Wallabies vs Barbarians
- Thread starter barbarian
- Start date
- Status
waratahjesus
Greg Davis (50)
I'm with you, Genia looked overworked by world cup time, he lost the spark he normally brings. However, Burgo had the advantage of coming on fresh avaunt tiring opponents
mudskipper
Colin Windon (37)
One of the young Brumbies scrum halves should make the Wallabies next year either White or Prior... Phipps likely will struggle on current form...
mudskipper
Colin Windon (37)
It’s called the ARU publicity machine…
He has the hair for it.
Good thing he isn't mate's with Matt Henjak.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Well I've had my second watch of the game. My thoughts:-
The good and sometimes great:-
1) Execution of fundamental skills. Apart from a couple of wayward passes 1 by JOC (James O'Connor), 1 by Turner and 1 by Higgers skill levels were very very good, perhaps the best I have seen from a Wallabies team for a long while.
2) The kicking was in general very good with none of the aimless boot it away options or the ridiculous low percentage chips, the one chip was into acres of space and the defender had to work very hard to cover and JOC (James O'Connor) arived at almost the same time so it was a good option.
3) The lineout was very much improved - though having Sharpe (IMO the premier lineout Lock in Oz bar none) helped immensely.
4) Support lines were good with multiple lines of attack and players working hard away from the ball. This is a key that has been missing in many games
5) Perhaps my favourite things was seeing the Wallabies actually run some first phase moves and surprise surprise that scored off a few too.
Yes I agree with some others that not too much can be read into the result because the Barbars side obviously contained more than one or two passengers, such as Kaino who I thought was asleep most of the game and some who just aren't at the highest level, like unfortunately Morty who seems to be very ponderous with only glimpses of his explosive power and Bergamasco who tried hard but just isn't in the top echelon of 7's. I think Henry and the Barbars selectors made a big mistake in selecting a lot of players who went to the RWC, they could have picked a 22 that didn't makes their national squad just from the controversial omissions, eg. Van Niekirk in place of Kaino, B. Robinson in for Bergamasco, Giteau for Morty.
Now for the Bad (Not a lot I am very glad to say) but one thing stood out for me in my first watching and was worse the second time around. The scrum. Until a Prop is selected first and foremost for scrummaging ability this phase will be at best a 50:50 proposition for Australia and more penalties will be awarded against the Wallabies than perhaps they deserve simply because the Refs recognise that certain props are suspect. In debating this point people should refer back to a thread I started near the end of the Super season ranking the props in Oz.
One thing that continues to irk me is the superficial rugby media in Oz. After one game at 10, which most here recognise was limited in intensity, especially in the second 40, so many of the scribes here (In OZ) have proclaimed JOC (James O'Connor) the new saviour, one going so far as to compare him to Dan Carter. FFS the same scribes last year could come up with enough superlatives when talking about Cooper yet were quick to discard him and deride him after a RWC where I think he was limited by selections outside him and an idiotic half baked game plan which left him to make every play all by himself.
Said scribes could learn a lot and provide some decent commentary and reporting by reading G&GR before submitting their copy instead of running blindly after the latest hot thing like so many pre-pubescent pop groupies.
The good and sometimes great:-
1) Execution of fundamental skills. Apart from a couple of wayward passes 1 by JOC (James O'Connor), 1 by Turner and 1 by Higgers skill levels were very very good, perhaps the best I have seen from a Wallabies team for a long while.
2) The kicking was in general very good with none of the aimless boot it away options or the ridiculous low percentage chips, the one chip was into acres of space and the defender had to work very hard to cover and JOC (James O'Connor) arived at almost the same time so it was a good option.
3) The lineout was very much improved - though having Sharpe (IMO the premier lineout Lock in Oz bar none) helped immensely.
4) Support lines were good with multiple lines of attack and players working hard away from the ball. This is a key that has been missing in many games
5) Perhaps my favourite things was seeing the Wallabies actually run some first phase moves and surprise surprise that scored off a few too.
