The Wallabies Thread

[Lorenzo]

Foley and Beale are great attacking players in Supe and against second tier test opposition. This idea that they are the answer, or part of an answer, to scoring enough points to win a shootout with the ABs is the most some of the fanciful shit ever written on this board, and entirely unsupported by all of the available evidence. If you think the answer to beating anyone (Scotland, for instance) at this point is ignoring our obvious defensive problems (Beale is the biggest) and hoping that we can score 45 in every test, you need to quit drinking. Beale had the most missed tackles in Super rugby, this idea that he adds enough in attack to make him the clear consistent first choice 12 for the Wobs is just bizarre. If you added in every tackle that he technically made but gave 5 metres after first contact, I imagine the picture would be very bleak indeed.

 

[Up the Guts]

Foley and Beale are great attacking players in Supe and against second tier test opposition. This idea that they are the answer, or part of an answer, to scoring enough points to win a shootout with the ABs is the most some of the fanciful shit ever written on this board, and entirely unsupported by all of the available evidence. If you think the answer to beating anyone (Scotland, for instance) at this point is ignoring our obvious defensive problems (Beale is the biggest) and hoping that we can score 45 in every test, you need to quit drinking. Beale had the most missed tackles in Super rugby, this idea that he adds enough in attack to make him the clear consistent first choice 12 for the Wobs is just bizarre. If you added in every tackle that he technically made but gave 5 metres after first contact, I imagine the picture would be very bleak indeed.

The defensive problems that have emanated almost solely from turnover ball? How will putting in place a better frontline defender at 12 deal with that? You talk a lot about changes but who’s your 12 going to be to save the Wallabies’ season? To'omua? He’s gone back to England. Kerevi’s injured, CLL and DP’s defensive stats were only a shade better than Beale’s and they don’t add half what Beale does in attack. So you’re left with the journeyman Meakes who was found wanting last year against the Barbarians or you could shift Hodge into 12 and debut an 18 year old at 13 or Rona who had an awful end to the Super season.

 

[Lorenzo]

The defensive problems that have emanated almost solely from turnover ball? How will putting in place a better frontline defender at 12 deal with that? You talk a lot about changes but who’s your 12 going to be to save the Wallabies’ season? To'omua? He’s gone back to England. Kerevi’s injured, CLL and DP’s defensive stats were only a shade better than Beale’s and they don’t add half what Beale does in attack. So you’re left with the journeyman Meakes who was found wanting last year against the Barbarians or you could shift Hodge into 12 and debut an 18 year old at 13 or Rona who had an awful end to the Super season.

Sorry, but not. Unless you call the try they scored from their own lineout turnover ball? The try where Beale was a speed bump for Laumape, who made another 10 metres after Beale fell off the tackle, and they scored 4 phases later?

Since you raise the turnover ball, is Beale at all responsible for the try they scored (their second) one phase after he coughed up a pass?

I guess Beale got a hand on McKenzie during the breakout to Barrett's 4th try? Didn't slow him down much.

What is Beale actually adding in attack, at the moment? Can you be specific? Because he led the missed tackle count on Saturday (again) with six. He also had two turnovers, one of which lead directly to a try being scored.

 

[Slim 293]

Lorenzo, for all this word soup I'd like to know who your alternatives are for Beale and Foley............

 

[Lorenzo]

Lorenzo, for all this word soup I'd like to know who your alternatives are for Beale and Foley....

If To'omua is available, probably him as a straight swap for Beale whilst retaining Foley given TK's unavailability. If TK becomes available/fit again, him into 13 with Hodge to 12 and To'omua to 10, with Foley on the bench as the non-halfback cover.

Alternatively, if To'omua is not available, hodge to 12 and Folau to 13.

I don't have as much an issue with Foley, especially if he is surrounded by strong defenders and relinquishes the out of hand kicking duties.

I'm not usually thrilled about the idea of moving people around like this but the structure and tactics need to be deleted and drafted again anyway, so it doesn't feel as bad.

 

[Up the Guts]

If To'omua is available, probably him as a straight swap for Beale whilst retaining Foley given TK's unavailability. If TK becomes available/fit again, him into 13 with Hodge to 12 and To'omua to 10, with Foley on the bench as the non-halfback cover.

Alternatively, if To'omua is not available, hodge to 12 and Folau to 13.

I don't have as much an issue with Foley, especially if he is surrounded by strong defenders and relinquishes the out of hand kicking duties.

I'm not usually thrilled about the idea of moving people around like this but the structure and tactics need to be deleted and drafted again anyway, so it doesn't feel as bad.

So your solution is to play TK and To'omua who are unavailable and failing that, for all your big deal about the need for strong defence, you want Folau to defend in the hardest defensive channel in the backline?

Does indeed seem like there are no better alternatives...

