Scotland v Australia
-
@mrdenmore said in Scotland v Australia:
So typically the Wallabies' win against a depleted and unmotivated All Blacks in the dead-rubber cash-in third Bledisloe in Brisbane gave them a false sense of hope. They bask in the glow of trans- Ta$man confected glory for five minutes then go back to getting beaten by Scotland and being totally ignored by the news media here.
You're having a dollar each way here, though. The ABs were depleted, so that game meant nothing. But when a depleted Wallabies lose to Scotland, it means everything?
It's too simple just to say 'the Wallabies are shit'. Because that AB victory came on the end of an undefeated six game spell that began with a bloody near miss in Dunedin. But of course we were lucky that game, yeah? Or you were just unlucky - I can't remember which, now.
The reality is, this is a team that is still mentally frail. We have the talent but we're not quite there tactically or mentally. We can win one week and then lose the next. And the Northern Hemisphere sides have improved greatly since 2015. But I won't accept that this team was just shit all along, and beating the ABs was all because you 'didn't really try anyway'.
-
@barbarian Wallabies also dont have the depth of ABs (which isnt surprising given the two countries recent Super Rugby records)
ABs dealt with loss of Brodie a lot better than Wallabies dealt with no Coleman (as just one example).
I think a lack of talent/depth (or that they are too young) is a big part of the poor showing in your last two tests.
Guys like Simmons and Moore should have been put out to pasture a long time ago.
-
The wallabies lack of depth means some of their players absolutely have to play a shit load of rugby every year. By the time November rolls around they are cooked.
They're still lacking in a few areas, especially at 8. The inevitable return of saint pocock won't help that either, as i imagine he'll be shoehorned back in there.
What i struggle with is the variances in application. It's almost as if the team mirrors the Fox Sports marketing for rugby, where only beating the AllBlacks matter. Contrast Bled II and III with just about every other game this year. Like different teams were playing
-
@mariner4life said in Scotland v Australia:
Contrast Bled II and III with just about every other game this year. Like different teams were playing
Second half of Bled I was also decent work by us.
The performance overall hasn't been consistent, which is what they say they're working towards. Shitting the bed against Scotland at home, and getting run over by England in the last 15 minutes will stand out as low points.
Take out the threat of Folau and Coleman and we're looking at some real dud decisions in their replacements. Kerevi didn't work at 12, and never would compared to the combination of Beale and Foley. Most players are now resigned to the fact that if Folau is healthy, and still in rugby's ranks (Parramatta rumours continue to circulate), then there is no point trying for the fullback spot.
Those three form a triangle at 10, 12, and 15 that is hard to replicate with other personnel.
-
@barbarian Put it this way. The Wallabies cope with the absence of Folau or Coleman far, far worse than the All Blacks deal with the absence of Ben Smith and Retallick. I think it's a totally fair observation that Australia is up for games against the All Blacks in a way you never are against Scotland or even Wales. In contrast, the ABs know they are on a hiding to nothing if they slip one test.
-
@barbarian said in Scotland v Australia:
@mrdenmore said in Scotland v Australia:
So typically the Wallabies' win against a depleted and unmotivated All Blacks in the dead-rubber cash-in third Bledisloe in Brisbane gave them a false sense of hope. They bask in the glow of trans- Ta$man confected glory for five minutes then go back to getting beaten by Scotland and being totally ignored by the news media here.
You're having a dollar each way here, though. The ABs were depleted, so that game meant nothing. But when a depleted Wallabies lose to Scotland, it means everything?
It's too simple just to say 'the Wallabies are shit'. Because that AB victory came on the end of an undefeated six game spell that began with a bloody near miss in Dunedin. But of course we were lucky that game, yeah? Or you were just unlucky - I can't remember which, now.
The reality is, this is a team that is still mentally frail. We have the talent but we're not quite there tactically or mentally. We can win one week and then lose the next. And the Northern Hemisphere sides have improved greatly since 2015. But I won't accept that this team was just shit all along, and beating the ABs was all because you 'didn't really try anyway'.
Mostly agree.
But regarding Dunedin: you were actually quite shit in that game and didn't desreve to be within 20 points.
