Pumas vs Australia
-
Three tries in 10 minutes - different game now.
-
Some weird footy this morning
-
Somehow Australis have clawed their way back to just being three points behind. That might just stymie my plans for the 2023 World Cup. I had not long penciled in my booking to stay at my mates family home in Rorotonga in expectation of ticking off one of the things on my bucket list ie to attend Australia's away World Cup qualifying match against the Cook Islands.
-
YC for Latu.
4 mins ...
-
Aussies were good value for the win. When they played sensibly, they carved the Argies up. The second half showed they are still very good with ball in hand. In the first half, they handed the Argies a few tries. Then they did short kicks which went too far and Argentina just kicked behind them. Those were the wrong tactics for altitude. When they got the tactics sorted out, Australia were too strong.
I look at the stats and don't see evidence that Argentina collapsed. Their set piece was good, they didn't make a tonne of errors and Australia conceded far more penalties. Argentina did miss tackles in the second half but that was because the Aussies ran it more. This was more of a great comeback than a serious implosion, although being 24 points up should be enough to overcome a great comeback regardless of the circumstances.
-
@nta said in Pumas vs Australia:
@crucial said in Pumas vs Australia:
How does he get the team to iron out their issues when he blatantly puts blame on others all the time?
Better to ask the question: "How the fuck do people like Folau earn hundreds of thousands a year when they can't even draw and pass to U16 level?"
Eh? That's been a feature, not a bug for more than a decade! ... an inevitable result of the practice of squiring talented young players through juniors, blowing wind in their ears every step of the way until they are fully groomed to believe they are truly special, when they are in fact demonstrably incompetent.
It is easy for backs to reach the end of the production line incapable of tackling when club and representative coaches have had their team shovel the ball to the tallest, fastest, strongest runner for game after game to deliver the win for them and be feted with the try scoring record year after year. The boy's entire focus is getting his hands on the ball to win the applause. His place in defence is usually covered by a couple of nuggety little blokes who are especially good at tackling, having discovered early in the piece that it can be done without hurting yourself and that it brings a lot of satisfaction.
Some of the good runners eventually learn how to pass the ball surely, how to change direction and speed, and even how to tackle, while serving their time under wiser masters all around them in club rugby.
The Wallabies were spoilt for choice at first five from the early '60s to 2007 with Hawthorne, Ballesty, Rosenblum, Fairfax, McLean, Wright, Melrose, Hawker, Ella, Knox, Lynagh and Larkham - every one of them exceptional. For the younger readers here each one was the equal of Stephen Larkham or better.
After Larkham we had a couple of barely adequate, pedestrian players in Flatley, Manny Edmonds and Kafer as we teetered into the decade long black hole at first five from which we have not yet emerged.
John O'Neill and others believed we could buy our way out of it by throwing lots of money at young prodigies as described in my first paragraph - upright runners who need not go to club rugby finishing school. We had four in a row - Giteau, who still holds the record for cross field metres run (and chucked a tanty when the evil Deans failed to recognise his captaincy credentials), and the three idiots who at one stage soaked up well over two million dollars per year between them for a return of no value. Could not tackle - did not know how to tackle; could not draw and pass, pass accurately all the time or pass early to a player in a better position; could not kick effectively or reliably - grubber, over the top or "to the seagulls". The fact that all three were drongos off the field, costing the ARU plenty, was an added buyer funded extra.
None of these blokes was fit for purpose - most of them had to be evacuated from the midfield on defence, and unlike Larkham and Lynagh they didn't wear the same number game after game, thus denying their team mates a chance to develop familiar combinations - which probably didn't matter in the wash because they more often than not ran away from their support rather than to it.
That set the standard for the likes of Folau's agent to follow and the ARU keeps paying up. He has innate talent across <i>some</i> of the skills required of his position but I don't think they sought a discount for the times when his mind goes walkabout and he loses interest.
Incidentally - there is a fan expectation that Michael Cheika will have fixed some of the problems in just four years, problems which have had fifteen years to set in stone. He has brought 35 new players into the Wallabies in his time, from the same nursery disorder I have outlined and none of them is fully prepared. The expectation is simply, objectively unrealistic.
-
-
Just watched it and Aussie backs (including that back wearing no.7) running good lines and support in the second half.
Good comeback by Aussie after looking hopeless in the first 40.
Gotta say that the Argies defensive pressure was passive at best.
-
@virgil said in Pumas vs Australia:
@nta said in Pumas vs Australia:
Well, fuck. Wasn't expecting that.
Cheika goes mental and they finally show something.
Surely it cant be the first time hes gone mental in a dressing room.
Just for once it worked.Probably not. But of what I have seen of their play this year, it was the absolute of rock bottom (touch wood), and warranted a spray.
.
