RC4 - Australia v Argentina

[Derpus]

As far as i'm concerned that's just another reason why the intentional knock on rule should go. His play was just as cynical, but because he was facing the other way it's fine? Stupid, stupid rule.

 

[I like to watch]

I agree with that. After all it is a game and these guys play it professionally because they want to be successful and they are selected by someone else.
On the flip side of this Tui situation it does illustrate the sense of entitlement that exists within Oz rugby. Here is a young bloke who has just recently come into the national setup and he is choosing to step down and take a break from the game. I understand that he has had a personal loss and whatever labour/bereavement law exists in this regard should be followed. However, he is employed by RA to play rugby for his country. If chosen in the squad he should tour, no questions asked unless he is clinically depressed or has other medical issues including mental health issues.
Being a young player in the test frame he should want to be selected and the fact that he wants to sit out the tour also reflects serious issues within the current national setup, most likely being coaching and attitude of the playing group in general.
BTW, I hope it was just a knee jerk reaction to that unfortunate incident and he does go ahead and tour.

Mate, he's 20 & being a wallaby is still a new & exciting thing.
He's not in his 5th year where it's becoming a bit of a grind.
For him to want to walk away clearly means things have affected him badly.

I don't think it's anyone's place to be cheerleading the RA to enforce contractual obligations at this stage.....

 

[Rock Lobster]

Tui had some gibberer having a go at him and should have simply walked away. Watching this happen live I couldn't believe a player would be engaging with a fan in this manner and was staggered when it escalated. As the video evidence shows, unless Tui's sister was buried in the middle of that scuffle, that whole excuse about the fan pushing her appears to be media management at it's best. If you want to do these meet and greets, which I think are a great idea, you also have to accept the risk some goose with a few under his belt is going to have a go at you when you get beat and I think players should have been instructed to walk away if that occurs.

Putting aside his step dad dying I really think there is far more to this for Tui wanting to walk away for the rest of the year. He wouldn't be the first player to want out of Cheika's system.

 

[Brumby Runner]

There's lots of talk about the performance of our inside backs last night, but that neglects the fact that we took an absolute hammering up front. Forwards were going one out, and losing ground as a result. We're lucky we didn't get turned over more.

It's a constant problem the Wallabies have had for quite some time. Forward pods are frequently disorganised and don't set the platform required. That, and our support play is trash.

For all the talk about the pod system, it is very difficult to actually see a pod in action by the Wallabies. As you say, most often the forwards are running one out. And the idea of having a flanker or No 8 out in the wide spaces usually ends up with that player taking the ball into contact when I am told the intention is for him to be close by to secure the ball at the tackle and avoid turnover. Really doesn't seem to be working as far as I can see. Maybe time to come up with an alternative strategy, or learn to use the pods as intended.

The ABs don't seem to use the pod system, or if they set up that way they certainly use it differently. Not so much as one runner with two supporting and protecting the ball, but two or three runners with short, sharp passes between them until the defensive line breaks. It is a much more effective strategy.

 

[Strewthcobber]

For all the talk about the pod system, it is very difficult to actually see a pod in action by the Wallabies. As you say, most often the forwards are running one out. And the idea of having a flanker or No 8 out in the wide spaces usually ends up with that player taking the ball into contact when I am told the intention is for him to be close by to secure the ball at the tackle and avoid turnover. Really doesn't seem to be working as far as I can see. Maybe time to come up with an alternative strategy, or learn to use the pods as intended.

The ABs don't seem to use the pod system, or if they set up that way they certainly use it differently. Not so much as one runner with two supporting and protecting the ball, but two or three runners with short, sharp passes between them until the cefensive line breaks. It is a much more effective strategy.

All Blacks traditionally use a 2-4-2 setup BR. Same as the crusaders. But the Lions kind of shut that down so they have been transitioning more and more to an adapted 1-3-3-1

 

[Quick Hands]

It's a bit more complicated than that (can you regather it legally under this definition?) but essentially, intentional knock back is fine

Don't think you can deliberately knock it forward and catch it. I think in fact that the law was brought in because Dally Messenger used to knock or throw the ball over his opponents head and regather.

