The Wallabies Thread

[Gnostic]

Man, I wish we could not rake the coals of Patston/Link. The whole saga remains a fresh wound for me. So from my perspective, trying to leave it alone, and as a clear critic of Cheika:

A coach is going to bring personality and preferences with him into the job. If he can't do that then I don't want him. You can expect some consistency in those preferences and personality. So things Cheika wanted in a player in at the Waratahs, are generally going to be things he wants from a player as he goes to the Wallabies.

It should not be surprising that he finds many of those attributes from the team he just left, and that he had built. Calling that favouritism to me is a stretch.

In the time that follows he has tested some of my favourites, guys like Quade who would be a first pick in a team that I coached. But Cheika did not refuse to give the guy a go. He gave him a shot at 10. In the system with a wider playmaker, he gave him a shot at 12. Now while the decission leaves me flumoxed, Cheika tried the bloke and found him wanting. It isnt hard to understand, even if I personally disagree.

This year Cheika has trialled Rodda, Tui, Korzcyk, Paiaua, Kerevi, Hunt, Toupo. He is not a bloke who is playing an anti-Reds preference card.

WRT Beale, I have said before that Beale has many things to answer for, being a first pick in this Wallabies team is not one of them. Both sides of that coin I am serious about. Wish we stopped raking coals. It's painful. Stop.

Dru you know my views from my long posting on here, being both a Mackenzie supporter during his time with the Reds and the Wallabies (and Brumbies) and not at the Tahs. Being initially a Chieka supporter etc. You will also know my view on ethical administration and practices in business. The fact is that any organisation that starts with or condones unethical behaviour in any manner is doomed to failure. It is why even though I thought Deans the most qualified person for the Wallaby job when he was appointed the manner of that appointment was so seriously flawed it compromised his standing from the start. Why I opposed the deals done with Elsom and Vickerman to return them directly to the test side. The Force saga, the Brumbies property deals...... the list is just astoundingly long for a decade in an sports organisation. Its only bettered by FIFA really. What happened with Beale is another brilliant example in a long long list of ethically compromised decisions and processes from the ARU. Unless the systems are fixed and that includes an acknowledgment of the utter failing of what went before (no specifics are needed but an acknowledgment of failing in areas is) the very foundations that the future endeavours are built on is compromised. SO the coals have to be raked and stoked on all these issues and those that allowed it to occur, and they all remain in place largely, must be removed. That includes the players. The explanation that Michael gives of why Beale was not immediately sacked is spot and, and is in itself an example of their utterly negligent management, what business can run without such policies? No here we have Pulver, Clyne and the other wasted spaces of the ARU/RA taking money for work they fail to do diligently and to the bare standard of a small business. While the systems remain shit, and the disasters of the past unacknowledged expect yet another Force moment, another player behaving badly and getting a free walk (so Beale paid $45K - the ARU paid far far more than that over the affair) franchises possibly being involved in multi million dollar frauds, the collapse of teams, loss of sponsors and fans walking away.

 

[fatprop]

I think the barn referred to is the defensive barn dance, not the selection barn dance

This I struggle with, the only valid issue is maybe set piece defense. From then on it is always fluid

 

[dru]

@Gnostic, I'm with you mate. I just think that we wont see the discussion carry anything like toward consensus and in the mean-time it simply adds fuel to the "Cheika critics are nut cases" tin hat claims.

It is hard enough to comment on Cheika, Beale etc, without the rest of it.

 

[Joe Blow]

Whilst it doesn't bother me personally, I do agree that something needs to be done about his grandstand antics.

No you aren't alone JB, that was written by someone with similar views to you, however a large portion of it is simply anti-Waratah dribble. The giveaway is that he still obviously a believer of the tin foil hat theory that Cheika and the Waratahs orchestrated link's resignation.

Just out of interest, what would your proposed coaching line up be?

Thankfully that is not my job and honestly I have no idea who would be available. However, lack of easily identifiable replacements is not a good reason to not make a change. If the head coach is not getting reasonable results over time then a replacement needs to be found. There are people out there who can do the job.
I don’t agree with the anti Waratah dribble but Cheika did initially lean on his comfort with the Waratahs playing roster and neglected to bring through young talent from other franchises.

