The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread
-
@Snowy said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@Kiwiwomble said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@antipodean said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@gt12 said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
I still cant believe that we paid out a club to get Mooar back.
Attack mastermind to complement the defensive nous of McLeod.
Mcleod did a really good job with the Highlanders defence, not sure whats happened
We actually aren't conceding that many points. When did McLeod get the job? It doesn't look any worse than in the past.
Scoring on the other hand...perhaps I should say scoring when we need to has been problematic.
Defence isn't just about conceding points. It needs to be organised, aggressive and suffocating which will lead to the opposition making errors and conceding turnovers. Not seeing any of this atm. We make so few dominant tackles compared to some of the top teams.
-
@akan004 said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
It needs to be organised, aggressive and suffocating which will lead to the opposition making errors and conceding turnovers.
kinda like what Argentina did to us on Saturday!
-
@akan004 said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
Defence isn't just about conceding points. It needs to be organised, aggressive and suffocating which will lead to the opposition making errors and conceding turnovers.
Of course. Which is why we talk about dominant tackles and physicality. That is up to the players not so much the coach (technique obviously comes in to it).
I was just saying that the structure might be O.K as we aren't giving away easy points in spite of the penalties and field position that we concede from them.
-
@Snowy said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@akan004 said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
Defence isn't just about conceding points. It needs to be organised, aggressive and suffocating which will lead to the opposition making errors and conceding turnovers.
Of course. Which is why we talk about dominant tackles and physicality. That is up to the players not so much the coach (technique obviously comes in to it).
I was just saying that the structure might be O.K as we aren't giving away easy points in spite of the penalties and field position that we concede from them.
I think it's a combination of the two.
Defensive structure - why don't the ABs use a rush defence themselves more often?
To me - the structure looks to be a "bend but don't break" and it gets exposed against teams who show some physicality.
The defence against England 19 semi final and on Saturday looked very similar - passive and unable to generate turnover ball.
The scramble defence is very good - but they are scrambling way more than they should be.
In test match rugby you should be basing your game on your defence and building around that. This AB team are unable to do so and have ended up having to chase the game in the last 10 minutes both games in the last 2 weeks.
-
@KiwiMurph 0800 Please help us wayne smith
-
@KiwiMurph said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
Defensive structure - why don't the ABs use a rush defence themselves more often?
That's a real head scratcher.
-
@taniwharugby said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@KiwiMurph 0800 Please help us wayne smith
you're our only hope
-
@KiwiMurph said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
Defensive structure - why don't the ABs use a rush defence themselves more often?
I think because they want to be in a position to counter - if a dominant tackle is made (they haven't been) and a turnover is possible. Then the attack has some space.
A rush means that most of your backs are very flat, can't run on and any counter is stifled.
I'm not saying that it is a good strategy, just might be why.
-
another thing that occurred to me, i dont remember it being mentioned much but i might have missed it
with the "give them the ball and counter attack approach", a lot of penalties seem to favour the attacking team, if we're just waiting for them to come at us then your more likely to give away penalties like off side, or hands in the ruck, or high tackles, or collapsing a maul
and maybe im wrong but i feel when penalties have been given for contact in the air, its the team thats just kicked it that most often get it wrong, running through, the receiving team have more time to set and jump
rather than us choosing to wait for a handling mistake and counter attacking these teams seem happy to pound away until we make a tackle/defensive offence and then either ping the ball downfield or kick the goal
i know the penalties we're hugely disproportionate so maybe im wrong, just a vibe
-
I watched some of the England Georgia game on the weekend and what was noticeable were just how clinical England were at the core foundations. Their exits, rucks, territory, set piece and kicking all appeared to have purpose and the entire team seemed to be on the same page. They basically play a very low risk game and seem to build pressure through territory, and smother the opposition into making mistakes.
It is clear the influence the coaching has. -
-
@KiwiMurph said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@chimoaus that reads like exactly what Argentina did.
i'd say it sounds like common sense
sure, fancy rugby it great when it works...but surely you have to have a safe game plan in your pocket
edit: obviously you dont HAVE too...we dont currently
-
@Kiwiwomble said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@Chris or joseph/brown made him look good
Yep that too
-
@KiwiMurph said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@chimoaus that reads like exactly what Argentina did.
It is.
They didn't do this - but I just don't want a return to the 6-3, 9-12 type scores of the past. Unlikely that would happen with the player's fitness that we have today, the ball and pitches are so much better too, but the "defend everything" and reduce the chance of attack attitude is a bit depressing. Argies scored one try. One.
We scored two but were outplayed everywhere else.We need an answer to the way we get shut down. Some of the ball the backs get is pretty good, the forwards are doing just that (going forward - occasionlly) Smith's delivery is great (usually) and then we run out of ideas. We can defend all we want but unless we do more on attack we ain't going to win either.
I hate to say this but I think that we need to kick more (early) turn the rush defence and make them question their positioning / line speed in case the ball ends up behind them. We have been through this before but it doesn't seem to happen.
-
@Derpus said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@hydro11 Tupou, Slipper , Wilson, Philip would be upgrades to your pack imo. White has been playing better than TJ and Weber, outside of Sydney. Id take Toomua over Goodhue or Laumape at 12. Petaia will be better than ALB though id probably still start ALB at this point.
i said it jokingly but Jordie Barrett really is just a shittier slower version of Hodge.
Our best team is right there with the All Blacks imo, depth and consistency are our issues.
Edit: also Matera is my first name on any teamsheet of the three countries as Captain.
Win one game ...
-
@taniwharugby said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@KiwiMurph 0800 Please help us wayne smith
fuck it, get a give a little page going on
-
Abs are fucked. It wasn't the game plan, it was a lack of execution
"Cane’s leadership, too, has to be questioned. The All Blacks were too lateral on attack, and a call needed to be made to switch tactics.Foster believed that if the execution had been better, and near misses had been contributed to tries, the team would have been justified in sticking to their game plan. Cane, and the other senior decision makers, continue to have the backing of their coach."
See also
"Wallabies coach Michael Cheika won't apologise for his unblinking commitment to ball-in-hand rugby in Japan.His only concession is they'll need to do it an awful lot better in a quarter-final against England if they're to bring home the Webb Ellis Cup."
-
@Machpants said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
Foster believed that if the execution had been better, and near misses had been contributed to tries, the team would have been justified in sticking to their game plan
2007
-
-
@Snowy said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@KiwiMurph said in The 'How is Fozzie going?' thread:
@chimoaus that reads like exactly what Argentina did.
It is.
They didn't do this - but I just don't want a return to the 6-3, 9-12 type scores of the past. Unlikely that would happen with the player's fitness that we have today, the ball and pitches are so much better too, but the "defend everything" and reduce the chance of attack attitude is a bit depressing. Argies scored one try. One.
We scored two but were outplayed everywhere else.We need an answer to the way we get shut down. Some of the ball the backs get is pretty good, the forwards are doing just that (going forward - occasionlly) Smith's delivery is great (usually) and then we run out of ideas. We can defend all we want but unless we do more on attack we ain't going to win either.
I hate to say this but I think that we need to kick more (early) turn the rush defence and make them question their positioning / line speed in case the ball ends up behind them. We have been through this before but it doesn't seem to happen.
I agree.
Although better defence would lead to more turnover ball which the ABs thrive on attack-wise.
Completely agree with the AB phase attack though - it looks so generic - the first five stands flat flooted a fair way away from the 9 and then shovels it on. The other go-to-option is to throw the ball to a forward/forward pod fairly wide (where a 10 would often stand) to hit it up. Rinse and repeat. Disciplined defence like the Argies just eat that up.
