Wallaby EOYT 2016
-
@Crucial said in Wallaby EOYT 2016:
You only have to go down to a local club ground to see massive differences between the way rugby at those levels is played between NZ/Oz and U.K. A SH influence must certainly be coming in somewhere along the pathway, whether from coaches, imported players, or even trainers.
The obvious explanation for England's improvement is Eddie Jones. He may be a bit of a cock, but he does know how to get results as he has shown before. Without Jones England would probably still be as flaky and unsure of how they want to play as they were before him.There aren't a lot (if any) SH coaches coaching in the academies or England age groups. Eddie Jones has been great and has made a big impact (we're agreeing on this), but England are better than 5 or 10 years ago primarily because they are producing better players. Despite fluking a WC final in 07, we went a long time without bringing any players through who were even approaching world class. Eddie's not a miracle worker, as he's shown in the past when the wheels have fallen off some of his coaching gigs.
-
@Crucial said in Wallaby EOYT 2016:
Ignoring the poaching beat ups you do have to consider though about the resurgance in the NH recently being highly influenced by SH "imports".
Jones, Schmidt, Gatland, Lam, a plane load of players not only at a qualifying level but at club levels changing ideas of skills and tactics etc etc
It's certainly difficult to argue that this is some kind of home grown thing going on.Indeed.
NZ rugby was influenced by the Welsh in the 70s and French in the 80s/90s and I read how NZ coaches would go back to NZ with new ideas all the time as well as getting ideas from other sports. -
The risk with Eddie is that he outstays his welcome and once the novelty wears off the players will stop listening. He has a history of getting on the wrong side of things after a while.
He needs to lock in his probable squad for 2019 and have their buy in for the period (which he seems to be doing) -
@profitius different people thrive in different environments.
It'd be pretty naïve to think that NZ simply rests on its own success and only look internally, similarly other nations have used NZs success for ideas.
There was a piece about the new England soccer coach looking at the AB way as well, and I know the AB coaches have spent time with coaches from other sports as well, sure a lot seem to come to them, but I expect the learnings go both ways even then.
All about striving to become better.
-
TBF I think Eddie is treating this whole thing as an amusing late career bonus, that probably wasn't on the cards until that Japan/SA win and England's WC implosion.
You'd like to think there is some decent succession planning in place. Probably best not to look too far ahead or obsess about the squad for 2019 as this was something Lancaster probably became too focused on (for 2015). Just concentrate on the next series/tournament and moving players along when required. Right down to the 6N in a few months. No point talking too much about the Ireland game, as you'll just end up stumbling at one of the earlier hurdles.
-
@taniwharugby said in Wallaby EOYT 2016:
@NTA you would have to think there are some mental blocks in this team at present though?
Despite being competitive for large patches in most of the games, they still lost a shit load.
The intercept try probably makes England look better than they were BUT that is what's on the scoreboard - 16 point victory is a thrashing when its England.
I actually take heart from the number of bombed chances we had against Ireland, because while the mental stuff is harder to train than the physical stuff, once its switched on its easier to maintain IMHO.
Cheika has said that the SR franchises now need to get on board, and while some of them will continue to do things their own way, the signs for 2017 are better than this season, even if that isn't necessarily put onto the park.
The Reds and Tahs, in particular, look in better shape for 2017 than they were this year. That has taken away from the Brumbies a little of course, but they've got King-In-Waiting Larkham at the helm and he'll be better for the experience of Wallaby assistant coach.
The Force have decided to move to a fan-ownership model, which has sparked some real interested in Perth. I maintain they have the most challenging task of any Super side in terms of travel, but they now have a few Wallabies of their own to help things turn around, as well as a new coach who might get them into the groove.
The Rebels also have a few blokes who have now worn gold, and will aspire to shoot it out with their northern brothers for a finals place.
The talent is still spread very thin, particularly in the coaching stocks, but 2017 should see a better effort across Australian rugby.
-
It's basic skill errors that absolutely kill the Wallabies. They do create a lot of half to decent chances, but blow so many of them with shit passes, or players being too flat, or just straight drops. There isn't all that much Cheika can do about that, that's not really his remit as national coach.
However the lack of organisation is down to him. They run out of ideas after a few phases very very quickly. On the weekend, when England were making their tackles, they didn't know what the fuck to do, they just shuffled the ball around. The halfbacks arrived at the ruck, then had to look where to go next, and who might be ready. While they retained the ball, the lost ground, and they weren't forcing the English to make decisions, just run forward and whack someone. Their forwards couldn't bend the line either, so every ball was slow. Folau breaking the tackle relieved so much pressure, and led to the try.
The period after Kepu's try was really really one-sided rugby even with out Pocock's abysmal decision.
