Wales v Australia

[Hell West & Crooked]

I take it you haven't watched the Ireland V SA game yet. I can't comment about the England V ABs game as I don't have Setanta but the Irish were very good. Wallabies will have to be on their game and I think they will offer a very hard game.

The Irish did an outstanding job against SA - and they are capable of putting on a game occassionaly like they did against us in the last World Cup... Ask any Irish supporter - they are perhaps the Team - most like the Wallabies - who are guilty of just not 'turning up' on any given day, and often enough, to drive their supporters to drink...

I am expecting a very hard game against the Irish, and their tails will be up after SA - but they are just not consistent enough to be in the same class of threat as England and Wales. Having said that, when the Irish are 'on' our boys have not shown the level of development that allows them to re-form, and respond to it.

 

[ForceFan]

These stats and why are the likes of McCalman & Hooper are so low on the right. These 2 have a different purpose and play different games but i thought both were very strong and I'm dumbfounded with the choices on the right - as I am with Foley - whilst not a Foley fan he showed some great game mgmt.

I've given up trying to understand or rationalise the GAGR Ranking System as it makes absolutely no sense to me nor does it reflect the contributions of players in any particular match. But it does create a lot of interesting discussion.

I also fail to understand how McCalman who was one the Wallaby best against Wales can be ranked at No 11 with 35% thumbs down. He had the 3rd highest tackle count (with zero missed), had the 3rd highest ruck involvement (with the highest % impact), was effective at lineouts, made the most run m of any forward without any errors (knock-ons etc). Like Hooper he made 30% of his tackles in the last 10 minutes of the game. This is likely to part of the game plan as they are both 80 minute players - keeps them fresher in the closing minutes.

Perhaps he's being ranked against the best No 8 that people have seen, or how their "ideal" No 8 should perform, or how their favourite No8 who "should have been picked/playing" would have performed.

The great thing about Ben McCalman is that game-in, game-out he just does what he does and he brings nothing off the pitch. He did have a 30 minute flat spot against Wales (30-60 mins), as did Hooper (10-40 mins), when his ruck involvement was way below normal.

At least recently, GAGRers have been fairly ranking Hooper down as previously it appeared that he was "untouchable".

IMO the G&G Player Ratings for this game in giving McCalman a 7 (not far short of the 8 that he'd earned) and Hooper a 6 got it about right.

 

[BDA]

Agree McCalman was very good.

I also thought it was pretty telling that we played three guys that can all play 7 at a pinch but none of them got a turn-over, yet Hodgson gets one within 10 minutes of coming on the field. For all his upside, Hooper really doesn't threaten much at the break-down these days. Fardy and Fainga'a are probably just as dangerous at defensive rucks.

 

[Phil]

Agree McCalman was very good.

I also thought it was pretty telling that we played three guys that can all play 7 at a pinch but none of them got a turn-over, yet Hodgson gets one within 10 minutes of coming on the field. For all his upside, Hooper really doesn't threaten much at the break-down these days. Fardy and Fainga'a are probably just as dangerous at defensive rucks.

I really don't get this obsession with who gets the pilfer.It doesn't really matter who gets it as long as someone does.
We can all see that Hooper plays a very different style of 7 play,but obviously his coaches are happy with it plus we get his great running and the type of defence he did in the dying seconds of the game.Just appreciate him for what he does.

 

[formerflanker]

I've given up trying to understand or rationalise the GAGR Ranking System as it makes absolutely no sense to me nor does it reflect the contributions of players in any particular match. But it does create a lot of interesting discussion.

I also fail to understand how McCalman who was one the Wallaby best against Wales can be ranked at No 11 with 35% thumbs down.

At least recently, GAGRers have been fairly ranking Hooper down as previously it appeared that he was "untouchable".

IMO the G&G Player Ratings for this game in giving McCalman a 7 (not far short of the 8 that he'd earned) and Hooper a 6 got it about right.

I guess this opinion site is just that - a forum for us to be judgemental without necessarily resorting to the facts.

 

[rugbysmartarse]

Seems Hooper forces a few penalties at ruck time, but doesn't get too many clean steals the way pocock and hodgson do

What's better, a clean pilfer, or a penalty for the opposition hanging on? I guess it depends on field position and time of the game.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Popock is better than Hooper.

Dan Palmer will solve all our Front Row problems.

The Tahs are rorting the salary cap.

