The Wallabies Thread

[cyclopath]

Oh for goodness sake.

Let's reframe the same topic then. We need to regain possession. Its everyones responsibility but the focus is necessarily on the forwards. There are three obvious ways to do it:

Firstly by fetching. Secondly through the ruck. NEITHER of which we are doing with consistency. Do both or pick one, but do neither leaves you with the third.

Thirdly: wait for them to drop it. Not much of a strategy in my mind, but if we are happy with it, I'd suggest we did OK against Fiji.

Maybe read my post again - because after "Oh for goodness sake" you kind of repeated it.
Especially this bit:-

Of course, if we neither counter-ruck, nor attempt to get turnovers, then we better have a rock solid defence. Hmmm.

I was just pointing out the Kiwis seem to approach it differently to others, and seem not to rely on one approach, but a flexible one, and since they do what they do well, they profit. And it's not about Kiwi-ising the Wallabies, it's about thinking differently about the game.

 

[Scrubber2050]

^^^^^
Maybe we should return to the old days:

Get CHEAP turnover ball. It can turn the momentum of a game

 

[dru]

Well we've played one game, and even Cheika said he would have liked to see a few more turnovers. So I wouldn't get too carried away.

I'd suggest that the third tactic is to wait, but for two things - a mistake by the opposition, or a winnable breakdown. That was the Wallabies tactic on Saturday. It may not be going forward, very hard to make sweeping udgements after game one.
.

Any "sweeping judgement" on my part would be related to what seems to me to be one-eyed support for ARU/Cheika/Wallabies/Soup - take your pick. But it seems to me that criticsm has an "auto-response" from certain posters here.

I'm OK with that game. Found it entertaining. I still see the Scots as something that cant, or shouldnt be treated the same way.

BTW. It isnt "one game". Its years of support. There is a difference.

 

[Joe Blow]

There we go. George Smith brought into the Wallaby fold to school our backrowers in the finer points of breakdown play. Very good! Hope he never does the same again for England.
Obviously Cheika thought we did not contest enough at the breakdown either.

 

[fatprop]

^^^^^
Maybe we should return to the old days:

Get CHEAP turnover ball. It can turn the momentum of a game

the thing is that it isn't "cheap", it takes a consistent investment in units, and when those units don't get that turnover you lose numbers in the defensive line and gives attacking sides options to exploit elsewhere

Rugby has changed, ruck work is all about decision making, when the poach, when to counter ruck and when to concede and fan out. Smith makes those decisions better than any one

I don't know how many times I have seen Aus throw numbers at a breakdown only to be caught out wide on the following phase and/or the ABs make that dominant tackle, make us add numbers and then they flood the next breakdown when we are short.

The same with missed tackles, when you play a disruptive fast line speed there will be more missed tackles, the team just has to compensate for the shooters who have half stopped or slowed the momentum of the attack.

 

[Joe Blow]

We are so used to having a Smith/Pocock type player in the back row that secures multiple important turnovers per match. If you look at England and the ABs and the Boks they all play without the fetcher/poacher.
We need to be able to do so as well. Of course when Pocock is back in the side his strength will be utilized, but in the mean time we put together a back row around the strengths in the squad and have all 15 contest for the ball at the breakdown.
Hardwicks turnover when he came on was a good one and he was a bit of a mad man. However he is no Maddog because he is much smaller. Very small compared to McMahon(MD), Pocock and Hooper. There is no way he and Hooper should intentionally be in the same back row. As Hooper generally plays 80 minutes he probably does not warrant a place on the bench either.

 

[Namerican]

I think the reality is that the best way to slow down ball or cause turnovers is through dominating at the point of contact as opposed to a sneaky little guy that latches on to the ball. You still have a Pocock that does it so well that you have to play him, but take a Matt Todd, who is also otherwordly at this aspect of the game and he gets benched for Cane/Savea. The ABs value dominance in contact over fetching. Cane brings it on offense and defense, Savea more so on offense which is why he is relegated to subbing.

 

[Braveheart81]

Let's reframe the same topic then. We need to regain possession. Its everyones responsibility but the focus is necessarily on the forwards. There are three obvious ways to do it:

Fiji managed to accrue a lot of possession because they spent long periods of time not trying to do much with it.

A by-product of them not showing much enterprise in attack is that they didn't tend to get isolated and were able to secure their own ball easily.

If Fiji has been playing expansively and were still able to control their breakdown that well then I think we'd have a lot of issues. They didn't though. Generally when they tried to do something more they ended up turning it over.

I think we need to see a game where the other team is trying a bit more which tends to make ball carriers more isolated providing opportunities to attack the breakdown before we can really judge.

