England v Australia, Saturday 3 December

[fatprop]

I do wonder what "plan B" would have been effective against the Poms last night

Kicking the ball away? Really? when have ever won a kicking duel?

More long passes? Really? Just how do we support a wider game without positioning more backrowers to support the inevitable tackler and next phase when we need them all getting go forward and working at the last breakdown

More inside passes? Sure, lets see the effort to run those lines cosistantly

Again solutions that start and finish in the backs when the key issue is the tight 5; and I don't see some simple, short term solution there; just hard work and time with the hope we might be able to find parity

 

[Twoilms]

Shame we don't have a half decent replacement because Cheika is trying his best to lose his job. We lost that, they didn't win it. All they had to do was wait for the dumb mistakes. 110% a coaching issue. Should be out on his ass but will live becauae Australian coaching depth is even worse than our player depth

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Pfitzy]

Again solutions that start and finish in the backs when the key issue is the tight 5; and I don't see some simple, short term solution there; just hard work and time with the hope we might be able to find parity

Yep. And the problem with Australian rugby, from the roots upwards, is the tight five is an afterthought.

 

[wamberal]

Yep. And the problem with Australian rugby, from the roots upwards, is the tight five is an afterthought.

Tight five should be our strength, given that there is surely more competition from the other codes for the more mobile, faster, players.


We should set up a specialist Tight Five academy and spend a lot of money developing the next generation of talent.

 

[Twoilms]

A break from rugby is badly needed by everyone it seems

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[dru]

I do wonder what "plan B" would have been effective against the Poms last night.

Hey bloke. I realise this is a response to some of the more illogical criticsms of Cheika and agree with the thrust of what I think you are saying.

Still, our attacking structure devolves to long phases without quick scoring as guys get tired or inaccurate. When we are ahead, or at rough parity, this is fine for as long as we have possession.

When we are behind though, what I see happening is desperation leading to pushed plays, roughly sticking to the trained structure, but that desperation resulting in lost possession. We fall apart in a degree that matches how far behind we are and how close full time is.

This also leads to pushing things in D to regain the ball and brings sharpness to the ref's attention.

That scenario may simply be where the team is right now. But an alternative structure/team plays that seeks out mismatches of, say fast backs on forwards, or similar, might just help.

At the moment though, as we fall behind we fall apart. IMO there is a coaching input here one way or another.

 

[Pfitzy]

A break from rugby is badly needed by everyone it seems

Shit yeah - cricket is on this arvo!



Might be a better question for the refereeing decisions thread, BUT here is the crux of the Yarde try - and its kind of a grey area.

Definition of a knock on says:

That underlined bit is important when you consider the try scoring methods:

The judgement from the TMO is that his left hand is "always attached to the ball" - which it clearly isn't. So is he holding it per clause (a)?

World Rugby released some clarifications recently that a player juggling possession was still in possession (so e.g. you can tackle them).

In this case, his right hand hits it a couple of frames before the grounding, so he's considered in possession.

Fair try.

The interesting note is that, if Folau had got a single finger to it between the hands of Yarde, its a knock-on.

He cannot score via clause (b) - for the ball to be considered "on the ground in the in-goal", he's immediately knocked it on as per the definition of Law 12.

 

[Pfitzy]

Tight five should be our strength, given that there is surely more competition from the other codes for the more mobile, faster, players.

1) Props are generally fat kids. Fat kids can get skinny as they grow, and because people aspire to be backs. They end up as inside centres or flankers.

2) Locks are generally tall kids. They can go play basketball these days

3) Hookers are crazy. They might end up in jail.

We should set up a specialist Tight Five academy and spend a lot of money developing the next generation of talent.

I agree. Hopefully the extra two tests have given the ARU enough money to firstly cover all the extra fucking players we had on tour, and pay for something like this.

OR they could get rid of the Participation fee that is adding $3K to my club's annual bills.

 

[Slim 293]

Neither had though, quite clearly. I think he might have actually missed the knock on inexplicably

Nah, he called advantage over.........

It was a fair call.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

MOTM performance from Shiggins. He just went out there and played his usual game and, really, that was all he had to do.

