• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Wobblies v pumas - is Salta at altitude edition

Status
Not open for further replies.

Slim 293

Phil Waugh (73)
Paenga Amosa


Nah, his lineout throwing wasn't very good for the Reds towards the end of the season, and as barbarian mentioned - Fainga'a's throwing wasn't the problem last weekend.

I think a different caller might help, but there seems to be a deeper issue as we had good lineout guys there in 2015 and 2016 and it still wasn't very good.
 

Jerry West

Sydney Middleton (9)
I'm starting to think you don't actually watch rugby mate.

I still don't get why we are banging on about 10/12.

Did anyone see the forwards last match? the players that actually lost the game for us? Why isn't anyone calling for Coleman's head? His lineout has been the Wallabies worst for years (and we've had some shockers).

The complete lack of front foot ball, the woeful support play, woeful ruck security, woeful lineout, and woeful fucking defence. None of this has anything to do with the god damn 10.

Very valid re lineout time. Coleman’s LO calling is very much being picked off by the top tier nations and his form leading into the campaign wasn’t very good either with the Rebels. The only other person who could takeover the duties would be Simmons but his work around the field recently has been average.
 

Derpus

Jason Little (69)
Very valid re lineout time. Coleman’s LO calling is very much being picked off by the top tier nations and his form leading into the campaign wasn’t very good either with the Rebels. The only other person who could takeover the duties would be Simmons but his work around the field recently has been average.
But, Coleman and Rodda's work around the field has been pretty damn average as well.
 

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
Paenga Amosa, Simmons, Arnold, Cotrell/Hanigan

It's not like Coleman or Rodda are getting us over the gain line, or putting big defensive hits in.

Our real problem in the forwards continues to be the selection of Hooper and Pocock together. That weakens our ability to win the collisions, get over the gain line, and to win the lineout competition. Not the only problem, but the one that has most far reaching implications.

I agree, Coleman has been sub-par recently, and Rodda is probably better suited to the bench than starting. Hanigan is a waste of a spot as far as winning any collisions is concerned, and seems to be ignored in the lineout action anyway. Hooper is an embarrassment at lineout time, but continues to be used.

But none of this explains or excuses Beale's absolute inadequacy in defence. Defence is half the game, and Beale has been found wanting in that regard for the whole of his career. Add to that, he is offering nothing in attack now and his place in the team should be seriously reconsidered.

Unfortunately, the solution to our biggest problems at Wallaby level centre on Waratah players, Hooper, Hanigan, Phipps, Beale and Folau. I do not advocate a wholesale replacement with Brumbies' players as some like KOB and Derpus will allege, but really the preponderance of Tahs' players atm is holding the national team back. While I would certainly have Rory Arnold in the starting lineup for the Argentina test, the others should give way to Timu (Reds) for Hooper, Cottrell (Rebels) for Hanigan, Gordon (Tahs) for Phipps, To'omua (Rebels) for Beale, and Banks (Brumbies) for Folau.

Let the usual Tahs' suspects who are so ready to accuse others of bias try to justify the inclusion of so many Tahs' players who are out of form without demonstrating the bias they so readily accuse others of.
 

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
Very valid re lineout time. Coleman’s LO calling is very much being picked off by the top tier nations and his form leading into the campaign wasn’t very good either with the Rebels. The only other person who could takeover the duties would be Simmons but his work around the field recently has been average.

Can you explain just how the calls are being picked off by the opposition, please, when the call is transmitted to the thrower by a prop and is not made at lineout time itself? The opposition can't know the call. But to lose so many lineouts indicates there is a problem. It seems to me it must be a kind of structural problem intrinsic to the Wallabies lineout rather than the opposition hearing/knowing the calls and being able to "pick them off".
 

Derpus

Jason Little (69)
Our real problem in the forwards continues to be the selection of Hooper and Pocock together. That weakens our ability to win the collisions, get over the gain line, and to win the lineout competition. Not the only problem, but the one that has most far reaching implications.

I agree, Coleman has been sub-par recently, and Rodda is probably better suited to the bench than starting. Hanigan is a waste of a spot as far as winning any collisions is concerned, and seems to be ignored in the lineout action anyway. Hooper is an embarrassment at lineout time, but continues to be used.

