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.
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.
-
Wandering through the thread and making random observations and comments.
@Tim said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
Frizell's ball carrying is substandard at this level.
Agree, but he was way better than he's been.
-
@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.
-
@junior 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.
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.
Yeah, I've always thought that Wales series screwed us. Cruden got injured at the wrong time and BB hit a purple patch (people forget he wasn't going that great in the super comp before the break) and got a lock on the 10 spot. As you say Cruden seemed to see the writing on the wall and buggered off.
I think we would have been a better team if he'd stayed, rehabed his injury properly and aimed for 2019. He was the best guy for combating rush defences as he could probe and put guys away whereas BB was the guy who broke the line himself.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel I don't read Reason and it's an opinion I have come to on my own accord. Maybe my definition of good passing is different to yours. While technically he may have a good pass, I don't think he is a natural passer in that he creates for others that way. Passing for me is about timing and placement. Take for example the try scored by the ABs at Eden Park down the right blinding. That was an example of fine passing combined with running angles by RM and Goodhue to make space for JB. Looked really easy and didn't get many plaudits, but it was beautifully executed.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@canefan true, but you don't think something is slightly lacking with him this year?
He was good for the Blues. Had one very good game vs the oz. The whole team have problems and everyone looks off
-
@Bones said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@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.
I don’t think it new, I just don’t think replacing one running first five with another really doesn’t do much other than complicate things, obviously a winger popping up at 10 is very common to try and get over the gain line and make space
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Rancid-Schnitzel I don't read Reason and it's an opinion I have come to on my own accord. Maybe my definition of good passing is different to yours. While technically he may have a good pass, I don't think he is a natural passer in that he creates for others that way. Passing for me is about timing and placement. Take for example the try scored by the ABs at Eden Park down the right blinding. That was an example of fine passing combined with running angles by RM and Goodhue to make space for JB. Looked really easy and didn't get many plaudits, but it was beautifully executed.
He creates plenty but it seems like it's either camp BB or camp RM and we'll see what we want to see.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Crazy-Horse said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Rancid-Schnitzel I don't read Reason and it's an opinion I have come to on my own accord. Maybe my definition of good passing is different to yours. While technically he may have a good pass, I don't think he is a natural passer in that he creates for others that way. Passing for me is about timing and placement. Take for example the try scored by the ABs at Eden Park down the right blinding. That was an example of fine passing combined with running angles by RM and Goodhue to make space for JB. Looked really easy and didn't get many plaudits, but it was beautifully executed.
He creates plenty but it seems like it's either camp BB or camp RM and we'll see what we want to see.
I knew as soon as I mention RM that would be thrown up. RM has his faults too. I used to be in the RM.camp, but now I am in neither to be honest. RM has a way to go. Like someone said earlier, it wouldn't make much difference who was at 10.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Crazy-Horse said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Rancid-Schnitzel I don't read Reason and it's an opinion I have come to on my own accord. Maybe my definition of good passing is different to yours. While technically he may have a good pass, I don't think he is a natural passer in that he creates for others that way. Passing for me is about timing and placement. Take for example the try scored by the ABs at Eden Park down the right blinding. That was an example of fine passing combined with running angles by RM and Goodhue to make space for JB. Looked really easy and didn't get many plaudits, but it was beautifully executed.
He creates plenty but it seems like it's either camp BB or camp RM and we'll see what we want to see.
I knew as soon as I mention RM that would be thrown up. RM has his faults too. I used to be in the RM.camp, but now I am in neither to be honest. RM has a way to go. Like someone said earlier, it wouldn't make much difference who was at 10.
I don't think there are major flaws with either to be honest and we're lucky to have both. As I said above, the problem is not the cattle.
-
@booboo said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
Genuine question to a qualified ref (you are aren't you?). Is that an actual thing you look for?
Can't say it was covered in the ref's course in depth - and I'll wang on about this a bit in order to think through it myself
We need to consider intent and context.
- Barrett's intent was to charge down no doubt.
- What does the ref think of his intent?
- Context was 24 minutes into a game with a LOT of niggle going on. Captains already spoken to about bullshit carry on.
- I forget if Coles had done his idiot slap at this point.
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.
Most (not all) chargedowns occur in a straight line i.e. defender and attacker in motion roughly 180 degrees opposed. We've all seen it when a guy jumps to chargedown and contacts the other player, the ref will make a decision on timing, but often it is let go.
This one was a little different - sorry to be "that guy" and do the screen shot with arrows n shit, but it helps explain what I'm getting at. The video is below with the incident about 2 minutes in if you want to see it in motion.
So, the promised arrows: black is JB's motion chasing from outside in, and orange is AFG's line of sight. You'll note AFG has a clear view between Sam Cane and (I think) Joe Moody, so no loss of vision there. Kick is going downfield pretty much parallel to the side line - and that is about as wide as he'll kick because we're outside the 22.
If you watch the video, AFG has eyes on the kicker and watches the whole incident, so couldn't really say he was guessing when he made his decision.
As a ref what you're seeing is a guy with a fairly low chance of effecting a charge down from that position, being well outside the likely angle - so is his intent really for charge down?
If no, then from that angle, he has come across the line of a kicker and then clattered into him, clumsily, without trying to effect a tackle. If it was an attempt at a tackle, his timing is terrible and he hasn't used his arms. You've already spoken to captains and you've had multiple incidents off the ball in just over a quarter of a game.
I'll say this in AFG's defence: he's in the middle around a bunch of blokes trying to put the hurt on each other, hearing and seeing other bullshit we are not aware of.
What could have mitigated this? Maybe if Barrett took the time to wrap Sanchez and not take him to ground. I think they actually clashed heads which won't help. Barrett is kind of in no-man's land because he's trying to effect a chargedown so pulls his arms away from contact, while the ref sees a guy doing a dumb thing.
On balance, I think most refs would be inclined toward penalty. As an armchair ref, I'd say "Fucking Sanchez pulling a Hollywood again" and play on, but have a word on the run.
-
@NTA eh? Why is he unlikely to effect a charge down? You're reading it far different than I do. Barrett lands just in front of where the kick was taken and pretty much stops, the motion of both players leads to the collision. If the kick goes lower then there's every chance of a charge down - would the argie have been penalised for a no arms tackle in that instance? I'm pretty sure Gardiner never mentioned late either, only no arms.