 

[Derpus]

So your solution is to play TK and To'omua who are unavailable and failing that, for all your big deal about the need for strong defence, you want Folau to defend in the hardest defensive channel in the backline?

Does indeed seem like there are no better alternatives.

Mate, all rational debate left this thread at the 'equation' post.

 

[Brumby Runner]

We didn't lose to Ireland because of poor midfield defence and when we lost to England on the EOYT Beale wasn't playing in the centres so there's no evidence to suggest a stodgy midfield that is more solid in defence is going to equip us any better against NH teams. We're also not going to beat the ABs without scoring points and by your own concession Beale and Foley are better attacking players than the current alternatives. Anyhow, the majority of NZ's tries didn't come by busting apart our frontline defence like they did in Bledislode 1 last year so I don't see any dividend in strengthening that area at the expense of weakening our attack.


We conceded 7 tries off turnover ball against NZ and you want to replace our fastest forward, Hooper, with a much heavier body like Timu? Have a look over at the Roar where some excellent analysis has been done to show that the problem on the weekend was not the Pooper but playing Tui at 6 because he was another big body that was too slow around the park. I see a lot of potential in Naisarani, Valetini, and Dempsey and am more than happy to dismantle the Pooper when they're available and have proven themselves but until we have genuine options in these positions we don't have anyone stronger to play.



Who are we subbing Simmons out for? I would prefer Rodda dropped for Arnold and Simmons to remain on the bench as the backup lineout caller.

I will have to disagree UTG that the midfield wasn't (in your opinion) a cause of our losses. Because they are so ineffective in defense, the whole backline has to be shuffled around and the No 7 (on his back) has to cover their spots rather than play as a part of the pack. It is the shuffling between attack and defense that opens up gaps in the backline structure, and is especially apparent on turnover ball where the ABs just annihilate us. Put To'omua at 10 and either Meakes or Paia'aua at 12 and I'd warrant there will be far fewer breaks made against us and fewer tries scored on turnover ball.

By your own concession, there were 7 tries scored by NZ off turnover ball when Hooper, the fastest of our forwards was on the field. Just what impact did he have in stopping turnover tries? By all appearances, nil. It is the defense of the backline as a whole, first and foremost, that must be fixed.

Rodda does call in the lineout, and while he maybe slow off the ground on our own throws, he is probably the best at steals in the Wallabies lineout in recent times. He is also superior to Rob Simmons in open play. So, start with Coleman (caller; most lineout steals in Super 2018) and Arnold (most lineout wins in Super 2018; best lock in general play) and finish with Rodda as the caller if necessary. The lineout functioned well in Bledisloe 2 when Simmons wasn't on the field. His omission would not be a big thing. The throwing into the line was a whole lot more accurate in the second test than the first. On that issue, Latu probably should have thrown himself out of Wallaby contention for the rest of the year at least.

 

[Lorenzo]

I will have to disagree UTG that the midfield wasn't (in your opinion) a cause of our losses. Because they are so ineffective in defense, the whole backline has to be shuffled around and the No 7 (on his back) has to cover their spots rather than play as a part of the pack. It is the shuffling between attack and defense that opens up gaps in the backline structure, and is especially apparent on turnover ball where the ABs just annihilate us. Put To'omua at 10 and either Meakes or Paia'aua at 12 and I'd warrant there will be far fewer breaks made against us and fewer tries scored on turnover ball.

By your own concession, there were 7 tries scored by NZ off turnover ball when Hooper, the fastest of our forwards was on the field. Just what impact did he have in stopping turnover tries? By all appearances, nil. It is the defense of the backline as a whole, first and foremost, that must be fixed.

Rodda does call in the lineout, and while he maybe slow off the ground on our own throws, he is probably the best at steals in the Wallabies lineout in recent times. He is also superior to Rob Simmons in open play. So, start with Coleman (caller; most lineout steals in Super 2018) and Arnold (most lineout wins in Super 2018; best lock in general play) and finish with Rodda as the caller if necessary. The lineout functioned well in Bledisloe 2 when Simmons wasn't on the field. His omission would not be a big thing. The throwing into the line was a whole lot more accurate in the second test than the first. On that issue, Latu probably should have thrown himself out of Wallaby contention for the rest of the year at least.

Right? Are we gonna keep him so we can limit turnover tries to 3? Chuck in 2 non-turnover tries and as long as we can score 6 of our own, we should be right.

 

[Brumby Runner]

So your solution is to play TK and To'omua who are unavailable and failing that, for all your big deal about the need for strong defence, you want Folau to defend in the hardest defensive channel in the backline?

Does indeed seem like there are no better alternatives.

