The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread
-
@nostrildamus said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@akan004 said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
won a dead rubber against a fairly experimental lineup
um did you see how experimental the Wallaby side was?
Team #6 v Team #2Did they have 13 changes? Besides, the Wallaby changes were made to improve the team, ours was to build depth. Can you really look at rankings once that many changes have been made? It's amazing how you just glossed over the two defeats, one being the biggest ever between the two countries.
-
@reprobate said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@akan004 the difference being one team was changed due to injury, one by choice. I.e. coaching.
I don't have a problem with the no of changes he made . He could have taken the easy route, played the same team as last week, probably won the game and then beat the Argies in the next two which would possibly have secured him a two year contract extension. Instead he took a big risk in order to try an build a bit of depth.
-
@akan004 it's not building depth though. Throwing guys in for a game or half a game when most of the team is completely different and either haven't played together in a test or haven't in years, then you're setting them up to fail.
Building depth is building a solid team with a solid core and then building experience around that with small changes.
-
@Bones said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@akan004 it's not building depth though. Throwing guys in for a game or half a game when most of the team is completely different and either haven't played together in a test or haven't in years, then you're setting them up to fail.
Building depth is building a solid team with a solid core and then building experience around that with small changes.
Agree with this but I will allow one small mitigating factor in that they don't have the usual number of games in which to do that.
A B team is one thing. This was an inexperienced B team
-
@Bones I think there's a lot of truth in what you said. I also think that he underestimated the Aussies after the big Sydney win as well as the disruption the changes were going to make to our combinations. The shortened calendar also possibly played a part in influencing the amount of changes.
But it's easy to say this in hindsight. Pre game, most of us on here were excited by the changes (apart from TJ) and supported it. If TJ wasn't so bad and SB wasn't a thick cu nt, we most likely would have won it. Foster has to take a lot of the blame for not bringing on the bench earlier though, that's on him.
-
@akan004 said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
I think there's a lot of truth in what you said. I also think that he possibly underestimated the Aussies after the big Sydney win as well as the disruption the changes were going to make to our combinations.
This is the bit that sticks in my craw though. The benefit of succession is supposed to be he's been there, done that and shouldn't be repeating mistakes like wholesale changes and underestimation.
-
@Bones said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@akan004 said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
I think there's a lot of truth in what you said. I also think that he possibly underestimated the Aussies after the big Sydney win as well as the disruption the changes were going to make to our combinations.
This is the bit that sticks in my craw though. The benefit of succession is supposed to be he's been there, done that and shouldn't be repeating mistakes like wholesale changes and underestimation.
Exactly. It was said before the game that this is a lesson Hansen learned and stopped doing.
-
havent chipped in on this thread for a while
hows he doing...not as well as someone who has been around the ABs and junior ABs for the last 15 years should be doing, in my opinion
I though if nothing else we'd great straight building on what was there....not chopping and changing as if hes trying to work out what people can do
I cant be bothered but i'd love to know if hes made nearly as many changes in the last four matches as Rennie
-
@akan004 said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@Bones I think there's a lot of truth in what you said. I also think that he underestimated the Aussies after the big Sydney win as well as the disruption the changes were going to make to our combinations. The shortened calendar also possibly played a part in influencing the amount of changes.
But it's easy to say this in hindsight. Pre game, most of us on here were excited by the changes (apart from TJ) and supported it. If TJ wasn't so bad and SB wasn't a thick cu nt, we most likely would have won it. Foster has to take a lot of the blame for not bringing on the bench earlier though, that's on him.
Yes most were not complaining about the changes before the game but was a little strange for him to take that chance. I was convinced that because of his contract he was going to go the most conservative route possible. I think he did first 3 games, would have thought would have thought he would for the fourth game too.
-
@DMX said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@akan004 said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@Bones I think there's a lot of truth in what you said. I also think that he underestimated the Aussies after the big Sydney win as well as the disruption the changes were going to make to our combinations. The shortened calendar also possibly played a part in influencing the amount of changes.
