France vs Wallabies, EOYT 2010

[cyclopath]

i think i saw Quade make about 3 tackles throughout the match, didnt see him miss any either

He ran away from the tackle area very effectively, thus negating the need to actually tackle. Much.
I am fishing.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Do you feel they will embiggen their chances of winning the 6N, these selections?

I don’t think this is about embiggening the Garlic Munchers tilt at the 6N, quite the opposite in fact. One could almost consider this a 6N disembiggermentarianism move by Lièvremont. Experimentation by Lièvremont - yes, but I feel it is a horses for courses selection by him. He has decided that the schwerpunkt is Quade Cooper and has selected a team of big ugly bastards to achieve that.

If he can get schadenfreude by targeting QC (Quade Cooper) with his monsters, then he will unmotivate Dingo to keep him in the RWC11 Squad. As our mercurial gamebreaker, if Lièvremont can get QC (Quade Cooper) disincluded in the Wobs RWC squad, then it will be to the betterment of all RWC teams less the Wobs. As an unpredictable player, QC (Quade Cooper) poses danger and presents discertainty for opposition coaches, making it harder for them to develop their game plans. Most textbook defenders struggle to deal with the saccade like jinking runs of QC (Quade Cooper) on attack. Much easier for the opposition if Dingo is deincentivised from including QC (Quade Cooper) in the RWC squad.

Weak inside backs are not characteristic of 6N, but the Garlic Munchers are likely to come up against these at RWC. Lièvremont is simply trying to experiment with his cattle to give him more options and flexibility in his RWC11 squad. The likely opposition and NZ conditions suggest that a capability grab bag approach will be needed in the squad to give the selectors and coaches the flexibility and options they will need.

schadenfreude for the Wobs.
6N success chances disembiggermentarianism ++ from the Frogs.
Experimentation by Lièvremont considered a failure. Expect not too many of these to be in 6N.
QC (Quade Cooper) disinclusion /Dingo deincentivised to include QC (Quade Cooper) in RWC11 Wobs - No

 

[cyclopath]

Maybe the French backs were just too embiggened for their neural synapses to cope with, and they were unable to control their limbs enough to tackle, pass, run properly...
Maybe Livermong (stole that off the live call, like it) was using a policy of encrapulentarianism to fool everyone that France are no show for RWC 2011, and then will pull his dis-encrapulated team out of his colon to once again embitter the Dark ones to the east of us?

 

[disco]

Wow what a hiding in that 2nd half, 6 tries to zip.

AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) had a blinder he smashed the line all night & the Wallabies were far more patient in the 2nd half.

Saffas beat the Poms as well.

 

[Scotty]

You know, it was fantastic to see Robbo come back into form. But we still only maybe got parity in the forwards. The French backline was incredibly horrible, and I'm not sure how much to take out of this game.

Ignoring the scrums I think we dominated all other aspects of forward play. Better rucking and counter rucking, better line-out, better drive in the tight. And a much greater commitment in defense.

 

[Langthorne]

They played what was in front of them, now all they have to do is scrape it off their boots before they get to customs and quarantine back home in Oz.

Whilst very happy for the win (it is what I want and expect after all), the French got it all wrong (except maybe the scrum). Why start with O&$"!* (no 7) over Bonnaire? and then bring on Bonnaire for Chabal? Why not pick a good backline? It is one thing for a team to be erratic, but the coach too?!

Back to the Wallabies - the match was a good barometer of where they are:

scrum shit (again/still)
backs exciting and skillful
forwards lack penetration, but can be tenacious
can be a bit wasteful in possession
generally quite French in character (minus the scrum and surrendering)

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Maybe the French backs were just too embiggened for their neural synapses to cope with, and they were unable to control their limbs enough to tackle, pass, run properly...
Maybe Livermong (stole that off the live call, like it) was using a policy of encrapulentarianism to fool everyone that France are no show for RWC 2011, and then will pull his dis-encrapulated team out of his colon to once again embitter the Dark ones to the east of us?

And wouldn't that be a fine turn of events?

That would make it NZ 1 (1987 29-9) Frogs 3 (1999 31-43; 2007 18-20, 2011 14-20) in RWC games that count, and NZ 2 Frogs 0 in RWC games that don't really count (2003 - Bronze Medal playoff 40-13; 2011 Pool A game 25-11)

By my quick analysis because Frogs and Darkness are both in Pool A, they can only meet in post pool play in the Final.

 

[Scotty]

I find it surprising that a lot of people are crediting Robinson for a turnaround in the scrum. It seemed to me that the greatest improvement was made because Slipper moved to tighthead. Surely he deserves more credit? (Particularly when there was a free kick and penalty awarded against Robinson, and I don't think there was one of either against Slipper.)

 

[cyclopath]

I find it surprising that a lot of people are crediting Robinson for a turnaround in the scrum. It seemed to me that the greatest improvement was made because Slipper moved to tighthead. Surely he deserves more credit? (Particularly when there was a free kick and penalty awarded against Robinson, and I don't think there was one of either against Slipper.)

I think it was that it got better when he came on, and Alexander went off. I think you are right, Scotty. Slipper was good. Alexander looked like Le Fuse at his worse - trying to get lower than his squat opponent, can't, hinges, buckles, turf-munches. Bryce actually got it pretty right with him.