In that game, committing too many players to the breakdown would have given Fiji space around the edge of the ruck.

 

[dru]

@BH Generally agree with that.

Seems to me that against 1st tier, the WBs have also fallen into the possession trap - holding ball but not able to do much with it. So it was very pleasing to see against Fiji, attack with variation, and a non-risk-averse approach. And generally it seemed to be planned rugby. Excellent. It makes for exciting rugby.

Particularly pleasing is how well this went with plNned moves over just 6 days together. That really bodes well.

However, against better teams the attack will be predictably less successful, we should keep at it, but should expect a higher rate of turn over (lost ball) as a result. So we will want a higher rate of turn over (gained ball) so that the non-risk-averse attack can continue.

I get an incremental approach. And one game is one game. It just seems obvious that turnover is a needed focus going into Scotland. If they play a tight European game better ruck work may be necessary just for parity. Some fetching wouldn't go astray.

FWIW some of the news reporting seems to suggest Cheika agrees.

 

[Brumby Runner]

We are so used to having a Smith/Pocock type player in the back row that secures multiple important turnovers per match. If you look at England and the ABs and the Boks they all play without the fetcher/poacher.
We need to be able to do so as well. Of course when Pocock is back in the side his strength will be utilized, but in the mean time we put together a back row around the strengths in the squad and have all 15 contest for the ball at the breakdown.
Hardwicks turnover when he came on was a good one and he was a bit of a mad man. However he is no Maddog because he is much smaller. Very small compared to McMahon(MD), Pocock and Hooper. There is no way he and Hooper should intentionally be in the same back row. As Hooper generally plays 80 minutes he probably does not warrant a place on the bench either.

JB, the published stats for Hardwick and Hooper don't back up your contention about their relative sizes.

Hardwick : 183cm, 102kg;

Hooper : 182cm, 101kg.

For further comparison, McMahon is listed as 186cm and 100kg.

Stats from Rugby.com.au.

 

[dru]

JB, the published stats for Hardwick and Hooper don't back up your contention about their relative sizes.

Hardwick : 183cm, 102kg;

Hooper : 182cm, 101kg.

For further comparison, McMahon is listed as 186cm and 100kg.

Stats from Rugby.com.au.

BR - I'd say you just made Joe's central point:

There is no way he and Hooper should intentionally be in the same back row. As Hooper generally plays 80 minutes he probably does not warrant a place on the bench either.

 

[Ignoto]

JB, the published stats ... from Rugby.com.au.

BR, I can personally vouch that those stats are off by a considerable margin. They've got Genia down as 174cm, which is probably right if he had studs on and stood on his tippy toes when he had his Afro!

 

[Joe Blow]

JB, the published stats for Hardwick and Hooper don't back up your contention about their relative sizes.

Hardwick : 183cm, 102kg;

Hooper : 182cm, 101kg.

For further comparison, McMahon is listed as 186cm and 100kg.

Stats from Rugby.com.au.

I didn't look at the stats but on the after game footage when Hardwick was standing next to Foley they were the same height.
I wouldn't want Bernard jumping in our lineout either.

 

[Joe Blow]

Im not saying he was bad. Actually he was very good but we don't need two small blokes in the back row.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Not arguing the point at all - I also decry the use of two smaller players in the backrow. I was simply commenting on JB's contention that Hardwick is a lot smaller than McMahon and Hooper. Such is not the case if Rugby.com.au or my eyes are correct.

 

[Joe Blow]

As stated, I have not looked at the stats but as he stood next to Bernard Foley after the tests I noticed he was exactly the same height.
Point is that we are without Pocock and McMahon and it would make no sense whatsoever to go with 2 short backrowers.......... again

 

[Brumby Runner]

As stated, I have not looked at the stats but as he stood next to Bernard Foley after the tests I noticed he was exactly the same height.
Point is that we are without Pocock and McMahon and it would make no sense whatsoever to go with 2 short backrowers.... again

I think JB, if you look closely, you might see Izzy Folau holding Foley up off the ground in that shot.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Some good stuff here:

Does Cheika have the answers? Based on what he said on the weekend, he might not even know the questions. He offers plenty of motivational platitudes but there’s a hollowness to the Wallabies program right now, an absence of sound and innovative pedagogy of the kind we are seeing from Steve Hansen, Joe Schmidt, Eddie Jones and, at the level below Test rugby, Tony Brown at the Highlanders.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ity-to-adapt-and-respond-to-unstructured-play

 

[Scrubber2050]

^^^^^^^^
Pretty incisive
Agree 100%

 

[The torpedo]

Pretty much sums it up: an inability to move on from heavily structured play that worked in the late 90's-early 00's