Year Zero for Australian Rugby

[ARRV]

That's it.

Sack the entire front row and all the reserve props and hookers. They are simply not up to international standard. They showed they have not improved. We were pushed around like drugs at a Weagles party (or Newcastle Knights). Looked like men playing boys and the aussies were wearing the short shorts to work.

Sack them all.

If we are going to lose then may as well give someone new a chance to develop in time for the next world cup.

Good bye Gregan. His service was shocking. I appreciate it is difficult to play behind a beaten pack but rather than stand there watching the ball while the english forwards dive all over it WHY DON"T YOU PICK THE F**KING THING UP AND PASS IT. REMEMBER THAT GEORGE. YOU KNOW, YOUR ROLE????

Mortlock should never kick for goal again.

Vickerman and Sharpe did nothing. Not true, Vickerman handed England about 9 points. Well done Dan. 4 stars.

Ashley Cooper should not have been in the starting side. Dropped so much ball he couldn't catch crabs. Mitchell made a huge difference when he came on for a huge 9 minutes.

In fact the whole team needs to go into the big hall of mirrors and have a good hard look at themselves. You could tell from the way the English reacted to their anthem and their huddle afterwards that they were truly up for this game. The Aussies weren't and were smashed accordingly.

Not happy Jan.

:-(

[mef]

Jan,

Yr O is still better than chockers. Atleast Wallabies have the records of 2 world rugby world cups. It's only 20 years between drinks for the All Blacks. Sad........... :crying: Actually I feel more for the AB players and coaches. The nation will call for blood..

Let's have some cigars instead...

mef

[El Presidente]

Mef....France played the type of game that always troubles the All Blacks....in your face flooding defence accompanied by break out attack.

You guys host the next world cup...talk about expectation.

Have France got two big games left in them? Has Seth Efrika got this competition in the bag? How many South Afrikans can FIJI take out tonight.....Can Argentina beat Scotland?

As for the wallabies.

1. Connoly is and always has been a poor tactician. Should have retired long ago.

2. Nathan Sharp, Shephersdon, Dunning, Vickerman should never play for Australia again. Add Baxter. Toquiri should be sacked, as should anyone with a hyphernated name.

3. Get a 85% kicker. If league can find 16 of them certainly the wallabies can find 1.

4. Phil Waugh to hooker as of Monday. Train him...it is not that bloody difficult.

Well done England. I love it when an underdog takes the match through brute force and absolute mongrel. To see it twice in six hours is a rareity. A great day for rugby :-)

[Ken Gargett]

A great day for rugby :-)

what a crock of crap. not for a second am i suggesting we deserved to win (in fact, if jellyboots mortlock had kicked that late penalty though there was fat chance of that, it would have been an injustice of sorts) but the day a side wins a world cup 1/4 final purely on kicks without even looking like scoring a try is a long way from a great day for rugby. it was an awful day for rugby, as it would have turned 1000's of spectators off. the france nz game was a much better advert for rugby (and thank god for the french). hope you got that email taking you up on the box of coro's.

gregan, a fw years to many george and didn't it show. vickerman is just dumb but still sadly probably our best. sharpe, well when i saw effort that he was again putting in to the national anthem, i knew he was up for his usual hopeless, spineless game. the front row is an embarassment. moore picking up but doubt he can reach the required level. lote looks lik he has concrete boots. latham was clearly injured early in the game (the field goal attempt more than enough evidence of that) and couldn't get to his usual excellent standard. why was ashley-cooper even on tour, let alone a starter? connolly? you are a bit harsh. bloke was the most winningest rugby coach on the planet over the last decade and took the reds to the heights many times. think where we were under the toxic hobbit (no worse than the 1/4 granted) but other than one bad game, we have made some progress. you can only play the cards dealt and his pack (deliberate pun) is largely made up of dud cards.

[mgillett]

The odds of $41 I got on England after the second game are looking better all the time...:-P

[El Presidente]

» A great day for rugby :-)

»

Ah but Ken it was a great day. It showed again that Rugby is not about being the fastest, the strongest or the most skillfull. The game is in equal parts played in the mind. 15 players playing as one...hooker to winger...leavng nothing behind...tackling everything in front and minute by minute increasing the pressure on a superior foe until the mind starts playing tricks...your vaunted foe cannot catch, cannot execute....questons himself at every level...and fails.

