Wallabies v England November 1

[Major Tom]

Someone did a good Roar post on analysing our kicking from the Japan game. We dropped two uncontested kicks (Kellaway and Edmed) and five out of the seven contestable kicks Japan sent our way. We didn't win back any of our own nine contestable kicks. So, we only recovered 2/16 contestable kicks.

Are Japan really that much better in the air than us? What's going on? England for sure are way better than Japan are. Mitchell/Ford are also incredibly accurate with their kicks, it's all Ford does. Freeman, Roebuck, Steward are great at high balls.

No wonder Potter comes in, not that I've seen him do much in the air at test level. But Potter, Sua'ali'i and Jorgensen should shore up the receipts a little.

I haven't been that impressed with Potter at test level, but he is decent under the highball. Pietsch wouldn't be that far behind him that respect though. It'll be fascinating to see how they deal with JAS. I imagine they will go hard at him early based off how I went last year.

 

[Wilson]

Someone did a good Roar post on analysing our kicking from the Japan game. We dropped two uncontested kicks (Kellaway and Edmed) and five out of the seven contestable kicks Japan sent our way. We didn't win back any of our own nine contestable kicks. So, we only recovered 2/16 contestable kicks.

Are Japan really that much better in the air than us? What's going on? England for sure are way better than Japan are. Mitchell/Ford are also incredibly accurate with their kicks, it's all Ford does. Freeman, Roebuck, Steward are great at high balls.

No wonder Potter comes in, not that I've seen him do much in the air at test level. But Potter, Sua'ali'i and Jorgensen should shore up the receipts a little.

It's not the whole solution, but it might be about time to ditch the strategy of dropping the 10 back to receive kicks. Kicking games have changed a lot from what they used to be and we're seeing our 10 forced to take high balls in traffic way too often for their skill sets (regardless of who is there). It's not the same as it used to be where they were fielding long kicks and able to engage in kicking duels over distance, or play make on the kick return.

 

[Dctarget]

Can Schmidt take Fisher with him when he leaves please

 

[Major Tom]

Can Schmidt take Fisher with him when he leaves please

"If you want a defensive system that works, I'm not your guy" Fisher

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

It feels like he's maintained relevancy because of his eccentric nature being unforgettable. Probably a good bloke but the results just aren't there.

 

[whitefalcon]

We really miss Tom Wright at the back.

I think Wright is our biggest out and dare I say it our most important back.

His counter attack is sorely missed and I suspect he is also doing some of the organising from 15

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

They've felt nonthreatening since he's been gone.

 

[Strewthcobber]

First name on the team sheet when fit

 

[Strewthcobber]

It's not the whole solution, but it might be about time to ditch the strategy of dropping the 10 back to receive kicks. Kicking games have changed a lot from what they used to be and we're seeing our 10 forced to take high balls in traffic way too often for their skill sets (regardless of who is there). It's not the same as it used to be where they were fielding long kicks and able to engage in kicking duels over distance, or play make on the kick return.

It's either drop your 10 back, and deal with high kicks, or stand them in the line and have them deal with 10-15 tackles. There really isn't anywhere left to hide

 

[Strewthcobber]

I didn't watch closely enough to see if this was true or not, but according to rugbypass stats, the try from 30m was the only time Josh Flook touched the ball in the match.

Could that be true?

 

[Wilson]

It's either drop your 10 back, and deal with high kicks, or stand them in the line and have them deal with 10-15 tackles. There really isn't anywhere left to hide

Yeah, but I'm not sure we're getting any defensive benefit running a wing (has often been Toole recently) in the 10 channel on a lineout. Much easier for a flanker to assist in that defensive role than on kick receipt.

It's also not really any less physical work going up for those high balls where there's a very good chance they'll be lined up to cop a big shot on landing (or often enough before hand). Very different to when the kicks where for distance and they'd usually be passing to a wing or fullback before taking contact in the return.

 

[Wilson]

I didn't watch closely enough to see if this was true or not, but according to rugbypass stats, the try from 30m was the only time Josh Flook touched the ball in the match.

Could that be true?

I think there was a chip through from Paisami that he recovered closed to the Japanese line in the first half (possibly just before the 30+ phase run of pick and drives), but I don't remember if he caught that kick or just forced a turnover (they do credit him with 1 turnover won).

 

[House is on Fire]

Genuinely what's the point of the 10 if he passes 10 times in a game. May as well play an extra flanker there.

I'm a massive Noah Lolesio defender and have been for years. I think this year has demonstrated that he's quite comfortably the best 10 in Australia (which is why Rennie and Schmidt had him as their first choice). He would improve the team immensely if he were fit and available. He has had a bunch of good games where he hasn't made too many passes (10 is quite low, but it was very wet).

