Wallabies vs England, Sydney, 3rd Test, 25 June @ 8:00pm

[Viking]

Or Frisby at 9. He can actually kick well and I think the only player in Aus who can actually bomb.

9. Frisby
10. Foley
12. Lilo/Hodge

Already that adds 2 kicking options either side of Foley.

 

[galumay]

I predict a good two dozen pages of parochial shit fighting....

This is going to be a long week.

Yes, well seeing the amount of posts suggesting Cheika is a shit coach - how the worm turns when unrealistic expectations are dashed!

I think I might hang out elsewhere for the week, the couch coaches will be busy picking their teams and developing their strategies so I might just wait and see what the wobblies and cheika come up with next saturday night!

 

[cyclopath]

Can't recall railing against Palu.

Refer to previous post. Pressure needs to be taken off Foley with Lilo at 12. Another kicker always inside him.

I agree with your main point to an extent. It's hard to say our tactics in game 1 were the wrong choice. We out-scored them, it was discipline that let us down. I'd say the game-plan was the right one we just failed to execute it properly. Run them wide was working.

Game 2, we had the wrong game-plan, clearly just tried to do the same plan and EJ (Eddie Jones) and England were ready for it. Plus it was rainy and wet so handling would always be an issue with a wider game. Clearly out smarted and out-played in game 2 - which is the most disappointing thing for me.

I could live with the loss of game 1. But the fact we failed to adapt at all for the next game was most disappointing.

Game 1 was all the players fault IMO. Game 2 both coaches and players.

I hate to be negative but I am really struggling to see our players capable of playing any other game-plan other then the wide cheika-ball style.

Something about "Cheika needs to stop having man-crushes on..........". Those were the players you listed.
And sorry, we didn't out-score England in game 1. Those penalty goal things count, you know!
Game 1 was not all the players' fault. Poor timing of subs contributed, as did the decisions to attack wider of the ruck isolating our runners from support. We got away with it early but not as the game went on. Never changed. That's a bad tactic as much as execution.
I like your faith in Lilo, but he is not playing anywhere near his best. At his best form, sure, would be a great option. He has looked lost when subbed on. I actually think To'omua (if he is even fit enough) at 12 would be better, shift Kerevi to 13, bench Kuridrani. Just tell To'omua to get the hell out of the deep pocket. He is more dangerous than Leali'ifano potentially. And a better defender than most.
But we are short of good options, however we shuffle the deck.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Can't really see Simmons coming back in. Dropped for form reasons, and hasn't had an opportunity to show he's improved in the meantime. Carter did all that Simmons would have done at the lineout and scrum, but is more active and slightly more effective in open play. Mumm on the bench is a mistake. Horwill offers a whole lot more, but if we're looking for someone who will make in impact and would be worth developing for the future, then I thin Tom Staniforth is the answer. Extremely strong in contact, disruptive at the maul, very good lineout operator on own ball and opposition ball and a herd defensive player. He is the closest we have to a Brad Thorn type of player.

Foley can't be persisted with if he can't control a game and manage the backline better than he's shown in these two tests. He must vary his game more, and be more effective, or bring in Matt To'omua at 10. His straight running at least will give the rush defense some second thoughts. Kerevi and Kuridrani at 12 and 13 works and should be kept. TK had some of the best attacking stats in the first test and didn't make any howlers last night. With quicker, more accurate and more varied service from the Nos 9 and 10, the two Ks will one of the Wallabies' real strengths.

Phipps has had two very forgettable test matches. I don't like Frisby as a long term No 9, but he has to be given a chance in place of Phipps.

Horne has exceeded his use by date as a winger. He was found out for lack of pace a couple of times last night. Nabuli to come in or Morahan one more go. I still don't like Morahan's defensive abilities.

Toby Smith offered no more than Scott Sio at scrum time and doesn't have the impact in open play. Sio back in on the bench.

My side for Sydney would be:

Slipper, TPN, Kepu, Arnold, Carter, Fardy, Gill, Houston, Frisby, To'omua, Nabuli, Kerevi, Kuridrani, DHP, Folau.

Bench: Ready, Sio, Holmes, Staniforth, Hooper, Powell, Foley, Lealiifano.