-
@mariner4life said in Wallaby EOYT 2016:
There isn't all that much Cheika can do about that, that's not really his remit as national coach.
Fuck you wouldn't know that listening to some of the Queenslanders. They just think everything is NSW's fault since Link got booted.
As for the indecision: I wonder if part of that isn't down to a lack of a second organiser, and Hodge's inexperience.
Everyone on that tour is still better for it. If we get a bit of alignment in the professional ranks, and some more talent identified through the NRC, the provinces can improve.
The problem is overseas drain. We've got a few dozen blokes who could still play Super Rugby, but can't afford them.
-
@NTA there are some gaping holes in that side, and none are quick fixes, and there are too many for the Aussies to ever be a dominant side again. So expectations need to be tempered i think. The 97-2002 days are more than likely never coming back.
The myth of the Australian Way probably needs to be put to bed as well. What Cheika needs to work on is getting the best out of the resources available. I'm not smart enough to work out what that is, given the lack of dominant tight players, or genuine game breakers in the backs, or tactical halves. But he's got to come up with a plan that wins games against good teams, not just competes with average ones.
I honestly don't know what to make of them, at times they look right in the mix, then in the same game they can look massively substandard. The last 2 weeks they've lost, and in each game they've looked great and shit. Against Scotland they won, but again looked awful for a heap of the game, but finished all over them. France was close as well. It's hard to tell whether you guys should be optimistic or not really.
-
@akan004 said in Wallaby EOYT 2016:
@ACT-Crusader said in Wallaby EOYT 2016:
@akan004 said in Wallaby EOYT 2016:
@mariner4life Yeah, sure is. I counted five players with Kiwi connections in this English squad. Hughes, Teo, Marko Vunipola, Hartley and Harrison. Billy Vunipola is born in Brisbane. Quality poaching from the hypocrites of world rugby.
Are you trying to be funny?
You clearly weren't around in the 90s when every English hack was throwing accusations at NZ for poaching PI players etc when most of them knew the makeup of NZ society. Just think it's a bit ironic nowadays as you don't hear a sound from them.
I was around in the 90s. Had a pretty mean flat top that put 2-3 inches on my height.
The England rugby selectors pick foreign born players. Big deal, who cares, nothing to see there. Why are they hypocrites?
Sure some of the media and commentators based in England liked to point out what the All Blacks were doing and criticised it. Who cares, nothing new there. But what is the link between their articles and England selection? Zilch, nada, donut.
-
@ACT-Crusader i had a sick undercut. Then this parted, off-to-the-side thing (cause i wanted to be a pretty boy. and failed). And i can honestly say i have no idea what overseas media said. I was too busy sinking piss and trying to tune chicks. One far more successfully than the other.
On the other hand, poaching poachy poachers. Sick-en-ing.
-
M4L - Interesting about your point on the 'Australian Way'.
I think one thing that hasn't been acknowledged is how good this Aussie team is to watch. The darkest days of the Deans regime were characterised by a complete inability to score tries, and a complete absence of attacking nous. Games would descend into dull kicking battles and best case we'd win 13-12. I think it was 2012 in which we averaged less than one try a test.
Like he did at the Tahs, Cheika has this team playing an expansive, ball-in-hand game that produces tries 2-5 times a game.
There's only been one genuinely dull Wallabies match this year - against the Boks in SA (maybe two if you include the Bled flogging). Normally we'd have five or six every year, vile games where you'd tell your mates not to watch if they haven't seen it.
It doesn't make the win/loss thing any more palatable, but it's one thing I think needs to be acknowledged. The Wallabies are genuinely a good team to watch.
-
@barbarian dangerous territory there mate. The ABs were still pretty good to watch, scoring decent points, even during the darker parts of years 98-02...
-
@barbarian the best teams do more than chuck it around. It won't win you many games. Look at the weekend, i am sure the passing and ruck stats were way up, but they were trying to score from their own 20m line, and going no where.
There is this thing in the community of Aus rugby that the great Wallaby teams played with freedom, and ran the ball from everywhere, and that's what's needed to make Aus rugby great again. It's half true, but field position is just as important as possession.
The kicking game needs massive improvement, the tactical side needs a big look at, and how you move the ball needs to be improved as well.
-
I don't disagree with any of that.
What I am saying is I think the public opposition would be much louder if our style wasn't so attractive. If we were playing dry, conservative rugby and still losing.
Not saying that losing is acceptable, or we should be running it from everywhere. But I remember the Knuckles Connolly era at the Wallabies, I remember the Chris Hickey/Michael Foley years at the Waratahs. Style matters to the Australian rugby public. The fact that they are playing something close to the ideal 'Australian way' has prevented plenty of issues with the wider Aussie public IMO.
