• 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.

Argentina v Australia II @ 5.10am 14/08

Status
Not open for further replies.

Viking

Mark Ella (57)
Tate is a potential match winner, I don't think Gordon is.

I agree, I think as starters Gordon would probably get the nod ahead of Tate for his better game control and kicking, but as finishers off the bench you'd think Tate wins out every time. Kind of like Samu at the moment in the backrow.
 

Joe Blow

Peter Sullivan (51)
Gordons play is cynical/negative and does not have the vision of Tate. He leaves the pill in the scrum and focusses his attention on milking a penalty, often thats not there, rather than pushing ahead and looking for opportunity to score.
His option taking is not on par with that of Tate.
I’d pick Tate every time to back up White or to start if he was not available.
 

Viking

Mark Ella (57)
Bit harsh on Gordon, he is such a solid half-back. I disagree on that theory he is a poor decision-maker. He was a key playmaker in the Tahs fight-back this season.

Likewise with Tate's game being over-rated as his decision making this year, especially against the NZ super xv teams, was poor at times. His running game is electric but not quite the complete player yet.
 

Derpus

Jason Little (69)
Gordons play is cynical/negative and does not have the vision of Tate. He leaves the pill in the scrum and focusses his attention on milking a penalty, often thats not there, rather than pushing ahead and looking for opportunity to score.
His option taking is not on par with that of Tate.
I’d pick Tate every time to back up White or to start if he was not available.
I don't know if we watched the same Super Rugby season but Tate's form really tailed off. His option taking in the Crusaders game was the worst I've ever seen it.

I think Tate is ultimately going to be the better player and earn more caps over his career than Gordon but not sure his warrants selection right now.
 

Number 7

Darby Loudon (17)
I don't know if we watched the same Super Rugby season but Tate's form really tailed off. His option taking in the Crusaders game was the worst I've ever seen it.

I think Tate is ultimately going to be the better player and earn more caps over his career than Gordon but not sure his warrants selection right now.
Correct.

He was also given work ons last year by Rennie which included improving his left-to-right passing which isn't up to scratch yet. Even Will Genia called that aspect of his game out publicly in an article for the Roar.

Tate is an excellent halfback and I enjoy watching him but he isn't the finished product yet.

Gordon's running game for the Tah's this and last year was underrated and his leadership was excellent which is one area the Wallabies lack in when put under pressure. He offers plenty to the team.
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
I just cannot get around Hodge being our starting 10. With out current injury toll I'm OK with him covering multiple positions on the bench but if he is the best we have at fly half then fuck me we are cooked.

I'd have both Lolesio and JOC (James O'Connor) (James O'Connor) starting at 10 over him. However I'd have him on the bench over either of them with one of the many talented outside backs on the bench.

Gordon v Tate is pretty level. I'd like to see Tate with more chances. Reckon he would go really well with the multiple legit ball runners we have in the pack now.

Purce, suggesting Hodge starts at 10 is odd, I grant you. It's what I see right now though. In essence I wouldn't be starting Lolesio, but building him from the bench wherever this is possible. With Quade out, that seems to give us JOC (James O'Connor) or Hodge. From what we have seen, JOC (James O'Connor) has been undercooked and Hodge worked fine at 10. Choose between them I think. Of course what we see is not what the coaching team sees with training added in. So JOC (James O'Connor) may get the nod.

Ideally we would want a 6/2 bench again, but these shenanigans probably kill that opportunity. I'd want a 7, 10/utility back, and Vunivalu. Now if you are not fussed with getting Vunivalu onto the field, then you can start JOC (James O'Connor), and bench say Gordon, Lolo, Hodge. If you want Vunivalu there, you can't have JOC (James O'Connor), Hodge and Lolo in the 23 together. So I lock in Lolo (or drop him if we go 6/2) and flip a coin between Hodge and JOC (James O'Connor). From what we have seen I think it's Hodge. JOC (James O'Connor) could get through if his training shows he is ready.
 
Last edited:

Derpus

Jason Little (69)
Purce, suggesting Hodge starts at 10 is odd, I grant you. It's what I see right now though. In essence I wouldn't be starting Lolesio, but building him from the bench wherever this is possible. With Quade out, that seems to give us JOC (James O'Connor) (James O'Connor) or Hodge. From what we have seen, JOC (James O'Connor) (James O'Connor) has been undercooked and Hodge worked fine at 10. Choose between them I think. Of course what we see is not what the coaching team sees with training added in. So JOC (James O'Connor) (James O'Connor) may get the nod.

Ideally we would want a 6/2 bench again, but these shenanigans probably kill that opportunity. I'd want a 7, 10/utility back, and Vunivalu. Now if you are not fussed with getting Vunivalu onto the field, then you can start JOC (James O'Connor) (James O'Connor), and bench say Gordon, Lolo, Hodge. If you want Vunivalu there, you can't have JOC (James O'Connor) (James O'Connor), Hodge and Lolo in the 23 together. So I lock in Lolo (or drop him if we go 6/2) and flip a coin between Hodge and JOC (James O'Connor) (James O'Connor). From what we have seen I think it's Hodge. JOC (James O'Connor) (James O'Connor) could get through if his training shows he is ready,
Never seen the point of playing a 10 from the bench. If the game is in the balance in any way the chances of them actually getting on the field are essentially nil. And then, if the game isnt and they do what are they really getting from it? 10 is a bit all or nothing I think.