But it's easy to say this in hindsight. Pre game, most of us on here were excited by the changes (apart from TJ) and supported it. If TJ wasn't so bad and SB wasn't a thick cu nt, we most likely would have won it. Foster has to take a lot of the blame for not bringing on the bench earlier though, that's on him.
Yes most were not complaining about the changes before the game but was a little strange for him to take that chance. I was convinced that because of his contract he was going to go the most conservative route possible. I think he did first 3 games, would have thought would have thought he would for the fourth game too.
Change was good, but that was too much change as it turned out
-
I remember watching an interview before the game and he mentioned giving players some time off after the previous win ,
Time off , whole sale changes , Does sound like its possible a touch of complacency may have crept in
if they had lost that previous game you would assume no time off, only changes would be ones to make the side better , and training the house down no doubt .
-
As Foster said himself:
“But we just felt that this tour was about giving people opportunities, and so I've got no regrets. “But we certainly looked a bit clunky in our collective decision making but I think we'll be better for that, when they have a bit more time under the belt.”He also said:
“I've got to take some of this on the chin, because I put some new combinations out on the park".I'm sure he expected those SR combinations to be better than they were, as I did.
-
-
@Machpants how many years did they play together before this season?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@Machpants how many years did they play together before this season?
Doesn't matter. They've both played together for years, things change in that time. You're talking a lot of rust in the combination. After a good few games they'd probably click. But you can't just walk back into that
-
@akan004 said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@nostrildamus said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@akan004 said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
won a dead rubber against a fairly experimental lineup
um did you see how experimental the Wallaby side was?
Team #6 v Team #2Did they have 13 changes? Besides, the Wallaby changes were made to improve the team, ours was to build depth.
-Um Wallabies made changes because their playmakers were no longer available. I think they had 9 changes for Bled IV (https://www.theroar.com.au/2020/11/06/breaking-down-all-of-the-wallabies-changes-for-bledisloe-4/) but they were real newbies not experienced ex-starters or using players who were in earlier tests like the ABs.Can you really look at rankings once that many changes have been made? It's amazing how you just glossed over the two defeats, one being the biggest ever between the two countries.
-Then you are easily amazed.
-The ABs played well 2 out of 4 games, were lucky to draw the first.
They have two+10s. The Wallabies don't have that luxury. They simply don't have the depth at most positions that the ABs have.
16:16
27:7
43:5
22:24
The ABs had one killer game.
Foster joined the coaching team in 2012. He became head coach nearly a year ago, Dec 2020.
Rennie was announced Nov 2019 but to a foreign country with all their quaint customs (punching sharks, nasal greetings, calling Japanese sandals thongs).
Plus Australian rugby is going through a disasterous period. -
@nostrildamus It's clear that you are a Rennie apologist. You refuse to acknowledge the ABs in Brisbane were a totally different side to the first 3, a side lacking combinations etc.
The truth is in the 2 games that Rennie had to win he failed badly.
Also, this isn't a great AB side, you wouldn't expect a team that is 6th in the world and with reasonable talent to lose by 38 points to this team at home in a must win game.
-
@akan004 reasonable talent is a stretch? We started a 20 year old at 10 in Sydney with another debutant on his outside.
Let's be realistic. He has a side with the potential to be reasonably talented.
Realistically he had three established players with talent available for selection in the backline at the start of the int season (Koroibete, Toomua and JOC). You could arguably add White to that list, but I've never rated him. Even old man Genia is better IMO (he also should have had TK available - but he's gone all in on Petaia and Paisami).
In Sydney he had one of those left.
Foster and Rennie are both at pass marks IMO. The results are par for the course and reflect 2 v 6. At best you could argue a draw and a win is better than a pass.
I don't really buy the argument that ABs played their B team in the fourth game and so it doesn't count as much. A) most of the changes many on here advocated as being the better option and on paper it looked like an excellent team (TJ the flog aside) B ) Wallabies also made a load of changes and effectively played without a 10. That was a good result.
