• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

RWC Pool C - Australia v Wales - 5AM 25 Sep AEST

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
Yeah, France/Ireland seem to be whoever’s there first hits the breakdown, doesn’t matter who. We have these systems to get it to specific players, so those players seem to be waiting to run the ball instead of hitting the rucks. Makes our attack easy to read and our breakdown easy to attack.
GRrrrrrr......I'm getting triggered LOL

I started helping out my son's U15s team in the middle of the season and this was a MASSIVE bugbear of mine.

"Stop waiting for the ball or trying to position yourself to be the next ball carrier and SECURE THE BALL!!"
 

PhilClinton

Geoff Shaw (53)
From my limited experience watching my son play since Yr 4, this is a problem. Parents and coaches get enamoured with a strong ball runner and don't stress the importance and absolute necessity of also working at the breakdown.

I feel like that it is definitely a mindset shift in the last 5-10 years, maybe due in part to the YouTube highlights era of footy stars across all codes we are in.

My junior coach (and I was a junior at a lot lot longer than 10 years ago...) had his assistant keep track of key ruck involvements from the forwards i.e. effective cleanouts, turnovers won, stopping a pick and drive and things like that. We were rewarded on those efforts and recognised for them, not carries with the ball. That mindset was used from u13s onwards and many blokes I played with had long representative careers based on that foundation.

The game has obviously evolved, player roles have changed over the years etc. but you're right that a number of teams have moved away from those foundations.
 

Drew

Bob Davidson (42)
Another thing, this push for bigger more physical 7s. Until we see Tom Hooper, Langi Gleeson and whoever else is touted as a potential bigger wallaby 7 I’d like to see them playing there at Super Rugby level. We need to pick them on form at 7, not at what they might be capable of at 7 from 6/8
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Another thing, this push for bigger more physical 7s. Until we see Tom Hooper, Langi Gleeson and whoever else is touted as a potential bigger wallaby 7 I’d like to see them playing there at Super Rugby level. We need to pick them on form at 7, not at what they might be capable of at 7 from 6/8

Tom Hooper could potentially wear/play at 7 for the Wallabies in future, but it really depends on the makeup of the backrow...

It works for the Brumbies when you've got Pete Samu playing at 6/8.

The all giant Wallabies backrow were clearly outplayed by their smaller opposition though.

But I'd say Hooper's future is most likely at 6, and his engine and ability to get through so much work like a 7 will only benefit him in that position.
 

The Ghost of Raelene

Steve Williams (59)
I feel like that it is definitely a mindset shift in the last 5-10 years, maybe due in part to the YouTube highlights era of footy stars across all codes we are in.

My junior coach (and I was a junior at a lot lot longer than 10 years ago...) had his assistant keep track of key ruck involvements from the forwards i.e. effective cleanouts, turnovers won, stopping a pick and drive and things like that. We were rewarded on those efforts and recognised for them, not carries with the ball. That mindset was used from u13s onwards and many blokes I played with had long representative careers based on that foundation.

The game has obviously evolved, player roles have changed over the years etc. but you're right that a number of teams have moved away from those foundations.
This is big amongst their peers but any coach worth a pinch of shit is watching the hard work.

There’s not a successful team in Rugby or League that doesn’t have a couple of blokes that can almost be unoticed by a viewer and stats aren’t outstanding but are first picked.
 

Th0mo

Herbert Moran (7)
From my limited experience watching my son play since Yr 4, this is a problem. Parents and coaches get enamoured with a strong ball runner and don't stress the importance and absolute necessity of also working at the breakdown.
It’s endemic in school rugby at least. The ruck is someone else’s job while they jostle for the next hit up.
 

The Nomad

Bob Davidson (42)
This is big amongst their peers but any coach worth a pinch of shit is watching the hard work.

There’s not a successful team in Rugby or League that doesn’t have a couple of blokes that can almost be unoticed by a viewer and stats aren’t outstanding but are first picked.
Totally agree with this sentiment, unfortunately not sure this is happening in the junior pathways. Big kids keep on getting picked because they win games at that level and the kid with the grit and skill set to play postions but lack size don’t get the recognition they deserve. Eventually the size disparity evens out and you end up with an under skilled former big kid filling the spot of a kid that had all the skill but is no longer part of the system.

PhilC mentioned it earlier, we all once upon a time got tracked for involvements at the breakdown and this was used as a selection and player feedback tool.

For me, effective breakdown involvements are still king when it comes to selecting a backrow and would be next cab off the rank behind position specific skills for the tight five.

We continue to be beaten at the breakdown which sets the tone for the entire game. It’s something Australia once excelled at and it wasn’t that long ago.
 

The Nomad

Bob Davidson (42)
Another thing, this push for bigger more physical 7s. Until we see Tom Hooper, Langi Gleeson and whoever else is touted as a potential bigger wallaby 7 I’d like to see them playing there at Super Rugby level. We need to pick them on form at 7, not at what they might be capable of at 7 from 6/8
The role of number 7 has changed significantly in the past few years. A open side flanker was once given a licence to roam, but most teams now play 6/7 as left edge/ right edge. With the modern interpretation of what’s required for a pilfer, it really only happens if someone makes a decent chop tackle close to the channel you are defending on the field.

You will often see centres or wingers with higher turnovers than backrowers because of this.

It’s they way teams are coached….. middle third , edges and back three/four if you count the 10.
 

Sam Old

Herbert Moran (7)
It was pretty simple really, we were soundly beaten at the breakdown in both games. Left us either short on numbers or out of alignment in both attack and defence and resulted in us being poor in both facets of play.

Personally, I feel we have lost balance with our forward pack. There seems to be a bias towards picking strong ball runners all the way through the pathways in Australia. Whilst being a strong ball runner and instinctively good at the breakdown shouldn’t be mutually exclusive, it does appear to be rather uncommon. Breakdown skills are obviously coached, but any hesitation or drop of intensity at Test level gets punished. The grit that just keeps moving bodies and holds a team together is just not there at the moment.

Haven’t seen the stats, but would imagine our penalties conceded while in possession would have been at an all time high?
Agree. That’s why EJ (Eddie Jones) picked some props who can give you one or two “runs” but can’t scrum at all ( too much emphasis across the pathways on the highlights reels for a few strong carries rather than forwards who can actually do their primary roles)
 
Last edited:

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
I listened to the GBR podcast yesterday, they didn’t spend much time on the game but they referred specifically to the chip and chase try Anscombe scored and they (like the rest of us) couldn’t work out what Kellaway et al were doing. The musical chairs Cheika used to do was about using the same players to have an attacking back line and a defensive one so at least there was some logic to it. NFI what Eddie is trying to do here.

Aside from that they thought Wallabies were pretty good in the first half and blamed the second half capitulation on lack of experience. Again like the rest of us. When asked whether Portugal were a chance to beat us - Tindal: ‘no chance’. Said we will be too classy and wanting to restore some pride. Wobs by 42 was the prediction.
 
Top