Australia v England

[The Honey Badger]

What I don't get, is when given a penalty in front of the sticks but a penalty goal won't do. The option of a tap to a forward pod or to set a maul is hardly ever used. Also go to the lineout and risk a dodgy throw or even a steal, to set a mall.

Something you can do from a tap. And then you are midfield and might even score close to the posts.

 

[Quick Hands]

100% agree just didn’t like everyone being painted with the same brush, there’s plenty of gps people on here who are doing hard yards in grass roots and I imagine rugby admin to make our game better

The post wasn't intended that way. I apologise if the brevity of the post gave that impression.

There are plenty of GPS people just as frustrated with what's going on, but like you they aren't in the ruling clique.

 

[Quick Hands]

What I don't get, is when given a penalty in front of the sticks but a penalty goal won't do. The option of a tap to a forward pod or to set a maul is hardly ever used. Also go to the lineout and risk a dodgy throw or even a steal, to set a mall.

Something you can do from a tap. And then you are midfield and might even score close to the posts.

Or when you are 17 points behind and you could knock over 3 of them with a penalty right in front in 30 seconds and then get possession from the kick off. You have to score those three points sometime to win the game. Obviously it's a different story if you are between 4 and 7 behind

 

[I like to watch]

Hey you’re the one who insinuated every gps person (including myself) is incapable of Independent thinking and are guilty of elitist behaviour

Yep they 100% did think like that but you tarred every single gps person with the same brush, was a pretty ignorant comment to make

I can’t be bothered to go back and check the context,but I was referring to administrators with that background.
And it wasn’t really a comment on their elitist mindset,more their life experiences confirming the thought that the status quo was great for the game.
This is really for another thread, if you want to go on with it.

 

[Derpus]

Or when you are 17 points behind and you could knock over 3 of them with a penalty right in front in 30 seconds and then get possession from the kick off. You have to score those three points sometime to win the game. Obviously it's a different story if you are between 4 and 7 behind

Territory in the modern game is worth far more than possession.

There's no way you take 3 when 17 down to get pinned back in your 22.

 

[Lorenzo]

What I don't get, is when given a penalty in front of the sticks but a penalty goal won't do. The option of a tap to a forward pod or to set a maul is hardly ever used. Also go to the lineout and risk a dodgy throw or even a steal, to set a mall.

Something you can do from a tap. And then you are midfield and might even score close to the posts.

We've been playing from a generic playbook in these circumstances forever, and havent been able to adjust our approach even when one of our set pieces is getting fucked. Lineout not working? Let's go for touch, even when the penalty is already only 5m from the try line. Scrum getting fucked all night? Let's opt for the scrum. Opposition stopping/beating our maul? Let's have another maul.

Dumb af. And this predates MC. I suspect the 'have a crack' credo has drilled any kind of common sense (like, maybe we should kick the fucking penalty when we are 3 points down, or as you point out, if you need a try but your set piece is struggling, just tap the ball and set up more phase play) and considered decision making out of our player stock.

This team especially plays like they are 6 points down in the final 30 seconds for basically the whole test. You don't need to try the behind-the-back-speculator-off-your-cock-offload when we are actually bending the defence early in the match.

 

[Spruce Moose]

Territory in the modern game is worth far more than possession.

There's no way you take 3 when 17 down to get pinned back in your 22.

Agree, when more than a try down should try to get the 7 points, however the problem is that a captain will always second guess himself when he can't 100% rely on the set piece. I find it an interesting coincidence that we have gone downhill essentially at the same time that our forwards coach left to Argentina.

 

[Bobby Sands]

At this point, we need to pull the pin, I am not angry at Michael he has tried hard.

But his selections, mandate, game style is not being followed.

We are on track for historic disaster.

We need a circuit breaker, if only to try to live off the new current of energy that new selection & philosophy momentarily has.

Anyone bit Richard Graham will do.

Thanks for everything Cheik, you’ve been a damn good servant.

 

[wamberal]

If this was a movie, now would be the time for the hero to step forward and save the day.

 

[KevinO]

Territory in the modern game is worth far more than possession.

There's no way you take 3 when 17 down to get pinned back in your 22.

Completely disagree, 17 points down with 20 minutes on the clock. It's always going to be 3 scores to win/draw and you have a 99% chance at the first one. You take it and get the kickoff and try again. The line out was the wrong call, especially with the way it's performed under pressure this year.

Being within two scores puts a little bit more pressure on the opposition. Was the wrong call from a captain who has repeatedly made bad calls.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Territory in the modern game is worth far more than possession.