Contender for Try Of The Year here:

Every knock on or Attempted the over England win or It's not called on.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

ps looks like the bonkers provincial parocochialism endemic of this forii has rapelled a repelled Cyclopath into abstention. Don't worry Cyclo, i7ll cobble together a proboards freebie forus, just gimme the word mate, biff in a rugby categorus, Pitcairns lithographic grot section, Aucklnad Blues section, all bases covered

 

[Rip 'em a new one]

Peyper's been shocking but let's not pretend he was the difference. This was a dreadful performance, the Wallabies crumbled under pressure.

Is it a "chicken or the egg" thing though? What comes first? Shit performance or the shit decisions?

While the considered majority are correct in saying that England outplayed us physically and tactically, that we took dumb options and used poor skills to lose the game, but the whole ref thing just annoys the hell out of me...

You're damned as a whiny little whinger if it's brought up - and rightfully so in a lot of cases I guess - but fuck me, there's a whole lotta headspace differences on both sides of the park if a lot of those blatantly incorrect decisions were corrected.

I'd love to have seen how that game would have played out.

 

[fatprop]

That scenario may simply be where the team is right now. But an alternative structure/team plays that seeks out mismatches of, say fast backs on forwards, or similar, might just help.

I would suggest they do try to look for those mismatches, and when it works, they look like geniuses



The challenge is that their skills are letting them down under pressure, bad passes, bad catches, missed tackles etc etc especially when they a fatigued and this was a very, very good England side

 

[No4918]

ps looks like the bonkers provincial parocochialism endemic of this forii has rapelled a repelled Cyclopath into abstention. Don't worry Cyclo, i7ll cobble together a proboards freebie forus, just gimme the word mate, biff in a rugby categorus, Pitcairns lithographic grot section, Aucklnad Blues section, all bases covered

Penalties
Aus - 10 vs Eng - 7

Aus - 13 vs Ire - 3

NZ - 14 vs Ire - 4

The world is obviously against us.

Oh hang on, just ignore that NZ penalty count and that they managed to win.

 

[emuarse]

I do wonder what "plan B" would have been effective against the Poms last night

Kicking the ball away? Really? when have ever won a kicking duel?

More long passes? Really? Just how do we support a wider game without positioning more backrowers to support the inevitable tackler and next phase when we need them all getting go forward and working at the last breakdown

More inside passes? Sure, lets see the effort to run those lines cosistantly

Again solutions that start and finish in the backs when the key issue is the tight 5; and I don't see some simple, short term solution there; just hard work and time with the hope we might be able to find parity

Well there is one thing I can tell you FP, and that is the English halves added a hell of a lot more versatility to their game than the Wallabies halves.
In fact if Phipps & Foley perform like they did last night in next year's Super competition, then there is not much hope for the Waratahs next year.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Peyper was his usual incompetent self - other than the DHP card which showed not even a hint of an understanding of the laws of physics.
DHP's feet never moved so Brown actually ran into him.

 

[The torpedo]

Me after this game in a nutshell:

 

[Strewthcobber]

Tight five should be our strength, given that there is surely more competition from the other codes for the more mobile, faster, players.


We should set up a specialist Tight Five academy and spend a lot of money developing the next generation of talent.

No other major rugby country faces any where near the competition for athletic 1.95m+ guys though.

How many potential locks are playing in the NBL or all levels of Aussie rules.

 

[The torpedo]

Peyper was his usual incompetent self - other than the DHP card which showed not even a hint of an understanding of the laws of physics.
DHP's feet never moved so Brown actually ran into him.

In the entire time I've been watching rugby, I have never seen a ref think about the laws of physics. Player jumps in the air for a charge down, fails and collides with the kicking player? Fuck the laws of physics, yellow card for you

 

[fatprop]

Well there is one thing I can tell you FP, and that is the English halves added a hell of a lot more versatility to their game than the Wallabies halves.
In fact if Phipps & Foley perform like they did last night in next year's Super competition, then there is not much hope for the Waratahs next year.

They did, but I think Phipps & Foley would have looked pretty good behind that English pack.

Very few halves (if any) look decent off back foot ball