wallabies v poms

[Ken Gargett]

3 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Outplayed by England but not much in it.  Outmuscled at the scrum, slightly at the breakdown, 15/8 penalty count and poor penalty kicking the difference.

Impressed by England. Had that solidity that comes from a focused team on tour. 

Foley our best. Ken still can't forgive the fact that Cooper lost the 5/8 battle to him but Foley is turning out to be an outstanding number 10. Sort out the kicking or give to someone else. 

Hooper second best on field for Wallabies. Two tries (set plays and that is why he was on wing to finish), plenty of work, loves the rough stuff and loves to run. 

Looking forward to the next one!

 

 

 

watched the game again late last night  - i was crook and miserable so thought why not. 

i am, as i said, a fan of hooper but no way was that a set move - or if it was, they got extremely lucky. you are down a man against a very good english pack so you leave a man, a key forward, on the far wing? possibly with 15 on 15 but insane when you are short. or more likely, simply another example of how they were unable to adapt to what england gave them. 

i watched foley closely last night and i was perhaps a little harsh in some areas but overall, i thought he was poor - had not even thought of cooper to be honest.

foley has to compensate for being outside phibbs, which can't be easy but he should be used to it. but way too often, he throws passes to players in worse positions than him, giving them very little chance. it causes massive problems. and burke summed things up when he criticised foley for throwing the ball out the backline when they are behind the tryline. it was insane, stupid play. just get rid of it. if a schoolboy did that, he'd be roasted by the coach, deservedly so. that was amatuer hour stuff. maybe try it if you had little/horan or the ella brothers or o'connor/moon out there waiting and the game was frantic and you knew there was space, you might give it a try. but not with this backline and not when the english defence is up and waiting. they were very lucky not to concede a 5 metre scrum. or worse. anyone think lynagh or mclean or wilkinson or carter would be trying that in those circumstances?  

he also dropped that pass that gave england its first try. it was a poor pass but he still should have caught it. he seemed surprised it was thrown to him, but he was in position for the pass so no idea why.

his general kicking was poor. too often down a throat. not finding touch on a penalty and even too often when he did find touch, the ball was just over the line allowing england a quick throw. and the kicking for goal was awful. it is a test match. if you are missing those kicks, you are costing the team. rob, giving the kicks to someone else is fine if you have another player in the starting lineup who is a world class kicker but this is not the qld origin team. there is no one else. so by following that idea, a player has to be dropped for a lesser player to cover kicking for foley. that is crazy. 

foley has games where he does play well, sometimes extremely well, and he can certainly kick better than he did - the last game v the poms is a good example where he excelled. but he also has some very ordinary ones. and saturday was one of them. 

the other bloke who had a really poor game - which i did not really notice first viewing - was izzy. as always, did some good things but some poor decisions and plenty of errors. the pass to foley a shocker in the circumstances. and having a fullback who can't kick (you catch the ball, run out of your 22 and then kick it over the sideline on the full - spare me) doesn't help. 

the comments above re the grey/brown thing - i gather that the different camps have different views. big surprise. but watch it closely. both players are looking at the ball, both reach for it and it gets knocked away as they bump each other. then a bit of pushing from brown. i can understand it, though very dangerous for a player to interfere with a person off the field. dangerous precedent. grey was in that ridiculous box, where he is apparently supposed to be. he did not move to interfere with brown and i can understand brown not expecting someone there. blame having the box too close rather than either player. once grey touches it then there cannot be a quick throw so it should have stopped there but in the atmosphere of a test, it really was a very minor event. 

[JohnS]

I felt Australia were ill-disciplined with giving away penalties and in making some fundamental errors, which England took full advantage of. I think Australia have to get away from thinking they can play a quick, running game and score from anywhere on the field, it's not likely to happen in the second test. Then again, England did concede 4 tries, and it could have been 5 on that obstruction call by the referee on Foley's disallowed try. Australia conceded 3 tries, but one was from that awful Folau pass and one was at the end of the game from a kick. I don't think Australia would be worried by England's attacking options, but they have to 'grow a brain' and tighten up on giving away penalties. I wonder if England can fix their sliding defensive line, which I noticed all night. This is something they must rectify as soon as possible. 

[Ken Gargett]

well, the first game might have been close but we just had our proverbials handed to us.

first, brilliant defensive effort by england. one of the best i have ever seen. that said, it was not as hough we stretched them. crash and barge and no plan B. awful.

next, if cooper had ever played as badly as foley did tonight (and he never did), they would have burnt effigies up the eastern seaboard. from that opening penalty for the line (abysmal) to knock-ons, stuffed kick-offs, no organising, no inspiration, no idea. he was god awful tonight. i agree he can play well, or at least solidly. the first game, he was poor. tonight, one of the worst games i have ever seen from a wallaby. in the latter stages of the first half, i watched him receive the ball 7 times. the first five, he dummied and was tackled. the 6th, he dummied and then passed. the 7th - he dummied and was tackled. christ, if cooper had been so lacking in any clues, then he would have deserved some of the venom sent his way. 

phibbs - not much better. we have a 5 metre scrum when we have had all the ball and the poms are exhausted. we immediately turn it over because of yet one more awful pass from phibbs that went nowhere. 

we will not win anything serious while we have phibbs and foley. 

