England to whitewash Australia
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hurricane" data-cid="588723" data-time="1466061774">
<div>
<p>He is one Australian player who would be overlooked by many other countries except for the likes of Italy.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Parisse light?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Mumm's a poor lock, he just doesn't have the impact and plays too loose. Much better suited to a loose forward.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="588727" data-time="1466062228">
<div>
<p>Parisse light?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Mumm's a poor lock, he just doesn't have the impact and plays too loose. Much better suited to a loose forward.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>He is frequently penalised as well. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Even though I try not to swear in my posts unless I am doing it to be a colourful I am starting to think the first poster (mariner) described him well enough when he said he's "a bit shit".</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hurricane" data-cid="588728" data-time="1466062483">
<div>
<p>Even though I try not to swear in my posts </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The fuck? That is some pretty bullshit there - go to town my man. Its the fucking <em>internet</em>!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>;)</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="588673" data-time="1466050933"><p>Without overgeneralising this, my experience dealing with NZ young men with Samoan heritage is that they generally do. If there is a fa'amatai or chief around they are very respectful. If there is a grandparent around they listen.<br><br>
It was interesting reading when Tana was captain and the players with Samoan heritage would go out of their way for him.</p></blockquote>
Totally off topic but this is in part one reason why I think T will quietly work his way up through the coaching ranks to be AB coach one day. -
<p>@NTA - the reason for the reticence to swear is that I am a Christian bloke - but will occassionally swear if the moment demands it. Or if I think it will be humorous.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>So I have a very tentative point I want to make and would like to request up front no flames please. If it sounds like I am smoking something then please just let me know and I will drop my point. I respect the opinion of the TSF posters so I want some feedback on the following.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have been following Australian rugby all my life. Most of the time we have better forwards than them and hence we win the game. In a lot of those years the Aussie backline has been world class; players like Nick Farr Jones, Campese, Horan, Folau, Beale, Giteau, AAC are all immensely talented.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I feel that Australian rugby victories are very much built on winning the battle up front and gaining the hard yards and then spinning it wide for the backs to do their work.</p>
<p>Now pretty much all sides subscribe to that philosophy. And definitely the All Blacks do. But should Australia?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Should the Australian team learn and practice in game tactics for when they meet a stronger pack like the ABs or the mighty England pack. Because it seems like they often meet these circumstances and don't have a plan B. Plan A is "let's win this up front boys and establish a platform" and then when that doesn't work there is no adjustment.</p>
<p>Is there any merit to Australia developing tactics for when they are being dominated up front and somehow bringing their backs more into the game as a counter measure and just clearing the base quickly to the backs?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Any responses valued.</p> -
-
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="barbarian" data-cid="588754" data-time="1466070623">
<div>
<p>The problem, hurricane, is that IMO if you are beaten in the forwards you will lose the game 80-90% of the time. It's just a basic tenet of rugby, and I don't think there is a way to get around that, even with the slickest backs imaginable.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Thanks barbarian appreciate the answer! </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="588753" data-time="1466070415">
<div>
<p>Well, that is pretty much what we do already - rely on the backs. The depth of our school and club level competitions doesn't really allow for development in the forwards because a few bigger kids in the backline will allow you to dominate.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Thanks NTA - I am very interested in stories about Aussie rugby at the development level. And in the past, and it may have been your answer, enjoyed a post an Australian member made explaining the incredible depth in the number 7 jersey in Aussie rugby vs the number 8 jersey.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>All for now - thanks again for the feedback gents :)</p> -