But none of this explains or excuses Beale's absolute inadequacy in defence. Defence is half the game, and Beale has been found wanting in that regard for the whole of his career. Add to that, he is offering nothing in attack now and his place in the team should be seriously reconsidered.

Unfortunately, the solution to our biggest problems at Wallaby level centre on Waratah players, Hooper, Hanigan, Phipps, Beale and Folau. I do not advocate a wholesale replacement with Brumbies' players as some like KOB and Derpus will allege, but really the preponderance of Tahs' players atm is holding the national team back. While I would certainly have Rory Arnold in the starting lineup for the Argentina test, the others should give way to Timu (Reds) for Hooper, Cottrell (Rebels) for Hanigan, Gordon (Tahs) for Phipps, To'omua (Rebels) for Beale, and Banks (Brumbies) for Folau.

Let the usual Tahs' suspects who are so ready to accuse others of bias try to justify the inclusion of so many Tahs' players who are out of form without demonstrating the bias they so readily accuse others of.
Provincial bias. That's seriously all it is. Our worst performance of the season involved the least number of Tahs (2/15) and players and combinations that the Tah haters have been calling for, for years.

Beale's defence didn't lead to a try but Fainga'a's did. Hard to blame a Tah for the lineout clusterfuck when Simmons and Hanigan have had very few minutes between them all championship. Hard to blame Foley for our attack faltering when he's been benched for three straight games.

You can blame Beale for playing like shit. But almost every Tah fan pointed out that Beale is a terrible 10, always has been, and would continue to be. Lo and behold he was shite.

Edit: I'd also point out that our worst performance this year, and probably for the last few years, came without the Pooper.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
I'm not going to accuse you of bias, BR, I'm just going to accuse you of being wrong.

Our real problem in the forwards continues to be the selection of Hooper and Pocock together. That weakens our ability to win the collisions, get over the gain line, and to win the lineout competition. Not the only problem, but the one that has most far reaching implications.

This is bizarre logic. Hooper and Pocock were our best two forwards on the field on Saturday, by miles. To point to them as the problem? My god.

Hooper wins collisions just as well, if not better, than any other forward. Not to mention he actually has become a lineout option in his own right (which I will address below).

To look at Saturday's game and come away with an opinion that the problem was not in fact our tight 5 (plus our 6) is just flat out wrong.

Hanigan is a waste of a spot as far as winning any collisions is concerned, and seems to be ignored in the lineout action anyway. Hooper is an embarrassment at lineout time, but continues to be used.

I am trying to find a stat I saw during the coverage that Hanigan actually led us in lineout takes, but I'll put a pin in that until I find it.

What makes you believe that Hooper is 'an embarrassment at lineout time'? He has proven a handy option at 2, and won a few for us there on the weekend. When you jump at 2 it's about speed rather than height, and he gets up quickly. Obviously getting the ball at 2 really limits your attack, but that's not his fault.

Hooper is only used because of our shambolic lineout's inability to get Coleman or Rodda or Hanigan in any space at the back. We were being tightly marked, we had no movement on the ground, so were forced into Plan B, which was Hooper.

That's the fault of coaches and callers in the eyes of any sane rugby viewer. But you? Nah, it's all on Hooper.

Unfortunately, the solution to our biggest problems at Wallaby level centre on Waratah players, Hooper, Hanigan, Phipps, Beale and Folau.


So our problems are: our captain who was one of our best on Saturday, our reserve 6 who started his first game on Saturday, our reserve halfback who plays 10 minutes a game, plus our two backs who had great Super seasons.

It's such a bizarre way of looking at it. We were beaten right across the park on Saturday, except maybe in the scrums.

Our problems are so deep, so systemic that it's so odd to pin it on this random assortment of players.

I'm not trying to say Hanigan is a world beater, or that Beale and Folau aren't playing below their best. That's all true, but it's just one part of the whole problem here. It goes right down from the top and nobody is spared.

Nobody is really playing well. The coaches are faultering every week. The whole system is broken.

But nah, it's all Hooper hey.
.
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
Can you explain just how the calls are being picked off by the opposition, please, when the call is transmitted to the thrower by a prop and is not made at lineout time itself? The opposition can't know the call. But to lose so many lineouts indicates there is a problem. It seems to me it must be a kind of structural problem intrinsic to the Wallabies lineout rather than the opposition hearing/knowing the calls and being able to "pick them off".
You don't need to hear the call to know where the ball is going.

