• 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.

RC - Wallabies vs Springboks, Gold Coast Sunday 12 September 8:05 PM

PhilClinton

John Hipwell (52)
The Boks? Cripes. Very poor. Other than the maul they offered nothing.
The Boks actually hindered some of their great attacking players by consistently wanting to setup for the forward maul and roll on.

Sure they came away with points a few times, but they also spent probably a total of 25mins across the game setting lineouts, mauls, re-setting them after penalties etc. And didn't come away with the win.

I'm not sure what has to be done to change the maul rules. I think most fans are over it. It's just a full team obstruction where the attacking team virtually gets three chances to score a try untouched. I know it's been said plenty of times in this thread and others, but surely there just needs to be a rule where once the maul is stationary, it's a use it or lose in that instant. Not after the third attempt.
 

eastman

Arch Winning (36)
The way Swinton is being used in the lineout suggests that he is pretty central to Rennie's plans.

He certainly negated his excellent first half performance with a couple of errors in the second half (both skill and discipline) but overall was pretty good.
Agreed - he's also generally pretty effective in tight both with the ball and supporting - you rarely see him held up in contact or dominated.
 

hifflepiff

Charlie Fox (21)
If I was QC (Quade Cooper) I’d be tempted to say thank you and goodnight.
What a swansong and a big F-you to Thorne and Cheika. Finish on a high and leave us all wondering what could have been.
Unfortunately it will probably head downhill from here. Consistency has never been his strong point.
Hopefully the bloke backs up with another cracker though as I reckon he’ll stay at 10 with JOC (James O'Connor) on the bench to ease back in.
I'm hopeful that Cooper will continue playing the understated backline general game he had this game.

I feel most of Coopers inconsistency in the past came down to mentality. Performance pressure and ego combining to make him feel he had to make everything about himself and subsequently overplay his hand.

Now it seems his time in the wilderness has provided much needed perspective and mental toughness.

Obviously we'll see how things progress, but based on the way he's carried himself, I think that QC (Quade Cooper) might prove a good option at 10 leading into the WC (and probably a great mentor to the plethora of young blokes we have that are feeling that pressure for the first time).
 

eastman

Arch Winning (36)
I'm not sure what has to be done to change the maul rules. I think most fans are over it. It's just a full team obstruction where the attacking team virtually gets three chances to score a try untouched. I know it's been said plenty of times in this thread and others, but surely there just needs to be a rule where once the maul is stationary, it's a use it or lose in that instant. Not after the third attempt.
You're going to get the usual suspects arguing about the unique beauty and technical skill required to effectively maul but the fact remains that if set up properly, there's essentially no way to defend it (without at least giving away a penalty) - going against rugby's ethos of 'the contest'.

I agree with tightening the 'use it or lose it' rule and they should also allow a player who has swum through the maul to tackle the ball-carrier,
 

PhilClinton

John Hipwell (52)
You're going to get the usual suspects arguing about the unique beauty and technical skill required to effectively maul but the fact remains that if set up properly, there's essentially no way to defend it (without at least giving away a penalty) - going against rugby's ethos of 'the contest'.

I agree with tightening the 'use it or lose it' rule and they should also allow a player who has swum through the maul to tackle the ball-carrier,

I think opening up the maul defence to more open slather type approach could also help. But that goes against the current rugby hierarchy ethos of putting more rules in place, rather than easing them.

I've always found it weird that you aren't allowed to pull down the maul i.e. bring a player to ground (also known as a tackle, which is allowed in rugby) but you're allowed to put 7 other players in front of the ball and march forwards (also known as a shepherd, which is not allowed in rugby).
 

Froggy

John Solomon (38)
I agree with the above comments about the maul. It really is simply a legal method of obstruction, something outlawed in any other part of the game. To me, the idea of sticking seven big forward in front of the ball carrier and trundling him over the line is contrary to everything else we do in rugby. I doubt it will ever change, as it's one of the principal weapons for any side without the attacking class to score tries any other way, which includes some nations with a lot of say in how the game is run, but to me it will always go against the whole ethos of rugby.
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
You made a tonne of points in your original post, and i just wanted you to explain them.

Alrighty then, I'll try to be brief. I'll even use pararaphs.

With a forward pack in general, you need to look at what you've got available and how it is going to play to your strengths across the field.

Tight five: win set piece first and foremost, contribute in the tight-loose.
A lot of teams have leaned toward a big bopper TH lock to stabilise the scrum, and a skinnier aerial target on the left side e.g. the Boks with Botha and Matfield. If you can get two big units who are also good in the air, even better. Similarly in your front row you want to know their scrum work is up to scratch but then look at what they bring around the park - are you just looking at each prop to get to every second ruck? Is the hooker going to be a link man or a fourth backrower style? There are several questions alone in the tight five, but if you're not winning your first-phase ball, your back row balance can quickly become irrelevant.

Back row: set defensive tone, own the ball, provide link to the backs
Back row needs to take any extras from the tight five into its mix, but should also look to offer something to the set piece. Additionally, your back row need to operate in a complementary fashion with each other. In the old days you could have two fast flankers to hassle the opposition at ruck time because the lineout was a bunfight anyway, and a big unit at 8 who was your primary ball carrier and link man.