Matt Giteau will help us to bring Bill back.

League players tackle.

TPN can't throw lineouts.

Palu is injury prone.

McMahon is superman.

Sir Richie GOAT is invisible.

Dingo was a 5th columnist plant from NZ to destroy the Wallabies.

The days of the Fetcher/Jackel/Pilferer are over.

IRB Referee panel hate Australia.

JON screwed the ARU.

The Pulverisor knows the identity of the texter from the grassy knoll.

Any more tangents to take this Match thread down?

 

[BDA]

I don't believe anyone mentioned David Pocock. I was just pointing out that Hooper really seems to have moved away from that traditional 7 role. On the weekend I thought a traditional 7 could have really flourished. Hodgson made the most of his limited time. Pretty sure this thread is about the game.

No mention of David Pocock, but now that you mention him....

 

[No4918]

I don't believe anyone mentioned David Pocock. I was just pointing out that Hooper really seems to have moved away from that traditional 7 role. On the weekend I thought a traditional 7 could have really flourished. Hodgson made the most of his limited time. Pretty sure this thread is about the game.

No mention of David Pocock, but now that you mention him..

Yep, in your original post you mentioned other players that also failed to get a steal yet the same old people come out defending Hooper alone. Seemed a reasonable comment on his strengths and weaknesses but apparently his weaknesses aren't allowed to be discussed. Every players weaknesses should be open for discussion. The man-love is getting a bit much.

 

[Viking]

I don't believe anyone mentioned David Pocock. I was just pointing out that Hooper really seems to have moved away from that traditional 7 role. On the weekend I thought a traditional 7 could have really flourished. Hodgson made the most of his limited time. Pretty sure this thread is about the game.

No mention of David Pocock, but now that you mention him..

I think your right, a fetcher would have done well in that game. Warburton had a few steals too. Wouldn't put him up there with the best fetchers in the world but he did well at the start.

 

[Muglair]

A great summary HJ!

No doubt in my mind that Hodgson brought that point of difference with his strength over the ball. I even agree that Hooper does not seem to have that strength over the ball of Smith/Waugh/Hodgson.

How many times do you all think/write/hear about the importance of winning the "big moments" in a game? I don't keep stats, I don't watch as much rugby as others but I have to tell you that it just seems to me that Hooper is bobbing up constantly in the big moments; an intercept, linking up, running through a gap, a big tackle etc etc.

I am now even boring me, but if we are to win the RWC we will be playing a different game to SA NZ and England. As far as I am concerned Hooper is part of that winning combination.

 

[ForceFan]

This was the first Test under new coach Cheika.
One feature that was obvious was his expectation of involvement by the Forward Pack - especially over their planned game time.
There appears to rest periods and periods when the tight 5 are expected to step up. I don't think that this just represents just how the game progressed. There is a clear strategy for conserving energy during the game.
First 10 - Fianga'a and Kepu (8 rucks each) to have major involvement in Rucks in Attack and Defense - others (4 or 5 rucks each) mostly on attack.
10-20 - Slipper, Simmons & Carter to step up in both A&D (8 or 9 rucks each); Hooper & Fianga'a less involvement (2 or 3 rucks each ); others focus on Attack (5 rucks each).
20-30 - Fairly even contribution but holding off on rucks in Defence (Fianga'a had the single D ruck stat).
30-40 - Those expected to play the full 80 keeping low (Hooper & McCalman - 2 or 3 rucks each) with all others ( 4 or 5 rucks each) holding off D rucks.
40-50 - Fairly even involvement (McCalman still resting - 2 rucks) and laying off D rucks until late in the 10.
50-60 - McCalman still resting. Skelton involved in some D rucks early in this 10. Generally even spread of ruck involvement but hanging off D rucks.
60-70 - Some early involvement with Hooper, McCalman & Skelton in D rucks. Alexander expected to put in (fresh off the bench) and remainder holding off on D rucks.
70-83 - Wallabies have been criticised for losing games at the end.
Hooper had saved himself well in the 1st half to be able to rise at the end. He combined well with Hodgson. McCalman had rested early in the 2nd half. (See my earlier post for ruck details during this period.)
A Ruck efforts: Hooper (16), Hodgson (10), Skelton (8), Horwill (9), Hanson (7), Leali'ifano (7), McCalman (6) and Alexander (5). Those off the Bench provided the coverage of D rucks; Hodgson (8), Skelton (3), Horwill (2), Hanson (2) & Alexander (1) plus Kuridrani (3).
Hooper & Hodgson entered a ruck every 40 seconds and Hooper also found time to lay on 6 tackles (as he had almost no involvement in D rucks). Impressive effort by both players.