Completely deserved win by England. One of the greatest defensive efforts I have ever seen.

We were outplayed, out coached, out thought. Got exactly what we deserved. Game was well ref'd I thought. No complaints. England play reactive rugby and not sure there is much thrilling attack in the team but they know what to do, how to do it and what works for them.

We had no plan B. just crash and bash.

Stupid selections, poor preparation, over confident.

To be honest, shame the poms were not playing the all blacks. Might have been a good series at the moment.

[Ken Gargett]

On 6/13/2016 at 7:40 AM, El Presidente said:

Foley is turning out to be an outstanding number 10.

 

 

 

still think he is outstanding? 

we do not agree on everything about rugby but we are usually close. not with this. 

i forgot to mention his chargedown that nearly cost us another try. he is not topnotch test class. 

[JohnS]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

We had no plan B. just crash and bash.

Stupid selections, poor preparation, over confident. 

Plan B is pretty simple, you'd think. I can even spell it out. Hold on, here it is...

KICK THE BALL into the opposition territory, as often as you can, to capitalise on errors and take advantage of field position. When you get penalties, kick for goal, heck try a field goal once in awhile. For goodness sake, stop trying to run the ball from your own 22 thinking that you'll score length of the field tries. Even worse, don't even do this when the conditions are wet, as they were tonight in Melbourne. England thoroughly deserved to win, and Australia thoroughly deserves to jettison key players and possible coach for awhile. I'm shaking my head as I write, for I cannot understand what I witnessed from Australia tonight. The amount of turnover and errors was not befitting of a Top 5 ranked Test Rugby team.

[David88]

I thought it was an excellent match today with a lot of physicality and passion from both sides. I thought England's defense was phenomenal in the second half but why on Earth didn't the Aussies take the 3 points when they were offered? It has gone some way to making up the lackluster displays from England sides over the last few years.

Although there is only pride to play for in the next test I am expecting more of an open game. Australia have caused England issues every time they have gone wide in both tests, but have struggled to convert those chances in the 22. England will need to be up for it and defend well or it could be a big win for the Aussies.

[David88]

4 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

To be honest, shame the poms were not playing the all blacks. Might have been a good series at the moment.

 

I watched the New Zealand Wales game earlier and thought the All Blacks looked very beatable for the first time in a number of years. The Rugby Championship is going to be very interesting; if Australia play with the intensity they have shown against England then they will New Zealand real problems.

[Ken Gargett]

5 hours ago, David88 said:

I watched the New Zealand Wales game earlier and thought the All Blacks looked very beatable for the first time in a number of years. The Rugby Championship is going to be very interesting; if Australia play with the intensity they have shown against England then they will New Zealand real problems.

just so i am clear on this - you watched the dimwitted aussies this evening, get beaten by the poms, and from this you think we have a good shot against the kiwis? i look forward to the large meteor that must be headed to nz. can't imagine what else will save us. 

as for the three points, mindbogglingly stupid. we could have at least drawn level, forced england to take some chances. hooper is a fine player but he gets worse and worse as a captain. clueless. taking the points last week. not taking them this week. he should go back to vandalising cars. 

[El Presidente]

Well played England. Brutal performance. 

You play to your strengths. Theirs is physicality and they played that card brilliantly. Superb line speed in defence. 

As for the Wallabies. 

• outmuscled.
• Lack of direction. 
• too many captains
• Dumb
• out coached
• Woeful kick game. 

Kerevi was one of the few backs all nght (on both sides) that bent the line.  Better we replace him with 25 to go 

9 and 10 awfull. 

If opposition is not commiting players to contest the ball, tradition is to bang up close to the ruck to drag them into the contest before going wide. Frisby should have been on there once the English tactic was worked out. 

There was no lack of heart from the wallabies. Just a lack of execution/skill and brains. 

England are worthy of their number 2 spot in World Rugby. 

 

[Ken Gargett]

47 minutes ago, tommygun68 said:

How will Kenny ever be able to wear his Wallabies jersey again?

i have to clean the gutters next week. it will make appropriate attire. 

