Australia v Scotland, 3:00pm 17 June Sydney Football Stadium

[Micheal]

Michael, I generally consider you one of the more rational posters (maybe not on some Force stuff ). Whilst I understand your point, and think there's truth to it in a vacuum, I don't agree with it.

These nights off don't happen in a vacuum to the players, they live this lifestyle every day. They're normal people with the same wants as normal people.

I suppose I mischaracterised it is a gripe as it started off at one and evolved into more of a reflection as I typed it.

I really don't know what I expect from the players to be honest. I completely understand both arguments that can be put forward, and I guess thats why I finished it with a question that looks to best practice.

How do other elite athletes function? What are the Kiwi players doing?

I have no problem with the occasional drink but I also wouldn't want our Wallabies binge drinking on a regular basis.

I wonder what the coaching staff expect of them. Its been interesting to see Eddie Jones take his squad out to the pub for 2-3 beers whilst on tour to promote bonding, where others may enforce a curfew / drinking ban.

They're not children so they certainly shouldn't be treated as such, and you'd hope that the right standards would be enforced by the leadership group (as with the Andrew Ready example this year from the Reds).

I'm fully aware that I'm asking a lot of questions here without providing many answers.

My biggest gripe with Michael's post is he seems to think we care he was in a pub to 1am. You kids these days are outrageous. Nice name drop, 'I move in the same circles'. Haha, no one cares about that either big shot.

Haha, I often get the tone of peoples messages wrong over the internet, and this is an instance in which I hope that I have.

How am I supposed to tell you when and where I saw someone without first mentioning where I was and what time I was there? Frankly I don't care of your opinion either way.

I also hardly consider that a name drop as at the end of the day Wallabies are simply people who are good at running into, and around, other people and are not considered by many to be "big shots".

 

[amirite]

TOCC & Gnostic, I understand your points but it's important to understand these nights drinking are programs and accounted for in their athletic output. Like I said, the extra calories and ill-effects of booze would be accounted for.

These athletes have how they spend all of their time programmed, nothing is accidental.

Michael doesn't say they were plastered either.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Did Beale & O'Conner not get pilloried on these very boards in 2013 for a late-night, mid-series trip to Burger King? Also the then-Coach for not running a tight enough ship IIRC. The times they are a'changing, I s'pose...........

 

[Slim 293]

Did Beale & O'Conner not get pilloried on these very boards in 2013 for a late-night, mid-series trip to Burger King? Also the then-Coach for not running a tight enough ship IIRC. The times they are a'changing, I s'pose.....

To be fair, pulling an all nighter is quite different from having a quiet beer or two...........

IMO if players want to have a drink on the weekend that's their choice........ they also have to live with the effects on their system.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^^^ OK then, let them have at it whenever they feel the need & we'll see how things work out for them in the longer run .

 

[Slim 293]

^^^^^^^^^^ OK then, let them have at it whenever they feel the need & we'll see how things work out for them in the longer run .

Who's suggesting that?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Keeping in mind these are the same athletes that are told time and time again by Sports Psycs to compartmentalise their life so the stress doesn't build up, so they can perform better. Have outside interests, have a non-rugby social life, etc

Well that's clearly the wrong advice then

 

[ShtinaTina]

.... Wallabies are simply people who are good at running into, and around, other people and are not considered by many to be "big shots".

Precisely they are just people. They also deserve the same common courtesies as you do.
I am not sure any of them would appreciate what might be alluded to by "get pissed with your mates as if its the beginning of the off season" or "I have no problem with the occasional drink but I also wouldn't want our Wallabies binge drinking on a regular basis. "

If they were to consume a drink or two, post match is the time for it.
They were on a plane at lunch time to Brisbane & are now settling into the team hotel.

 

[ShtinaTina]

Meanwhile, Sanchez has taken ownership for 14 points
http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2017/06/18/01/40/wallabies-scotland-genia-reax

 

[Micheal]

Precisely they are just people. They also deserve the same common courtesies as you do.
I am not sure any of them would appreciate what might be alluded to by "get pissed with your mates as if its the beginning of the off season" or "I have no problem with the occasional drink but I also wouldn't want our Wallabies binge drinking on a regular basis. "

If they were to consume a drink or two, post match is the time for it.
They were on a plane at lunch time to Brisbane & are now settling into the team hotel.

Absolutely fair enough.

To be clear: whilst I saw a few of them having a quiet bevy I can't say they were totalled.