What he does well is: communicate and organise the attack, by organising and directing the forward pods who take much of the ball from the halfback, by directing the halfback towards space and opportunity, and by organising his backline and scanning the opposition to look for any opportunities or mismatches. And when an opportunity out wide is identified, he is very quick and accurate at getting the ball into the right areas for the athletes outside him to do their thing.

There's a bunch of stuff that he could be better at, but a team with him at 10 generally holds its shape well and generally has more success when attacking wide.

I know everyone is kicking Tane when he's down, but he's a similar kind of player who has some massive up-sides over Noah i.e. defensive physicality, running game. He needs to learn how to better organise his team on the fly and to identify the opportunities better. He's not bad and he's only going to improve.

I will also remind everyone that the last two Wallabies matches have been played in very wet conditions, and while it might look pretty good on your TV, out on the ground it makes a big differences. Wet weather football is still wet weather football.

Looks like I'm now turning into a Tane defender... I'm not fully sold on him, look forward to seeing what he does at the Brumbies, but I think lots of comments here and elsewhere about his ability are off the mark.

 

[stillmissit]

It feels like he's maintained relevancy because of his eccentric nature being unforgettable. Probably a good bloke but the results just aren't there.

He's all of us, he's hit his use by date and most probably 2 years late..

 

[Major Tom]

I'm a massive Noah Lolesio defender and have been for years. I think this year has demonstrated that he's quite comfortably the best 10 in Australia (which is why Rennie and Schmidt had him as their first choice). He would improve the team immensely if he were fit and available. He has had a bunch of good games where he hasn't made too many passes (10 is quite low, but it was very wet).

What he does well is: communicate and organise the attack, by organising and directing the forward pods who take much of the ball from the halfback, by directing the halfback towards space and opportunity, and by organising his backline and scanning the opposition to look for any opportunities or mismatches. And when an opportunity out wide is identified, he is very quick and accurate at getting the ball into the right areas for the athletes outside him to do their thing.

There's a bunch of stuff that he could be better at, but a team with him at 10 generally holds its shape well and generally has more success when attacking wide.

I know everyone is kicking Tane when he's down, but he's a similar kind of player who has some massive up-sides over Noah i.e. defensive physicality, running game. He needs to learn how to better organise his team on the fly and to identify the opportunities better. He's not bad and he's only going to improve.

I will also remind everyone that the last two Wallabies matches have been played in very wet conditions, and while it might look pretty good on your TV, out on the ground it makes a big differences. Wet weather football is still wet weather football.

Looks like I'm now turning into a Tane defender... I'm not fully sold on him, look forward to seeing what he does at the Brumbies, but I think lots of comments here and elsewhere about his ability are off the mark.

You can be a Lolesio supporter but you can't say he's 'quite comfortably' the best 10. If that was the case, he would have a lot more supporters. He did some things well and but other things poorly. Just like the other 10's.

 

[Major Tom]

He's all of us, he's hit his use by date and most probably 2 years late..

Speak for yourself, I hit my use by early.

 

[stillmissit]

I think there was a chip through from Paisami that he recovered closed to the Japanese line in the first half (possibly just before the 30+ phase run of pick and drives), but I don't remember if he caught that kick or just forced a turnover (they do credit him with 1 turnover won).

This brings up another issue, why are we skipping the 12 and 13 so often in an attempt to get the ball wide? This becomes so predictable and leaves 2 players scratching their arses a fair amount of the time. The only reason Ikitau gets time with the ball in hand, is because he is taking up balls that the forwards should take and often better than most of them..

 

[stillmissit]

Speak for yourself, I hit my use by early.

#Me2 = 54....

 

[House is on Fire]

You can be a Lolesio supporter but you can't say he's 'quite comfortably' the best 10. If that was the case, he would have a lot more supporters. He did some things well and but other things poorly. Just like the other 10's.

I actually can say that, I just did. FYI when someone prefaces a sentence by saying "I think" this means the following statement is a value judgement, an opinion that that person holds, and as such it is not necessary a statement of objective fact. This opinion was also shared by Rennie and Schmidt, so it's not entirely unreasonable.

 

[Major Tom]

I actually can say that, I just did. FYI when someone prefaces a sentence by saying "I think" this means the following statement is a value judgement, an opinion that that person holds, and as such it is not necessary a statement of objective fact. This opinion was also shared by Rennie and Schmidt, so it's not entirely unreasonable.

I get your point. Which is incorrect.
I wouldn't say Rennie was always he's first choice btw. Schmidt backed him consistently though.