 

[Gnostic]

This I struggle with, the only valid issue is maybe set piece defense. From then on it is always fluid

Really, the defence that has a success rate of between 70-85% the upper limit being best case? The defence that regularly sees the only thing needed to make a break is moving quickly from one side of the field to the other as the wingers are up and in early? My contention also is the penalties rate and the yellow cards we have been seeing defensively come about because the scramble defence that is constantly required because the wallabies are so easily broken on the primary line. The stats as well as the subjective view do not support the proposition that the defence is up to standard at any phase.

 

[Gnostic]

@Gnostic, I'm with you mate. I just think that we wont see the discussion carry anything like toward consensus and in the mean-time it simply adds fuel to the "Cheika critics are nut cases" tin hat claims.

It is hard enough to comment on Cheika, Beale etc, without the rest of it.

That OK Dru, I know that many here think I wear the tin foil hat already. In some things they are not far wrong, but then Tesla was also considered worthy of said millinery.

 

[Derpus]

Really, the defence that has a success rate of between 70-85% the upper limit being best case? The defence that regularly sees the only thing needed to make a break is moving quickly from one side of the field to the other as the wingers are up and in early? My contention also is the penalties rate and the yellow cards we have been seeing defensively come about because the scramble defence that is constantly required because the wallabies are so easily broken on the primary line. The stats as well as the subjective view do not support the proposition that the defence is up to standard at any phase.

I think Fatprops point is not that our defense is any good (who could seriously assert that?) but, rather, the deficiencies aren't caused by moving people around in the defensive line, except maybe at set piece. This being because the defensive line is constantly changing and moving and the only time you ever really have players defending in 'their positions' is from a dead ball scenario.

We have some weird system where one person shoots out to try and hit first receiver, the rest push up and inwards (i was always taught up and out) trying to catch them before they get wide. I think that is more likely to be the problem.

 

[dru]

To be clear - I don't have a problem in the back line where roles change between attack and D. In concept. Especially where it means we are making best use out of certain players strengths in different roles. Whilst it is better to have the perfect skillset for both D and attack, beggars can't be shoosers.

But it is about how much of it needs to occur, how and where this is done, how fluid it is, how consistent the dance is across the park, how well the bench slots to it as they come on, and how they handle things when it get's mismatched. In other words the concept is fine, the application as designed and trained is a different matter.

I definitely don't agree that it is currently "fluid". It is certainly much more fluid than Bled #1 (thank god!), and no doubt we keep pushing the envelope. But being better than it was, is not the same as "fluid" in my viewing.

 

[Derpus]

To add on to what i said before, if you just play with a deep enough attack you'll get on the outside of our defense every time. Even Wales managed to do it consistently.

 

[Rugbybloke123]

not sure if mentioned (I'm sure it has) but foley's kicking in all aspects of the game must go. Hodge and beale are both better punters, hodge a better goal kicker. I read the Sexton has made the last 27 out of 28 penalty goals. That is astounding and is literally the difference between winning games and more so tournaments. Australia need to find someone reliable every night not just on their good nights.

 

[KOB1987]

Thankfully that is not my job and honestly I have no idea who would be available. However, lack of easily identifiable replacements is not a good reason to not make a change. If the head coach is not getting reasonable results over time then a replacement needs to be found. There are people out there who can do the job.
I don’t agree with the anti Waratah dribble but Cheika did initially lean on his comfort with the Waratahs playing roster and neglected to bring through young talent from other franchises.

All fair, however I don't think his initial team selections were neglect so much as a decision to stick with the tried and tested, being a world cup year and all. As someone else mentioned earlier, having come from the Waratahs he did know which of those players offered what he was looking for, so yes I agree he did lean on that comfort to an extent. But he also know what their weaknesses were, hence the controversial Giteau Law to allow us to address said weaknesses. Getting to the RWC final did vindicate those decisions somewhat and hopefully the Giteau Law is a once off, except for the odd 'last man standing' emergency. Unless the new CEO walks in and just wants to put the broom through the whole place, which won't happen if it's Phil and can't be afforded anyway, I doubt very much there will be a change in HC before the RWC in 2019. So I'd rather get behind the team and have some faith that he is smart enough (and by all accounts he isn't stupid) to learn from whatever mistakes have been made. I think Dunedin (as an example) is evidence enough that he is capable of doing that.

