Wallabies vs England, Sydney, 3rd Test, 25 June @ 8:00pm

[wamberal]

We went into the series without Beale and lost Pocock. Two absolutely irreplaceable players. Tomane would have been a certain starter, and the injury to Simmons just could not have happened at a worse time.


We just do not have the depth to cover these sorts of losses.


McMahon is a wonderfully talented player, but we needed somebody to match Vunipola.

 

[AnthemX1]

We went into the series without Beale and lost Pocock. Two absolutely irreplaceable players. Tomane would have been a certain starter, and the injury to Simmons just could not have happened at a worse time.


We just do not have the depth to cover these sorts of losses.


McMahon is a wonderfully talented player, but we needed somebody to match Vunipola.

"Depth"
I watched the ABs v Wales, all 3 games and was in awe of the talent they kept pushing onto the field when replacements were made.

The speed and strength of all of their forwards all over the paddock is mind blowing. It is horrifying to think what they are going to do to us in the Bledisloe.

 

[Twoilms]

We went into the series without Beale and lost Pocock. Two absolutely irreplaceable players. Tomane would have been a certain starter, and the injury to Simmons just could not have happened at a worse time.


We just do not have the depth to cover these sorts of losses.


McMahon is a wonderfully talented player, but we needed somebody to match Vunipola.

Beale's chip and chase game woulda been pretty handy

 

[Quick Hands]

 

[RedsHappy]

For mine the attack has been effective at times but very predictable. It relies totally on quick front foot ball. The pigs were able to achieve that at times in the first and third tests but in the second test they didn't gain anything and the attack was much as the Brumbies attack has been all year (barring first game). Rugby league like one out runners rarely breaking the set defence.

As I said continuously for years, the Wallabies seeming obsession with this false idea of what constitutes running rugby is really holding the game and players back. The lack of any effective kicking game from the Wallabies means that they are totally predictable. This is because we have close to zero effective kickers in the country. Foley, To'omua and DHP can kick, Foley showed in the RWC last year and the Super competition in 2014 he can kick very well from hand and tee and consistently so. WHy then does his technique appear to have gone to total shit this year? Yes he has been at times inconsistent in the past, but this year he has been consistent only in poorness of his execution. Why. I do not accept that if a player can display a kicking game such as the RWC pool game against England and others of similar quality he does not have the basic skills that can be honed and improved.

IMO this aspect of the Wallabies, the kicking from tee and hand is what lost the series. Just assess Farrell's conversion rate from the tee and Foley's. If the Wallabies convert at the same ratio in tests 1 and 3 the series is won without even addressing the other issues with selection and inaccuracy.

I am not arguing that selections as raised by others was not an issue, or the error rate with the ball in hand, or the tactics. They all played a part, but I think the lack of a truly balanced rugby game plan comes back to the inability of any Australian back to kick effectively and consistently and this plays into the other aspects of how they play and how they select.

IMO Chieka has made a massive mistake right from the start of his coaching career in not having a proven full time kicking coach. I was willing to give Malone the benefit of the doubt in this respect, but two missed penalties for touch in two games with the same basic error in Foley's set up coupled with the decline in the accuracy and execution of his place kicking tells me the juries back in on the outcomes of his mentoring.

It's well-known in golf swing how previously good and effective technique from even the very best pros can quite suddenly, or more gradually, deteriorate. From either new mental pressures or very subtle changes in bio-mechanical stance and mobility. The original good swing technique then has to be re-built or re-learnt - that's why pro golfers spend heaps on highly specialised swing and bio-mechanical coaches.

Bio-mechanically, rugby kicking when closely analysed has similar attributes of stance, weight distribution, mental factors, balanced body strength, arc angle and so on. Successful kicking from hand and tee requires immense practice and the very best kickers almost always use specialist kicking coaches more or less continuously as it's known to be not just a 'self-managing' type of skill set - witness Wilkinson and Dave Alred. Why would a Wilkinson so attach himself to an Alred if such coaching skills were 'not really necessary'.

I have no doubt whatsoever that someone like Stu Lierich (https://kickcoaching.com.au/about/) or Mick Byre could, if retained by the ARU full-time to drive a national, all-season-long kicking skills support group, improve Australia's elite rugby kicking skills immeasurably.

We have many players who can kick well - Foley is a proven example - they are just not consistent enough or varied enough in their skills or they lack adequate distance. They may also have underdeveloped mental techniques to deal with varying pressure situations (I suspect that mental factors may have underpinned Foley's first-off penalty hand kick problems in T2 and T3).

 

[KOB1987]

And then I read the front page article and it is even worse.

Presumably you are talking about all the doomsayers and armchair selectors in the comments section? Because Hugh's article is pretty good I reckon.

 

[gel]

Presumably you are talking about all the doomsayers and armchair selectors in the comments section? Because Hugh's article is pretty good I reckon.

No.

 

[Quick Hands]

It's well-known in golf swing how previously good and effective technique from even the very best pros can quite suddenly, or more gradually, deteriorate. From either new mental pressures or very subtle changes in bio-mechanical stance and mobility. The original good swing technique then has to be re-built or re-learnt - that's why pro golfers spend heaps on highly specialised swing and bio-mechanical coaches.