 

[Quick Hands]

For all the talk about the pod system, it is very difficult to actually see a pod in action by the Wallabies. As you say, most often the forwards are running one out. And the idea of having a flanker or No 8 out in the wide spaces usually ends up with that player taking the ball into contact when I am told the intention is for him to be close by to secure the ball at the tackle and avoid turnover. Really doesn't seem to be working as far as I can see. Maybe time to come up with an alternative strategy, or learn to use the pods as intended.

The ABs don't seem to use the pod system, or if they set up that way they certainly use it differently. Not so much as one runner with two supporting and protecting the ball, but two or three runners with short, sharp passes between them until the defensive line breaks. It is a much more effective strategy.

There doesn't seem to be any particular system evident.

 

[Strewthcobber]

There doesn't seem to be any particular system evident.

I don't understand how you can say that QH. Samu and Pocock spent most of the match on the wings in attack on either side of the field. It sticks out like the proverbial.

It may be a failed system, but it's clearly a system

 

[Getwithme]

The 'system' needs to be adapted for the particular players within the system which requires a consistent starting lineup. Pete Samu actually does well in the wider channels as he often operated their for the crusaders but someone like Pocock needs to be within the two 15m's. Putting Pocock into Hooper's spot and expecting him to do the same job is just silly. Why use a system that doesn't fit our playing group? Just have to be a lot smarter at the personnel implementation.

 

[Quick Hands]

I don't understand how you can say that QH. Samu and Pocock spent most of the match on the wings in attack on either side of the field. It sticks out like the proverbial.

It may be a failed system, but it's clearly a system

That's actually not a system, it's a tactic.

 

[Derpus]

That's actually not a system, it's a tactic.

If you want to be pedantic, it's part of a system.

 

[Gnostic]

Pro rugby players are employed in "a fashion completely remote from 99% of people". Nobody, but nobody, deserves to go through what Tui went through.





Give the kid a break. What sort of stresses were you exposed to as part of your employment when you were his age?

Genuine attempts on my life on 5 occasions

, Upwards of 200 deceased persons when I finished in that profession, hospitalised from serious assaults, broken bones, permanent damage to head (on going concussive symptoms from multiple concussions including one that left me unconscious for 30 minutes) shoulder and knee...…. want me to go on. You have obviously had a very sheltered existence Wamberal and from your turn of phrase and opinions a very easy one with few "stresses".​

What he got told was nothing at all. He would have got worse from his school mates. He is 21 not 12.​

 

[Quick Hands]

If you want to be pedantic, it's part of a system.

Well, if my terminology is being corrected, I think I have the right to point out (pedantically or otherwise) the correct use of a term.

 

[Derpus]

Pocock, in particular, on the wings seems strange. His link up game is poor, he's pretty slow and it keeps him away from the offensive rucks. Weird spot for him.

 

[Slim 293]

What he got told was nothing at all. He would have got worse from his school mates. He is 21 not 12.

Yeah, I don't think he's taking time off because a guy said mean words to him.............

 

[Strewthcobber]

That's actually not a system, it's a tactic.

Wouldn't it be a tactic if it ever changed?
The system is the 1-3-3-1. It's how the Wallabies play.

Players are shoehorned into that system. And they train for it. Tui knows where he is expected to be through the phases if he's one of the fringe guys (like last week), or playing with the locks (like this week).

Where it fails is that they stick to the system to rigidly. The All Blacks swap systems through the match based on the defense patterns. We would never do this.

 

[barbarian]

Guys can we move away from the discussion of Tui and his mental state?

I don't really think that needs to be fodder for an online forum such as this.

Let's stick to the rugby.
.

 

[Dan54]

As far as i'm concerned that's just another reason why the intentional knock on rule should go. His play was just as cynical, but because he was facing the other way it's fine? Stupid, stupid rule.

I think the intentional knock on rule is overdone Derpus , but you can't even compare it too knocking a ball back whether downwards or whatever, how about at when Izzy jumps for the ball and taps it back down, thats great but don't think you should be able to just knock it forward, I mean that has been a fundamental law of the game since it started, same as passing ball forward!

 

[Up the Guts]

Don't think you can deliberately knock it forward and catch it. I think in fact that the law was brought in because Dally Messenger used to knock or throw the ball over his opponents head and regather.

Classic touch rugby tactic I’ve been known to use on a few occasions. Didn’t know it was illegal but anytime I’ve scored from it I’ve been told it’s against the spirit of the game.