 

[Viking]

Something about "Cheika needs to stop having man-crushes on....". Those were the players you listed.
And sorry, we didn't out-score England in game 1. Those penalty goal things count, you know!
Game 1 was not all the players' fault. Poor timing of subs contributed, as did the decisions to attack wider of the ruck isolating our runners from support. We got away with it early but not as the game went on. Never changed. That's a bad tactic as much as execution.
I like your faith in Lilo, but he is not playing anywhere near his best. At his best form, sure, would be a great option. He has looked lost when subbed on. I actually think To'omua (if he is even fit enough) at 12 would be better, shift Kerevi to 13, bench Kuridrani. Just tell To'omua to get the hell out of the deep pocket. He is more dangerous than Leali'ifano potentially. And a better defender than most.
But we are short of good options, however we shuffle the deck.

I meant we scored more tries. The strategy certainly had it's flaw's that's for sure, but Game 1 was very winnable and looked like we would for most the match.

Game 2 we never looked like winning.

I agree about the rest. I call for Lilo as I'm not sure To'omua returning from injury is a realistic option, I would prefer a fit To'omua also but I think players returning from injury are just as risky as playing a player who isn't in the best form.

I agree about the subs. I was shocked Frisby was not injected sooner in both games, as well as Slipper for Sio in game 1. Really bad tactics there.

 

[Gnostic]

Indeed. The widespread discarding of players without realistic alternatives at Test level, right now, is quite odd. All the players being pushed under the bus have been and generally are good players.

How the team is playing is the problem.

England have a similar team to the RWC yet are playing as a better team, but are playing a simpler game plan very well. Much of our issues are poor discipline, and poor option taking at times. Yes, better kickers would be great. Who are they? Another top level 10 or two would be great? Again, who is this that is in any form?

Coaching needs to be smarter and better directed at the opposition. We knew what England would bring, yet seemingly were unable to counter it.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I agree totally about the lack of options. So to move the debate forward either the game plan has to change, because forgetting this lost series and the dead rubber next week, will the one dimensional game plan that has been served up this year and last year win against the ABs. Unfortunately I see the Wallabies outperformance at the RWC as having an identical trajectory to that of the Tahs from 2014 to 2015.

The physical imposition game plan worked in 2014 and then lost embarrassingly twice to the Force and was humiliated and toyed with against the Highlanders in 2015. The Wallabies got lucky to catch a clueless coaching team with England last year and Gatland being his imaginative self and trotting out exactly the same game plan he has for the last how ever many years he's been coaching Wales. The Scots showed the blueprint to beat the Wallabies and almost pulled it off. Watching the complete ABs performance last night the Wallabies have no chance what so ever of the Bledisloe this year playing that way.

I agree the players selected are the best available, for this plan and possibly for any other. The problem is the plan. But to change the plan, which simply must happen, there needs to be a recognition that the base skills just are not up to scratch, in particular kicking. I do not accept that Foley et al cannot learn to kick effectively, they need to be coached properly and Malone isn't doing it, proof being the vast inconsistency in execution and fundamental flaws in set up to kick from hand as evidenced by Foley's first kick for touch which looked like I did it.

This a massive failure of Chieka at both the Tahs and the Wallabies. Incomplete coaching group lacking in specialist skills.

 

[Slim 293]

I keep seeing Andrew Ready's name being thrown around, but I have serious doubts he's going to leapfrop three other hookers, including the captain, to be named in the match day 23...................

 

[Gnostic]

I meant we scored more tries. The strategy certainly had it's flaw's that's for sure, but Game 1 was very winnable and looked like we would for most the match.



Game 2 we never looked like winning.



I agree about the rest. I call for Lilo as I'm not sure To'omua returning from injury is a realistic option, I would prefer a fit To'omua also but I think players returning from injury are just as risky as playing a player who isn't in the best form.



I agree about the subs. I was shocked Frisby was not injected sooner in both games, as well as Slipper for Sio in game 1. Really bad tactics there.

Lilo is barely Super level this year and wouldn't be in the squad except for injuries. He is not a viable alternative to Foley and IMO is only on the bench because there is nobody else.

