Waratahs 2017

[Braveheart81]

Its Gibson's game plan that failed last year and this year. Small mobile back rowers and running them wide doesn't work against big forwards that go up the middle and smash our smaller light pack. South Africa showed it and so did the Brumbies and Force. He stated in an interview that he was reviewing the back then picked the same ones.

There's been injuries to Skelton in weeks 2 and 3, Holloway in 1-3, and Hanigan in 2 and 3. Holloway adds size to the backrow relative to Wells.

Dempsey is now gone but realistically we need to pick Hanigan or Mumm at 6 to add some size to the backrow.

The biggest problems have been effort and form in my view. The tight five outside of Latu aren't doing nearly enough and the general effort has been poor. One on one defence errors have been massive and you just can't afford it at this level.

I don't think that starting pack against the Brumbies was small by any measure. They just got outplayed and out-enthused.

 

[Blackadder]

There's been injuries to Skelton in weeks 2 and 3, Holloway in 1-3, and Hanigan in 2 and 3. Holloway adds size to the backrow relative to Wells.



Dempsey is now gone but realistically we need to pick Hanigan or Mumm at 6 to add some size to the backrow.



The biggest problems have been effort and form in my view. The tight five outside of Latu aren't doing nearly enough and the general effort has been poor. One on one defence errors have been massive and you just can't afford it at this level.



I don't think that starting pack against the Brumbies was small by any measure. They just got outplayed and out-enthused.

Then why is the effort and form been down?

The game plan belongs to Gibson and it is failing. He has said he wants mobile forwards running wide so it is how he wants the pack.

The players don't seem to be responding to Gibson.

If this continues then something has to change.

 

[Braveheart81]

Then why is the effort and form been down?

The game plan belongs to Gibson and it is failing. He has said he wants mobile forwards running wide so it is how he wants the pack.

The players don't seem to be responding to Gibson.

If this continues then something has to change.

There is heaps to be critical of Gibson for. The players aren't executing basic skills to anywhere near a high enough level.

I just generally think it is easy to blame the coach when the players should be the ones taking more ownership of how they are playing. It just isn't good enough.

If the season doesn't improve substantially then Gibson should certainly be in a precarious position as to whether he still has a job next year but I wouldn't be racing to remove him now.

I'd be picking a few different players this weekend though.

Phipps and Simone should both drop back to the bench in my opinion. Kellaway looked disinterested and lazy out there on Saturday after being pretty good in South Africa.

 

[dru]

Maybe also the fact that the players pass the ball continuously at that get together called training.

If the line speed thing was so huge a factor why can the NZ sides pull off this marvellous thing called passing, under pressure, in the rain, under water....

I do not accept their players are more talented, they are better trained in depth and repetition of core skills. The best example remains AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) becoming a test centurion and not being able to effectively and consistently pass the ball, though Izzy is now starting to catch up to him and as for Phipps talk about regression.

You're not responding to the same question. Unless of course you think that if we put a Shute Shield team into Super Rugby their ball handling would match the Kiwis?

 

[cyclopath]

Quite average this year..

Is there anyone in particular about whom you are commenting? Or could it just be introspection?

 

[Gnostic]

You're not responding to the same question. Unless of course you think that if we put a Shute Shield team into Super Rugby their ball handling would match the Kiwis?

I am actually unless you think that people at the same level shouldn't be able to at least land somewhere in the same ball park in terms of core skills.

I do actually think that many Club level players would and do actually have better core skills than their Australian "pro" counter parts. What they do not have is the innate talent/charecteristics that saw those "pros" selected and the fitness/conditioning. There is no way in the world that a Club side could compete over the length of the game and that was not the point.

Answer me why part timers can display better skills in Australia than full time players, whose contemporaries are light years in front.

It is about coaching, but not on a simplistic individual level as numerous coaches have shown. The structure itself is broken and our players at pro level are just not up to standard and a big part of that goes all the way back to Rod Macqueen's game plan and then Eddie Jones prototype that both saw very homogenous player types promoted to fit the game plans and everyone below followed suit. After that era more and more players were selected into Pro squads straight from school or even before and they got less senior game time to really develop even in the compromised club game.

Now the solution is the ARC/NRC with its short season. The game will be well and truly dead before that "competition" can develop far enough to fill the development void.

edit:- I notice the sack Gibson calls have started and the "game plan" being blamed. Do I think a new coach would get better results? No. But I do think that all extraneous training "meetings" and bullshit should be canned and players need to be run through bare basics until they can execute by rote, until they have the "muscle memory" to complete the skill execution under pressure. Then they can get fancy.