I was just surprised to see them out and what was initially my anger towards the game has since turned into more of a discourse about how they should / should be expected to act.

I'm not saying they were falling about and carrying on so please no one interpret it as such.

 

[Gnostic]

I certainly didn't - but the fact stands that alcohol is not conducive to high performance. Also note that this would be far less of an issue if the team (including their Super sides) were performing at an acceptable level. The fact is they are not. I posted a few weeks back after a Tahs game that they should be arrested for fraudulently accepting money as professional footballers because their performances had been so bad. If we take them at their word and they are not that bad and not that far off and just need to do 1%ers to achieve better results then the low hanging fruit would be not consuming a substance proved to impair performance.

As I said if performances were better this would not be a huge issue. As it was when JOC (James O'Connor) and Beale were having their late night munchies.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Given that people asked a contrast with the All Blacks, I can give a personal example. When I was staying in the Tron during RWC 2011 I bumped into the AB's a couple of times. They were together as a group, relaxing in the hotel lobby bar and (very) quietly chatting among themselves. I don't recall any of them having any kind of alcoholic beverage in hand. They wandered back upstairs around 10pm and that was it. Very very low key.

 

[ShtinaTina]

I'm not sure you can use that an example really, based on the nature of the schedule of the RWC. I also saw plenty of the Wallabies wandering around Wellington at night, during RWC QF stage & not drinking. I was also in the Wallaby Team Hotel lobby after they'd gotten through the QF. Plenty of punters drinking up, the guys all came back to the Hotel, walked through the tunnel we made, stopped for photos, signatures and chat with many people. A few players even came back down, with ice strapped to them & one in a moon boot to chat to us. None of them had a drink in their hand.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Given that people asked a contrast with the All Blacks, I can give a personal example. When I was staying in the Tron during RWC 2011 I bumped into the AB's a couple of times. They were together as a group, relaxing in the hotel lobby bar and (very) quietly chatting among themselves. I don't recall any of them having any kind of alcoholic beverage in hand. They wandered back upstairs around 10pm and that was it. Very very low key.

I find that somewhat depressing: these days you have to want it so badly that you'll even give up grog. Imagine that?

 

[ForceFan]

Dear Mr Cheika
We've seen the new game plan and are hoping that it's just a diversionary tactic to lull the ABs into thinking that this is what you think is the strategy to defeat them.
Yours sincerely
FF (Folau Fainga'a)

Almost total passivity at the breakdown until some of the Forward pack came to life at the 50 minute mark. Ala'alatoa & TPN had very low numbers.
56% of Total Ruck Involvements in the final 30 minutes.
Even Michael Hooper only had 9 TRIs (5A/4D) in the first 50 minutes.
(That's at a rate of 14 TRIs in 80 mins) He averages 24 TRIs (8A/6D) in 80 mins of Super Rugby.

It's no wonder Karmichael Hunt is being bagged for his lack of attack stats - he was one of the top for Ruck Involvements and made all of the D Ruck Involvements made by Backs. Hunt was 3rd in the Tackle count.
When Hunt went off at 67 minutes he'd had 25 Ruck Involvements and was close to Hanigan, Coleman & Robertson. Hooper had made 20 (11A/9D)

Please look at previous posts for definitions used.

The lack of defensive effort and ruck involvement by the Wallaby Front Row - apart from Tom Robertson - continues to astound me. It has continued to be part of Cheika's strategy but it makes little sense to me.

The Scots certainly showed how to disrupt the opposition ball/game plan.
While making the best of limited opportunities.
Turn Overs Conceded: Scotland 13; Wallabies 18.

The work load of support of the Wallabies ball carrier is being fairly evenly distributed across player groups.

However, the Back Row is carrying almost the full burden of putting pressure on the opposition ball carriers.
But is it any real pressure?

Both teams won 96% of their own rucks.
Wallabies 107/111; Scotland 86/89.

The Wallabies stood off 58% of the Scotland Rucks.
Only a single Wallaby was involved in another 35% of the Scotland Rucks.
In only 6 rucks was there more than a single Wallaby.
Must feel really lonely entering a ruck knowing that support ISN'T coming.

So now you know how a team with very little fire power in their Backs can have only 43% Possession and 38% Territory yet win the game with 3 tries a piece (thanks Cyclopath). And 15 Penalties to 8.

Leading Tacklers: Coleman 14; Robertson & Hooper 9; Hunt 8.

Leading Ball Carriers: Kuridrani 17/95; Foley 13/68; Hooper 13/67.