 

[Derpus]

All fair, however I don't think his initial team selections were neglect so much as a decision to stick with the tried and tested, being a world cup year and all. As someone else mentioned earlier, having come from the Waratahs he did know which of those players offered what he was looking for, so yes I agree he did lean on that comfort to an extent. But he also know what their weaknesses were, hence the controversial Giteau Law to allow us to address said weaknesses. Getting to the RWC final did vindicate those decisions somewhat and hopefully the Giteau Law is a once off, except for the odd 'last man standing' emergency. Unless the new CEO walks in and just wants to put the broom through the whole place, which won't happen if it's Phil and can't be afforded anyway, I doubt very much there will be a change in HC before the RWC in 2019. So I'd rather get behind the team and have some faith that he is smart enough (and by all accounts he isn't stupid) to learn from whatever mistakes have been made. I think Dunedin (as an example) is evidence enough that he is capable of doing that.

Unfortunately, for all Cheika's positive traits (and i think there are quite a few) adaptability doesn't seem to be one. We are crying out for a back-up game plan, something we can switch to when our front-foot fast ball isn't working. Havn't seen a hint of it since he took over in 2014.

 

[Up the Guts]

Yeah the shooter system is a piece of crap. Teams know it is coming and set their depth accordingly. Shooters only work well when you deliberately target a certain player, usually if you're trying to shutdown a big guy who doesn't move that well e.g. if Taqele played 13 regularly teams might send a shooter at him to stop him before he could get going or get the ball away. Playing a shooter week in and week out against teams with slick hands and good plans is madness.

 

[Gnostic]

not sure if mentioned (I'm sure it has) but foley's kicking in all aspects of the game must go. Hodge and beale are both better punters, hodge a better goal kicker. I read the Sexton has made the last 27 out of 28 penalty goals. That is astounding and is literally the difference between winning games and more so tournaments. Australia need to find someone reliable every night not just on their good nights.

We need to get out of the mindset of "finding someone". People are not found, they have a base level of skill which is then trained and enhanced. How many in AUstralia do you think have the dedication of a Wilkinson or Sexton on their goal kicking, or any other facet of play for that matter? I've said for a while I just do not think our players are truly professional excepting when it comes to their pay packets. Not a single one has improved in skill execution appreciably in the last 10 years, with the exception of the props at scrummaging.

 

[fatprop]

Really, the defence that has a success rate of between 70-85% the upper limit being best case? The defence that regularly sees the only thing needed to make a break is moving quickly from one side of the field to the other as the wingers are up and in early? My contention also is the penalties rate and the yellow cards we have been seeing defensively come about because the scramble defence that is constantly required because the wallabies are so easily broken on the primary line. The stats as well as the subjective view do not support the proposition that the defence is up to standard at any phase.

I believe that who stands where on set piece contributes little to that And nothing said above suggests that set piece defense is the issue
As to penalties, throughout the SH tests, penalties, YCs etc were low, the NH test has been a different issue I agree the defensive structure in phase play, especially on turnover is one of our biggest issues. That and the lack of dominant tight defenders

 

[Derpus]

^^^^^
Hard to disagree. I really feel that if Izzy had really applied himself to it, and wehad a talented coach guiding him, he could have learnt to kick to an international level. Add that to his game and he overtakes Ben Smith as the best 15.

 

[cyclopath]

not sure if mentioned (I'm sure it has) but foley's kicking in all aspects of the game must go. Hodge and beale are both better punters, hodge a better goal kicker. I read the Sexton has made the last 27 out of 28 penalty goals. That is astounding and is literally the difference between winning games and more so tournaments. Australia need to find someone reliable every night not just on their good nights.

