The Wallabies Thread

[wamberal]

That factoid pretty much sums up everything which is wrong with Australian rugby

Gee. How on earth did we manage to win two World Cups? Not to mention the occasional Bledisloe?



Some of the greatest days of my rugby life were games against the Wicks, and the Students (back in the days when they were all genuine students, or the vast majority of them). Those two clubs have made an invaluable contribution to the survival of the game, like it or not, not to mention providing some wonderful players.


They deserve credit for their history, not snide remarks.

 

[TOCC]

Gee. How on earth did we manage to win two World Cups? Not to mention the occasional Bledisloe?
.

Haven't won a World Cup for almost 2 decades, Bledisloe 15 years...

Like ARU Board Members, need to stop living in the past

 

[I like to watch]

Gee. How on earth did we manage to win two World Cups? Not to mention the occasional Bledisloe?



Some of the greatest days of my rugby life were games against the Wicks, and the Students (back in the days when they were all genuine students, or the vast majority of them). Those two clubs have made an invaluable contribution to the survival of the game, like it or not, not to mention providing some wonderful players.


They deserve credit for their history, not snide remarks.

Which of the current board members were instrumental in planning the infrastructure that made these wins possible?
The current mob, don't get credit for other people's efforts

 

[Gnostic]

I actually think the decline in professional level rugby performance began with the "pro" level players being distanced from the clubs. I don't think the clubs are to blame at all. Singling out two of the most successful clubs for special treatment/derision when those clubs are also two of the oldest clubs and the players were picked in the Amateur era is silly.

The last world cup win and Bledisloe Cup came when a significant proportion of the Wallabies team came through those old amateur pathways that are now fashionable to deride. For all the vast sums of money "pissed up the wall" (TM Bill Pulver 2016) by the ARU in the past 21 years they have little to show for it in player, coaching and referee development structures. In fact you could say they have absolutely nothing to show for it except a group of highly paid underperforming players/teams that fewer and fewer people are watching.

 

[TOCC]

I actually think the decline in professional level rugby performance began with the "pro" level players being distanced from the clubs. I don't think the clubs are to blame at all. Singling out two of the most successful clubs for special treatment/derision when those clubs are also two of the oldest clubs and the players were picked in the Amateur era is silly. .

No, it wasn't singling out and blaming those clubs for the current woes, it was using those clubs as an example of wider issues in Australian rugby.

Lack of diversity and a restricted pool of players to pick from are still issues which exist today, relying on such a small production supply to provide an output of professional rugby players in this country was always going to leave the code suceptiple to disruption.

Like private school pathways, which would easily contribute upwards of 70% of the wallabies playing population, not enough has been done to protect those pathways or develop them further. Rugby relies too heavily on a limited production line of players...

A factoid suggesting 20% of the total Wallabies coming from 2 clubs isn't something that Australian Rugby should be proud of.

 

[Gnostic]

No, it wasn't singling out and blaming those clubs for the current woes, it was using those clubs as an example of wider issues in Australian rugby.



Lack of diversity and a restricted pool of players to pick from are still issues which exist today, relying on such a small production supply to provide an output of professional rugby players in this country was always going to leave the code suceptiple to disruption.



Like private school pathways, which would easily contribute upwards of 70% of the wallabies playing population, not enough has been done to protect those pathways or develop them further. Rugby relies too heavily on a limited production line of players.



A factoid suggesting 20% of the total Wallabies coming from 2 clubs isn't something that Australian Rugby should be proud of.

It is just a factoid. It is what it is. Want it to be different? Generate true diversity in pathways, and no The non-developmental NRC is not it and will not be such for many years. Does Australian Rugby have the time? IMHO No.

All the vast sums of money I alluded to could have been used to strengthen club rugby throughout Australia into a third tier with a greater diversity.

Vested interests at all levels have conspired to maintain their little fiefdoms and take pleasure in small gains for their little bit of the tapestry without a care for the greater complete fabric. However I would still say that in the amateur days the odds of being selected from obscurity were far greater. Now with youths being moved past the amateur game and being contracted to play/train regardless of results in the adult level of the game at lower levels is a far smaller pool than the old club games.

 

[TOCC]

Like I said, sums up everything wrong with Australian rugby

I'd prefer to celebrate and encourage further selections like Godwin, Coleman and Hardwick form non-traditional pathways. Randwick and Sydney Uni have earned their place In history, but it's a sad reflection of the state of the rest of the game in Australia.

