• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brumbieman

Brumbieman

Dick Tooth (41)
MHCS said:
I know that the websites sometimes exaggerate the numbers, then I sought information in three different sources, the 3 different sources are agree that weighs more than 100 kg, so it's very likely that he weighs more than 100, I'm not his personal trainer to ensure that weight.

2vj1rvb.jpg


34rf28p.jpg


This guy is really really big, my years of experience in the gym tell me that this guy easily weighs more than 100. Even 105 seems little for me.
Click to expand...






He's also certainly on steroids :O
 
Chris McCracken

Chris McCracken

Jim Clark (26)
MHCS said:
I know that the websites sometimes exaggerate the numbers, then I sought information in three different sources, the 3 different sources are agree that weighs more than 100 kg, so it's very likely that he weighs more than 100, I'm not his personal trainer to ensure that weight.


This guy is really really big, my years of experience in the gym tell me that this guy easily weighs more than 100. Even 105 seems little for me.
Click to expand...

The photos you have there, I believe, are from last year at 108kg. I follow his video log now and then

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChHhJcgQL4ABxdW-7FicM0A

As far as how big he looks, lean people look bigger if they have smaller joints. Basically, if someone is meant to carry 80kg, but they weigh 100kg, they'll look bigger than someone whose skeleton is designed to carry 110kg and weighs that.

So endeth the trivia lesson.
 
Groucho

Groucho

Greg Davis (50)
MarkJ said:
If Lilo was kicking them from all over the field (rather than missing shots from dead in front) maybe it would have made Moore's decisions easier?
Click to expand...
It's an interesting question. It's always a value equation, but rugby theory seems to be changing, with lots more teams now preferring to go for the corner from kickable wide positions.

What has changed? Presumably the perceived likelihood of scoring from the resulting line out, as opposed to individual kickers' form.

"Taking the points" means taking them if you can. A 70% chance of 3 points has 2.1 points of value. If a try is worth on average 6.4 points (based on the same 70% conversion rate) then you only need a 30% chance to score to make it a better long term bet. Teams like the Brumbies must think they can do better in the long term by kicking for the corner, and whether that's an error depends on their actual success rate scoring from that position.

Teams are also taking higher risks than before by kicking deeper for the corners on penalty kicks, especially the Brumbies.

Of course easier kicks are a different set of numbers.
 
Dumbledore

Dumbledore

Dick Tooth (41)
Top post Groucho. Not sure if you watch much of the NFL, but there's a similar argument that's being had there too. Conventional wisdom has it you just take the points rather than going for it on fourth down but the analytics guys say very different - http://grantland.com/features/bill-barnwell-scenarios-coaches-fail-most/

Obviously the specifics don't directly apply, but it's interesting nonetheless.
 
qwerty51

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Groucho said:
"Taking the points" means taking them if you can. A 70% chance of 3 points has 2.1 points of value. If a try is worth on average 6.4 points (based on the same 70% conversion rate) then you only need a 30% chance to score to make it a better long term bet. Teams like the Brumbies must think they can do better in the long term by kicking for the corner, and whether that's an error depends on their actual success rate scoring from that position.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good but not sure it applies to a last play of the game scenario.
 
Joe Blow

Joe Blow

Peter Sullivan (51)
Groucho said:
It's an interesting question. It's always a value equation, but rugby theory seems to be changing, with lots more teams now preferring to go for the corner from kickable wide positions.

What has changed? Presumably the perceived likelihood of scoring from the resulting line out, as opposed to individual kickers' form.

"Taking the points" means taking them if you can. A 70% chance of 3 points has 2.1 points of value. If a try is worth on average 6.4 points (based on the same 70% conversion rate) then you only need a 30% chance to score to make it a better long term bet. Teams like the Brumbies must think they can do better in the long term by kicking for the corner, and whether that's an error depends on their actual success rate scoring from that position.

Teams are also taking higher risks than before by kicking deeper for the corners on penalty kicks, especially the Brumbies.

Of course easier kicks are a different set of numbers.
Click to expand...


We are talking provincial rugby as compared to test. I think if it was a test and Moores decision he would take the points every time unless trailing by 4+.
The previous week their rolling maul was unstoppable. The odds of then scoring and setting the Tahs back on their arse were pretty good.
 
Tomikin

Tomikin

Simon Poidevin (60)
Braveheart81 said:
In regards to the captaincy decision, it isn't a great sign that Moore seeks Pocock's opinion when they win penalties and then the two of them keep turning down shots at goal to kick for the corner.

I still think Moore will probably be the Wallaby captain this year but he needs to stop making these poor decisions on the field. If you build up enough of a lead by taking the early penalties then you can think about kicking for the corner from attacking penalties.
Click to expand...

I did hear on the last penalty the call came from Larkham..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top