Hooper doesn't join many of the Wallaby lineouts. When he does, a very large percentage of the time he gets the ball.

If I can pick that up just by watching the game, our opposition has picked up 10 other "tells"

The problem with Coleman's calling is not that it's overheard, it's that he isn't assessing the opposition and adjusting to their setup.

We look good when we use movement and deception to free jumpers. Unfortunately way too often these aren't the lineouts that Coleman calls
 

Derpus

Jason Little (69)
I'm not going to accuse you of bias, BR, I'm just going to accuse you of being wrong.



This is bizarre logic. Hooper and Pocock were our best two forwards on the field on Saturday, by miles. To point to them as the problem? My god.

Hooper wins collisions just as well, if not better, than any other forward. Not to mention he actually has become a lineout option in his own right (which I will address below).

To look at Saturday's game and come away with an opinion that the problem was not in fact our tight 5 (plus our 6) is just flat out wrong.



I am trying to find a stat I saw during the coverage that Hanigan actually led us in lineout takes, but I'll put a pin in that until I find it.

What makes you believe that Hooper is 'an embarrassment at lineout time'? He has proven a handy option at 2, and won a few for us there on the weekend. When you jump at 2 it's about speed rather than height, and he gets up quickly. Obviously getting the ball at 2 really limits your attack, but that's not his fault.

Hooper is only used because of our shambolic lineout's inability to get Coleman or Rodda or Hanigan in any space at the back. We were being tightly marked, we had no movement on the ground, so were forced into Plan B, which was Hooper.

That's the fault of coaches and callers in the eyes of any sane rugby viewer. But you? Nah, it's all on Hooper.




So our problems are: our captain who was one of our best on Saturday, our reserve 6 who started his first game on Saturday, our reserve halfback who plays 10 minutes a game, plus our two backs who had great Super seasons.

It's such a bizarre way of looking at it. We were beaten right across the park on Saturday, except maybe in the scrums.

Our problems are so deep, so systemic that it's so odd to pin it on this random assortment of players.

I'm not trying to say Hanigan is a world beater, or that Beale and Folau aren't playing below their best. That's all true, but it's just one part of the whole problem here. It goes right down from the top and nobody is spared.

Nobody is really playing well. The coaches are faultering every week. The whole system is broken.

But nah, it's all Hooper hey.
.
Random assortment of Tah players
 

Slim 293

Phil Waugh (73)
Can you explain just how the calls are being picked off by the opposition, please, when the call is transmitted to the thrower by a prop and is not made at lineout time itself? The opposition can't know the call. But to lose so many lineouts indicates there is a problem. It seems to me it must be a kind of structural problem intrinsic to the Wallabies lineout rather than the opposition hearing/knowing the calls and being able to "pick them off".



To be fair, JW used the term 'calling,' meaning that Coleman is determining where the throw is going to go, so for eg. saying "alright, let's throw it to Hooper at the front" and then not adjusting the call when 2m lineout expert is lined up against him.......... and then following that up with the same call and setup.

But the actual setup, entire execution is off............ they need to bring in a consultant to sort it out because the cattle is definitely there.

Edit: strewthcobber beat me to it
 

dillyboy

Trevor Allan (34)
That's the article which has led to the past 10 or so posts. It doesn't say that To'omua is about to get benched though, it says either he or Foley will be at 10.

As for To'omua being one on the best on field, no he hasn't. His most memorable moment has been a lucky try from the Boks overthrow, behind that was being unfairly benched at the expense of Beale who was having a Barry.

Sorry - I'm away on hold in Fiji so am a bit behind on the news ....

I'll stand by my opinion that To'omua has looked solid though!

I know the article says the 10 spot is undecided it it annoys me so much that it looks like it's between To'omua & Foley & that Beale is safe - Beale's had a shocker & needs some time in NRC to sharpen up
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
I'm not going to accuse you of bias, BR, I'm just going to accuse you of being wrong.



This is bizarre logic. Hooper and Pocock were our best two forwards on the field on Saturday, by miles. To point to them as the problem? My god.

Hooper wins collisions just as well, if not better, than any other forward. Not to mention he actually has become a lineout option in his own right (which I will address below).

To look at Saturday's game and come away with an opinion that the problem was not in fact our tight 5 (plus our 6) is just flat out wrong.



