Australia v New Zealand - Sydney 16 Aug
- Thread starter Scrubber2050
- Start date
- Status
It is what it is
John Solomon (38)
When McCabe failed to score it looked like it was an All Black player who took the ball into touch after stripping it off McCabe.
A Wallaby line out throw 5m out is very different to one 55m out.
A Wallaby line out throw 5m out is very different to one 55m out.
lewisr
Bill McLean (32)
lewisr
Bill McLean (32)
Was that a Stuart Berry Call? Cannot believe that bloke is allowed to ref internationally
swingpass
Peter Sullivan (51)
irrespective, it was naive from the wallabies not to watch for the quick throw in from mealamu ? to smith, and man up to stop it
Merrow
Arch Winning (36)
That's what I thought as well......so it wasn't just the wine
It is what it is
John Solomon (38)
Hopefully some lessons learnt by Wallabies in how to play in wet weather.
- don't run across field
- footwork is critical in attack (tick for Hooper)
- short passes
- take points whenever they're available
- don't run across field
- footwork is critical in attack (tick for Hooper)
- short passes
- take points whenever they're available
It is what it is
John Solomon (38)
Don't think they could have stopped it as Smith was on his dead ball line, but Yes, they could have anticipated it better and had someone back to receive the kick.
All I thought was Speight would have scored
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Well, my rested thoughts on the game. I intentionally left it to now to let the disappointment fade and consider the replay.
1. Beale - I have read the comments here and most are along the usual partisan lines. Before the match I expressed fears that Beale thrived this year at 12 because he did have the prime responsibility of making the play. When thrust into that role in this game I was taken straight back to him playing 10 for the Tahs under Link all those years ago. He runs laterally and his passing is hit and miss. For a bloke who has been a the elite level for years why do so many passes get thrown like a sack of potatoes, tumbling end over end, arcing like the Harbour Bridge above or below the player often behind them? Then there is the depth that he plays when the prime play maker, he was as deep as he stood with the Tahs, but in that situation he was the second wave of attack. I have to agree with the posts by H. Jarse comparing the performance to that of JOC (James O'Connor) at 10 against the Lions, an interesting outcome achieved in my view because neither are 10s. A comparison can also be made with the game long ago where Horan played 10 for the Wallabies. Beale shouldn't start again at 10 IMO, though we all know the die is now cast. Lastly on so many occasions over the years Beale works so very hard on kick chase to be totally ineffectual when the ball is fielded by an opponent. What could have been good field position was given up totally as Beale failed to not only make the tackle but gave the receiver the field instead of positioning him toward the sideline, in short he pressured from the wrong side of the player altogether, if this was isolated and hadn't happened in the past it wouldn't be worth comment, but that isn't the case.
2. White - his leg was injured early, why did he stay on? If that is the reason for his poor performance it is a failure of coaching. I don't think it was a significant factor though, in the S15 on many occasions he struggled in this type of match and the propensity for the box kick is a huge worry for me. It so many instances it is either poorly executed and/or chased or worse it is charged. Again I cannot see why White was preferred to Phipps whose form was far better in S15.
3. Use of the bench. Link was channelling Deans big time last night. It is a 23 man game and has been ever since non-injury substitutions came in. The impact that the Subs had when they came on was immediately apparent, and I must say Skelton showed again what a menace he is against all comers with ball in hand and tight defence. IMO if the subs had come on about the 60 minute mark it could have had a material effect on the game, subs with 5-10 minutes left have left big runners like Palu and Kepu struggling.
There were some big positives to take out of the game even when considering the above points:-
1. The Wallabies played with intent. They didn't seek to kick as the first option. They attempted positive play. This was perhaps the best wet weather game I have seen the wallabies play for some time, perhaps ever, even with the poor execution at times.
2. The scrum was very good, and I would have liked to see shots from the wallaby loose head side in the second half, but from the vision we were given the ABs prop had his hand on the ground soon after the engage before each one went down on that side with the AB prop rolling in. It is hard to comment further with the limited vision of that side of the scrum. I did find it interesting that ABs have changed their set up sequence. I also note the significant difference between the ABs, SA and Aus scrum setup to the Argentines who I thought dominated the Saffas. The Argentines 8 all had totally level backs and the drive was concerted and co-ordinated, while in a lot of instances the other scrums have instances where the locks backsides are not aligned and above the level of their shoulders and the hips of the locks.
3. Wallaby lineout - generally very good, in shit conditions with no real combination between any of the players before the Wallaby camp.
4. At the end of the first half I had to tip against the Wallabies, they were just hanging on in my view. They did very well in the second half to dominate for period of the play and limit the ABs to opportunitic break outs only.
All in all address the points in the first section and they would have won well, there are significant improvements to be made and most aren't from the players themselves but from a managers use of the skill sets available. As a game it was a cliff hanger and I was on my feet for the last 15 minutes with nervous energy.
The big problem for Australian Rugby is that unfortunately the future now hinges on results instead of the nature of the play, which is all I am really interested in. The Wallabies really needed to win and I don't know they will get a better opportunity than last night.
