Wallabies v Lions, 19 July Suncorp

[molman]

Lolesio is probably the best "system" 10 we have, and he just has far more experience at running the show at test rugby than Lynagh has. Lynagh will probably get there, but I think we probably saw why he isn't Schmidt's first choice right now, and some of the things he needs to work on to get to test quality. He has all the skills and especially the courage.

We were also missing our usual bulk carriers out there, which won't have helped thing. Nick Frost led the carries last night. Probably not the ideal person out of all the options that could be playing

As you said just a vast amount more experience. Lynagh's had I think 3 Wallaby games I can recall, all as a substitute with probably less than a hour of gametime. Just feels a bit cruel and unfortunate that its a Lions series that we're elevating him. Not ideally where you want his learnings to occur. We really lost a generation between the Quade/JOC (James O'Connor)/Foleys and our current 10's. Lolesio was thrust into that French series all those years ago probably too soon, but at least the opposition was a little more reasonable.

In the Fiji game we were still missing Valetini, but yes players like Gleeson did help and the Fijians weren't as clinical at the breakdown as the Lions.

 

[molman]

The 10 is the general and playmaker. It is his job to call the plays, organise his forwards including the pods and direct and vary the attack. He has to be vocal and assertive and have great vision.

Yeah, not sure how that would work when the 9 is normally in front of the pods..

...but good 9's will sure tell the forwards off if they're not doing whats required. You saw Gordon get annoyed a few times last night.

 

[dru]

The 10 is the general and playmaker. It is his job to call the plays, organise his forwards including the pods and direct and vary the attack. He has to be vocal and assertive and have great vision.

The "plays" are not synonomous with the phases.

 

[Running_rugby_1954]

Yeah, not sure how that would work when the 9 is normally in front of the pods..

...but good 9's will sure tell the forwards off if they're not doing whats required. You saw Gordon get annoyed a few times last night.

Scrum-halves rarely assume primary playmaking responsibilities - they typically lack the field vision to manage attacking shape beyond basic distribution. The fly-half is the central decision-maker, structuring pod alignment and tempo. However, the shift to width is rarely initiated independently by the 10 - it usually hinges on an outside-in call from a wider channel. In that structure, the 10 holds the pod shape and tempo centrally, awaiting a trigger from the edge to move the ball across the face. It’s not one persons job- it’s everyones.

 

[Tomthumb]

I may be in the minority but I wasn’t too impressed with the way the Wallabies acted after the game. All the hugs and kisses with the Lions players seemed pretty premature considering there are still 2 test in the series to go. Save that for when the series ends

 

[Joe Blow]

Pretty instructive phase at16:11 on the match clock. Wallabies go 12 phases, getting nowhere, and then turn it over.

Lynagh is so deep and so narrow for the whole period, except for maybe one phase, and the pods aren't operating well at all, they are also way too deep - a pretty poor period for the Wallabies - but then most of the first half looked like this. I could have shown pretty much any of the 12 rucks - they all look similar.


View attachment 22766View attachment 22767View attachment 22768

That’s where we needed Valetini/Skelton and the likes of Bell to just carry and get us over the advantage line. We did not have those options. Wilson was the only one who was carrying effectively, at times. He was easily picked off as they knew he was coming.

 

[stillmissit]

That’s where we needed Valetini/Skelton and the likes of Bell to just carry and get us over the advantage line. We did not have those options. Wilson was the only one who was carrying effectively, at times. He was easily picked off as they knew he was coming.

I thought Williams was a bit out of his depth. He is best in a fast open game where his speed and footwork add to team. He was shut down like a paper bag. We need Skelton and Bobby V and start with bell to get some go AD LINE advantage. If these 3 are going OK keep them out there, the 60 mins all change is normally a problem for us.
Still think our alignment and D are poor. I thought their rush D was a major factor in not getting JAS into the game. I suggest 'Lord Laurie' has this area all arse about face.

 

[Yoda]

Apart from Valetini, I think Joe will name an unchanged lineup and back his troops to improve. No panic stations. Aside of Lynagh being targeted and not firing the backline he is backed by his coach and won't switch him after one Test. Less kicking and making post contact metres in the collision's is what we need to do.

 

[Joe Blow]

I think there will be a few more. If you bring in Skelton, when do you use him if not the week after getting bullied up front? There also appears to be an opportunity to dominate at scrum time. A tweak or two will make this more likely.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Only valid criticism of Lynagh was his kicking and he’s not the only one guilty of that last night. Did well at distributing the ball, considering he and Gordon were clearly out of sync. I do like having Tate come off the bench , but I just can’t see Gordon retaining his spot. Service was often slow and had far too many passes to people who clearly weren’t supposed to be getting the ball.