 

[Muglair]

Holy shit ForceFan, my inadequacy overwhelms me. I will be watching next week with a slightly different viewpoint. Thanks.

No wonder League fans complain about the complexity. I hope the rest of you are not going to tell me that this is rugby watching 101, I will need to find a different social media platform.

 

[Lee Grant]

There were some good things in the game and I hope they prevail against France.

- an improvement in the effect of the bench in the last quarter of the match.

- the way Foley managed the game in the money moments once Oz got the lead with seven minutes to go. He got the MOTM for that, not the odd bad kick earlier. (Wales could not do that when they led 15 minutes to go, though it was hard for them with a flyhalf like Priestland).

- the steely nerve of Foley kicking at goal, one of his best games in that area.

- controlling the ball for 4 1/2 minutes before the drop goal (something Wales was incapable of when they had to manage the game).

- the ball carrying in traffic was superior whereas fellows like Hibbard and Faletau had few runs.


Not so good were:

- bad research - scrummie Webb dummies and runs from the ruck in every match for Ospreys - it's his signature (no excuse for McMahon though).

- Oz caught short of defenders for the Cuthbert try though they had time to get extras over there to match up after Halfpenny went to ground.

- players isolated so Oz couldn't clean out on time, or with diminished effect - also not cleaning out at cricitical impact point.
.

 

[Muglair]

I am a huge fan of Folau. Probably more for what I think he will bring in the future (my position since he started, an obviously moving goalpost). however I think his laziness is still a liability though.

Looking at Lee Grant's analysis in particular I thought (correction required?) Folau backed off on Cuthbert's try once the defence was beaten and should have cut him off at least 5 metres closer to the sideline.

As always interested in people's views. this is a continuing issue and I do not think he has the stamina to play 7s in the way I understand it to be played. On the other hand, he almost always beats his man (and a couple more) so in 7s that would mean a try for someone.

He is an enigma I think.

 

[ForceFan]

I hope the rest of you are not going to tell me that this is rugby watching 101, I will need to find a different social media platform.

Relax Muglair...I've got some time on my hands at the moment.

I wanted to see, for myself, what changes Cheika had made without just listening to the rubbish dished out by Fox Rugby (whose commentators I rate very lowly!) and weren't obvious from first viewing.

At least Georgina Robinson has gone missing since the Beale Affair.
I'm a bit tired of her "Woman's Day"-level of commentary.
(Is that PC???)

 

[Forcefield]

I like Hooper. I'm a big fan. But I think you need balance with him. To me, Hooper and Fardy make a good combination. Hooper and McCalman make a good combination too. Not as good in some ways (more breakdown penalties won with Fardy) but good in others (less breakdown penalties against us with McCalman). Just in the same way that I think Pocock and Higginbotham make a good combination. But I would be a bit worried about a Wallaby backrow of Higginbotham, Hooper, Palu. Hodgson is more on the Pocock side of that divide.

 

[Muglair]

Yes, I also regret listening to Fox Sports!

I hope your"time on my hands" is due to a recent lottery win. In which case you might consider increasing your support of the Force

 

[Muglair]

Forcefield, I think your observation of combinations is spot on. I am a big Palu fan, but more because of the unsung hard yards he does in close, a bit like Tim Gavin. He is long past the days of making the big ball carrying impact week in week out.

As a Tah fan I cannot forgive Higgers his breakout game breaking performances against us but I do not see him making much difference at test level. He is best a bit wider out and I do not think we have the players to do the hard yards inside.

In the back row you have to worry that selections will become compromised by who else is available to get the right balance. Further complicated by our weakness in the second row. Or locks as you youngsters say.

 

[BDA]

Agree with the comment about Pocock/Higgers combo. polar opposite players really. You can afford to play a Higgers when you have a Pocock.

This tour is a good opportunity for the likes of McCalman and Higgers to stake their claim at 8 and 6 respectively, with Palu/Fardy at home. McCalman is taking his chances with both hands. He might be able to cement himself as Cheika's first choice 8 if he can keep up his current form.