The only other alternative is to dumb it down and take as many of the skill aspects out of the game as possible to chase the results, but that pathway will just kill what little support the Tahs and Rugby has left. Perhaps the way forward if the Larkham way, rolling mauls all the way.

 

[formerflanker]

After that era more and more players were selected into Pro squads straight from school or even before and they got less senior game time to really develop even in the compromised club game.


But I do think that all extraneous training "meetings" and bullshit should be canned and players need to be run through bare basics until they can execute by rote, until they have the "muscle memory" to complete the skill execution under pressure. Then they can get fancy.

I thought there was more emphasis in recent seasons for elite players to get games each weekend. If not in the game day 23, they are now turning out for their clubs. Some years ago the non-selected players trained or had rehab on Saturdays but that has gone, to the best of my knowledge.

Spot on about muscle memory drills. The old adage of "perfect practice makes perfect" applies. Surely the full time professionals have time to do it.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I am actually unless you think that people at the same level shouldn't be able to at least land somewhere in the same ball park in terms of core skills.

I do actually think that many Club level players would and do actually have better core skills than their Australian "pro" counter parts. What they do not have is the innate talent/charecteristics that saw those "pros" selected and the fitness/conditioning. There is no way in the world that a Club side could compete over the length of the game and that was not the point.

Answer me why part timers can display better skills in Australia than full time players, whose contemporaries are light years in front.

It is about coaching, but not on a simplistic individual level as numerous coaches have shown. The structure itself is broken and our players at pro level are just not up to standard and a big part of that goes all the way back to Rod Macqueen's game plan and then Eddie Jones prototype that both saw very homogenous player types promoted to fit the game plans and everyone below followed suit. After that era more and more players were selected into Pro squads straight from school or even before and they got less senior game time to really develop even in the compromised club game.

Now the solution is the ARC/NRC with its short season. The game will be well and truly dead before that "competition" can develop far enough to fill the development void.

edit:- I notice the sack Gibson calls have started and the "game plan" being blamed. Do I think a new coach would get better results? No. But I do think that all extraneous training "meetings" and bullshit should be canned and players need to be run through bare basics until they can execute by rote, until they have the "muscle memory" to complete the skill execution under pressure. Then they can get fancy.

The only other alternative is to dumb it down and take as many of the skill aspects out of the game as possible to chase the results, but that pathway will just kill what little support the Tahs and Rugby has left. Perhaps the way forward if the Larkham way, rolling mauls all the way.

There's more than few factual issues with this:
Very very few players get contracts out of school
Eddie Jobes was sacked years ago
McQueen been gone for 20 years
Deans had a positively different goal in wanting leaner fitter players

 

[Gnostic]

There's more than few factual issues with this:

Very very few players get contracts out of school

Eddie Jobes was sacked years ago

McQueen been gone for 20 years

Deans had a positively different goal in wanting leaner fitter players

You and others have been pushing the same barrow for years when I and other have been talking about these things. Now that most of what we predicted has come to pass you still hold to the same line slightly altered.

I talk about the systems and their genesis and you post about it being years ago in a politicians attempt to undermine the message. Have a look around, there is next to nobody left, simply because the quality is woeful because the underlying systems are very poor. That is my point and it is pretty undeniable because the results are there to be seen.

"Deans wanted leaner fitter players" OMFG . Deans didn't know what he wanted, it changed every 6 months when the previous plan didn't work, largely because of the issues we are discussing.

This has gone off topic. The facts in relation to the Tahs, sacking Gibson will do nothing to fix the issue. Changing to a low skill plan may eke out a few more wins but will not arrest the plummeting crowd and view numbers. Any coaching position in Australia is a poisoned chalice for these reasons.

The ARU has to accept the Lions share of the blame because they have run a top down model, that puts them front and centre and they have failed utterly.

 

[A mutterer]

gnostic - while i understand your point of view i am still going to focus squarely on the players who just are not playing well enough. you could have the best aru system possible, the best coach, but the reality is the players are just not producing at all. is it partly systems? training? coach's plan? aru in general? sure.

but the players are paid to play and play well. not look disinterested, fall off one on one tackles and miss their passing target.

 

[John S]

http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2017/03/22/00/26/waratahs-rebels-team-announcement

Foloau back to the back - couldn't be too soon I think.

 

[fatprop]

gnostic - while i understand your point of view i am still going to focus squarely on the players who just are not playing well enough. you could have the best aru system possible, the best coach, but the reality is the players are just not producing at all. is it partly systems? training? coach's plan? aru in general? sure.

but the players are paid to play and play well. not look disinterested, fall off one on one tackles and miss their passing target.