Why, precisely, is To'omua unavailable? WR (World Rugby) regs require him to be released and available in the test window if selected. He and TPN only returned to the UK this weekend because there was no test match on. As far as I kn ow, he will be back and I fully expect both he and TPN will feature somewhere versus the Saffas. It just should be in the starting No 10 or 12 spot for To'omua regardless of the amount of travel he has had to put up with.

 

[Derpus]

Why, precisely, is To'omua unavailable? WR (World Rugby) regs require him to be released and available in the test window if selected. He and TPN only returned to the UK this weekend because there was no test match on. As far as I kn ow, he will be back and I fully expect both he and TPN will feature somewhere versus the Saffas. It just should be in the starting No 10 or 12 spot for To'omua regardless of the amount of travel he has had to put up with.

Before we throw him in at 10, has he actually shown any more form than Foley? or is he literally being selected because he isn't Foley?

I'm not convinced he's done any better. He looked pretty rusty to me to be honest.

 

[Up the Guts]

I will have to disagree UTG that the midfield wasn't (in your opinion) a cause of our losses. Because they are so ineffective in defense, the whole backline has to be shuffled around and the No 7 (on his back) has to cover their spots rather than play as a part of the pack. It is the shuffling between attack and defense that opens up gaps in the backline structure, and is especially apparent on turnover ball where the ABs just annihilate us. Put To'omua at 10 and either Meakes or Paia'aua at 12 and I'd warrant there will be far fewer breaks made against us and fewer tries scored on turnover ball.

Paia'aua's defensive stats are hardly better than Beale's and he gives away too many penalties and at times yellow cards going too high or shoulder charging. Meakes is a decent enough Super Rugby player but isn't a test standard 12.

By your own concession, there were 7 tries scored by NZ off turnover ball when Hooper, the fastest of our forwards was on the field. Just what impact did he have in stopping turnover tries? By all appearances, nil. It is the defense of the backline as a whole, first and foremost, that must be fixed.

Dealing with reorganising the defensive line on turnover ball is what we need to fix. Subbing out Hooper for another big body is not going to help deal with that.

Rodda does call in the lineout, and while he maybe slow off the ground on our own throws, he is probably the best at steals in the Wallabies lineout in recent times. He is also superior to Rob Simmons in open play. So, start with Coleman (caller; most lineout steals in Super 2018) and Arnold (most lineout wins in Super 2018; best lock in general play) and finish with Rodda as the caller if necessary. The lineout functioned well in Bledisloe 2 when Simmons wasn't on the field. His omission would not be a big thing. The throwing into the line was a whole lot more accurate in the second test than the first. On that issue, Latu probably should have thrown himself out of Wallaby contention for the rest of the year at least.

Simmons or Rodda is a borderline call that's unlikely to make any tangible difference on the result although I'd feel more comfortable with the Simmons on the bench given the track record of our lineout.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Can't see any issues with playing a guy who's had 3 games at 10 in the last 3 years and won't be training with the team until mid-week after basically flying around the world.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[fatprop]

Hooper, Foley & Beale aren't going to be dropped (there are no options available that are actual upgrades) and I expect us to win our next two home games and lose our two away games

 

[Slim 293]

There's nothing like a couple of bad losses for the loony spectrum of provincial bias to start rearing its ugly head.........

 

[Lorenzo]

There's nothing like a couple of bad losses for the loony spectrum of provincial bias to start rearing its ugly head...

It's not a couple of bad losses though, is it. It's 3 bad years (41.2%), and Foley, for one, has been there for all of it. Maybe we can take a massive risk and try a backline without him?

 

[Derpus]

It's not a couple of bad losses though, is it. It's 3 bad years (41.2%), and Foley, for one, has been there for all of it. Maybe we can take a massive risk and try a backline without him?

What's our percentage if you take out all the NZ matches?

 

[Lorenzo]

50, which include wins against, Italy, Fiji and Japan. Without them, 43.4.

 

[Derpus]

50, which include wins against, Italy, Fiji and Japan. Without them, 43.4.

I don't get why you would exclude them. Every country plays weaker teams.

So we are one in two if you ignore our regular and inevitable thumpings by the ABs. Considering that includes two tours from NH at the absolute peak of their powers, i'm not that unhappy about it. It could be worse given the dire state of rugby round here and the form of the Super teams.

 

[Lorenzo]

I don't get why you would exclude them. Every country plays weaker teams.

So we are one in two if you ignore our regular and inevitable thumpings by the ABs. Considering that includes two tours from NH at the absolute peak of their powers, i'm not that unhappy about it. It could be worse given the dire state of rugby round here and the form of the Super teams.

You wanted to exclude the team you think we can't beat, so I excluded those that we should always beat too.

You're really desperate to make things look better than they are (and you still only get to 50%, which given the manipulation you had to use to get there is fucking terrible) when you are excluding the certain losses but not the certain wins. That's just absurd.

Every country plays the ABs, too, by the way.