Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November
-
@NTA said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@taniwharugby said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I think the AB coaching do also make suggestions about where they want people
I thought that was also part of the post-2007 review: collective effort from the top down to ensure the ABs stay on top.
Suggestions but that’s it. It’s not diktat, and it can’t be. SR coaches get fucked around enough with camps and rests, telling them how to pick their team would be fucking ridiculous
-
@nostrildamus said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I get this idea of a double playmaker but
a. it suggests the first playmaker can't do it on his own (unlike most if not all other int. teams) and
b. is BB the only one who can be a "playmaker" at 15?
(PS I'm not trying to pick on him, just asking).We’ve been playing this way for years, under Mitch, Henry and Hansen it’s just had a couple of variations.
We used both Dagg and Ben Smith to come into the line as a playmaker. Under Henry we even used Sivivatu in this role (Fozzie used him at the Chiefs also).
Our 2nd 5s - Mauger, Lucky, Umaga, Nonu all had periods of being far more ball dominant in the way they dictated play.
Goodhue really isn’t that guy so we have Mo’unga and Barrett working in tandem.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Chris anyone remember who played 13 outside Carter? trying to get my head around how it worked, was it purely down to DC being DC
ABs:
He debuted at 12 with Tana at 13 and Spencer at 10, we smashed Wales by a thousand. We used the same combination to beat France.
We lost of England and he was in the reserves (didn't get on I don't think).Saders:
He debuted at 10 in round one 2003; I'm not sure how many times he was used at 12 with Mehrts at 10 (I remember him playing at FB for Canterbury a bit). -
I'm not sure why people think moving Beauden Barrett to first-five is the answer.
We have consistently looked poor in the backs when he has played there for us in the past -- he sometimes looks good, but the backline as a whole consistently has not fired with him.
After all, it was only the week before he looked very ordinary against Australia. How does that suddenly get overlooked, whereas Mo'unga has to take blame for a very similar outing against the Pumas?
(If you go back and start looking when the wheels started coming off the ABs, from Lions tours and losses to Ireland, it is when Barrett became a starter at #10 -- whereas Cruden never lost a game he started, and Dan Carter was Carter -- and somehow our backs could run in a couple of tries to save us. But Barrett's personal brilliance tends to overshadow how badly backs outside him seem to play.)
That's why coaches consistently play him at #15 nowadays.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I'm not sure why people think moving Beauden Barrett to first-five is the answer.
We have consistently looked poor in the backs when he has played there for us in the past -- he sometimes looks good, but the backline as a whole consistently has not fired with him.
After all, it was only the week before he looked very ordinary against Australia. How does that suddenly get overlooked, whereas Mo'unga has to take blame for a very similar outing against the Pumas?
(If you go back and start looking when the wheels started coming off the ABs, from Lions tours and losses to Ireland, it is when Barrett became a starter at #10 -- whereas Cruden never lost a game he started, and Dan Carter was Carter -- and somehow our backs could run in a couple of tries to save us. But Barrett's personal brilliance tends to overshadow how badly backs outside him seem to play.)
That's why coaches consistently play him at #15 nowadays.
The stark difference in class between the two halfbacks in those 2 games might have something to do with it.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I'm not sure why people think moving Beauden Barrett to first-five is the answer.
We have consistently looked poor in the backs when he has played there for us in the past -- he sometimes looks good, but the backline as a whole consistently has not fired with him.
After all, it was only the week before he looked very ordinary against Australia. How does that suddenly get overlooked, whereas Mo'unga has to take blame for a very similar outing against the Pumas?
(If you go back and start looking when the wheels started coming off the ABs, from Lions tours and losses to Ireland, it is when Barrett became a starter at #10 -- whereas Cruden never lost a game he started, and Dan Carter was Carter -- and somehow our backs could run in a couple of tries to save us. But Barrett's personal brilliance tends to overshadow how badly backs outside him seem to play.)
That's why coaches consistently play him at #15 nowadays.
My thoughts too. I have been saying for years, while BB is an outstanding footy player, he is not an outstanding 10.
-
@Crazy-Horse whats worse is he doesn;t see it...and just coasts a bit when put at 15...if he really gives 15 a go he'd be away
reminds me of nick evans...wanted to be a 10...even went head to head with DC to prove it...didn't win
Mils hadnt made the 15 jersey his yet...there was an opening for someone to go for it
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Chester-Draws said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I'm not sure why people think moving Beauden Barrett to first-five is the answer.