That was the beauty of both games. It wasn't about kicks at goal, lack of tries or dubious decisions. It was how the power of spirit overcomes superior forces.

As for our National Coach and his six assistants...their time is done. They fail the test of preparing a team mentally to the point where for the third test in a row we were a shambles. Leaderless, directionless, skillless.

[asmith]

Rob lets face it mate the Wallabies they were crap. England did the job they needed.

The Wallaby's performance can be summed up in one little play. With 15mins to go Wycliffe breaks the line runs back towards his forwards for support and when tackled is only 12m out places the ball for the forwards/backs to clear out and one in that stupid gold jersey. The only people there to clear out were the Poms. That typified out effort and we deserve to loose.

Final PICK UP THE BALL GREGAN you waste of space!!!

[Ken Gargett]

» » A great day for rugby :-)

again, what a crock of crap. i stand by what i said.

it is a disaster for rugby when sides win without even threatening the tryline (which, again, is not to suggest that we should have won, we were dire). if you are a ten year old kid playing a bit of all codes and you watched that, you are far more likely to play anything else than rugby. ergo, a disaster for rugby.

and expect probably johnson to line up as coach wth foley and muggleton as assistants. that said, my kiwi mates, between sobs, were telling me that there is a very strong push to install fox as the next coach, even tho he i not coaching at the moment. it i seen as a complete break. that would leave deans available, and i imagine, fairly pissed at nz rugby and ripe for an offer.

any of our kiwi members have heard anything?

[Ken Gargett]

» Rob lets face it mate the Wallabies they were crap. England did the job

» they needed.

»

» The Wallaby's performance can be summed up in one little play. With 15mins

» to go Wycliffe breaks the line runs back towards his forwards for support

» and when tackled is only 12m out places the ball for the forwards/backs to

» clear out and one in that stupid gold jersey. The only people there to

» clear out were the Poms. That typified out effort and we deserve to

» loose.

»

» Final PICK UP THE BALL GREGAN you waste of space!!!

gregan's service was diabolical. continents drift faster than his passes.

to be fair re the palu incident, the way he was playing, it was absolutely impossible for anyone at the ground, let alone his teammates, to possibly imagine that he would make a break.

and i finally worked out why adam-ashley-cooper-day-knight was playing. it was to make lote look good. it didn't work.

[winelover]

» but the day a side wins a world cup 1/4 final purely on kicks without even looking

» like scoring a try is a long way from a great day for rugby.

England didn't win without "even looking like scoring a try".

First, the first 15 mins England were playing in a typically unEnglish expansive style that wasn't that far away.

Second, in the second half, we could have well scored had Catt not knocked it on.

Third, the English pack got very close to the try line a few times that notably resulted in a penalty. Perhaps if Rugby had the rules that you desired and penalty kicks didn't count, then we could well have gone for a penalty scrum a few metres away, that could have been converted given our forward power.

It really is sour grapes to start wishing Rugby had different rules when you lose Ken.

[Ken Gargett]

i hasten to add that my earlier views do not equate to a view that the more tries the better the game. not at all. the best game i ever saw was when qld beat a full strength all black side in 1980, 9-3 (in the days when they would do full tours and play provincial sides and this game followed the second test which the all blacks won and then played a mid week game and this was the weekend between the 2nd and 3rd tests). no tris. penalty to mclean and a field goal to mclean and a monster to gould after 3-3 at half time. had everything yes, except tries). length of the field attacks from both sides, brilliant defence, earthshaking set pieces, great kicking. brilliant game. whereas that travesty reffed by the imbecilic welshman, clive 'its all about me, me, me' norling between france and australia where we had about 75 tries because clive could not be bothered following the rules, was a bore-a-thon.

[Ken Gargett]

» » but the day a side wins a world cup 1/4 final purely on kicks without

» even looking

» » like scoring a try is a long way from a great day for rugby.

»

» England didn't win without "even looking like scoring a try".