Bio-mechanically, rugby kicking when closely analysed has similar attributes of stance, weight distribution, mental factors, balanced body strength, arc angle and so on. Successful kicking from hand and tee requires immense practice and the very best kickers almost always use specialist kicking coaches more or less continuously as it's known to be not just a 'self-managing' type of skill set - witness Wilkinson and Dave Alred. Why would a Wilkinson so attach himself to an Alred if such coaching skills were 'not really necessary'.

I have no doubt whatsoever that someone like Stu Lierich (https://kickcoaching.com.au/about/) or Mick Byre could, if retained by the ARU full-time to drive a national, all-season-long kicking skills support group, improve Australia's elite rugby kicking skills immeasurably.

We have many players who can kick well - Foley is a proven example - they are just not consistent enough or varied enough in their skills or they lack adequate distance. They may also have underdeveloped mental techniques to deal with varying pressure situations (I suspect that mental factors may have underpinned Foley's first-off penalty hand kick problems in T2 and T3).

Excellent analysis. Nowhere near enough time and attention put into the skill of kicking in this country - we still seem to rely on the fact that some people are inately good at it and will just develop naturally from there.

 

[Lorenzo]

Worrying about Skelton or Palu (or really any other specific players) is like fiddling whilst Rome burns.

We've got a coach that thinks it is viable to play lots of footy in our own half despite 20 years of pro test rugby and goodness knows how many tests demonstrating quite plainly that it isn't.

His attitude seems to be that completing a successful 'exit' is one of a range of semi-important factors when in test rugby it is probably THE important factor after you pick which players are going to play.

 

[Lee Enfield]

The Wallabies aren't far off, discipline is a major issue, but it all stems from constantly being under pressure in our own half because we can't kick our way out. Our 9 and 10 create so much self pressure, and conceding 3 points is better than 7.
Regards Skelton, his biggest problem is he is fat, slow and unfit and gets lazy as a result. He needs to be dropped and told to get to 130kg and get fit, develop some speed then switch to 8, he is wasted as a lock and he has a massive upside.

From last nights 23, I would drop Moore, Skelton, Palu, Phipps, Kurindrani, Horne and Lilo.

 

[wamberal]

I suspect that Skelton is actually not strong enough for his size. He goes to ground far too easily for a big bopper.


As for Foley being an innately good kicker out of hand, sorry, he is just not. His problem is not his mental attitude, or the phases of the moon: there is something basically wrong with his technique. He does not get enough distance, and his accuracy is pretty poor.


Leave aside his technical nous, which is non-existent. Maybe Cheika is partly to blame for that, I just do not know.

 

[cyclopath]

The Wallabies aren't far off, discipline is a major issue, but it all stems from constantly being under pressure in our own half because we can't kick our way out. Our 9 and 10 create so much self pressure, and conceding 3 points is better than 7.
Regards Skelton, his biggest problem is he is fat, slow and unfit and gets lazy as a result. He needs to be dropped and told to get to 130kg and get fit, develop some speed then switch to 8, he is wasted as a lock and he has a massive upside.

From last nights 23, I would drop Moore, Skelton, Palu, Phipps, Kurindrani, Horne and Lilo.

Fair enough. Out of interest, from currently available / fit / eligible players (so it's a realistic alternate scenario to last night's team) what would have been the starting XV and bench? 7 players need to come in from out of the 23.
Admittedly, it gets easier to pick a team for TRC with some known old heads coming back, and a few hitherto injured players maybe being available again, but I'm more interested in a team from the players who were available now. I'm not having a go, it's a genuine question.

 

[tragic]

If they don't want my derision, they can stop posting rubbish.

Or you could.
There's a common denominator here..

 

[Brumby Runner]

Ah yes, in a 3-0 whitewash the real lesson is we need to boot out two blokes who played 30 and 50 minutes of game 3.

Fuck me dead. If that's what you take away then seriously you need your head checked.

I don't think any of the three played well, but neither did they cost us the game.

Dropping those guys might make a lot of keyboard warriors feel better, but it won't change our results.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cheika was more responsible than any of the players for the loss. His selection of Skelton with an inadequate backup plan was the main reason for the loss. The game was as good as gone when Palu came on and he did precisely nothing to retrieve it.

Don't let it be said that I want to see Cheika gone. I don't, but I do want to see him show a lot more understanding of the consequences of his team selections and be more willing to change the way things are going and the players on the ground when the game is getting away from us. And to be even handed, when I say Cheika I mean all of the coaching staff. I believe they are all equally accountable for the results.

Back to the players, none of them contributed enough towards winning the game, and I believe without them we'll be a better show in future games.

I also note that you haven't offered any reasons why any of the three should be retained other than the fatuous suggestion that I need my head checked. Thank you very much for that Dr Barbarian. Such a great comment.

 

[tragic]

The 'Nick Phipps can't pass' thing is a red herring, a distraction from what actually happened. And it's wrong- he had his best game of the series last night. We scored 40 points, after all.
.

