Discussion in 'Rugby Discussion' started by kronic, Aug 15, 2012.
Only applicable to 2012, think they can do it?
Australia to beat NZ and then lose to Argentina. You heard it here first
Los Pumas have never beaten South Africa or New Zealand and they last beat Australia 15 years ago. Not to mention that the 3N was probably the toughest annual rugby comp.
I say they struggle this time. Win their first game next year.
When was the last time Australia won in Argentina? Think they are a chance of knocking us off at home.
I think they will give both Australia and South Africa a run for their money at home.
Their best chance for a win is probably round 2 against the Springboks.
I think the Argies will flag later in the competition so if they want a win it will need to come early.
The Argies could beat the Wallabies at home. The Wallabies are too up and down and I think the Argies know, their best chance of a win, will be against the Wallabies at home and will be well and truly up for it. The Wallabies should view this game as potential ambush.
Either us or South Africa in Argentina is their only chance, but you never know, given our track record lately, losing at home isn't a strange though :|
There are certainly people in the Wallabies staff who are very aware of the threat the Argies will pose at home.
The Argies can't play the style of game which troubles the Springboks. They will just sit on their line and absorb forward runners, pick and drives etc. all day long. So I am picking the Wallabies.
The Wallabies don't like to get drawn into an arm wrestle, especially when they are not switched on. The Men in Gold will probably smash the Argies on the Coast and roll off the plane in Buenos Aires confident, cocky, and more focused on the steaks and night life. They will stand around scratching their heads after a 13-9 loss, wondering what went wrong. How on earth could we be 'ambushed' again??? It will all be forgotten and swept under the carpet as its the last game of the tournament, in a different timezone, with nothing really riding on the outcome.
Sorry to be pessimistic, but I have seen it way to much since 2008.
The All Blacks and Springboks have too much pride in their respective jerseys to give one up to Argentina who are yet to establish themselves as a power. The best chance Argentina has of knocking over one of the big three is against the Wallabies.
The Wallabies of the present day lack the courage, determination, focus and pride in the jersey to hold off a spirited Argentinian outfit at home. The Wallabies are not a team at the moment, they are simply a group of professional athletes.
They might not be the cohesive team they need to be, but I honestly think saying the current Wallabies lack "pride in the jersey" is pretty insulting and unmerited.
Mate, I can think of more than one occasion where it has been treated like a rag.
I can think of about 25 times. Each of Dean Mumm's test caps.
More than one? Like, two? I'm sure that completely justifies claiming the entire team doesn't have pride in being Wallabies.
Nah mate, more like, "how much time do you have on your hands"?
"What on earth would make me think there is not enough pride in the jersey?", I hear you inquire!
Well, there is the three amigos who think they are the masterminds of the whole operation and, therefore, think they can do whatever they want off the field and get away with it which is a distraction for the team and bad for the game.
Then there are blokes like Robinson who think they should have a say in how his Super franchise is run and who gets picked as his coach. Its this kind of player entitlement bullshit that destroys teams. Refer to the Brumbies of 2011.
Then we have blokes like Sitaleki Timani who have been gifted jerseys having done nothing to really earn them. We also have blokes like Palu who are picked on reputation as opposed to good form.
What kind of message are we sending these players who we pick on reputation and potential? Do you think giving them an easy ride instead of making them work for it makes them value the jersey beyond the fame and fortune it brings them?
What about the blokes who think they can play up like a second hand lawn mower? Do you think they respect the jersey enough when they are allowed to misbehave as much as they like and still pull on the green and gold.
Then there is the all important match day efforts.
How many games have we been winning and let slip in the last twenty minutes? How many times have we lost to teams who are ranked well below us on the IRB rankings and not because they were better than us but because we did not show up on the day? How many times have our blokes talked about how good they are going into a game only to be served a generous portion of humble pie?
So aside from referencing a couple of off-field incidents, which are actually confined to a very small number of players, your argument is.. personal dislike, opinion and speculation. Got it.
We've been ranked second for quite a while now. Essentially that gives us far more opportuntities to lose to teams below us than to beat teams above us.
The fact that we are still second and have a reasonable gap on South Africa in the rankings suggests our results stand up to being the second ranked side in the world.
The fact that no one can beat the All Blacks on a regular basis shows why they are so far ahead of everyone else on the rankings.
In terms of talking it up before a game, what do you expect players to say when they're interviewed? "Training has been crap and we have no confidence. We're expecting to lose."
Teams and players need confidence and they need belief that what they have been doing in training can be replicated in the game and that they have the preparation and ability to win. In this day and age of press conferences and other media appearances, players need to engage the public. They can't front up to a press conference and when asked what their preparation has been like, say "No comment."
Come on mate. Bit personal, don't you think? Dean Mumm didn't select himself for the team.
This "player power" idea based on the senior members of the team wanting to at least have a say in the coach selection is a bit of hyperbole.
We talk about players wanting to "play for the coach", and we talk about how sometimes the coach has "lost the dressing room".
A sporting organisation would be mad not to at least listen to the ideas of the senior players. It doesn't mean they have to act on it, but they can be guided.
Hell, most recruitment processes now include a former respected player on the interview team. How is this any different to Benn Robinson putting his opinion out there?
Several ex-Wallabies have been involved in the occasional ARU/Provincial review. Again, how is this different?
Just remember, David Pocock asked to have a say in the Force coach before he made his decision on whether to stay or go. Did he get even half the grief that Benn is getting for the same thing?
If I was a provincial CEO, I can promise you that I would be more than willing to engage the players on their thoughts regarding a new coach. But it doesn't mean I am bound to accept their views or that I have somehow submitted to "player power".
Find a country that hasn't had any off field dramas. It's an unfortunate fact of life.
New Zealand has had just as many in recent years yet I'm sure you'd cite them as the gold standard for pride in a jersey and a strong culture.
Zac Guildford and his dramas of assaulting someone in a bar and running away naked and bloody.
Corey Jane caught smoking and drinking in an Auckland bar three days before their RWC quarter final.
Doug Howlett and his various escapades including the taxi or whatever it was.
Tana Umaga and Chris Masoe and the handbag incident.
If you applied your standards, every team has a weak culture and no pride in the jersey.
Separate names with a comma.