»

» First, the first 15 mins England were playing in a typically unEnglish

» expansive style that wasn't that far away.

»

» Second, in the second half, we could have well scored had Catt not knocked

» it on.

»

» Third, the English pack got very close to the try line a few times that

» notably resulted in a penalty. Perhaps if Rugby had the rules that you

» desired and penalty kicks didn't count, then we could well have gone for a

» penalty scrum a few metres away, that could have been converted given our

» forward power.

»

» It really is sour grapes to start wishing Rugby had different rules when

» you lose Ken.

with respect, that is completely misinterpreting what i have said. i have said nothing about not being happy with the rules (there are some i'd change but that is irrelevant today, and even if they had ben made would only be tinkering which would not have affectd the result - in fact, they would most likely have advantaged the poms). there is also no suggestion of sour grapes, as far as i can see. i have said in quite a number of posts that we were hopeless and we deserved to lose.

'the rules i desire'? what would they be? i'm interested because i don't recall making any such suggestions yet you seem to think i have.

'and penalty kicks didn't count'. again, where did i ever say that, ever???

what i have said is that i do not like seeing games won by sides that score less tries (or in this case, zero tries, though i think i have said at last twice that on this occasion, it was an instance where the side that didn't score any tries still deserved to win - quite how that gets turned into the rules i desire or sour grapes or that i want penalties not to count is beyond understanding). i don't and i don't think it i good for rugby. i know that many northern hemisphere fans often hold a different view but it i an attitude that will drive many fans away and i also believe that it will make youngsters more inclined to play something else. how that can be good for the game is beyond me. serious question, if tat is the way gams go, do you think it will attract fans or kids to rugby?

and i still think that england really didn't look like scoring a try - still plenty of defence around when catt knocked on but if that is the best argument for england's attacking prowess, it is hardly inspirational. england played clever rugby in a manner calculatd to win. i wish we had but we didn't. for what it is worth, i've had more than a few of my pommy mates sharing the view that england really didn't look like scoring, but they don't care (and i'm sure i wouldn't be feeling bad if mortlock had kicked that last goal and we got an undeserved win). that doesn't make it good for the game.

[winelover]

Ken, perhaps I laid it on a bit strong or in legal terms there was a misrepresentation!

I just think that if you accept losing fair and square to a team that scored no tries, it it not in the spirit of good sportsmanship to harp on about it not being a good day for rugby because the winning team scored no tries.

That's all.

[Ken Gargett]

» Ken, perhaps I laid it on a bit strong or in legal terms there was a

» misrepresentation!

»

» I just think that if you accept losing fair and square to a team that

» scored no tries, it it not in the spirit of good sportsmanship to harp on

» about it not being a good day for rugby because the winning team scored no

» tries.

»

» That's all.

with the greatest respect, you really need to read the posts a little more carefully and i strongly resent the inference in respect of sporetsmanship.

every single post from me in this thread, in other threads and for what it is worth, outside the forum has acknowledged we were well beaten and that we did not deserve to win and i have not waivered on that.

as for your suggestion of 'harping on', something else i take exception to, if you read the posts you will see that i did not raise the issue on which you attack me (and which, if you had read the posts, you would have seen that i even singled out this particular game as an exception). that was done by another member. now, the cynical among us may suspect that is his published (for commercial reasons) view rather than his private opinion but not for me to impune the motives of others and nor is it relevant. it was an issue raised. when would be a good time to respond? in a year or two? might be a little out of date. i have expressed an opinion which i have held for a long time and which i firmly believe is supported by 100% of genuine lovers of rugby. it is far better that games are decided by tries but i understand that it doesn't always happen. i said i thought that the france all black game was a far better advert for the game and that last ten minutes with the all blacks attacking the french line and such desparate defence was fabulous stuff. even with the close score in the wallabies game, there was nothing that compared.

with respect, you have accused me of sour grapes, poor sportsmanship and attributed opinions to me, none of which has any basis. if you can show otherwise, please do so. if you cannot, perhaps you might like to do the decent thing.

[Colt45]

International rugby - bringing people together..........

[El Presidente]

Ken...you are wrong on this one.

