Wallabies vs Springboks I
-
-
-
-
@nzzp said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
@duluth said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
I didn't know the run was that bad. That makes a Bok win even more likely - they are overdue
Apparently the Bokke have won 3 of the last 23 in Australia. I'm frankly astonished - not sure why they play so poorly, but good luck Australia. Hopefully a cracking game
The main reason was around their fitness and defence - yeah they'd nail us at set piece but run those Bok teams around a bit and they'd run out of puff. Also the Saffer-away-from-home factor seemed to play a part. They are usually OK in Perthfontein.
There was a lot of political pressure to transform in that mid-decade run as well.
-
@nta said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
@duluth said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
Anyone picking the Aussies?
Has there ever been a more appropriate gif?
-
@nzzp said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
@duluth said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
I didn't know the run was that bad. That makes a Bok win even more likely - they are overdue
Apparently the Bokke have won 3 of the last 23 in Australia. I'm frankly astonished - not sure why they play so poorly, but good luck Australia. Hopefully a cracking game
Part of me thinks it's the contrast in game styles as well as historical poorness of the Boks travelling. Not sure this current Wallabies team are displaying the vision and skills to trouble the Boks.
It will be a good indicator I think as to where we're at.
-
I've watched Bledisloe 3 a couple of times but with my AB eye-patch on
I don't really get the Aussie tactics. Playing the AB's at their own game as they did seems insane, the result was pretty much what you'd expect.
Especially with the Boks next up, why did they not try a tighter more set-piece (yes defensive) orientated game. Perhaps it would have been damage limitation but occasionally you get lucky. The aussie backs look either pretty average or pretty inexperienced (or both) at the moment.
For all the hyping of Tate McDermott, he has a slow pass with limited range. And his running game doesn't bring others into play ... perhaps says more about aussie team than him. Noah Lolisio may be good in time but in NZ rugby he would probably be treated more like Zarn Sullivan i.e. give him time to develop (and Zarn, from what I've seen, may have that ultimate gift for a 10, he always seems to have time).
I'd have Nick White at 9 versus the Boks. Decent pass. Brings his forwards in better. Better kicking game. There are no decent options at 10 until JOC is back and JOC is still only a safe pair of hands at 10.
I don't envy Dave Rennie tbh.
-
-
@landp said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
For all the hyping of Tate McDermott, he has a slow pass with limited range. And his running game doesn't bring others into play ... perhaps says more about aussie team than him.
He does the one thing that genuinely shits me as a coach and player - runs sideways taking room from others. If the inside defender keeps working hard then when Tate tries to straighten he'll always be tackled. Sometimes monstered, which further slows down their attack as there will be at least another phase before he's involved again.
Rennie's pattern is if they aren't going forward in those three phases, they kick. And their contestable kicks are poor options because a box kick isn't a strength of Tate's and their chasers invariably commit an offence when they aren't being kicked in the head.
-
@antipodean said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
@nzzp said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
@duluth said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
I didn't know the run was that bad. That makes a Bok win even more likely - they are overdue
Apparently the Bokke have won 3 of the last 23 in Australia. I'm frankly astonished - not sure why they play so poorly, but good luck Australia. Hopefully a cracking game
Part of me thinks it's the contrast in game styles as well as historical poorness of the Boks travelling. Not sure this current Wallabies team are displaying the vision and skills to trouble the Boks.
It will be a good indicator I think as to where we're at.
The boks always play better when they have that arrogant swagger, Which Erasmus has brought back.
-
-
@landp said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
I don't really get the Aussie tactics. Playing the AB's at their own game as they did seems insane, the result was pretty much what you'd expect.
Especially with the Boks next up, why did they not try a tighter more set-piece (yes defensive) orientated game. Perhaps it would have been damage limitation but occasionally you get lucky. The aussie backs look either pretty average or pretty inexperienced (or both) at the moment.It is a new(ish) game plan that Rennie is trying to hammer into these guys. It isn't "run it from everywhere" that Cheika had, but looks more focussed on getting better territory where appropriate, and particularly against the ABs, limiting bad kicks that result in counterattack tries.
The intercepts are the price we pay in the short term as instinct and identification of space willl take time. Our communication is probably the easiest part to fix in this regard.
The other end of the scale would be more like the Boks: kick it to shit house and defend your arse off. We've tried that in past years and all it does is give the ABs counterattack opportunities, which is basically the core AB game plan.
Trying to land somewhere in between still requires a good kicking game, which we're starting to get to grips with. But we've got a very green backline compared to our glory years, and trying endless phases of attack with a rookie 10 as your pivot is a road to turnovers. And more tries conceded to a side like the ABs.
No game plan will really "work" until our ruck work on attack goes up several notches OR we get a far better kicking game. If you watch club rugby or schools rugby here, neither of those aspects feature heavily because the pools are so shallow.
-
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
@landp worth noting the Wallabies looked a hell of a lot better when Hodge came on at 10. They also beat the ABs with Hodge at 10 in Brisbane. They should just roll with Hodge/JOC rotation for a while.
I've thought the same but I'd need to rewatch Bledisloe 3 with an Aussie eye-patch on.
Certainly my overall impression was the starting 9-10 (tactical kicking a significant part of this, decision-making on run/kick/pass ) was their biggest issue once on the field. Apart from dealing with Akira, but if he plays like that, he's a handful for any team so fair f*cks.
I think it's a no win for Dave Rennie as he'll get roasted for picking a conservative White-Hodge starting pair ie not being forward looking.