-
Sekope Kepu suspended for 3 weeks
Wallabies prop Sekope Kepu appeared today before an independent World Rugby-appointed Disciplinary Committee following the red card he received after 39 minutes of the Autumn International match between Scotland and Australia on Saturday, 25 November 2017 for an infringement of law 10.4(h) ('a player must not charge into a ruck or maul. Charging includes any contact made without use of the arms, or without grasping a player'). Mr Kepu accepted that he had committed an act of foul play and that it had warranted a red card. The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Jean-Noel Couraud (France), along with former international players, Becky Essex (England) and De Wet Barry (South Africa), considered all of the available evidence and heard submissions from Mr Kepu and his representatives. The Disciplinary Committee considered the relevant incident to have been a dangerous shoulder charge into a ruck in which contact was made with an opponent's head. In considering sanction, the Disciplinary Committee assessed the seriousness of Mr Kepu's conduct and concluded that it had been in the mid-range of World Rugby's scale of seriousness for that type of offending, which has an entry point sanction of a six-week suspension. The Disciplinary Committee considered that there were no aggravating factors and that there were several mitigating factors, including Mr Kepu's 'guilty' plea and his previous clean disciplinary record. The Disciplinary Committee allowed the maximum discount of 50% and reduced the length of the suspension to three weeks. Taking account of Mr Kepu's playing schedule (and in particular that the Southern Hemisphere close season is about to start), the Disciplinary Committee suspended Mr Kepu until midnight on Sunday, 4 March 2018. He was reminded of his right of appeal.This means that Kepu will miss the first two games of the Super Rugby season.
-
That's a joke. He launches himself with a shoulder to the head of an opposing player. He has a history of being a dirty shit on the field.
One wonders what games these halfwits are involved in.
-
@booboo said in Scotland v Australia:
Mostly agree.
But regarding Dunedin: you were actually quite shit in that game and didn't desreve to be within 20 points.
OK. But by the same measure we were actually pretty decent against England and didn't deserve to lose by 25.
-
@booboo said in Scotland v Australia:
But regarding Dunedin: you were actually quite shit in that game and didn't desreve to be within 20 points.
I find this claim baffling. Australia outplayed NZ for much of that game, particularly at rucks and on the fringes.
-
@barbarian said in Scotland v Australia:
@booboo said in Scotland v Australia:
Mostly agree.
But regarding Dunedin: you were actually quite shit in that game and didn't desreve to be within 20 points.
OK. But by the same measure we were actually pretty decent against England and didn't deserve to lose by 25.
Very true
-
@tim said in Scotland v Australia:
@booboo said in Scotland v Australia:
But regarding Dunedin: you were actually quite shit in that game and didn't desreve to be within 20 points.
I find this claim baffling. Australia outplayed NZ for much of that game, particularly at rucks and on the fringes.
Ok. It's my opinion and I'm sticking by it.
Basically I think people confused scoreline with performance.
Essentially the last 65mins were 35-12. And those 12 were very rare incursions into our 22.
Add in two of the first three tries were fortuitous and the feeling all the way from 17-nil that the ABs were just grinding them down and pkaying better.
"Shit" may be overstated but this is TSF.
-
@booboo said in Scotland v Australia:
@tim said in Scotland v Australia:
@booboo said in Scotland v Australia:
But regarding Dunedin: you were actually quite shit in that game and didn't desreve to be within 20 points.
I find this claim baffling. Australia outplayed NZ for much of that game, particularly at rucks and on the fringes.
Ok. It's my opinion and I'm sticking by it.
Basically I think people confused scoreline with performance.
Essentially the last 65mins were 35-12. And those 12 were very rare incursions into our 22.
Add in two of the first three tries were fortuitous and the feeling all the way from 17-nil that the ABs were just grinding them down and pkaying better.
"Shit" may be overstated but this is TSF.
That is my recall of the game as well. We gave them a handicap lead and ran them down in the home straight.
-
@crucial said in Scotland v Australia:
@booboo said in Scotland v Australia:
@tim said in Scotland v Australia:
@booboo said in Scotland v Australia:
But regarding Dunedin: you were actually quite shit in that game and didn't desreve to be within 20 points.
I find this claim baffling. Australia outplayed NZ for much of that game, particularly at rucks and on the fringes.
Ok. It's my opinion and I'm sticking by it.
Basically I think people confused scoreline with performance.
Essentially the last 65mins were 35-12. And those 12 were very rare incursions into our 22.
Add in two of the first three tries were fortuitous and the feeling all the way from 17-nil that the ABs were just grinding them down and pkaying better.
"Shit" may be overstated but this is TSF.
That is my recall of the game as well. We gave them a handicap lead and ran them down in the home straight.
The similarities with "the greatest game ever" are what strike me. A team gets out to a big lead thanks to some opportunistic tries against a team still in the sheds. Then the team behind plays much the better rugby for the remainder of the match.
The only difference was the Wallabies didn't have a Lomu stealing it at the end.