I am as passionate a Rugby man as any on this green earth. We have had more long and tortured discussions re the wallabies on the phone and on the deck...from bars in Havana to bars and lunches in Brisbane. Lets agree that they are incompetent at best.

For 5 years I have coached sides which face up week after week against 40kg per man bigger sides (Islanders) who are more skillfull, faster and who are 30 point better teams ..."on paper".

I coach a field position game (box kick to corners and lines) backed by pressure (sprint defence) and a 5 man tight forward pack which is merciless at the ball. We feed on errors. We are the Hyena's of rugby that nip and bite and harrass and upset "star" players. We work in 5 minute segments slowly breaking down a teams perceptions

"this is going to be a cake walk" becomes " They are better than we thought" to " Jesus we are playing badly" to "Our forwards are lazy" to "give me the ball I can win it myself" to "we are in trouble" to "how the hell did we lose that?"

We average 14 points per game. We concede on average 12. Our forwards score 70% of our tries and 90% of our tries come from less than 15 metres out on the average of the 6th play.

It is ugly rugby...unless you are playing it and you know what you are doing. Every one of our boys (except one who I can't teach a thing to ) knows his role, and the teams philosophy to strangle oppositions to a point of paralysis. They also know that if we play an expansive running game we will lose by 30.

So keep in mind that Sunday morning there are 22 young Australian members of our squad who while disappointed Australia lost, were appreciative of what England did. They understood it for its pure beauty and ruthless efficiency. Having spoken to my prop yesterday he spoke in awe of the England cleanout and decimation of our front row. He spoke of "mental and physical toughness" and that England showed what it takes to be a great forward pack.

There is no one way to win a game. Beautiful Rugby comes in many forms. We saw one form of it Saturday night.

[Ken Gargett]

yet again, what a crock of crap. this was not beautiful rugby or a great day for rugby and a million miles from it on any standard. i understand what you are saying and i can happily watch great forward battles for weeks on end. i've said elsewhere that the best game i have ever seen had no tries but it had everything else, including a great forward battle. this was a hopless one sided joke.

the wallabies were worse than incompetent but the point i am making is that it was an awful game by any standards. the english forwards were excellent, no question. i can also understand 'i don't care how we win, ugly rugby view'. if the aussie cricketers had won the ashes with a run rate of ten a day, i would not have cared and would have watched the lot, but that is a completely different thing to it being good criocket or a 'great day for criocket'.

the wallabies poms game was an awful game. the pommy forwards were far superior but really that was the only aspect of the game that was competent. our were diaboilical. the defence looks good as only one try scored but that is simply because both sides were bereft of any decent attack. kicking was poor. a pommy mate says jonny missed five (i can't think of that many but he was a shadow of the great kicker of the past - look at what patterson has done for scotland, didn't miss one all competition). that is by far the most mistakes we have made for ages. it was back to the worst play under the toxic hobbit and i do not care what anyone professes to think, that does not make saying so sour grapes or poor sportsmanship and it certainly does not make it a great day for rugby. even from our own off-air discussion, it was the all balck french game that was so much better, and indeed a great day for rugby there. the best game of the whole thing could be argued, if not that one, to be fiji wales. had everything. and no, i will not agree to disagree.

» Ken...you are wrong on this one.

»

» I am as passionate a Rugby man as any on this green earth. We have had

» more long and tortured discussions re the wallabies on the phone and on

» the deck...from bars in Havana to bars and lunches in Brisbane. Lets agree

» that they are incompetent at best.

»

» For 5 years I have coached sides which face up week after week against

» 40kg per man bigger sides (Islanders) who are more skillfull, faster and

» who are 30 point better teams ..."on paper".

»

» I coach a field position game (box kick to corners and lines) backed by

» pressure (sprint defence) and a 5 man tight forward pack which is

» merciless at the ball. We feed on errors. We are the Hyena's of rugby that

» nip and bite and harrass and upset "star" players. We work in 5 minute

» segments slowly breaking down a teams perceptions

»

» "this is going to be a cake walk" becomes " They are better than we

» thought" to " Jesus we are playing badly" to "Our forwards are lazy" to

» "give me the ball I can win it myself" to "we are in trouble" to "how the

» hell did we lose that?"