<p>Hurricane, from my biased vantage point, (as an AB fan), I've always believed the Wallabies to be at their best when they achieve pretty much parity in the tight 5 (Aussies have always had good as any looses I reckon), have a reliable line out and tackle like absolute madmen. The backs have always run onto the ball well and the passing generally always fine - I attribute their back skills to weather and local grass conditions.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The best Aussie teams I've seen have played at pace and tackled like machines. In the late 90's, the Eales team were a great example. he sorted line outs, the scrum was just a restart, Herbert and Horan made it impossible for us to get through and Roff, Tune etc all fed off the silky passing of George and Stephen.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>When they'd beat the ABs, and even lately, the knee-jerk reaction from us would be "bloody forwards too soft, get the blanket out to throw over them and we'll be right." Invariably the next game would be a marked improvement and commitment of the AB tight five and most times we'd win.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Oddly enough the Saffas still got done over more than they should have by the Wallabies but that was a pace of the game thing I reckon.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Sorry Hurricane I've used 20 times more words to verbosely say what Nick and Barbs said.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Upshot is that this Saturday the Aussies will be haring around all over the place, avoiding tight 5 trench exchanges, moaning at the refs when English players go down with "injuries" and going side to side like they did in the first 10 last week and like Cheika bemoaned in the aftermath that they didn't do enough.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Well I think so anyway but for sure it'll be riveting viewing for 80 mins this weekend. Good stuff England and Australia !! </p> -
<p>Found this on twitter, fantastic article which explains the attacking structure Cheika and Larkham are using:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://t.co/AvGp710V41'>https://t.co/AvGp710V41</a></p> -
<p>Murray Kinsella does a lot of excellent analysis for the42.ie</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="588760" data-time="1466075016">
<div>
<p>Murray Kinsella does a lot of excellent analysis for the42.ie</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>That publication is brilliant, best I've seen in the rugby world by far</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="588761" data-time="1466075118">
<div>
<p>That publication is brilliant, best I've seen in the rugby world by far</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yep, If he had his own show on Sky I'd actually subscribe. Really great examplke to the likes of Marshall re how to do that stuff.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="588760" data-time="1466075016"><p>Murray Kinsella does a lot of excellent analysis for the42.ie</p></blockquote>
<br>
Thanks for the tip. Interesting analysis, definitely supports the theories about why Burrell was hoiked early. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="588519" data-time="1466031896">
<div>
<p>But generally a bit shit. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="588535" data-time="1466033982">
<div>
<p>Mumm has the disease a lot of our locks have: stupid fucking penalties. Particularly at lineout or in the subsequent drive.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Have to say I've not seen that much of him in/for Aus, partly because he doesn't get much test time and Super Rugby is on too early for someone like me that isn't invested in it. Saw a good bit of him playing for Exeter and neither of your points seemed to apply. He's very well thought of down here. But then we do also eat our own children.</p> -
England squad for 2nd Test:<br>
M Brown (Harlequins); A Watson (Bath), J Joseph (Bath), O Farrell (Saracens), J Nowell (Exeter); G Ford (Bath), B Youngs (Leicester); M Vunipola (Saracens), D Hartley (capt. Northampton), D Cole (Leicester); M Itoje (Saracens), G Kruis (Saracens); C Robshaw (Harlequins), B Vunipola (Saracens), J Haskell (Wasps). Replacements: J George (Saracens), M Mullan (Wasps), P Hill (Northampton), J Launchbury (Wasps), C Lawes (Northampton), J Clifford (Harlequins), D Care (Harlequins), E Daly (Wasps). <br><br>
Marginally better team than last week. Nowell has the edge on Yarde, for me. Farrell for Burrell was no-brainer after the success of the tactical subbing last week. Pleased to see Daly on the bench, but he was the obvious choice with only 2 backs - hope he gets a run out and shows what he's capable of. Another big performance coming from Haskell, I think, but Brown needs to pull his finger out. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="588897" data-time="1466130540">
<div>
<p>England paying $2.10.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Not quite as enticing when you cashed in on $2.34 last week </p>
<p> </p>
<p>You can get Aussie at $2.00 for the first half if you shop around. That's what I'm on. Always like betting against the NH teams after a "statement win" - too busy patting themselves on the back after a good performance. Aussie also consistently a really good team out of the blocks and have been for almost a decade.</p> -
<p>Yeah still kind of surprising though. Would have thought they'd pull in closer to $2.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Definitely the scoreline flattered England a touch with that try at the end, and another coming off a pair of fuckups. But they played pretty well in the style they know, as well as adding a little bit of attack.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Home game I suppose, plus the bookies thinking the Wallabies will be better for the game time together.</p> -
<p>Bench finalised for Wallabies. Full XXIII is now:</p>
<p> </p>
<div>1 Slipper</div>
<div>2 Moore (skipper)</div>
<div>3 Kepu</div>
<div>4 Carter</div>
<div>5 Arnold</div>
<div>6 Fardy</div>
<div>7 Hooper</div>
<div>8 McMahon</div>
<div>9 Phipps</div>
<div>10 Foley</div>
<div>11 Horne</div>
<div>12 Kerevi</div>
<div>13 Kuridrani</div>
<div>14 Haylett-Petty</div>
<div>15 Folau</div>
<div> </div>
<div>16 Polota-Nau</div>
<div>17 Smith</div>
<div>18 Holmes</div>
<div>19 Mumm</div>
<div>20 McCalman</div>
<div>21 Frisby</div>
<div>22 Lealiifano</div>
<div>23 Morahan</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would have started McCalman, because I think he's a better starter.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Horwill, Palu, and Gill arsed in favour of the 5-3 bench. </div>
