operator" it was that it made a massive dent in the amount of time for which we had the ball.

If as a team you dont have the courage to hold the ball in your on half because you fear, either, loss of possession at the breakdown or penalties, that could be a legitimate reason to kick the ball - but not box kicking.

I would have thought a box kick was only justified as a ploy to provoke a contest for possession as the ball returned to earth. But if the reason youre kicking it is to gain field position (or avoid your own half - same thing) a box kick does not get that job done. In essence you are kicking away possession you have already won for a chance at regaining it, probably still in your own half. If its possession that's driving your tactics why kick it away? If its position why kick it short?

I have no problem with kicking as much possession away as we did if you bang the corners and force your opponent to elect between position and possession.