I am trying to find a stat I saw during the coverage that Hanigan actually led us in lineout takes, but I'll put a pin in that until I find it.

What makes you believe that Hooper is 'an embarrassment at lineout time'? He has proven a handy option at 2, and won a few for us there on the weekend. When you jump at 2 it's about speed rather than height, and he gets up quickly. Obviously getting the ball at 2 really limits your attack, but that's not his fault.

Hooper is only used because of our shambolic lineout's inability to get Coleman or Rodda or Hanigan in any space at the back. We were being tightly marked, we had no movement on the ground, so were forced into Plan B, which was Hooper.

That's the fault of coaches and callers in the eyes of any sane rugby viewer. But you? Nah, it's all on Hooper.




So our problems are: our captain who was one of our best on Saturday, our reserve 6 who started his first game on Saturday, our reserve halfback who plays 10 minutes a game, plus our two backs who had great Super seasons.

It's such a bizarre way of looking at it. We were beaten right across the park on Saturday, except maybe in the scrums.

Our problems are so deep, so systemic that it's so odd to pin it on this random assortment of players.

I'm not trying to say Hanigan is a world beater, or that Beale and Folau aren't playing below their best. That's all true, but it's just one part of the whole problem here. It goes right down from the top and nobody is spared.

Nobody is really playing well. The coaches are faultering every week. The whole system is broken.

But nah, it's all Hooper hey.
.

Post of the season.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
But the actual setup, entire execution is off....


That's it there. We're calling to the wrong places, not moving quickly on the ground and getting picked off.

So we end up just throwing to Hooper at 2 and screwing our first phase attack completely.

The problem is twofold, that I can see - our lineout set plays are poor, and our calling is not recognising this and making the same mistakes.
.
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
I don't think they have confidence in the hookers to throw long accurately, so they don't call many out the back. This means the opposition can stay J the front and middle.

No idea why they don't do more of swapping positions and bringing in the half etc. They have the plays in the book and look good when they pull them out.

It's the vanilla/no deceptions options which are getting picked off
 

Lorenzo

Colin Windon (37)
So our problems are: our captain who was one of our best on Saturday, our reserve 6 who started his first game on Saturday, our reserve halfback who plays 10 minutes a game, plus our two backs who had great Super seasons.


Who gives a shit about their super seasons? It's well documented that players can look like studs in Super Rugby and then consistently not cut it at test level.
 

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
Who gives a shit about their super seasons? It's well documented that players can look like studs in Super Rugby and then consistently not cut it at test level.

Which can be said about pretty much all of the current setup excluding Pocock and perhaps Genia, Hooper & DHP.

EDIT: noting Slim's point below. I'm referring specifically to 'cutting it at test level' this RC, not anyone's overall test contribution. In short, pretty much every player is below par form.
 

Slim 293

Phil Waugh (73)
Who gives a shit about their super seasons? It's well documented that players can look like studs in Super Rugby and then consistently not cut it at test level.


I don't think anyone would seriously argue that the two players in question haven't "cut it" at test level............

They've both been world class at times (both have been nominated for World Rugby's player of the year), and were certainly tremendous during last years RC.
 

Lorenzo

Colin Windon (37)
Poorly worded on my part. Just saying that Super performance isn't a relevant reference point when you have recent test performances you can review.
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
But none of this explains or excuses Beale's absolute inadequacy in defence. Defence is half the game, and Beale has been found wanting in that regard for the whole of his career. Add to that, he is offering nothing in attack now and his place in the team should be seriously reconsidered.

There are some bizaar expectations but some that Beale should be beyond discussion because the forwards were pants.

Personally I don't mind accepting some defensive frailty in a 10 if the core jobs of play making and game management is good. The D can be arranged in the team structure. For what it's worth I don't think D lost us the game, we had excellent possession and position and could not take opportunity. This suggests one of the key 10 issues was nothing to do with D, but was his core duties of game management and play making.

Strangely enough and counter some of the implications of some pro Beale here, D IS an issue at 12.

In the mean time the last few games were at least in part to test a 10 - 12 of Beale - To'omua. This test has done it's job. Beale is not a good 10. Further due to his D he should not start at 12 either.

Time to consider 10 Foley 12 To'omua. Beale to the bench as impact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top