[David88]

7 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

just so i am clear on this - you watched the dimwitted aussies this evening, get beaten by the poms, and from this you think we have a good shot against the kiwis? i look forward to the large meteor that must be headed to nz. can't imagine what else will save us. 

as for the three points, mindbogglingly stupid. we could have at least drawn level, forced england to take some chances. hooper is a fine player but he gets worse and worse as a captain. clueless. taking the points last week. not taking them this week. he should go back to vandalising cars. 

Although the Wallabies were dumb they dominated the second half and looked dangerous with ball in hand, they just couldn't keep it up in the 22. If they had decided to kick their penalties I have no doubt they would have overtaken England. NZ looked like a shadow of the side that won the world cup without carter, smith, macaw etc. If Australia wise up a bit then I'm sure it will be a very close game. 

[Ken Gargett]

56 minutes ago, David88 said:

Although the Wallabies were dumb they dominated the second half and looked dangerous with ball in hand, they just couldn't keep it up in the 22. If they had decided to kick their penalties I have no doubt they would have overtaken England. NZ looked like a shadow of the side that won the world cup without carter, smith, macaw etc. If Australia wise up a bit then I'm sure it will be a very close game. 

i saw chunks of the nz wales game. seemed to me that the all blacks played as well as they needed. when wales turned it up, they held in then ran away with both games. and remember, the northern hemisphere teams have been playing together for some time. nz, and you would hope, us, should only get better. 

to me, we dominated statistics. bugger all else. also, i saw nothing to suggest we looked dangerous - aside from izzy on occasions but we can't string enough passes together to get to him. we just kept smashing it up and tried nothing else. there have been games when you know that we probably would have been better off without cooper. last night, i think we would have won it had he been on the field. and won it convincingly. he directs the attack so much better than foley. i know he looks like it is all seat of the pants but that comes in loose ball situations. last night, he would have made certain the pommy forwards were dragged in, opened up some space. you think the english forwards would have been all racing up every phase if cooper had put in a couple of little chips behind them. created some doubt. but foley and phibbs had no clue. run into the defence. throw a dummy and run into the defence. throw an awful pass and if we manage to retreive it, throw a dummy and run into the defence. we have very different dictionaries if that falls under 'dangerous' in yours. 

something about insanity being where you do the same thing, time after time, and expect a different result, springs to mind. 

i thought that the english defence actually started to look pretty comfortable by the last 10-15. they knew that we had thrown what we had and they had more than withstood it. someone said it was rugby 'rope-a-dope' and they had it spot on. 

and for all the (and yes, a terrible word) passion cheika brings, we need more. we need intelligence. he showed none last night. completely out-coached by the toxic hobbit. 

i'll be really interested in the team for the third test. if we do not make significant changes, there must be serious questions asked. cheika might be very glad he signed his extension recently. 

[David88]

5 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

i saw chunks of the nz wales game. seemed to me that the all blacks played as well as they needed. when wales turned it up, they held in then ran away with both games. and remember, the northern hemisphere teams have been playing together for some time. nz, and you would hope, us, should only get better. 

to me, we dominated statistics. bugger all else. also, i saw nothing to suggest we looked dangerous - aside from izzy on occasions but we can't string enough passes together to get to him. we just kept smashing it up and tried nothing else. there have been games when you know that we probably would have been better off without cooper. last night, i think we would have won it had he been on the field. and won it convincingly. he directs the attack so much better than foley. i know he looks like it is all seat of the pants but that comes in loose ball situations. last night, he would have made certain the pommy forwards were dragged in, opened up some space. you think the english forwards would have been all racing up every phase if cooper had put in a couple of little chips behind them. created some doubt. but foley and phibbs had no clue. run into the defence. throw a dummy and run into the defence. throw an awful pass and if we manage to retreive it, throw a dummy and run into the defence. we have very different dictionaries if that falls under 'dangerous' in yours. 

something about insanity being where you do the same thing, time after time, and expect a different result, springs to mind. 

i thought that the english defence actually started to look pretty comfortable by the last 10-15. they knew that we had thrown what we had and they had more than withstood it. someone said it was rugby 'rope-a-dope' and they had it spot on. 

Australia managed to run the ball into the England 22 at ease and dominated possession. If they had decided to take some points it would have been a walkover, I have no idea why a drop goal was not considered? Although England got a breakaway try it was against the grain of play and England never looked like scoring. I think Jones' talk over it bodyline tactics drew Australia into a physical confrontation rather than playing to their strengths.

Eddie Jones' talk about 'rope-a-dope' tactics and seemingly suggesting that this was the plan all along doesn't wash with me. No international side would go into a test aiming for 30% possession and territory thinking that they will win.

[Ken Gargett]

31 minutes ago, David88 said:

Australia managed to run the ball into the England 22 at ease and dominated possession. If they had decided to take some points it would have been a walkover, I have no idea why a drop goal was not considered? Although England got a breakaway try it was against the grain of play and England never looked like scoring. I think Jones' talk over it bodyline tactics drew Australia into a physical confrontation rather than playing to their strengths.