I do wonder what players actually do those "extras" to get their personal skill set to a reasonable standard. How many hours a week is Phipps working on his pass
How many hours a week is Folau working on his kicking from hand.
Hookers working on their lineout throwing
How many players are spending their own time strengthening their weak passing side

etc etc

 

[Gnostic]

gnostic - while i understand your point of view i am still going to focus squarely on the players who just are not playing well enough. you could have the best aru system possible, the best coach, but the reality is the players are just not producing at all. is it partly systems? training? coach's plan? aru in general? sure.



but the players are paid to play and play well. not look disinterested, fall off one on one tackles and miss their passing target.

I agree totally, but what changes can you make now that will really make a material difference. The time to change was 5 years ago at the latest. Now all it is just a moving of the deck chairs after the Titanic has hit the iceberg. The ship is going down, I'd say enjoy the ride but the band is too shit for that.

 

[Gnostic]

I do wonder what players actually do those "extras" to get their personal skill set to a reasonable standard. How many hours a week is Phipps working on his pass

How many hours a week is Folau working on his kicking from hand.

Hookers working on their lineout throwing

How many players are spending their own time strengthening their weak passing side



etc etc

I have also wondered that many times, I also wonder about the level of critique from their peers and coaches about technical flaws before they do those extras. Doesn't matter shit how much time you spend practicing something if you technique is crap and uncorrected.

 

[The torpedo]

"Deans wanted leaner fitter players" OMFG . Deans didn't know what he wanted, it changed every 6 months when the previous plan didn't work, largely because of the issues we are discussing.

But what Deans did want was tahs players in the team, regardless of performance

 

[Ulrich]

I'd like to weigh in here - pertaining to Rugby in Aus more so than for NSW or so.

Given that Rugby Union in your country is not as popular as several other sports not only do you have a smaller player pool, but in some instances your best naturally talented players are playing other codes.

Still, the difference a coach can make is outstanding given what has transpired with England since 2015 and they have not been playing particularly fancy rugby, but certainly they got belief back.

Similarly, the best brains are probably coaching other codes in Australia and we've seen those brains being picked for Rugby Union's purposes from time-to-time. You'd be more motivated I reckon to coach a game which houses more opportunities and also more interest and money.

Over here we have rugby league or some other rugby code team called the Rhinos (shows you how much I know about it) and they suck. That's because the code over here may be even of lesser importance than rugby union is in Australia. It does not reflect the quality of our athletes, but their distribution within the system and so too for the coaches. Hardly anyone here may know how to coach rugby league.

I think I've seen a 2 min clip and it could have been some other aussie football rules I had been watching for all I know, I can't remember.

Given this, you're not doing as well as you have traditionally, but you're still doing pretty well, particularly at national level.

From what I understand there's an inherent lack of appreciation for rugby union in its entirety and I believe other codes in Australia is causing this. I have read over here that scrums are boring and lineouts are boring and so on and so forth. You guys want to see a running game, we all do, it is fun to watch, but for those of us who are purists we enjoy other aspects of the game very much as well - it is what we know in NZ, SA and Wales for example. When we want to see pure running and explosive entertainment we watch 7s.

Herein lies the problem, how do you make someone appreciate another code? I'm not going to start watching hockey overnight for example even though I respect the game in its own right. If I'm not watching it I'm not going to be inclined to play it or have my children play it - nor are the schools or clubs since there's not as much money in it over here.

This is the same reason Phibbs and other backline players are always signaled out when things go wrong, whereas if you look at it the guys that should make their jobs easier so they could flourish are lacking or under-performing.

 

[A mutterer]

the difference i'm convinced is really down to that of desire.

johnny wilkinson, michael jordan - both had in common an insane desire to train and perfect their skills. hours of practice by themselves every day, and often after games.

where is the australian player you can point to that approaches training and skill perfection in a comparable manner?

 

[dru]

We definitely dont have the numbers that England or RSA have. But the last time I tried to dig into it (figures are rubbery and poorly reported), our adult player numbers were not that far astray from NZ.

Which shows that mot only are NZ the world best, but that they have to "punch above their wieght" to do it.

Also it says Aus can do much better.

Also note, a lot of those numbers are concentrated in NSW (and Qld), so this thread is probably the smallest reasonable use of this excuse. Naturally there their are other isdues - jump to the ARU thread for thoughts.

 

[amirite]

our adult player numbers were not that far astray from NZ.

Except 25% of those numbers are Kiwis themselves!

 

[Blackadder]

Does anyone know when Angus will fit to play?