I also think Lolesio is a fairly understated but effective 10 who will continue to improve as he gets more experience. He has more potential than Marcus Smith IMO who looks like a fairly decent running threat against defences that aren't international standard and that's about it.

The issue we have with Noah at 10 is that we don't have anyone with any real playmaking ability at 12, 13 or 15. Few teams who want to play a bit of expansive footy can get away with just the one playmaker. Guys like Kerevi and Paisami are adding some playmaking to their bow but it's definitely an addition rather than a core ability.

We were all hoping that Quade could step in and be that sole playmaker because he is probably one of the few blokes in world footy who can do it on his own. But he's 35.
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Never seen the point of playing a 10 from the bench. If the game is in the balance in any way the chances of then actually getting on the field are essentially nil. And then, if the game isnt and they do what are they really getting from it? 10 is a bit all or nothing I think.

I also think Lolesio is a fairly understated but effective 10 who will continue to improve as he gets more experience. He has more potential than Marcus Smith IMO who looks like a fairly decent running threat against defences that aren't international standard and that's about it.

Sure, like Rennie's attitude to 7. He wants a utility back rower, not a specialist 7 on the bench. So a 7 starts or is in reserves. Unfortunately I suspect dropping Lolo into starting 10 (when Quade went down pre-game against England) did him no favours. If we start him, then both JOC (James O'Connor) and Hodge are (sort of) utilities and work on the bench.

We will see Rennie's thinking soon enough.
 

Derpus

Jason Little (69)
Sure, like Rennie's attitude to 7. He wants a utility back rower, not a specialist 7 on the bench. So a 7 starts or is in reserves. Unfortunately I suspect dropping Lolo into starting 10 (when Quade went down pre-game against England) did him no favours. If we start him, then both JOC (James O'Connor) (James O'Connor) and Hodge are (sort of) utilities and work on the bench.

We will see Rennie's thinking soon enough.
Why did it do him no favours? He did well. We didn't lose any of the subsequent two games because of anything he did (except, perhaps, for failing to dive on a loose ball).

We very much lost those last two games in the pigs. Lolesio was fine.
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Why did it do him no favours? He did well. We didn't lose any of the subsequent two games because of anything he did (except, perhaps, for failing to dive on a loose ball).

We very much lost those last two games in the pigs. Lolesio was fine.

Yes any team will do better with a forward going pack. Yes any number of minor things could have happened in two losses for that series to have gone differently. It wasn't a great England team though, and Lolo had to step up. He did fine. But I'd maintain if we can start to control his exposure to test rugby, we may get a better result as we go forward.

I won't be complaining if he is selected to start at all. I think he's going to be a great longer term WB 10. Just with the things we see, I'm not convinced it's the best answer. I'd be putting Hodge at 10, Lolo on the bench. JOC (James O'Connor) misses the 23.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
The biggest thing we gain with Hodge at 10 in my view is that we play a smarter game where we get back to the fundamentals of territory and trying to win the gain line in the middle of the field.

Against England we played out the back far too much and spread the ball wide too often when there wasn't really any opportunity. You may make some decent metres quite often but you also create a greater risk of getting isolated or getting the centre smashed with the ball behind the gainline but a defender rushing up.

I'm not advocating for playing 10 man rugby but we need to be more judicious about when we use the ball and need to get front foot ball more often so we have opportunities to attack effectively.

Realistically the way we play shouldn't change regardless of who is at 10. International teams are too good to think that just because we have more of a playmaking 10 we can dismantle the opposition defence at will.
 

Dctarget

John Eales (66)
Poor Ala'alatoa, hope him and Mike are okay. Completes our best front row being unavailable.

With Bell out, Slipper doesn't swap, so guarantees Fa'amausili to start.
16. Longeran 17. Gibbon 18. Fa'amausili is as inexperienced as they come.
 

Oldgoldminer

Stan Wickham (3)
I wouldn't go this way - we don't want to go backwards and getting a bonus point win will be crucial in the context of the TRC
Agreed. Consistency hasn’t been our strongest point and it’s something that’s built on successive good performances.
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
So we are more likely to improve longer term by relying on a stopgap now? sorry Dru - not following the rationale here.

Stopgap? Maybe, but also the best performing that we have seen, right now. I want to see the best 15, the best 23 out there. I personally don't see Lolesio as fully ready right now. Which doesn't mean he hasn't performed when we had no choice. Right now though, I think we do have a choice.

I don't agree with the thinking that suggests we can use tests as some form of warm up for the next RWC. We aren't that good and we really need to set up wins against teams like the Argies in the hope that it provides momentum as we approach NZ and the Boks. I just don't see Lolo as the best choice. Argie very definitely had a plan that was charging the 10 channel. Hodge doesn't worry me at all in that scenario. I'd be having kittens watching Lolo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top