It speaks volumes when Australia's current starting 9-10 are probably #3+ option for the AB's these days. Even with a good sniping game from McDermott, neither would make the AB bench (imho).
-
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
@landp worth noting the Wallabies looked a hell of a lot better when Hodge came on at 10. They also beat the ABs with Hodge at 10 in Brisbane. They should just roll with Hodge/JOC rotation for a while.
I'm reading Eddie Jones' book at the moment, and his early years playing with the Ella brothers at Matraville High (think decile 1) and how they changed rugby with good players and a game plan nobody else was playing. The four principles: direct running, short passing, quick ball movement, constant support.
Hodge brought the first 3 (support being more a team thing
) , admittedly against a defensive line that was fractured a little by AB replacements.Lolesio still has a long way to go, and is into his second year of pro footy as a pup. There is no reason he can't improve but it needs a few beatings against superior opposition to help that growth. Not going to learn anything sitting in Rugby AU as the Brumbies pack dusts up 3 out of the 4 opposition and gives him an armchair ride.
-
The other thing about Eddie's book: rugby was generally a niche sport in Australia in the 70s, right up until a handful of unfancied Indigenous and lower socio-economic kids from Matraville High started whipping much more fancied schools with an exciting brand of running rugby that continued on into their senior years. Mark Ella played First Grade from a very young age and Randwick started putting teams away with big scorelines, drawing media attention that never really existed.
It reinforces just how recent Australia's rugby success is, and how it comes in fits and starts. The 1979 Bledisloe win barely raised an eyebrow, but the 1984 Grand Slam, the 1991 RWC win, the Eales/Macqueen era... that's all the last 40 years and hardly consistent. We were a rugby backwater losing to Tonga in the 70s and were plucky underdogs on tour pretty much all through Wallaby history. At different points an amazing group of players have come together to make it look better than it really was.
My point is this: Australian rugby has changed very little in its foundations the last 50 years besides the introduction of professional rugby, and the establishment of the Super Rugby competition. The schools system has shrunk, and club rugby has faded in both importance and capability to the modern game.
The opportunity is there to improve everything about the game in this nation from juniors up through schools and club, to help with recruitment, retention, and interest. Fixing the pro game isn't actually the priority - everything that feeds it needs addressing.
-
@nta said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
Trying to land somewhere in between still requires a good kicking game, which we're starting to get to grips with. But we've got a very green backline compared to our glory years, and trying endless phases of attack with a rookie 10 as your pivot is a road to turnovers. And more tries conceded to a side like the ABs.
Yeah, pretty much agree except 9-10 are a key combo and McDermott's game (outside his running game, which is top drawer) looks limited ... I feel it won't be hard to nullify as sides see more of him.
I'm assuming Rennie is telling his paymasters he's focussing on team development above everything else. It may work like it has for Wayne Pivac at Wales, changing coaches is not the answer for Australia for sure ...
-
@nta said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
The opportunity is there to improve everything about the game in this nation from juniors up through schools and club, to help with recruitment, retention, and interest. Fixing the pro game isn't actually the priority - everything that feeds it needs addressing.
Love him or hate him, Eddie has a very shrewd and very non-BS rugby brain.
I think Australian rugby needs to focus (ie $$$) foremost on talent/ talent retention rather than paying Hooper megabucks or, more megabucks to say bring Skelton back from overseas. Neither of which will improve Australian rugby results in the medium or long-term. Or even the short-term tbh?
It's hard to accept but England, Wales and Ireland have caught up tactically (by importing coaching talent, for sure!), on fitness, and England and Ireland at least have very very strong foundations. So add the ABs and Boks plus a wave of young talent in France means the Wallabies hover between 5-7th in the world for now.
Which is sad because of all teams other than the ABs, Australia traditionally want to play rugby the way it's supposed to be played.
-
@landp said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
So add the ABs and Boks plus a wave of young talent in France means the Wallabies hover between 5-7th in the world for now.
And, if we shrink our super Rugby presence, we will be lucky to hold onto anything inside the top 10.
We need to keep the professional footprint we have, in order to keep the money we have, in order to invest in the grassroots properly and eventually justify the footprint.
If we shrink, the money shrinks, the grassroots go untended, and the game heads back to pre-professional levels.
-
@nta said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
@landp said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
So add the ABs and Boks plus a wave of young talent in France means the Wallabies hover between 5-7th in the world for now.
And, if we shrink our super Rugby presence, we will be lucky to hold onto anything inside the top 10.
We need to keep the professional footprint we have, in order to keep the money we have, in order to invest in the grassroots properly and eventually justify the footprint.
If we shrink, the money shrinks, the grassroots go untended, and the game heads back to pre-professional levels.
Yeah, I think NZR's initial SR proposal was essentially a clumsy power grab gambit and damaging to Australian rugby. What's in the best interest of New Zealand rugby is almost certainly not - for now - in the best interest of Australia.
The real problem is the expectation that the Wallabies are "normally" a top 3 side and I don't think that's sustainable these day. Needs investment lower down, not short-term measures like re-importing overseas players (unless value is reasonable) or pie-in-the-sky ideas like regional draft systems or allowing ABs to play for Australian franchises ... which won't be accepted by NZR anyway and would - again - dilute pathways for aussie players.
Using (long-term, locked in) private investment by either NZR or Australia to pay players more (short term looking) will be imho a one-way death spiral. It only makes sense if you really know HOW your partner can improve revenue/profit in a way you cannot currently.