1. Beale - I have read the comments here and most are along the usual partisan lines. Before the match I expressed fears that Beale thrived this year at 12 because he did have the prime responsibility of making the play. When thrust into that role in this game I was taken straight back to him playing 10 for the Tahs under Link all those years ago. He runs laterally and his passing is hit and miss. For a bloke who has been a the elite level for years why do so many passes get thrown like a sack of potatoes, tumbling end over end, arcing like the Harbour Bridge above or below the player often behind them? Then there is the depth that he plays when the prime play maker, he was as deep as he stood with the Tahs, but in that situation he was the second wave of attack. I have to agree with the posts by H. Jarse comparing the performance to that of JOC (James O'Connor) at 10 against the Lions, an interesting outcome achieved in my view because neither are 10s. A comparison can also be made with the game long ago where Horan played 10 for the Wallabies. Beale shouldn't start again at 10 IMO, though we all know the die is now cast. Lastly on so many occasions over the years Beale works so very hard on kick chase to be totally ineffectual when the ball is fielded by an opponent. What could have been good field position was given up totally as Beale failed to not only make the tackle but gave the receiver the field instead of positioning him toward the sideline, in short he pressured from the wrong side of the player altogether, if this was isolated and hadn't happened in the past it wouldn't be worth comment, but that isn't the case.
2. White - his leg was injured early, why did he stay on? If that is the reason for his poor performance it is a failure of coaching. I don't think it was a significant factor though, in the S15 on many occasions he struggled in this type of match and the propensity for the box kick is a huge worry for me. It so many instances it is either poorly executed and/or chased or worse it is charged. Again I cannot see why White was preferred to Phipps whose form was far better in S15.
3. Use of the bench. Link was channelling Deans big time last night. It is a 23 man game and has been ever since non-injury substitutions came in. The impact that the Subs had when they came on was immediately apparent, and I must say Skelton showed again what a menace he is against all comers with ball in hand and tight defence. IMO if the subs had come on about the 60 minute mark it could have had a material effect on the game, subs with 5-10 minutes left have left big runners like Palu and Kepu struggling.
There were some big positives to take out of the game even when considering the above points:-
1. The Wallabies played with intent. They didn't seek to kick as the first option. They attempted positive play. This was perhaps the best wet weather game I have seen the wallabies play for some time, perhaps ever, even with the poor execution at times.
2. The scrum was very good, and I would have liked to see shots from the wallaby loose head side in the second half, but from the vision we were given the ABs prop had his hand on the ground soon after the engage before each one went down on that side with the AB prop rolling in. It is hard to comment further with the limited vision of that side of the scrum. I did find it interesting that ABs have changed their set up sequence. I also note the significant difference between the ABs, SA and Aus scrum setup to the Argentines who I thought dominated the Saffas. The Argentines 8 all had totally level backs and the drive was concerted and co-ordinated, while in a lot of instances the other scrums have instances where the locks backsides are not aligned and above the level of their shoulders and the hips of the locks.
3. Wallaby lineout - generally very good, in shit conditions with no real combination between any of the players before the Wallaby camp.
4. At the end of the first half I had to tip against the Wallabies, they were just hanging on in my view. They did very well in the second half to dominate for period of the play and limit the ABs to opportunitic break outs only.
All in all address the points in the first section and they would have won well, there are significant improvements to be made and most aren't from the players themselves but from a managers use of the skill sets available. As a game it was a cliff hanger and I was on my feet for the last 15 minutes with nervous energy.
The big problem for Australian Rugby is that unfortunately the future now hinges on results instead of the nature of the play, which is all I am really interested in. The Wallabies really needed to win and I don't know they will get a better opportunity than last night.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Speight is a freak though...........
He probably would've danced around all of the defenders and scored under the posts............
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I thought it was poor play from Charles, he fed the ball in a position that allowed two players to drift and drive McAbe out. I doubt any winger would have scored short of Lomu or Tuigamala.
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
That's not even going to win at the pointy end of SS level.
Your boys proved that in the last month.
You have to make the defence answer some questions.
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
I don't rate the selection of Beale at 10 but it isn't fair to blame the player for that. Link can own the blame for that on his own.
We went into the biggest test of the year to date selecting a 10 that hasn't played there all year. It is Robbie Deans style madness all over again.
Adapting to the conditions on the night a simple swap between To'omua and Beale would have been a logical response.
To'omua - Good kicking game, solid defence, can run a field position based game plan and has a season long working combination with the starting 9 in White.
Beale - Plays better with time and space, not as solid a kicking game as required for a 10 in those conditions, not played 10 all year but has a season long combination with the starting 13 in AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper).
Those two simple swaps within the starting 15 have provided fluent combinations in both the halves and the centers and applied the players towards the strengths in their particular games.
Not rocket science, just plain common sense.
KOB1987
Rod McCall (65)
Speight is both ineligible and injured
Jonah Lomu probably would have scored it 20 years ago too.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
I think the major reasons for not winning last night were coach-related. Very much out of character for Link imo. But he put KB (Kurtley Beale) at 10 when he had no recent test form there as opposed to Foley who has been getting better with each game. He failed to use his bench effectively. These wre the major Wallabies-related causes of not winning. The major ABs-related cause was their impregnable defence. Both sides defended to the last man so to speak.
For next week, remember not so long ago there was a hoodoo about playing at the House of Pain. Who brought that ABs winning run to an end. The Wallabies as I recall. Another myth to be broken at Eden Park.
For next week, remember not so long ago there was a hoodoo about playing at the House of Pain. Who brought that ABs winning run to an end. The Wallabies as I recall. Another myth to be broken at Eden Park.
tragic
John Solomon (38)
You might want to have a chat with hansen about that one. Seems he sees it a bit differently:
"The first one was pretty clear cut," Hansen conceded. "Crocky got offside, then got offside again so he went to the naughty boy's chair.
- Status