We have consistently looked poor in the backs when he has played there for us in the past -- he sometimes looks good, but the backline as a whole consistently has not fired with him.
After all, it was only the week before he looked very ordinary against Australia. How does that suddenly get overlooked, whereas Mo'unga has to take blame for a very similar outing against the Pumas?
(If you go back and start looking when the wheels started coming off the ABs, from Lions tours and losses to Ireland, it is when Barrett became a starter at #10 -- whereas Cruden never lost a game he started, and Dan Carter was Carter -- and somehow our backs could run in a couple of tries to save us. But Barrett's personal brilliance tends to overshadow how badly backs outside him seem to play.)
That's why coaches consistently play him at #15 nowadays.
My thoughts too. I have been saying for years, while BB is an outstanding footy player, he is not an outstanding 10.
Not sure I really get that logic. Apart from Carter all players have their strengths and weaknesses.
Wilkinson was an absolute gun kicker and very strong defender, but had no real passing or running game to speak of. World class and England built their team and game plan around him with great success, but he's not the kind of 10 the ABs have favoured as he'd stifle our attack.
Beauden at the other end of the spectrum doesn't have the kicking game but is a strong passer and has probably the best running game of any AB 10.
Cruden was somewhere in the middle. Good running game, amazing passing game due to his vision for putting players away, not a great kicking game. Again world class but a very different type of player.
We'd all love another Carter that can just do it all but in the meantime we have to make do with what we have and ensure our game plan compliments that.
Our biggest problems go way beyond either Beauden or RM though. Both of those players need some space to work their magic, but at the moment our plan of attack is to just spin it to them in the face of a rush defense and hope for the best. We just need to get a bit of go forward through numbers 1 - 8 before we start throwing it wide.
I actually think Beauden's ability to pull something out of his arse so regularly has papered over just how had out tactics have been. He used to do it all the time for the Canes, winning us matches despite our powder puff forwards getting smacked all over the park. He's done it for the ABs too but with less success obviously as you can't get away with dumb fuck tactics against the best players in the world.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I'm not sure why people think moving Beauden Barrett to first-five is the answer.
We have consistently looked poor in the backs when he has played there for us in the past -- he sometimes looks good, but the backline as a whole consistently has not fired with him.
After all, it was only the week before he looked very ordinary against Australia. How does that suddenly get overlooked, whereas Mo'unga has to take blame for a very similar outing against the Pumas?
(If you go back and start looking when the wheels started coming off the ABs, from Lions tours and losses to Ireland, it is when Barrett became a starter at #10 -- whereas Cruden never lost a game he started, and Dan Carter was Carter -- and somehow our backs could run in a couple of tries to save us. But Barrett's personal brilliance tends to overshadow how badly backs outside him seem to play.)
That's why coaches consistently play him at #15 nowadays.
I think Shag and co really mis-managed that little period in 2016 when Cruden was for all intents and purposes the incumbent, but Barrett was electric taking over late on in games. That should have been the plan going forward, but instead they decided to give BB the 10 shirt and give Cruden the message that he was only ever going to be a bit part player in that team.
-
@NTA said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@NTA said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
That's a crap call
Just looked at it again - it is a fucking hollywood, and still isn't a great call. AFG says "could have pulled out".
The issue that makes it look bad is Barrett coming in from the side of the kicker is the problem. Never in a position to charge down and his path was in no way going to look good from end-on.
Genuine question to a qualified ref (you are aren't you?). Is that an actual thing you look for?
I would have thought unless there was an actual charge directly on the player. If he's going for a charge down and there is incidental contact is that really a penalty.
(Nearly had another rant about Angus's first half performance ... But too little too late...)
-
@NTA said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@chimoaus said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
How did we have 55% possession. We are clearly shit with the ball we had.
You've won Test matches with less than 50%. It is a fairly meaningless stat.
That's because we score early in possession and defend well.
Having over 55% of the ball and being so comprehensively behind is a real worry.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@KiwiMurph said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
Tuipulotu really doesn't make a physical impact at test level eh?
Caught ball watching a couple of times.