There's no way you take 3 when 17 down to get pinned back in your 22.

Not the right thread, I know. But a rule change I wouldn't mind seeing trialled, is that the scoring team gets to choose the restart. They can receive or kick off.

I agree that receiving the ball from a restart actually puts you in a defensive situation and can be fraught with danger. Take the start of this game as exhibit A. The worse pass I have ever seen Genia make.

 

[barbarian]

There are no simple solutions here, as much as we crave them.

The kick to corner vs take the points debate is a case in point. I recall Dave Dennis at a Waratahs press conference once explain why he took an option similar to Hooper in that situation, with words to the gist of 'we'd worked our rings off to get to that position on the field, and I wasn't sure we could get back there, so we had to try and cash in'.

In a half where England had 90% possession and territory for the first 15-20 minutes, I understand the desire to 'cash in' when a rare chance presented itself.

Also, if you can't score at that point, well the game is kind of lost anyway? This hypothetical that we kick 3 points and then that somehow turns us into the All Blacks and we storm home with 2-3 late tries is a bit silly.
.

 

[The Honey Badger]

Completely disagree, 17 points down with 20 minutes on the clock. It's always going to be 3 scores to win/draw and you have a 99% chance at the first one. You take it and get the kickoff and try again. The line out was the wrong call, especially with the way it's performed under pressure this year.

Being within two scores puts a little bit more pressure on the opposition. Was the wrong call from a captain who has repeatedly made bad calls.

I reckon at 16 points down you take the 3. At 17 points you are playing for a draw if you take 3. If there is time left to win it, that should be the objective.

 

[barbarian]

Speaking about the game more broadly, the thing that summed the game up to me was patience and composure.

We were capable of great rugby, but only for 4-5 minutes at a time. England played a lot of mediocre rugby, but kept their composure and stayed patient. They held the ball, worked it from side to side. And then a mismatch came, or a missed tackle, or a nice offload in contact, and bang they were away.

I genuinely believe we have the talent in the side. Almost every player showed a flash or two of what they are capable of. They are just being let down by tactics, composure and execution.

The kicking game has for so long been terrible, and again it was on Saturday. We continue to insist on playing the game in our own half, which is just mind-numbingly dumb.

With smarter tactics and a bit more composure in attack and defence, we go a long way to winning that game. It's not an easy fix, but it is possible. Probably not with this coaching team though.
.

 

[Derpus]

Completely disagree, 17 points down with 20 minutes on the clock. It's always going to be 3 scores to win/draw and you have a 99% chance at the first one. You take it and get the kickoff and try again. The line out was the wrong call, especially with the way it's performed under pressure this year.

Being within two scores puts a little bit more pressure on the opposition. Was the wrong call from a captain who has repeatedly made bad calls.

Within two scores of drawing? I play win.

 

[Brumby Runner]

1) Owen "No Arms" Farrell has walked free of sanction for shoulder charges in his last three tests. The Rodda "tackle" was a penalty and a yellow card and there a penalty try. No ifs or buts. Three of said tackles in three weeks, he should now be suspended. Apart from this glaring error I thought Peyper (and over three weeks he is not alone in this) had a good game.

2) The Wallabies attack is beyond woeful :-
a) Kicking is an essential part of Rugby, the headless chook running game that has been employed last year and earlier this year is stupid and easily beaten by a stout organised defence. The Wallabies kicking though rarely is well executed even when it is the right time to kick. To start with the wrong players continue to be in the position to kick and no second option is in position to make the opposition guess who is going to kick, allowing easy charge downs like got DHP. The second part of attacking kicks, be they chips, box kicks or a contesting high kick is that they must be accurate to allow a genuine contest. Against England I do not care to count how many of these types of kicks were made but there was only a single kick that was truly contestable. Second part of attacking kicks is for territory, the Wallabies rarely kick for territory, possibly because their lineout is unable to pressure the opposition enough to make it worthwhile, but surely there has to be something better than just thumping as far as one can down the middle of the pitch. Was it one or two tries this led to in this game?
b) The attack structure with ball in hand is very poor and without a couple of bits of individual running brilliance DHP in the 2nd half and Folau in the first ball in hand metres in real terms would be negative as on every phase they go backwards as they execute 5 metres behind the gain line on each pass, even with their switches and "dummy" runners which surely offer no surprise because they are executed so deep. Then the big looped pass out to the wing, which due to the depth of the play may actually get back to the advantage line of the initial ruck. if the pass is received well, because I didn't see one well executed, and often the player is tackled behind the gain line, forced out or the pass is missed altogether thereby conceding possession. Larkham as an attack coach has shown noting at any level to justify his position as a test coach and the Wallabies attack is the most toothless of any international team.