Yes I agree with some others that not too much can be read into the result because the Barbars side obviously contained more than one or two passengers, such as Kaino who I thought was asleep most of the game and some who just aren't at the highest level, like unfortunately Morty who seems to be very ponderous with only glimpses of his explosive power and Bergamasco who tried hard but just isn't in the top echelon of 7's. I think Henry and the Barbars selectors made a big mistake in selecting a lot of players who went to the RWC, they could have picked a 22 that didn't makes their national squad just from the controversial omissions, eg. Van Niekirk in place of Kaino, B. Robinson in for Bergamasco, Giteau for Morty.
Now for the Bad (Not a lot I am very glad to say) but one thing stood out for me in my first watching and was worse the second time around. The scrum. Until a Prop is selected first and foremost for scrummaging ability this phase will be at best a 50:50 proposition for Australia and more penalties will be awarded against the Wallabies than perhaps they deserve simply because the Refs recognise that certain props are suspect. In debating this point people should refer back to a thread I started near the end of the Super season ranking the props in Oz.
One thing that continues to irk me is the superficial rugby media in Oz. After one game at 10, which most here recognise was limited in intensity, especially in the second 40, so many of the scribes here (In OZ) have proclaimed JOC (James O'Connor) the new saviour, one going so far as to compare him to Dan Carter. FFS the same scribes last year could come up with enough superlatives when talking about Cooper yet were quick to discard him and deride him after a RWC where I think he was limited by selections outside him and an idiotic half baked game plan which left him to make every play all by himself.
Said scribes could learn a lot and provide some decent commentary and reporting by reading G&GR before submitting their copy instead of running blindly after the latest hot thing like so many pre-pubescent pop groupies.
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Who are you referring to here? The front row to me was selected firstly on scrummaging ability from the touring party.
I agree, qwerty. I thought the 2 starting props were the best we could put out, to scrum, which might not be saying a lot. They folded on a few but thereafter scrumed OK. Being against a thrown together team, it doesn't mean too much. Be very interesting to see what Wales dish up.
But I agree with the premise of Gnostic's post - we just have to sort out the scrum soon. It really needs to be a priority.
But I agree with the premise of Gnostic's post - we just have to sort out the scrum soon. It really needs to be a priority.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
It should be plain that I refer to all three props.
I think all here could agree that NZ Rugby has presented itself for a long time now as best practice in coaching and selection at all levels with regard to the scrum (and other areas).
My point is that we have an issue where two of the selected props are not specialist in either spot (Slipper and Alexander) and in the cases of Alexander and Ma'afu most here agreed in my afore-mentioned thread neither would rate in the top three at either LH or TH in the case of BA or TH in the case of SM.
In fact strong argument can be made that Slipper was played out of position to accommodate Ma'afu as Kepu was before him. In both cases a better performing THP has been forced out of position to accommodate the selection of a suspect scrummager the coach wants for his work away from the set piece. In Alexander's first scrum he was yet again penalised for hinging as he is at least once per half, yet he displayed the real reason for his selection when he ran 25 metres with the ball in hand from a centre field position.
It is a waste of time the coaching staff paying lip service to calls to fix the scrum and yet select players for their work away from it. Yes the best scrummagers were selected from the squad but the best scrummagers in their respective positions have not played where they should be.
Let us not forget for a moment that the Barbarian scrum was a scratch team with little in the way of practice in perhaps the best example of forward team work in Rugby, and in my view the Barbarian scrum took the points. They won more penalties and got clean ball on their own feed. If A. Jones is back on deck next week for Wales the Wallabies could be in trouble at this phase.
One last point on the scrum, some of Genia's feeds were atrocious, I don't know if TPN was unable to hook because of pressure but on one defensive scrum in particular he feed the second row. I really hope the ideas espoused in Lee Grant's threads on the scrum come to fruition, removal of the hit and a return to a true contest for the ball with STRAIGHT feeds.
The other scrummie's feeds weren't any better, Stringer did a very good impersonation of a league halfback feeding a scrum sometime in the second half. It was close to the touchline and the camera, very plain to see.
I was always told the halfback should feed the ball into the second row at the very first scrum of the match to gauge what they could get away with. G, maybe Genia and Stringer worked out early on what they could get away with, and did!
- Status