notdeadyet
Peter Burge (5)
swain, yes; if hooper then tizzano at 7
Wallabies v Lions, 19 July Suncorp
- Thread starter Tomikin
- Start date
Running_rugby_1954
Cyril Towers (30)
Well clearly your memory is pretty bad all around then if you think it was the 22. This is basically the same play.
Backintheolddays
Johnnie Wallace (23)
Went better than expected. Not a great Lions performance. Front row stood up. Second row absent. Back row middling. Inside backs ok. Outside backs mixed bag.
Get rid of Potter and put LSL (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto) and Skelton in the row with Bobby in the back row.
Lynagh was fine but backs aren’t synced. Need to use JAS better and more aggression in defence. Need to play to ref, not whinge about offside.
Not a bad match and think we have more upside.
Get rid of Potter and put LSL (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto) and Skelton in the row with Bobby in the back row.
Lynagh was fine but backs aren’t synced. Need to use JAS better and more aggression in defence. Need to play to ref, not whinge about offside.
Not a bad match and think we have more upside.
molman
John Thornett (49)
I actually think generally Gordon is one of our better box kicking 9s. Is he on a level with Gibson-Park, no, but he's reasonable.
Gordon is operating in the system the Wallabies have setup and the context of how the opposition are imposing themselves so I'm not sure what the Plan B is mean't to be per se. What would you like to see Gordon do?
Personally I feel much of the downside with kicking in Australia is as much to do with the response from the team. The chases, how the team sets up and deals with highballs, how they react/respond to this transistion.
Don't get me wrong, some of our kicking as a team is general isn't great, but much like it not always being on the hooker when a lineout is poor, so too is some of the kicking the collective not being good enough.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
The difference in the way the two teams played the first half, it looked like the score would blow right out. For a while in the second half the Wallabies found enough in defence to stop the Lions' scoring tsunami that had threatened, and then late in the game they actually started to play rugby and scored a couple of late tries. Tactically, we were simply outplayed by the Lions game plan and their execution. Schmidt et al will need to rethink the way they want the team to play in the next two tests.
Trying to keep the game tight and the scores close for 60 minutes or so, and then have the better ball runners come on to try to win at the death is not a wise or likely successful strategy. Especially against a team like the Lions which is comprised on the best 23 players from four test playing nations. We need to fight fire with fire from the outset. In execution, we relied much too much on box kicks on first or second phase and we simply did not win the contest for the ball in the air. I reckon we only retained or regained possession from our kicks in general play from errors by one or two of the Lions' receivers.
Those who didn't measure up against their opposites tonight included Williams, McReight, Wilson, Gordon, Lynagh, and Potter. Williams was uncharacteristically quiet and made some poor mistakes on occasion. McReight had a shocker by his standards and IO think really felt the size and strength difference in the breakdown work. Wilson had his characteristically busy game without ever threatening the line or physically getting on top of his opponent. Gordon is very ordinary while Lynagh was simply out of his depth at this level. his kicking game was poor, short and misplaced while he was totally dominated under the high ball. Potter made too many errors of judgement.
The good aspects included the scrum, but that was just about all. I wouldn't be altering the front row after this performance, but Bell should replace Slipper earlier. Faessler had a couple of poor lineout throws but should be better for the run but I wouldn't argue against Pollard starting if Joe goes that way. I am still unconvinced that Skelton is the second rower we need but it is worth a shot having him there in place of Williams next week. The backrow really needs to be beefed up and must have the best ball runners available starting. My backrow would be 6 Valetini, 7 Hooper, 8 Gleeson. It won't be Joes. nor perhaps any other poster's, but Valetini and Gleeson are the two who might be able to break the Lions' defence while Hooper is just as much a nuisance and potential pilferer as any of our No 7s and would counteract the weakness of Skelton in the lineout.
Either McDermott or Lonergan must start at 9. It is a fallacy imo that Tate is a finisher and not a starter. He is a full 80 minute player and still has the ability to break open a game at the end after starting. So, either Tate if they want to attack the Lions from the start or Lonergan for better game management if they want to start a bit more conservatively. The only time the ball actually made it along the back line was after Donaldson came into the game. He looked head and shoulders a better player that Lynagh. Not much can be done in the centres, but Ikitau was severely underplayed at 12 being used as the bash it up get over the gain line ball runner. It is not a role that suits him and reduces his impact on a game. Maybe try Sua'ali'i at 12 and return Len to his rightful spot at 13. Pietsch has to replace Potter.
Throw caution to the wind and go hard, Joe.
Trying to keep the game tight and the scores close for 60 minutes or so, and then have the better ball runners come on to try to win at the death is not a wise or likely successful strategy. Especially against a team like the Lions which is comprised on the best 23 players from four test playing nations. We need to fight fire with fire from the outset. In execution, we relied much too much on box kicks on first or second phase and we simply did not win the contest for the ball in the air. I reckon we only retained or regained possession from our kicks in general play from errors by one or two of the Lions' receivers.