 

[Gnostic]

There is a very interesting parallel dispute going on at the moment in Cricket circles. CA to me has seen the writing on the wall of future broadcast deals quite likely to be smaller or at most static and want/need to quarantine revenue to run and develop the game at lower levels.

The old revenue "sharing" model is one that has played a part in the woes facing Australian Rugby. Perhaps CA has along with real concerns about future media deals looked at the failure of Rugby and wants to reform and avoid a similar fate.

 

[wamberal]

Any rugby lover who does not understand the huge impact that Randwick had on the game needs to read a bit of history. Cyril Towers and Wally Meagher were absolutely seminal figures.


It might not be drawing too long a bow to say that without their involvement in developing running rugby, the game might well have died out completely after the Second World War. We were on the brink, that is for sure. People who were not interested in 10 man rugby coalesced around the Galloping Greens.


Another huge contrbution that the Wicks made was in the development of a totally new training method, the "Randwick Rush", which involved a simulation of the actual game, with the whole team involved, running the ball from one end of the field to the other, with ruck after ruck. Sounds mundane, but it was actually a huge innovation.

As for Sydney Uni, the game started there in Australia.


Finally, for quite a few years the Waratahs were the national rugby team. So with one thing and another, it is hardly a surprise that these two clubs have produced a lot of Wallabies. Lucky for us that they did, frankly.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Times change.
Warehousing talent is not good for the game generally however good it is for uni and the wicks.
Kids/young adults need to play regular competitive rugby to develop their skills and game craft.
Playing 2nds when your ability is 1sts will not see your full potential realised.
Realising potential is what this country needs.

 

[dru]

I was pondering Cheika and the fitness issue. And I remembered this wonderful quote from Joe Frasier:

You can map out a fight plan or a life plan, but when the action starts, it may not go the way you planned, you're down on you reflexes - that means your preparation.

That's where your roadwork shows. If you cheated in the dark of the morning, well, you're going to get found out now, under the bright lights.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Not the right thread, but as there doesn't seem to be one for the RC yet, just some thoughts on the Wallabies' side to play NZ after seeing the Lions in action the last two weeks.

The rush defense is a big factor in keeping any attack, including the ABs under some control. Can the Wallabies effectively change their patterns and implement a rush backline defense in place of the compressed, sliding defense that has worked so woefully for us in the past couple of years?

But the biggest problem presented to the ABs by the Lions has been their dominant defense in tight, based on the back 5 being able to win the collision when defending against the ABs' attack. The Wallabies will not be able to replicate this aspect with the current back row. The locks are on the mark, but there is no way in hell that Hanigan, Hooper and whomever will dominate the ABs as a group. I can see a backrow of Fardy, Alcock and Timani having some sort of chance, but I'm dreaming to think that Fardy will ever again be selected by Cheika or that Hooper will ever be relegated to the bench to come on as an attacking threat later in the game. But that's the way I see things atm.

 

[Twoilms]

Hooper is extremely dominant in the tackle? He's also incredibly fit and fast off the mark from the base of the scrum/ruck for a rush defense. Also he's our best player. Also, he seems to be about the only player who gives a shit right now (except maybe Coleman). AND he's even started adjusting his game to pilfer a little more.

It should be Hooper, Timani, Fardy, or something like that. Taaf should still start because he's always been more dominant around the park.

having said all that we can in no way match the Lions pack.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Hooper will be there no matter what. His workload is great, his speed around the park is impressive but he plays more like another back that a backrower intent on smashing anyone near the ruck carrying the ball.

I do have an issue about TPN, He is not what I'd call a dominating tackler in tight. He invariably tackles low around the legs or even lower. Can't say I've often seen him hit an opposing player in an upright position and force them a couple of metres backwards. That is what the Lions have shown is needed against the ABs.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Hooper is extremely dominant in the tackle? He's also incredibly fit and fast off the mark from the base of the scrum/ruck for a rush defense. Also he's our best player. Also, he seems to be about the only player who gives a shit right now (except maybe Coleman). AND he's even started adjusting his game to pilfer a little more.

It should be Hooper, Timani, Fardy, or something like that. Taaf should still start because he's always been more dominant around the park.

having said all that we can in no way match the Lions pack.