Hope he comes out firing because it doesn’t look like the sort of test match that we want the young fella coming on in...
Funny enough I'm growing comfortable with the idea of the young fella. Looks the part.
Still a fanboi of Paddy and want to see him throwing his bulk around.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@No-Quarter said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@junior said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@canefan said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@junior said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@canefan said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@junior said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@westcoastie said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I missed the game on Saturday - what happened?
Was there even a game?I'm not going to read back through these posts. Its too depressing. For a long time, I felt our performance in the Lions First test was our template moving forward, now it looks more and more like an aberration. It now seems that we really can't look at in all the recent losses since the BIL & Chicago in isolation, because a pattern has formed, and we really have come back to the pack - which is great for World Rugby, shit for us.
Foster has to go.
RM is not the next Dan Carter, in fact, I think its probably been shown that BB is better behind a poor pack. RM has and does go missing when its not working in front of him. We have some issues, not just RM, but right through the whole team & culture. Time for change.
I hope Razor can fix them.RM is a big time downhill skier and he's shown that quite amply over the past couple of months. No ability or even willingness to try and impact the game when it's not being served up on a platter. I also wonder if he has a good enough kicking game to be steering this team around the park. This team is going to get beaten upfront fairly regularly it seems, so we need a 10 who can actually kick a ball in a way that's going to relieve pressure. I don't see that he has this ability.
He is one of many issues. After the Summer of rugby we've had from Henry and Hansen, this Winter is going to be cold and gloomy
Agreed, and I'm not saying that he is solely to blame for where the team currently sits. I'm just saying, with where this team is currently at, he might not actually be the best guy to be steering them around the park (and he's not even steering them to be accurate).
BB runs hot and cold too, not helped by being played at 15 by the Blues and ABs. Legitimate question, who would you pick?
I would pick BB there, TBH. I know he has his issues, but he is the best available option. He is probably our best player and so needs the ball in his hands more. He has a somewhat proven combination with A Smith. Also, he's clearly one of the leaders and decision-makers - he therefore needs to be in a position to effect these decisions. At the moment, I'm not sure we are getting that from RM.
There were a few moments late in the game where Beauden slotted himself at first receiver and Mo'unga was pushed out one. It didn't look particularly planned to me, more like a senior player trying to take control of the game. I've said it before but I absolutely do not believe Beauden is happy being shifted to 15 to accommodate an unproven rookie who keeps going missing when the going gets tough.
that doesn't sound good to me...throws out everyone outside him, RM basically becomes a 12...are we happy with him at 12?
@nostrildamus said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I get this idea of a double playmaker but
a. it suggests the first playmaker can't do it on his own (unlike most if not all other int. teams) and
b. is BB the only one who can be a "playmaker" at 15?
(PS I'm not trying to pick on him, just asking).i get the idea of a double play maker when theyre going different ways for example, midfield scrum..."which way will they go?"...or defensive, you need multiple kicking options....not when the 15 just slots in at 10 because he want a go
What the? Did you stop watching the ABs when Fox retired? They've been doing this for decades, when it really took hold was with Carter and giving him a chance to work his magic wider out in more space. It's extremely common in their plays and I'm left scratching my head you think it's something new and is BB throwing his toys.
-
@No-Quarter said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Crazy-Horse said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Chester-Draws said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I'm not sure why people think moving Beauden Barrett to first-five is the answer.
We have consistently looked poor in the backs when he has played there for us in the past -- he sometimes looks good, but the backline as a whole consistently has not fired with him.
After all, it was only the week before he looked very ordinary against Australia. How does that suddenly get overlooked, whereas Mo'unga has to take blame for a very similar outing against the Pumas?
(If you go back and start looking when the wheels started coming off the ABs, from Lions tours and losses to Ireland, it is when Barrett became a starter at #10 -- whereas Cruden never lost a game he started, and Dan Carter was Carter -- and somehow our backs could run in a couple of tries to save us. But Barrett's personal brilliance tends to overshadow how badly backs outside him seem to play.)
That's why coaches consistently play him at #15 nowadays.
My thoughts too. I have been saying for years, while BB is an outstanding footy player, he is not an outstanding 10.
Beauden at the other end of the spectrum doesn't have the kicking game but is a strong passer and has probably the best running game of any AB 10.