3) Defence - I do not think the structure has improved, not at all, we have an improved application by some players, but the system itself sets them up to fail as they must burn everything running around doing nothing just shuffling positions trying to keep the system working. Its rubbish.

4) Set piece - the scrum is a shambles again. The second row got popped out of the scrum before the front row stood up . How does this happen, if they are tight and under their props? IMO it looked like they were playing games and not scrumming with power but trying to wheel and play silly buggers from the second row. Kepu, AAA and SIO are very good props, Latu and TPN excellent scrummagers, to see this crap again is very disheartening. If a couple of scrums can turn a game, having a dysfunctional lineout makes it impossible to compete in the game effectively. I counted three complete over throws in this game alone, and while they won most of their own ball they were never a threat to the opposition.

The Wallabies were never in this game and even the drawn score at half time and taking into account the probably penalty try for the Farrell shoulder charge, the Wallabies were flattered. There can be no doubting their endeavour and effort, the players are trying, but the systems mean the sum of the parts is less than its potential by far.

1) Agree. Farrell must have a reckoning day soon if he keeps up the no arms tackling.

2) The lack of kicking skills is not the only issue. On more occasions than not, there is simply no effective chasing game if any at all. It seems to go back to 2017 (I think) when some Aus players (James Dargaville for one) were penalised and I think even YCed for competing with the catcher but not at the same height in the air. There seems to be a reluctance now on any of our players actually competing in the air but are content to wait and try to immediately tackle the catcher. On rare occasions that might lead to a push over turnover ball, but extremely rarely as we don't seem to have the smarts to control the push when the ball is available. Many of the kicks in general play would look a lot better if the chasers actually chased and competed with a bit of heart.

3) Absolutely agree. The constant swapping around simply burns up energy so it also affects the team's performance with the ball.

4) There is a clear diminishing of the scrum effectiveness since Ledesma left. Evidence that the replacement scrum assistant is out of his depth? I am not on the band wagon of blaming the assistants (Grey excepted) for poor performance as I think they are trying to do their jobs under poor direction and player selections from Cheika as head coach. Why would a person acknowledged as exceptional as a skills coach over ten years in the ABs' setup suddenly not be able to improve any of the individual skills in the Wallabies? All down to the HC in my view.

#sackcheikanow.

 

[I like to watch]

Speaking about the game more broadly, the thing that summed the game up to me was patience and composure.

We were capable of great rugby, but only for 4-5 minutes at a time. England played a lot of mediocre rugby, but kept their composure and stayed patient. They held the ball, worked it from side to side. And then a mismatch came, or a missed tackle, or a nice offload in contact, and bang they were away.

I genuinely believe we have the talent in the side. Almost every player showed a flash or two of what they are capable of. They are just being let down by tactics, composure and execution.

The kicking game has for so long been terrible, and again it was on Saturday. We continue to insist on playing the game in our own half, which is just mind-numbingly dumb.

With smarter tactics and a bit more composure in attack and defence, we go a long way to winning that game. It's not an easy fix, but it is possible. Probably not with this coaching team though.
.

What is it about our kicking game?

It’s a simple concept, a tactic that many less skilled sides have mastered,yet it’s been our Achilles heel for generations.

 

[notapatrioticboneinme]

In the 3-2-1 Hooper keeps getting a few 1's
Have I missed any of his play apart from his 3-4 m crawl and getting under an otherwise certain try? Was that it because all i remember is 4 or so runs with 0 metres gained, no steals ...

 

[Brumby Runner]

I really don’t understand our defence.

Our attack is poorly constructed - but I can at least see what they are trying to achieve (except the kicks down the middle of the field) even if I think they are chasing fools gold.

But I fail to see any rational reason why our defence system has evolved into the overly complex, convuluted mess that it has become.

The sole reason I think is to hide the underperforming defenders, Foley, Beale and Folau. Can't or won't tackle, get rid of them.

 

[RugbyReg]

In the 3-2-1 Hooper keeps getting a few 1's
Have I missed any of his play apart from his 3-4 m crawl and getting under an otherwise certain try? Was that it because all i remember is 4 or so runs with 0 metres gained, no steals .

equal high number of runs and equal high tackles made.

You can't deny his effort.