-
@barbarian fair comment. And in all reality, probably helpful? Easing the pressure through means other than wins allows the ARU to see if Cheika can find the answers, and not have to sack him because of some deplorable results.
-
@mariner4life I'd say it's very helpful. The Ireland loss was a prime example. A great game of rugby, few tries for the nightly news highlight reel, and as a rugby fan a general feeling you hadn't wasted 80 minutes of your life.
In a rugby sense the loss was no better than losing 9-6. Errors were made, opportunities squandered. But we all feel a little bit better about things if it's 27-24.
-
@mariner4life said in Wallaby EOYT 2016:
@NTA there are some gaping holes in that side, and none are quick fixes, and there are too many for the Aussies to ever be a dominant side again. So expectations need to be tempered i think. The 97-2002 days are more than likely never coming back.
The myth of the Australian Way probably needs to be put to bed as well. What Cheika needs to work on is getting the best out of the resources available. I'm not smart enough to work out what that is, given the lack of dominant tight players, or genuine game breakers in the backs, or tactical halves. But he's got to come up with a plan that wins games against good teams, not just competes with average ones.
I honestly don't know what to make of them, at times they look right in the mix, then in the same game they can look massively substandard. The last 2 weeks they've lost, and in each game they've looked great and shit. Against Scotland they won, but again looked awful for a heap of the game, but finished all over them. France was close as well. It's hard to tell whether you guys should be optimistic or not really.
I think it's toughest for Aus guys around my age (37). Those guys would have first become aware of the Wallabies around 1984 (Grand Slam) or 1986 (awesome series win in NZ). They then had the RWC in 1991 and were unquestionably the premier team in rugby for a further 4 years. Then you had the 99 RWC, Lions, 6 years of Bledisloes etc. In other words you had a down period of only a couple of years followed by an amazing purple patch when they were the best in the world. But that cycle hasn't repeated itself for an age now and may never again. That has to be a bitter pill to swallow.
Returning to Brisbane after 12 years away I've been absolutely shocked by how rugby has declined in this country. When I left league was still wounded from Super League, the Wallabies were flying high and some of the best league players were even defecting to union. I lividly remember Arthur Beetson talking about traditional league areas going to union. Yet some how league is probably bigger than ever and union is getting arse raped by farking Wendyball. What the hell happened?
-
The bandwagoneers who jumped in their early 20s around 98-99 were probably the bigger issue. Hadn't been paying attention until we were successful, and that meant they were the first to leave when things went sour.
People tell us to fuck off when we talk about the challenges of league and AFL, but really you can't understand that until you've seen it in action.
Part of the problem is the grassroots game. I'm now President of a 10-year-old club in Western Sydney for Suburban Rugby - park footy. Strictly amateur, Saturday afternoon fun for 3 grades in our Division, and more grades + Colts in the higher divisions. I've been there since it was two grades, and there are some amazing highs and lows I could tell you about over a beer some time.
Beyond the fact that over half my players are blue collar, and work shifts (therefore can't make training) or weekends (therefore can't make some away games across town), we just don't have the clout to get a decent ground from Council. We take what we're given, and that means sharing with other sports, no facilities on our oval, a concrete cricket pitch on one side, and a shipping container to store our gear.
I met with council this morning who have generously put a demountable unit at one end of the field with power hooked up. Its more than we've ever had as a club!
Union is hardly getting "raped" by Wendyball at a professional level - crowd numbers are decent in the A-League, but their TV numbers aren't that hot. They put on a good show and have an international game to leverage, so like a frillneck lizard, look bigger than they are.
Their amateur game though is very competitive when we're talking local Council facilities. They're fielding dozens of junior and senior teams, and they're charging them upwards of $350 for player fees. They turn a profit, outfit the canteens, and Council let them "own" the facility in return for improving it.
In rugby a lot of blokes know clubs are desperate so skip out on paying.
Because league pays players, even at shitty 4th tier, recruiting players is hard. Last year we registered 131 players for three grades, and only 20% of them put in any kind of money. Only about a dozen paid in full, and its only $220! Most rugby clubs start at $250 and go up from there.
To put each grade on the field - just in entry fees and insurance - will be about $2500. But on top of that is the ARU "Participation Fee" which is $775 per grade this year, and $1000 next year. The club is looking at over $10K just to put our desired teams on the park, excluding any equipment costs, player kit, or sundries like annual club affiliation fees.
Basically if we register 60 players (20 per grade), it'll cost us about $270 to put a player on the field. So we're taking a bath there and relying on sponsors and raffles to make up the difference.
This year we're drawing a line in he sand - if players don't want to pay, then fine. Fuck off.
Its the only way to turn it around.