 

[DPK]

Forwards still aren't running on to the ball. Closest they're getting to it is sort of hopping and catching the ball then landing at the toes of the opposition standing upright. Makes for a good tackle-bag impression I guess.

 

[Gagger]

Ignoring the scrums I think we dominated all other aspects of forward play. Better rucking and counter rucking, better line-out, better drive in the tight. And a much greater commitment in defense.

I agree.

I think people miss the point when they say "the opposition were so crap we can't read much into it". Just as attack is a function of defence, they looked shit because we made them look shit and the bits Scotty outlined above got us there

Most impressive was the Wobbs mindset. End of a tour with hiccups, fucking cold night, scrum clusterfuck and they don't give up. Good sign

PS - Nice kicking game

 

[S120]

Pocock is the exception to that rule of forwards running up right though. He makes metres every time he touches it. He is very useful as the first hit up man off a lineout deep in our half as well. They often go to him to set up for a clearance kick after the ruck. He always hits it hard and straight and makes ground which then gives time and space to Cooper, Mitchell, Barnes to get it down town.

Sharpe is good for most of the game but sometimes just gets caught bolt up right and driven back, same with McCalman. Elsom needs to see even more ball in open spaces to use his fend and athleticism. Luckily we have seen more of it this Tour. He destroyed Ouedraogo a few times during the game.

 

[RugbyReg]

We powered through the French forwards. I can't believe the metres we made up the middle. There was 5 mins or so when BA was carded, that they go on top a bit, but then it was back to normal after that. Very heartening.

 

[Lindommer]

When the French turn up to play, look out! But when they lose interest it can be a massacre, as it was this morning. To be honest I don't think we can take much from this game, not even a psychological hold over les Bleus. We could play France next week and lose.

Good points:

Defence. Simply superb.
Goal kicking.
Lineout.
Counter rucking.
Back play with ball in hand. WTF do they persist in kicking the pill away?
Good, hard straight running from Barnes, Beale, Mitchell and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper).
We now know how crap Giteau's been playing recently.
JOC (James O'Connor)'s pulled-up socks.

Bad points:

Scrum.
Predictable short side play.
Genia's "Gregan-like" hatching.
Forwards running too upright.
Scrum.
Field kicking still needs a lot of work.
Kick-chase still needs a lot of work.
Cooper reading his publicity sheets, trying to do the miracle play too often, passes placing recipients under unnecessary pressure.
Giteau's cross-field running.
Scrum.

 

[barbarian]

Yeah very good performance. Thought our forwards were well on top throughout (except at the scrum). We only conceded a couple of ruck turnovers, and pushed them off the ball a few times. Not to mention Pocock and Fatcat forcing penalties for holding on. We even made ground with pick and drive, which had me cheering.

Yeah the French defence was average but for ages we have been criticising the Wobs for not putting these games away. Last night we put the game away, and then scored three more tries for good measure. After all that was said pre-game about having both eyes on the departure lounge, that was a very impressive effort.

 

[barbarian]

Come on Lindo lighten up! Talk about Buzz Killington.

All this about the Frogs 'turning up to play', well at 16-13 you certainly thought they were there. When did they turn off? I would venture to say it was at 30-16, but we had well and truly won by then.

Your 'cons' (other than the scrum) really are minor, or not cons at all in my opinion. Our kicking was very good, and I thought Genia played very well.

 

[Richard D. James]

Think Rob Simmons deserves some big wraps. Looks completely comfortable at this level, which is great for someone so young. Doesn't do anything too flashy but does all the basics well, and that is what you want from your tight forwards.

Who was calling the lineout when Sharpe went off? Chis I guess.

 

[Spewn]

Pocock is the exception to that rule of forwards running up right though. He makes metres every time he touches it. He is very useful as the first hit up man off a lineout deep in our half as well. They often go to him to set up for a clearance kick after the ruck. He always hits it hard and straight and makes ground which then gives time and space to Cooper, Mitchell, Barnes to get it down town.

Sharpe is good for most of the game but sometimes just gets caught bolt up right and driven back, same with McCalman. Elsom needs to see even more ball in open spaces to use his fend and athleticism. Luckily we have seen more of it this Tour. He destroyed Ouedraogo a few times during the game.

I agree with your comments on body height. McCalman and Sharpe the most obvious offenders. When Simmons got the ball (only a couple if times) his body height was excellent. Over the advantage line with ball secured.

 

[Richard D. James]

Also, as others have mentioned, Barnes was excellent today. In fact, I think it was probably his best game in gold. He was coming in to first receiver a lot and had much more influence on our attack than Cooper (who I thought was poor).

Its a good sign that we don't have to rely solely on Cooper for our attack, especially when he's prone to flakiness.

 

[Rothschild]

I still have a big beef wrt the kicking. While there has been less of the wasted posession, there are still too many instances where the kicks not only accomplish zilch, they hand the opposition an attacking advantage, often returned by with interest ball in hand. .
AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)'s grubber for Schmoo was outstanding, notwithstanding a very opportune bounce which could only have come from skill and practice. On two or three other occasions the kick were just plain crap, spur of the moment, too risky and fraught with danger - as we witnessed.
What makes a bad kick worse is the total absence of effective chasing. It really seems a lottery if anyone is going to chase the ball and put pressire on the catcher. If this was the only thing we improved so that the return was less effective I will die a happier man.