Hodge had a great Test against Japan, and has kicked some from way out; Foley at one stage had kicked 19 in a row. Unless you look at similar sample sizes, it's arguable to say one is better at Test level than the other. Obviously, Hodge has a higher ceiling with his distance if he can get and keep his accuracy above 85% or so. What we can say is that any goal-kickers in Oz could be more consistent, and need to work harder at it to be so. If you look at the top flight goal-kickers internationally, none of ours are in that league. As Gnostic said, it isn't a matter of finding one, it's a matter of the ones we have, all across Super Rugby level and higher, being better. And that's mainly on them.

 

[dru]

I doubt very much there will be a change in HC before the RWC in 2019. So I'd rather get behind the team and have some faith that he is smart enough (and by all accounts he isn't stupid) to learn from whatever mistakes have been made. I think Dunedin (as an example) is evidence enough that he is capable of doing that.

Yes that is all easy enough to acknowledge. I’d add that testing for alternatives should be done, but should be done with decorum and quietly. I’ve already acknowledged that there is a fair chance that we just don’t find someone better. If you did the search to no avail it should be quietly filed away without announcement.

So who knows, maybe it’s better to simply presume the right thing has been done throughout and simply move on.

So, criticsm remains legit but keep it to what needs doing to improve. I start as you must with Cheika. We are told he is intelligent, enough to change. Maybe but then intelligence and belligerence can co-exist in the same beast. That belligerence is the first thing that must improve.

I don’t actually mind the intent behind his “A” Plan, I just want it smoother and more fluent. I’d like to see each test treated with respect in it’s own right, not simply part of lurching improve to the RWC.

Nor do I mind what appears to me to be a fundamental strategy shift with the playmaker at 15 and a big bopper at 12. Start of a “B” Plan perhaps. It is vital though that the risks are better understood with how an opposition can exploit it. More understanding of the opposition and adjust tactics, if not strategy, to suit the oppositions ability to poke holes in the strategy.

I also don’t mind players initially being chosen out of position. But it can’t work long term. So Quade is out at 10, and you bring in Reds 12 to 10 and Reds 13 to 12. Utterly disrespectful to the Reds and their fans. BUT talk to Thorn, who knows, if it is something he can work with then by all means continue. Otherwise get stuffed.

I’m also learning to cope with a 10 distributor and this means Hodge is an acceptable back up. But, at least for a while, get 10 & 11 to rotate (not 12). Build experience. Who knows it might help fluency in the barn dance.

AND then our problem is no back up to our playmaker, 12. No to Quade but Hunt starts becoming important. And maybe Meakes.

Got to stop somewhere, now will do.

 

[Viking]

^^^^^
Hard to disagree. I really feel that if Izzy had really applied himself to it, and wehad a talented coach guiding him, he could have learnt to kick to an international level. Add that to his game and he overtakes Ben Smith as the best 15.

If he didn't learn how to kick after 2 years kicking fulltime in the AFL then I'm afraid no international coach would be able to guide him. He should have been a winger. He'd be the world best by now and probably would have scored more cross field kicks.

 

[TOCC]

I think Fatprops point is not that our defense is any good (who could seriously assert that?) but, rather, the deficiencies aren't caused by moving people around in the defensive line, except maybe at set piece. This being because the defensive line is constantly changing and moving and the only time you ever really have players defending in 'their positions' is from a dead ball scenario..

Sorry but anyone who thinks that constantly shuffling players around in their defensive positions has no impact or isn’t the cause of quite a number of the Wallabies defensive issues is simply wrong. You can have any defensive structure you like, but if the players don’t trust the players inside or outside of them, or aren’t aware how those players inside of outside of them are going to move or react then it creates indecisiveness, even a fraction of indecision at test level creates space for the opposition. It’s these fractions of a second which sting the wallabies.

The best defenders in the world are able to do so because of their ability to read body language, not just of the opposition but their own teammates. Communications only goes so far, body language communicates so much more, this is something Kuridrani is good at.

This is why combinations and time together is critical, because it allows players to learn that body language and understand their strengths and weaknesses. Knowing whether to push in to support a player or stay out wide and mark the outside player is down to that understanding between the players and confidence in their own role.