Agree with much if your post but not with your assessment on BB. Outstanding running game (as long as he has his pace - he doesn'tappear to have a 'step') but I wouldn't say he has a strong passing game. He does not create space and time naturally for those outside. A few of us on here were worried about him when his pace deteriated. Are we seeing that this season?
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@No-Quarter said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Crazy-Horse said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Chester-Draws said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I'm not sure why people think moving Beauden Barrett to first-five is the answer.
We have consistently looked poor in the backs when he has played there for us in the past -- he sometimes looks good, but the backline as a whole consistently has not fired with him.
After all, it was only the week before he looked very ordinary against Australia. How does that suddenly get overlooked, whereas Mo'unga has to take blame for a very similar outing against the Pumas?
(If you go back and start looking when the wheels started coming off the ABs, from Lions tours and losses to Ireland, it is when Barrett became a starter at #10 -- whereas Cruden never lost a game he started, and Dan Carter was Carter -- and somehow our backs could run in a couple of tries to save us. But Barrett's personal brilliance tends to overshadow how badly backs outside him seem to play.)
That's why coaches consistently play him at #15 nowadays.
My thoughts too. I have been saying for years, while BB is an outstanding footy player, he is not an outstanding 10.
Beauden at the other end of the spectrum doesn't have the kicking game but is a strong passer and has probably the best running game of any AB 10.
Agree with much if your post but not with your assessment on BB. Outstanding running game (as long as he has his pace - he doesn'tappear to have a 'step') but I wouldn't say he has a strong passing game. He does not create space and time naturally for those outside. A few of us on here were worried about him when his pace deteriated. Are we seeing that this season?
He still made breaks from 15. BB has freakish timing
-
@canefan true, but you don't think something is slightly lacking with him this year?
-
@Chester-Draws said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I'm not sure why people think moving Beauden Barrett to first-five is the answer.
We have consistently looked poor in the backs when he has played there for us in the past -- he sometimes looks good, but the backline as a whole consistently has not fired with him.
After all, it was only the week before he looked very ordinary against Australia. How does that suddenly get overlooked, whereas Mo'unga has to take blame for a very similar outing against the Pumas?
(If you go back and start looking when the wheels started coming off the ABs, from Lions tours and losses to Ireland, it is when Barrett became a starter at #10 -- whereas Cruden never lost a game he started, and Dan Carter was Carter -- and somehow our backs could run in a couple of tries to save us. But Barrett's personal brilliance tends to overshadow how badly backs outside him seem to play.)
That's why coaches consistently play him at #15 nowadays.
When has the backline functioned better when RM has been on the field? When we went out in the RWC semi-final? This entire season?
This isn't an issue with the 10s we have, it's an issue with the structure and tactics that we use. FFS Aus beat us with farking Hodge at 10. Hodge! You reckon that's because he's such a gun 10 or maybe because the coach and the team as a whole have their shit together?
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@No-Quarter said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Crazy-Horse said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Chester-Draws said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I'm not sure why people think moving Beauden Barrett to first-five is the answer.
We have consistently looked poor in the backs when he has played there for us in the past -- he sometimes looks good, but the backline as a whole consistently has not fired with him.
After all, it was only the week before he looked very ordinary against Australia. How does that suddenly get overlooked, whereas Mo'unga has to take blame for a very similar outing against the Pumas?
(If you go back and start looking when the wheels started coming off the ABs, from Lions tours and losses to Ireland, it is when Barrett became a starter at #10 -- whereas Cruden never lost a game he started, and Dan Carter was Carter -- and somehow our backs could run in a couple of tries to save us. But Barrett's personal brilliance tends to overshadow how badly backs outside him seem to play.)
That's why coaches consistently play him at #15 nowadays.
My thoughts too. I have been saying for years, while BB is an outstanding footy player, he is not an outstanding 10.
Beauden at the other end of the spectrum doesn't have the kicking game but is a strong passer and has probably the best running game of any AB 10.
Agree with much if your post but not with your assessment on BB. Outstanding running game (as long as he has his pace - he doesn'tappear to have a 'step') but I wouldn't say he has a strong passing game. He does not create space and time naturally for those outside. A few of us on here were worried about him when his pace deteriated. Are we seeing that this season?
He has an excellent pass off both sides. Don't believe every Mark Reason article you read.