The pass at folau's boot laces deep in our 22 to give away 7 points might have something to do with it.
Mirrored the pass over the head in game 1 - different trajectory, same result.
7 points in these close games is win or lose.
It's not the only thing, but it's a major problem.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Fair enough. Out of interest, from currently available / fit / eligible players (so it's a realistic alternate scenario to last night's team) what would have been the starting XV and bench? 7 players need to come in from out of the 23.
Admittedly, it gets easier to pick a team for TRC with some known old heads coming back, and a few hitherto injured players maybe being available again, but I'm more interested in a team from the players who were available now. I'm not having a go, it's a genuine question.

If I may, I'll have a go at that.

TPN to start and Ready on the bench.
Either of Coleman or Arnold to start with the other or Carter on the bench.
Palu is harder. But given his lack of impact, Houston on the bench would be worth a try.
Kerevi for Kuridrani.
Either of Morohan or Nabuli on the wing. Both are wingers and offer more than Rob these days. Just a reminder, for such a demon tackler, Rob missed three tackles in short order last night, and maybe more as the game wore on that I didn't see.
CLL would have to stay on the bench as goal kicking cover at least, or start in place of Foley.

 

[tragic]

But where is the talk of our disciple? Gave away too many soft penalties in our own half which kept England in the game. Fardy and Skelton the main culprits.
.

The penalty count was 9-6 and a couple of those 9 were fairly questionable
The problem this week wasn't really discipline
It was inability to exit our half (rubbish kicks) and errors whilst there.
This week the errors weren't really penalties
Bad clearances (Phipps poor pass to folau) a bad lineout throw', a number 8 try from a schoolboy scrum move. Brain farts that shouldn't happen at a professional level.
But all were avoidable if we had not let ourselves get stuck down there with rubbish exits in the first place. All were preceded by a popgun 20m clearing kick that didn't find touch.

 

[Lee Enfield]

Fair enough. Out of interest, from currently available / fit / eligible players (so it's a realistic alternate scenario to last night's team) what would have been the starting XV and bench? 7 players need to come in from out of the 23.
Admittedly, it gets easier to pick a team for TRC with some known old heads coming back, and a few hitherto injured players maybe being available again, but I'm more interested in a team from the players who were available now. I'm not having a go, it's a genuine question.

Some of those players I would have picked for last night, but their subsequent performance or performance of others means going forwards to the RC I would give them a spell.

1. Slipper 2. Moore (played his way out) 3. Kepu
4. Simmons 5. Horwill
6. Fardy 7. Gill 8. Skelton (played himself out)
9. Frisby
10. To'omua
11. Morahan
12. Kerevi
13. Folau
14. Hodge (Goal Kicker)
15. DHP

16. Sio
17. TPN
18. Holmes
19. Arnold
20. McMahon (On for Skelton)
21. Hooper (Benched due to no Pocock, comes on for Fardy)
22. Phipps (Played himself out over the 3 games)
23. Lilo (To'omua played him out of 23)

When Pocock fit, The Pooper starts.

 

[cyclopath]

If I may, I'll have a go at that.

TPN to start and Ready on the bench.
Either of Coleman or Arnold to start with the other or Carter on the bench.
Palu is harder. But given his lack of impact, Houston on the bench would be worth a try.
Kerevi for Kuridrani.
Either of Morohan or Nabuli on the wing. Both are wingers and offer more than Rob these days. Just a reminder, for such a demon tackler, Rob missed three tackles in short order last night, and maybe more as the game wore on that I didn't see.
CLL would have to stay on the bench as goal kicking cover at least, or start in place of Foley.

So no reserve halfback? Who goes to the bench with Kuridrani dropped and Kerevi starting? And keep one of the dropped players? Not really answering the question so much. The 7 players were being dropped from the 23 remember? Moore's gone, who's the captain?
It's easy to say drop all these blokes, but to then name an actual team and a balanced bench of sorts with 7 brand new players in the 23 is not so easy.

 

[cyclopath]

Some of those players I would have picked for last night, but their subsequent performance or performance of others means going forwards to the RC I would give them a spell.

1. Slipper 2. Moore (played his way out) 3. Kepu
4. Simmons 5. Horwill
6. Fardy 7. Gill 8. Skelton (played himself out)
9. Frisby
10. To'omua
11. Morahan
12. Kerevi
13. Folau
14. Hodge (Goal Kicker)
15. DHP

16. Sio
17. TPN
18. Holmes
19. Arnold
20. McMahon (On for Skelton)
21. Hooper (Benched due to no Pocock, comes on for Fardy)
22. Phipps (Played himself out over the 3 games)
23. Lilo (To'omua played him out of 23)

When Pocock fit, The Pooper starts.

Well, I'm not mad about Skelton at 8 - if he doesn't tick the boxes at the moment, I'm not sure he does with another number! (And no, I wouldn't have picked him either). Hodge interesting, but he might be a future star, so fair enough.
Not a fan of the 6:2 bench with Hooper and McMahon - I'd probably drop one and have another back from that squad.
But at least you had a crack - many seem intent to chuck the players without a lot of thought about an actual team and bench in mind.