Eddie Jones' talk about 'rope-a-dope' tactics and seemingly suggesting that this was the plan all along doesn't wash with me. No international side would go into a test aiming for 30% possession and territory thinking that they will win.

i didn't hear the rope-a-dope stuff from jones but he may have said it. i may have heard someone quoted him, without acknowledgement.

but i agree completely that no way was it the english plan to give the aussies so much possession. but when it happened, england were more than good enough to counter it. and that is a massive indictment on the wallabies, all of their captains and their coaches. how indeed could an international side, playing at home and ranked 2nd in the world (what a farce), get 70% possession and not win. score one sad solo try. truly awful. 

england didn't need to score for most of the game as they were ahead. it was a breakaway try at the end and against the field position but i would argue not against the grain of play. england were on top, even if it was done via their defence. it is always likely. same happened last week. 

i can't see any way that was ever going to turn into a walkover, especially for us. nor did i see us do anything with ease. we should have taken the shots at goal - i don't think foley ever felt the composure needed to take a field goal. but had we slotted a penalty or two, it would have put pressure on the poms on the scoreboard, where it counts. that might have made it a different game. so utterly stupid not to. hooper should be told he is a fine player, though a smidge less seagulling would be a good thing, but that he is monumentally stupid and should never be captain and should not pretend to be and that he is never to make any relevant decision, ever again. 

what about a chip over the defence occasionally to have them question rushing up every single time. as rob said, what about drawing the defence in. we failed there too. in the end, i think england felt they could give us 100% possession and hold us out. we did nothing at all to threaten their lead except crash and bash. in the end, it was tackling practice. bob dwyer used to say that a wallaby side only needed 40% possession to beat any side. not in anyone's wildest, these days.

one last point, while i never subscribed to the idea we were big favourites (i always thought we'd lose the first and then it was line ball if we could come back and win the next two), the one area which we were always told where we were overwhelmingly superior, was the back rowers. our 6/7/8 were the best going around and that was where we'd win it (losing pocock for the 2nd was a massive blow). not only did we have vardy, pocock and hooper but also mcmahon, gill, mccalman behind them. if you were told that a backrower was man of the match in the first two tests, you'd assume things going to plan. we'd have never believed that they'd both be english. 

we are going to have to improve drastically to get close to the all blacks. 

[Ken Gargett]

the road to damascus is very crowded today.

Now, I have never been a fan of spiro – he has written some of the greatest twaddle in rugby history (little and horan are not good centres; the 40 test experiment with lynagh must stop…). And no man has had a greater crush on another than him on ella. Sickening. Embarrassing.

Now comes this. Apparently ella has fallen from the pedestal. For him not to be named the greatest running 5/8 of aussie rugby, let alone greatest 5/8, is extraordinary. Next up, I'm burning all my springsteen tapes.

This is not a bad article, bar the idea of elevating foley to captain. Insane. Reward the bloke for that shocker?

What is amazing are those stats. One of the great embarrassments in sporting history.

But it shows the monumental stupidity of the QRU in forking out large dosh for Stephen Moore for three years at this stage of his career. Especially when we have Ready.

 

http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/06/20/spiro-rust-turns-into-dross-as-wallabies-face-0-3-series-debacle/

 

[JohnS]

3 minutes ago, tommygun68 said:

i wonder why the Aussies are so quite?

Quite what? Exasperated, perhaps? I think Australians are quite expectant of a few things...

1) Michael Cheika's resignation

2) Quit playing Running Rugby and start playing Winning Rugby.

3) Put out a memo to someone who can represent Australia in Rugby and kick the ball over the posts around 85% or better from anywhere in the half. (This one I've been waiting for a very long time. Pity we didn't have someone like Daryl Halligan or Hazem El Masri in Union, like they did in League)

[Ken Gargett]

13 hours ago, JohnS said:

Quite what? Exasperated, perhaps? I think Australians are quite expectant of a few things...

1) Michael Cheika's resignation

2) Quit playing Running Rugby and start playing Winning Rugby.

3) Put out a memo to someone who can represent Australia in Rugby and kick the ball over the posts around 85% or better from anywhere in the half. (This one I've been waiting for a very long time. Pity we didn't have someone like Daryl Halligan or Hazem El Masri in Union, like they did in League)

john, you got in first. quite what indeed. not much to say. more of the same. 

to be honest, i watched the broncos, although they were probably even worse taped the rugby and had a quick look. 

problem with cheika going, and he won't, is no one to replace him. and we can't go through another coach so quickly. we go through them faster than prime ministers. 

as for me, thanks to my hard drive dying for the 2nd time in three months, on a computer that i only a year old, (urrently on an old one), i have higher priorities.