I thought we'd matured to a point beyond raising the issue of the player's not giving a shit: it's ridiculous to suggest they (or the coaches) don't. Competence is another issue.
Brumby runners point is a good one, I think.
A good big man beats a good little man in this game every time. they will have 8 good big men on the field at all times.
Any criticism of a player going too low in the current climate however is ignoring a big change in defensive dynamics. TPNs tackling style is risky, imo, because I don't think it's clear that he is seeking to use his arms all the time.

 

[Twoilms]

I thought we'd matured to a point beyond raising the issue of the player's not giving a shit: it's ridiculous to suggest they (or the coaches) don't. Competence is another issue.
Brumby runners point is a good one, I think.
A good big man beats a good little man in this game every time. they will have 8 good big men on the field at all times.
Any criticism of a player going too low in the current climate however is ignoring a big change in defensive dynamics. TPNs tackling style is risky, imo, because I don't think it's clear that he is seeking to use his arms all the time.

Is it though? it's pretty easy to see why they might be distracted. They certainly seem to be.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Is it though? it's pretty easy to see why they might be distracted. They certainly seem to be.

It's a competence issue at all levels: coaching, playing, administering.
Hell, I even think the board only have the best interests of rugby in mind, they just have no clue what is in the best interests of rugby.
IMO, they appear distracted because none of them have been prepared through their junior and young adult playing to concentrate for 80 minutes in a row for 3 or 17 weeks in a row.
We just don't have comps that give young blokes that exposure.
All these lopsided comps and warehousing of talent in particular school and clubs does nothing to prepare blokes for the top levels.
They pull kids ritually straight out of school and expect them to play like Kieran read or Sam cane. FFS both of them served apprenticeships under strong incumbents and would have played in tough school comps on their way up.
Hanigan has a good s18 season so fardy gets the flick and whamo he's the incumbent. Ridiculous - and I'm a fan of his.

 

[William88]

In regards to rush defense tactics-

I have never seen an Australian team use the tactic to the same effect as the hurricanes.

The out and in defense they have shown over the last two seasons isn't suited to what I think Aus rugby works well with.

Our drift defence has been old reliable for a long time, but we have just condensed our defensive line a tad and go man on man inside our own 40. This may be where some tweaking can occur to ensure we present a brick wall against NZ in a few weeks.

 

[dru]

In regards to rush defense tactics-

I have never seen an Australian team use the tactic to the same effect as the hurricanes.

The out and in defense they have shown over the last two seasons isn't suited to what I think Aus rugby works well with.

Our drift defence has been old reliable for a long time, but we have just condensed our defensive line a tad and go man on man inside our own 40. This may be where some tweaking can occur to ensure we present a brick wall against NZ in a few weeks.

Hey Will. Mate you're very likely talking outside my direct experience, so I have to lean on what I am reading. And what I like seeing - eg the Canes (and I don't think I like what I see with the WBs).

We would appear not so much to be drifting but to be taking defensive lines in the backs which move from in to out. Similar to a drift I guess, but opens us to risk. Just as important in the pigs we are still running 1-3-3-1. As I understand it is a risk reducer putting forwards on forwards, like for like.

Pretty much the inverse of the ABs. (2-4-2, forwards on backs; rush defence). And thank god we are not trying to ape them with our skill set. But we are left with an odd combination.

Is it working? Well not well, at least against our recent hearty opposition of 5, 10 and 15 in the world rankings.

Against ABs, Boks, and Argentina?!? It's not looking good right now.

 

[Twoilms]

I thought we'd matured to a point beyond raising the issue of the player's not giving a shit: it's ridiculous to suggest they (or the coaches) don't. Competence is another issue.
Brumby runners point is a good one, I think.
A good big man beats a good little man in this game every time. they will have 8 good big men on the field at all times.
Any criticism of a player going too low in the current climate however is ignoring a big change in defensive dynamics. TPNs tackling style is risky, imo, because I don't think it's clear that he is seeking to use his arms all the time.

I mean yeah, sure we arent well coached etc. But players are currently no where near their peak either. Not much has changed in the availability of the tight five that absolutely beasted England in the world cup. We could pick and start that same tight five but they have all fallen so far off the pace we would be demolished. Other players are well below their peak. Foley, for example. Kuridrani.

There is definitely something happening to the mentality of the players.