If this is the game plan without Pocock then it's going to be a loooong year of test Match rugby for Wallabies fans.

 

[wamberal]

I do recall reading something a while ago to the effect that ingesting alcohol affects the liver's ability to manufacture glycogen (I think it was) which significantly affects athletic performance for 48 hours.


And I also recall reading somewhere or other that ingesting alcohol after a contest does inhibit the body's recovery process.


So I suppose that does not leave many opportunities to have a quiet one or two if you are really serious about your performance.


As for me, I would gladly have traded the occasional drink for an Wallaby cap, although I was far, far out of that league.

 

[ForceFan]

Just to complete the story.
Support of our own ball carriers.

45% 3 or more players. (That's 49 rucks)
My impression was that were were over-committing to Attack rucks.

 

[biggsy]

Close this this thread its depressing

 

[cyclopath]

Dear Mr Cheika
We've seen the new game plan and are hoping that it's just a diversionary tactic to lull the ABs into thinking that this is what you think is the strategy to defeat them.
Yours sincerely
FF (Folau Fainga'a)

Almost total passivity at the breakdown until some of the Forward pack came to life at the 50 minute mark. Ala'alatoa & TPN had very low numbers.
56% of Total Ruck Involvements in the final 30 minutes.
Even Michael Hooper only had 9 TRIs (5A/4D) in the first 50 minutes.
(That's at a rate of 14 TRIs in 80 mins) He averages 24 TRIs (8A/6D) in 80 mins of Super Rugby.

It's no wonder Karmichael Hunt is being bagged for his lack of attack stats - he was one of the top for Ruck Involvements and made all of the D Ruck Involvements made by Backs. Hunt was 3rd in the Tackle count.
When Hunt went off at 67 minutes he'd had 25 Ruck Involvements and was close to Hanigan, Coleman & Robertson. Hooper had made 20 (11A/9D)

Please look at previous posts for definitions used.

View attachment 9368

View attachment 9369

The lack of defensive effort and ruck involvement by the Wallaby Front Row - apart from Tom Robertson - continues to astound me. It has continued to be part of Cheika's strategy but it makes little sense to me.

The Scots certainly showed how to disrupt the opposition ball/game plan.
While making the best of limited opportunities.
Turn Overs Conceded: Scotland 13; Wallabies 18.

View attachment 9372
The work load of support of the Wallabies ball carrier is being fairly evenly distributed across player groups.

View attachment 9373
However, the Back Row is carrying almost the full burden of putting pressure on the opposition ball carriers.
But is it any real pressure?

View attachment 9374

Both teams won 96% of their own rucks.
Wallabies 107/111; Scotland 86/89.

The Wallabies stood off 58% of the Scotland Rucks.
Only a single Wallaby was involved in another 35% of the Scotland Rucks.
In only 6 rucks was there more than a single Wallaby.
Must feel really lonely entering a ruck knowing that support ISN'T coming.

So now you know how a team with very little fire power in their Backs can have only 43% Possession and 38% Territory yet win the game with 3 tries to 2. And 15 Penalties to 8.

Leading Tacklers: Coleman 14; Robertson & Hooper 9; Hunt 8.

Leading Ball Carriers: Kuridrani 17/95; Foley 13/68; Hooper 13/67.

If this is the game plan without Pocock then it's going to be a loooong year of test Match rugby for Wallabies fans.

Sorry, I might be a bit dense, but if both teams won 96% of their attacking rucks, how did Scotland "certainly" disrupt our ball? Unless you just mean their defence overall. Apologies if I have misinterpreted. I think their rush defence did that more than any ruck work.
Also, it was 3 tries all.
And, the team with 43% possession and 38% territory won by putting a lot of pressure on defensively, granted, but also because 2 horrible errors gave them tries against the run of play. Yes, Scotland played their plan very well and errors come from opposition pressure, but they were still shocking errors. And the Wallabies' attack was largely horrible, which for me, and others watching the game with me, was the key failing.
I completely agree with the premise that this plan will be, well, very risky against the All Blacks, no argument. I also find the distribution of duties somewhat odd, in terms of who is doing the heavy work.
I just don't entirely agree with all your conclusions.
As ever, great work compiling all this stuff - hats off once again.

 

[Highlander35]

We score tries from ugly opposition errors virtually every single match, and have done so since about 8 months into Cotter's tenure, and Glasgow had been doing that for about the 2 seasons prior.

Surely that history of improved coaching and change of game plan has nothing to do with these two specific tries though.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk