The Wallaby gameplan

[Inside Shoulder]

there is something about winning a game against the stats....maybe it means the result is repeatable because if you can win with crap stats you should be ok when the stats favour you

 

[Sluggy]

We've witnessed complete change in the Wallaby gameplan over the course of the season.

....

What should we aim to do against New Zealand next weekend?

1. Beat them at the breakdown, and win our scrums and lineouts.

2A Give the backs front foot ball...

2B So they can put the ball in front of the forwards down the AB's end; &

3. Score tries in the 1st phase off the set piece.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

1. Beat them at the breakdown, and win our scrums and lineouts.

2A Give the backs front foot ball...

2B So they can put the ball in front of the forwards down the AB's end; &

3. Score tries in the 1st phase off the set piece.

Sounds good...how many tries off 1st phase ball have we scored in, say, 5 seasons? How many against the ABs? Oh......so what's your 3B?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[pete88]

Actually, quite a few as of late. Two in HK Bledisloe last year for starters.

 

[vidiot]

The plan seemed to be to kick at all times yesterday. Including 1st phase.

Did Deans decide to look though the McKenzie playbook to the S15 final entry and reproduce it? The Boks aren't the Crusaders, the Wallabies aren't the Reds and RWC isn't S15.

Talk about playing away from your strengths, unless (as it proved) your strength is defense. Tough way to get there.

 

[biggsy]

it's a fucking harrowing game plan that's what it is. right now though, it won us a game that had to be won so it'll do.

But wont win us the world cup...

As said a few time build a few phases and spinning it wide.
Pressure on who ever will play 10 for the AB's. A few quick pick and goes getting some of the AB'S backline in the ruck. And then wide to the AB's slow forwards and Diggers can put some try's on.

 

[RedsHappy]

Did the game plan really involve:

1. kicking away all ball;
2. losing the lineout;
3. dropping it in contact;
4. relying on the ref to not penalise us;
5. relying almost exclusively on our defence and, in particular, Pocock?

I think you're deranged if you think that was the case. Cooper and Genia both had shocking kicking games. The three times we scored were from front foot ball:

1. Coopers good early touch finder;
2. Beale's counter attack;
3. Barnes' good late touch finder.

If we'd had more of 1 and 3 in particular (instead of box kicks) we might not have had to contend with such a territorial mismatch. If the game plan was truly as you suggest it would have been on the basis that we tackle them in their half not in ours.

Cutter, just to add to your IMO perfectly correct and justified analysis, neither was there any evidence of cohesive, disciplined, well-drilled back line moves designed in support of any supposed game plan. For many matches now, it's appeared as though our back line theory is an odd and dangerous combination of (a) 'just let the Xs run free, all will be well' (b) 'Cooper and Beale will design hero plays on the fly when needed' and (c) the centres role is largely defensive not creative.

The absence of any coherent Wallaby game plan and similarly a backline solely driven by the assumption of talent and raw defence not technical planning are the reasons why our congratulations regarding the Wallabies' QF win must be considered provisional and awaiting the arrival of a more complete capability.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Actually, quite a few as of late. Two in HK Bledisloe last year for starters.

so you were serious in suggesting that our game plan should look to score off first phase...from anywhere?

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

I think the way we won yesterday is the way Rugby is going at this level. Give them the ball. Try and hold them up in a tackle and win the scrum. Rely on your defence.

I do however think there were a few times where we should held the ball a bit longer.

 

[fatprop]

In retrospect I think the Wobs had all intentions of doing clever things in attack and it just went to shit on the day, partly because they had nothing in the tank after all the tackling they did.

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

In retrospect I think the Wobs had all intentions of doing clever things in attack and it just went to shit on the day, partly because they had nothing in the tank after all the tackling they did.

Interesting thought, could be the reason.

 

[Jnor]

Agreed fp. I'm sure there was an intention to play the territory to a large extent but it through some poor choices and execution it ended up being forced on them as so much of the game was played in our half, and especially in our 22 - which meant there was little option but to kick it back to try and gain a bit of territory.

I think the lineout was as big a factor here as the shit kicking and other decision making - wtf happened?

 

[fatprop]

Agreed fp. I'm sure there was an intention to play the territory to a large extent but it through some poor choices and execution it ended up being forced on them as so much of the game was played in our half, and especially in our 22 - which meant there was little option but to kick it back to try and gain a bit of territory.

I think the lineout was as big a factor here as the shit kicking and other decision making - wtf happened?

pressure happened

 

[Jnor]

True. But, they did so well absorbing pressure in defence, was it simply a case of something having to give and Matfield and Roussow having a blinder at lineout time?

I just hope that they don't work on the lineout all week so that's perfect and then forget about every sinlge other facet of the game, as these Wallabies are wont to do.

 

[Gnostic]

I think the way we won yesterday is the way Rugby is going at this level. Give them the ball. Try and hold them up in a tackle and win the scrum. Rely on your defence.

I do however think there were a few times where we should held the ball a bit longer.

Sorry I don't think this is the case at all. Maybe I have been too harsh on Deans, questioning his ability to think rationally and coherently because he cannot speak that way. The games on Saturday showed the very best of attacking Rugby facilitated by referees who policed the breakdowns evenly and to the Laws.

What we saw yesterday in both games was a free for all. My point is that Lawrence has always refereed the breakdown like this, and it is a bit of a lottery with him, the same with the scrum. I actually thought he was worse than he usually is yesterday and the game degenerated because of it. Now is it a stretch of the imagination to think that Deans recognised the game would go this way and selected players to make a rock solid defensive line and determined the only way to win would be to ensure the opposition had the ball to concede the penalties and got it in a manner the Wallabies wanted. Hence they didn't kick for touch when pinned in their own half but hoofed it down the middle of the park and didn't chase, just formed up that brick wall defence line.

The ultimate in play the ref really.

I am amazed to read all the posts here and elsewhere about how Lawrence must be biased etc etc and it was a setup. Many here were predicting the game, in particular the breakdown would be exactly what happened simply because that is how Lawrence referees the game and always has. I doubt any here, even after the win, would ever be supporting Lawrence for more Wallabies test matches.

 

[Ash]

If you lose 8 of your own lineouts, and give away a scrum penalty - that's nine set piece turnovers right there. If you combine that with not wanting to play with the ball in your half against an opposition with better kicking than you, well, no wonder the Wallabies had no possession. Even on the counter the Wallabies didn't look to run the ball from deep inside their own half, which they have done at other times this year.

It looked like that took a more conservative game plan in, and if you do that your set pieces need to be 100%.

BTW, agree with Fat Prop. You spend that long on defence, you can't expect to suddenly build phases in attack without having time to get your energy back first. More experienced, or cynical teams, would've been slowing the game down more at every break if they'd had to defend so much.

 

[Ash]

And agree with Gnostic - Lawrence always refs the breakdowns like that - complete lotteries, often letting everything go on. This one went in the Wallabies favour, luckily for us Wallaby fans and desperately unlucky for the Boks.

 

[pete88]

so you were serious in suggesting that our game plan should look to score off first phase...from anywhere?

I haven't suggested anything, just pointed out that we score a reasonable number of first phase tries, including two against the ABs. For that matter, Radike's try in the Brissie test was a first phase bust IIRC. I don't see why we should abandon our set moves to be honest. Why do you think we should attempt to not score tries on the first phase?

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

Sorry I don't think this is the case at all. Maybe I have been too harsh on Deans, questioning his ability to think rationally and coherently because he cannot speak that way. The games on Saturday showed the very best of attacking Rugby facilitated by referees who policed the breakdowns evenly and to the Laws.

What we saw yesterday in both games was a free for all. My point is that Lawrence has always refereed the breakdown like this, and it is a bit of a lottery with him, the same with the scrum. I actually thought he was worse than he usually is yesterday and the game degenerated because of it. Now is it a stretch of the imagination to think that Deans recognised the game would go this way and selected players to make a rock solid defensive line and determined the only way to win would be to ensure the opposition had the ball to concede the penalties and got it in a manner the Wallabies wanted. Hence they didn't kick for touch when pinned in their own half but hoofed it down the middle of the park and didn't chase, just formed up that brick wall defence line.

The ultimate in play the ref really.

I am amazed to read all the posts here and elsewhere about how Lawrence must be biased etc etc and it was a setup. Many here were predicting the game, in particular the breakdown would be exactly what happened simply because that is how Lawrence referees the game and always has. I doubt any here, even after the win, would ever be supporting Lawrence for more Wallabies test matches.

It's a tough job for the referee in this instance. Maybe we had our hands on the ball for too long when a ruck had formed but the fact is. If you have your hands on the ball and cant pick it up the question is why is that? Because they are holding on to it. Whilst its always a touch and go, if you have one team with hands on the ball, and the other killing it by leaving their feet at most rucks, what are you going to do? Blow your whistle all game?

It was fair and even handed i thought. If the springboks had scored a try perhaps SA could be justified in their whinging about the breakdown.

Fact is we were at an advantage as we had the bloke a few times already this tournament. We played well to that and should be congratulated for doing so.

 

[Sluggy]

Sounds good...how many tries off 1st phase ball have we scored in, say, 5 seasons? How many against the ABs? Oh......so what's your 3B?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Actually its one thing that Deans has restored after the Jones years of no-offload brumbie-ball.