 

[The torpedo]

Lilo is barely Super level this year and wouldn't be in the squad except for injuries. He is not a viable alternative to Foley and IMO is only on the bench because there is nobody else.

Isn't Giteau our 1st choice 12?

 

[Gnostic]

I keep seeing Andrew Ready's name being thrown around, but I have serious doubts he's going to leapfrop three other hookers, including the captain, to be named in the match day 23.......

Honestly two years ago Moore was arguably the best hooker in the world. This year on form he isn't in the top three in Oz and as Captain his personal discipline has been poor and he hasn't done much more than the basics that the other three (TPN, Hanson and Ready) could also do as well as bring a bit extra.

 

[Gnostic]

Isn't Giteau our 1st choice 12?

He is injured I do believe, and in any event I would have thought Beale was first choice for the old game plan. This one I would think either Kerevi or Horne.

 

[Slim 293]

This year on form he isn't in the top three in Oz

Er, Moore's Super Rugby form this year has been excellent........... probably his best in years.

 

[Gnostic]

Er, Moore's Super Rugby form this year has been excellent..... probably his best in years.

Er.....right. Stats and results tell a different story as does watching the Brumbies play.

 

[Slim 293]

Er...right. Stats and results tell a different story as does watching the Brumbies play.

The Brumbies issues haven't been in the forwards this year..........

 

[Lorenzo]

I guess the chickens have really come to roost when it comes to our ability to kick the ball - years and years of obsession with 'running rugby' and playing with the 'ball in hand' have meant that the best 10 in the country basically needs to have another 10 on the ground to do some of the kicking. I note than none of the 10s that South Africa or NZ have wheeled out this century have needed another 'playmaker' at 12 to do the kicking. Let's not even start on Folau.

I think instead of removing a promising player like kerevi for the purposes of accommodating Foley's kicking weaknesses, we focus on picking a 10 that has the basic skills of a rugby 10.

Also - they have sussed out Foley's dummy and his inside ball.

 

[cyclopath]

I guess the chickens have really come to roost when it comes to our ability to kick the ball - years and years of obsession with 'running rugby' and playing with the 'ball in hand' have meant that the best 10 in the country basically needs to have another 10 on the ground to do some of the kicking. I note than none of the 10s that South Africa or NZ have wheeled out this century have needed another 'playmaker' at 12 to do the kicking. Let's not even start on Folau.

I think instead of removing a promising player like kerevi for the purposes of accommodating Foley's kicking weaknesses, we focus on picking a 10 that has the basic skills of a rugby 10.

Also - they have sussed out Foley's dummy and his inside ball.

Who?

 

[Slim 293]

It depends on who you ask...........

Quade, Lilo, To'omua......... Ian Prior?

 

[Gnostic]

The Brumbies issues haven't been in the forwards this year....

Actually while the attack coached by the Wallaby backline coach has been totally non existent many of the problems have been in the forwards, particularly in terms of discipline, which I will concede has been marginally better this year than last.

 

[Gnostic]

I guess the chickens have really come to roost when it comes to our ability to kick the ball - years and years of obsession with 'running rugby' and playing with the 'ball in hand' have meant that the best 10 in the country basically needs to have another 10 on the ground to do some of the kicking. I note than none of the 10s that South Africa or NZ have wheeled out this century have needed another 'playmaker' at 12 to do the kicking. Let's not even start on Folau.



I think instead of removing a promising player like kerevi for the purposes of accommodating Foley's kicking weaknesses, we focus on picking a 10 that has the basic skills of a rugby 10.



Also - they have sussed out Foley's dummy and his inside ball.

When NZ selected Julian Savea on the wing he couldn't catch a high ball or kick. Nonu also couldn't kick very well when he burst onto the scene. How did they miraculously grow those skills. They must be doping with some miracle compound because surely professionals are what they are and don't develop on their own. Oh wait..... there is something there in that statement.......

 

[Lorenzo]

All of the other recent options - To'omua, Quade, Lilo - have had significantly better kicking than Foley. I feel like we've been lead to believe that Foley's backline management and ball running is so amazing that we are to overlook his deficiencies, and I've concluded that it isn't.

I'd go with To'omua (if he is fit) because of his kicking and defence.