Those who didn't measure up against their opposites tonight included Williams, McReight, Wilson, Gordon, Lynagh, and Potter. Williams was uncharacteristically quiet and made some poor mistakes on occasion. McReight had a shocker by his standards and IO think really felt the size and strength difference in the breakdown work. Wilson had his characteristically busy game without ever threatening the line or physically getting on top of his opponent. Gordon is very ordinary while Lynagh was simply out of his depth at this level. his kicking game was poor, short and misplaced while he was totally dominated under the high ball. Potter made too many errors of judgement.
The good aspects included the scrum, but that was just about all. I wouldn't be altering the front row after this performance, but Bell should replace Slipper earlier. Faessler had a couple of poor lineout throws but should be better for the run but I wouldn't argue against Pollard starting if Joe goes that way. I am still unconvinced that Skelton is the second rower we need but it is worth a shot having him there in place of Williams next week. The backrow really needs to be beefed up and must have the best ball runners available starting. My backrow would be 6 Valetini, 7 Hooper, 8 Gleeson. It won't be Joes. nor perhaps any other poster's, but Valetini and Gleeson are the two who might be able to break the Lions' defence while Hooper is just as much a nuisance and potential pilferer as any of our No 7s and would counteract the weakness of Skelton in the lineout.
Either McDermott or Lonergan must start at 9. It is a fallacy imo that Tate is a finisher and not a starter. He is a full 80 minute player and still has the ability to break open a game at the end after starting. So, either Tate if they want to attack the Lions from the start or Lonergan for better game management if they want to start a bit more conservatively. The only time the ball actually made it along the back line was after Donaldson came into the game. He looked head and shoulders a better player that Lynagh. Not much can be done in the centres, but Ikitau was severely underplayed at 12 being used as the bash it up get over the gain line ball runner. It is not a role that suits him and reduces his impact on a game. Maybe try Sua'ali'i at 12 and return Len to his rightful spot at 13. Pietsch has to replace Potter.
Throw caution to the wind and go hard, Joe.
liquor box
John Hipwell (52)
We always compare our box kicking to northern hemisphere players. This means we are kicking to tams that know how to defend a norther hemisphere tactic.
Maybe we need to try something different??
Maybe we need to admit we cannot compete with them and need a new tactic. Perhaps it is as simple as setting up for a box kick and passing the ball from the 9 to 15 and running the ball?
Derpus
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Its controversial but I don't hate Hooper, Valetini and Gleeson. It just won't work with our passive 'soak and pilfer' strategy which I understand to originate in your neck of the woods.
Drew
Bob Davidson (42)
Good point
Joe Blow
John Hipwell (52)
He went w
He went well and is tough as nails. I thought he was good considering the pressure he was under. We were going backwards for the first 3/4 of the game. With a little more returning beef and some go forward he will be fine. And for gods sake start Tate with him and bring on White with Donaldson.
The Red Baron
Chilla Wilson (44)
The Reds have nothing to do with it, so you can keep searching on that one.
I'll say it again - the plan was obviously to have Donaldson and Tate come on in the second half against a tired defence and open the game up. To a degree, it worked. I've never suggested Lynagh was perfect, but he did ok under immense pressure. Clearly you disagree. So rather than firing up another sideways comment at me, let's just agree to disagree.
Shiggins
Michael Lynagh (62)
Not rating Bobby V is criminal
Last edited:
Shiggins
Michael Lynagh (62)
There is enough hate from the pathetic NH flogs. Stick together
Super Hooper
Ted Fahey (11)
That's one of the problems. They scored 30 points in a bad night
Running_rugby_1954
Cyril Towers (30)
What does this mean? Where do we see this?
Uh huh
Billy Sheehan (19)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think they've looked much better than that on any other night I've seen of this tour. They certainly had an easier time against the club sides, but I really don't think their poor performance tonight was a departure from the norm.
Super Hooper
Ted Fahey (11)
In physicality they are far superior and have a lot of depth, all big men
Joe Blow
John Hipwell (52)
Maybe we were watching a different game? They targeted him with the highball and he struggled a little here. Otherwise I thought he was solid and showed promise. I would guess that we will see him again next week behind a slightly beefed up pack.
molman
John Thornett (49)
Maybe. But it's part of the game so I'm not sure why you would remove one of your options as a team. We've seen the era of the Wallabies playing a low kicking game and trying to run everything when Cheika was coach.
The catepillar rucks have really skewed the effectiveness of the box kicks so much that there's just too much upside these days.
Backintheolddays
Johnnie Wallace (23)
Really surprised at the Lynagh criticism. Personally was pleasantly surprised.
Needed more out of the engine room and frankly anyone but Potter. Backline is better than they’ve shown.
Needed more out of the engine room and frankly anyone but Potter. Backline is better than they’ve shown.
Super Hooper
Ted Fahey (11)
I like this 23. Maybe LSL (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto) could be an option too