These days it is a little different, but the starting point is that they all must be in the top few defenders in your team. Typically your back row now is still a big ball runner at 8, with a lineout target blindside and someone good on the deck at openside. If they bring more than that, great!

This conversation goes to Hooper; he's the captain, he's going to be first picked, and he's rarely going to be on the sideline for the 80 minutes. So let's accept that he brings us ruck work (both sides), speed on attack, and link play. He's not a crashball guy tho he's got the balance to shrug tacklers, but won't run flat out at a brick wall. So that largely fits the bill for 7. He's not as good over the ruck as someone like Pocock, but then Pocock wasn't ever a great ball runner.

From here, you can pick your 6 first or your 8 first, but you've got to be able to fill the gap with whoever comes second.

Let's start with 8, and consider Naisarani, Valetini, and Wilson.

The first 2 are similar - big units, crashball at and over the Ad-line. Can be a lineout target but really you want to put in a 5-man and have them as a running target out in midfield. While they can contribute at ruck time, on offense you want them running at the opposition with ball in hand, because that's their job.
Wilson can run the hard lines but his strength for me is more the linking role with good hand- and foot-speed through the line. Good lineout target as well, as he's a bit more agile, and IMHO edges Isi and Rob at ruck time as he's got more fitness and speed. For me, he's that link role that Kieran Read did so well with McCaw and Kaino at 7 and 6. You lose a bit in hard running, but gain in speed and hands.

So what gaps does the blindside need to fill in both these cases?

Regardless, we need a genuine third lineout target. Ideally someone the height and frame of Fardy, who can operate at the front as the safety ball or the trick play at 6-8.

If your 7 is going to hunt the ball and your 8 is going to crash it up, then the blindside also needs to get in and do the dirty work with the tight five at times, as Hooper can't get to every ruck. Additionally they need the pace and tackle accuracy to protect the blindside off the scrum. Some days that blindside will be notable for his involvements, but some days you might not hear his name at all, and only see some good stats after the fact.

Onto specifics: if you pick Valetini and Naisarani you're picking two very similar players. They're both big ball runners. They're both capable lineout targets, tho again you'd want them out in midfield for the crash. For me they occupy too much of the same space, and as a pair they don't complement a back row with Hooper at 7.

Valetini plays 6 at the Brumbies, but he's playing more of a crashball 8 role there, when Samu and Brown are his partners. Balance.

Naisarani was playing more of a pure 8 role at the Rebels with openside of Hardwick and a blindside like Kemeny. Balance.

Therefore, in my humble opinion, if you pick Isi or Rob at 8 - and either is very capable - then you can't have the other at 6.

Does that automatically make Swinton first-choice blindside? Maybe not, but then you'll need to find someone better. Wilson might add that string to his bow to ensure his longevity at this level, but probably not next week - let him have a crack against Argentina.
 
Last edited:

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
I'm hopeful that Cooper will continue playing the understated backline general game he had this game.

I feel most of Coopers inconsistency in the past came down to mentality. Performance pressure and ego combining to make him feel he had to make everything about himself and subsequently overplay his hand.

Now it seems his time in the wilderness has provided much needed perspective and mental toughness.

Obviously we'll see how things progress, but based on the way he's carried himself, I think that QC (Quade Cooper) might prove a good option at 10 leading into the WC (and probably a great mentor to the plethora of young blokes we have that are feeling that pressure for the first time).
Thorn dumping Cooper maybe forced him to relook at his game.
 

eastman

Arch Winning (36)
I agree with the above comments about the maul. It really is simply a legal method of obstruction, something outlawed in any other part of the game. To me, the idea of sticking seven big forward in front of the ball carrier and trundling him over the line is contrary to everything else we do in rugby. I doubt it will ever change, as it's one of the principal weapons for any side without the attacking class to score tries any other way, which includes some nations with a lot of say in how the game is run, but to me it will always go against the whole ethos of rugby.
Not sure the English, Irish or Welsh would be too willing to lessen the impact of mauls.
 

Dan54

Tim Horan (67)
I agree with the above comments about the maul. It really is simply a legal method of obstruction, something outlawed in any other part of the game. To me, the idea of sticking seven big forward in front of the ball carrier and trundling him over the line is contrary to everything else we do in rugby. I doubt it will ever change, as it's one of the principal weapons for any side without the attacking class to score tries any other way, which includes some nations with a lot of say in how the game is run, but to me it will always go against the whole ethos of rugby.
I think it a little unfair it's only a weapon of sides without attacking options, it simply another attacking option no matter how much I dislike it! I still think you should be able to take down the man in front row of maul.
 