It doesn’t help when the forwards didn’t establish a platform until the second half when Tom Wright also decided it was time to have a crack.

Pretty happy with the Wallabies second half, might have been a bit closer to clawing back an unlikely upset if BOK dished out what was three clear yellow cards.

I was also very critical with his work under the high ball, and I daresay with good reason. Otherwise agree with your other comments.

 

[BDA]

I think there will be a few more. If you bring in Skelton, when do you use him if not the week after getting bullied up front? There also appears to be an opportunity to dominate at scrum time. A tweak or two will make this more likely.

Did we get bullied up front? Seems like a some of you watched a different game to me...we did lack a bit of punch with ball in hand (we kind of anticipated that would be an issue without Valetini or gleeson available), but otherwise i thought our pack was pretty competitive, even getting the edge in the scrum. I dont think we lost because we were outmuscled. Lions were just more clinical in the first half and importantly, took their chances when they were there. Id be bringing Valetini into the starting side, and id be ok with skelton on the bench. Otherwise i think we'll see the same team run out. Wouldnt hate bell in the starting side also although slipper / AAA seem to have a good combination at scrum time

 

[Joe Blow]

We absolutely came off second best in the collision area and because of it the Lions backs had time and space. Ours had none. We were continually stopped behind the gain line and they most often got across it at will. If we do not fix that then no backline we pick will be in the game

 

[Brumby Runner]

Much the same team, much the same result I'd anticipate. Saving grace would be that world rating points aren't at risk and if we do lose in Melbourne maybe Joe will accept the reality and look for some improvements in the team make-up and importantly the game plan and defensive systems before we face the RC matches.

 

[Tomthumb]

I think the biggest reason we lost the collisions was the passive defensive system that allowed the Lions ball carriers time and space to create momentum. In contrast they flew up and met our Barr carriers flat footed

 

[Backintheolddays]

Did we get bullied up front? Seems like a some of you watched a different game to me...we did lack a bit of punch with ball in hand (we kind of anticipated that would be an issue without Valetini or gleeson available), but otherwise i thought our pack was pretty competitive, even getting the edge in the scrum. I dont think we lost because we were outmuscled. Lions were just more clinical in the first half and importantly, took their chances when they were there. Id be bringing Valetini into the starting side, and id be ok with skelton on the bench. Otherwise i think we'll see the same team run out. Wouldnt hate bell in the starting side also although slipper / AAA seem to have a good combination at scrum time

Scrum won, open play offensive and defensive effort got smashed

 

[Backintheolddays]

Two provincial teams that looked best against Lions has swarming aggressive defence

 

[TSR]

It really is an issue. Fisher has such good standing in Australian rugby and has been a key in the Brumbies successful program for a long time, so it is hard to knock the guys credentials but he seems to have misfired on this one.

 

[dru]

Scrum-halves rarely assume primary playmaking responsibilities - they typically lack the field vision to manage attacking shape beyond basic distribution. The fly-half is the central decision-maker, structuring pod alignment and tempo. However, the shift to width is rarely initiated independently by the 10 - it usually hinges on an outside-in call from a wider channel. In that structure, the 10 holds the pod shape and tempo centrally, awaiting a trigger from the edge to move the ball across the face. It’s not one persons job- it’s everyones.

Mate, I'm seeing misreads on modern rugby here. The 9 driving the pods has little to do with assuming primary playmaking. The FH waits for opportunity, in part based on preset organisation and in part on what he sees. But he does not drive the pods.

 

[stillmissit]

It really is an issue. Fisher has such good standing in Australian rugby and has been a key in the Brumbies successful program for a long time, so it is hard to knock the guys credentials but he seems to have misfired on this one.

TSR, I don't think he misfired on this one, it is his standard approach to defensive work, and I've never seen him adopt any form of rush D.
If you can't adapt at this level, you have to move on. I agree he has been great for the Brumbies and the Wallabies, but the world has moved on and we haven't. The end result is that most of our plays are nullified.

 

[stillmissit]

Mate, I'm seeing misreads on modern rugby here. The 9 driving the pods has little to do with assuming primary playmaking. The FH waits for opportunity, in part based on preset organisation and in part on what he sees. But he does not drive the pods.

The poor pod play in the backs cost us a couple of critical turnovers, JAS being one.
I agree with you Dru, regarding forward play. You said, "The FH waits for opportunity," if our forward pod play was more effective and gave the FH 'lightning quick' ball, our backs may have been able to do more with it.