MarkJ

Bob Loudon (25)
Obviously we'll see how things progress, but based on the way he's carried himself, I think that QC (Quade Cooper) might prove a good option at 10 leading into the WC (and probably a great mentor to the plethora of young blokes we have that are feeling that pressure for the first time).
If that's the case, should we be getting him signed up to an Oz Super Rugby side, rather than playing Div 2 in Japan? And if so, where would he go? Reds already have JOC (James O'Connor) plus there's the history with Thorn. Brums have Lolesio. Maybe back to the Rebels, would probably be a good mentor for Gordon. Or the Force instead of MacIntyre (though they've got Kuenzle & Pasitoa now)
 

Rob42

John Solomon (38)
Yes, it's a big slice of humble pie for me, but it tasted pretty good.

If you read either of these two headlines in 2019, which would be more shocking?:

"September 2021: All routes out of NSW are blocked by police, and have been for months"

"September 2021: A dominant Wallabies scrum pushes the Springboks off their ball, with the match-winning long-range penalty kicked by Quade Cooper".
 

Froggy

John Solomon (38)
Sorry Dan54, I wasn't suggesting it was exclusively used by sides without attacking options, everyone attempts it, however I am suggesting those are the sides that would strongly oppose its' removal.
I think taking down the player at the front may be dangerous, my thoughts are simply that if the player with the ball is moving towards the opposing tryline, there must be no-one in front of him obstructing the defender.
 

Pfitzy

George Gregan (70)
Can solve the current maul imbalance with one simple change: use-it-or-lose-it happens once. As soon as it stops after "maul" is called, ball must emerge in 5 seconds, no further motion allowed.

Sanction: FK to the team who did not carry the ball in.
 

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
I'm with others in thinking that the maul has gotten silly. The defending team appear to have next to no legal means to stop or disrupt it. I think the one tweak that could be made straight away is to blow it up for a scrum the moment it becomes stationary. It still means the good exponents of the maul will be able to get pay from it, but those teams who spend an eternity setting up or leaving it stationary while the ref yells at them to use it will lose out.

That seems fairer to me.
 

hifflepiff

Charlie Fox (21)
If that's the case, should we be getting him signed up to an Oz Super Rugby side, rather than playing Div 2 in Japan? And if so, where would he go? Reds already have JOC (James O'Connor) plus there's the history with Thorn. Brums have Lolesio. Maybe back to the Rebels, would probably be a good mentor for Gordon. Or the Force instead of MacIntyre (though they've got Kuenzle & Pasitoa now)
Playing div. 2 in Japan certainly hasn't been bad for him thus far. But if we're throwing out ideas, the Tahs would probably be the best option if they can get him. They have a bunch of talented young 10s that need a few more years of development behind an old hand. And (optimistically), if they have a some more cash they could reach out to Kerevi as well which would answer their woes at inside centre.

Just imagine a backline of:
9. Gordon
10. Cooper
12. Kerevi
13. Perese
 

hifflepiff

Charlie Fox (21)
I agree with the above comments about the maul. It really is simply a legal method of obstruction, something outlawed in any other part of the game. To me, the idea of sticking seven big forward in front of the ball carrier and trundling him over the line is contrary to everything else we do in rugby. I doubt it will ever change, as it's one of the principal weapons for any side without the attacking class to score tries any other way, which includes some nations with a lot of say in how the game is run, but to me it will always go against the whole ethos of rugby.
As an idea, you could require that if the maul stops moving forward once it's started, the 9 must use the ball. No second chance if the opposing team stops your momentum.

Edit: It seems a bunch of others have had this idea already. Glad to see we're on the same page at the very least.
 

PhilClinton

John Hipwell (52)
Playing div. 2 in Japan certainly hasn't been bad for him thus far. But if we're throwing out ideas, the Tahs would probably be the best option if they can get him. They have a bunch of talented young 10s that need a few more years of development behind an old hand. And (optimistically), if they have a some more cash they could reach out to Kerevi as well which would answer their woes at inside centre.

Just imagine a backline of:
9. Gordon
10. Cooper
12. Kerevi
13. Perese

I'd be very surprised if these guys came back to Australia, same with Sean McMahon who is joining the squad this week.

They're being paid mega bucks to play easier rugby and now can also play for their country. It's a win win for them to stay overseas. Unless of course family reasons sent them home.
 

swingpass

Peter Sullivan (51)
re QC (Quade Cooper), apart form the obvious advantage of getting older, perhaps he has finally realised that mercurial players like himself and Ella for example, read the game and see the opposition weak points so much faster than mere mortals, that they have to slow down and let the others "catch up". I am, and always have been a big fan of Quade, watching him closely over the years i have come to the conclusion that as well as often overplaying his role and trying to win games by himself, as mentioned by someone else above, the other feature to my mind is that he passes or kicks to where the gaps are or going to be, and expected those around him to have noticed the same opportunities, which invariably they hadn't or at least hadn't as fast. His quicker thinking and execution would result in Quade throwing a pass to where it was obvious (to him) his support should/would be, and often weren't. perhaps he's reined that in a bit after his stints at the Rebels and Kintetsu.
 

hifflepiff

Charlie Fox (21)
Unless of course family reasons sent them home.
With the trend towards more leniency bring given to overseas players (which is largely the inevitable result of economic forces and the games growth overseas), I'd be very surprised if many of these blokes came back.

But Cooper values connection to his family in Aus very closely, so there might be non-monetaty factors pulling him back.
 
Top