»

» We average 14 points per game. We concede on average 12. Our forwards

» score 70% of our tries and 90% of our tries come from less than 15 metres

» out on the average of the 6th play.

»

» It is ugly rugby...unless you are playing it and you know what you are

» doing. Every one of our boys (except one who I can't teach a thing to

» ) knows his role, and the teams philosophy to strangle oppositions to

» a point of paralysis. They also know that if we play an expansive running

» game we will lose by 30.

»

» So keep in mind that Sunday morning there are 22 young Australian members

» of our squad who while disappointed Australia lost, were appreciative of

» what England did. They understood it for its pure beauty and ruthless

» efficiency. Having spoken to my prop yesterday he spoke in awe of the

» England cleanout and decimation of our front row. He spoke of "mental and

» physical toughness" and that England showed what it takes to be a great

» forward pack.

»

» There is no one way to win a game. Beautiful Rugby comes in many forms. We

» saw one form of it Saturday night.

[El Presidente]

Ken, England achieved all their goals:

1. Destroy the Aussie Scrum. Cripple the pack psychologically and do so early.

2. Play field position.

A. Elsom and Vickerman are good for 4 penalties a game. The front row another three penalties.

B. The Australian outside backs are coming back from injury or out of form. The inside backs inexperienced or past their best. They pose little risk in counter attack. Play field position and try to pinch a try if opportunity exists but kick as many field goals and Penalties as possible.

3. Shut them down at the ruck, at the maul, and in the defensive line.

As far as I see it Ken we were out coached, out led, and finally out manouvered.

To me it is a beautiful piece of pure technical Rugby.

[Ken Gargett]

i'm fully aware that this is just you have fun with a wind up, notwithstanding the inevitable denials to follow, so this is the last post on this from me re the quality of the game. go back and have a look and the english kicking was bog average for the most part. the pommy forwards were excellent, though allowed far more latitude than they would have been if they had come up against a side that played well or were half decent. that was all they needed. the aussie backline, rightly or wrongly, was touted by most world rugby observers pre this game, as the best of at very least second best in the world. that they were hopeleess on the day was a bonus for the poms.

just because they won, almost solely down to an utterly dominant forward display, does not make it some form of second coming for rugby. i cannot find any reports from anywhere suggesting it was anything other than what it was. bar the pommy forward dominence, it was bog average. for pommy supporters, just as if things werre reversed, they won't cfare less and why should they. anyone with any views on the quality of the game, knock yourselves out but i have wasted enough time. my last post on the subject of the quality or lacvk thereof of that game.

» Ken, England achieved all their goals:

»

» 1. Destroy the Aussie Scrum. Cripple the pack psychologically and do so

» early.

»

» 2. Play field position.

»

» A. Elsom and Vickerman are good for 4 penalties a game. The front row

» another three penalties.

» B. The Australian outside backs are coming back from injury or out of

» form. The inside backs inexperienced or past their best. They pose little

» risk in counter attack. Play field position and try to pinch a try if

» opportunity exists but kick as many field goals and Penalties as possible.

»

»

» 3. Shut them down at the ruck, at the maul, and in the defensive line.

»

» As far as I see it Ken we were out coached, out led, and finally out

» manouvered.

»

» To me it is a beautiful piece of pure technical Rugby.

[ARRV]

England played smart rugby and played it well and played it passionately. Nothing wrong with that at all and I congratulate them on a well deserved victory.

The problem I have is that blind freddy saw it coming - England was going to try to smash us up front and then play field position for points. No suprises there.

Indeed the Aussies talked it up all week - Reverse 2005. "We want to be the best pack in the world" etc etc. Now it appears they are not even the best pack in Australia.

So having seen it coming and knowing what England was likely to do what did Australia do? They submitted. Shameful. I accept it may have just been the shock of playing a team that was ready to die for each other. But really shows just how inadequate the Australians are/were.

All I can think about is a quote from Gregan a couple of years ago where he disparaged the idea of passion having any part in the modern game as they were now all consumate professionals and thus didn't have to rely on passion - or words to that effect.

To me this is indicative of the selfish nature of the present senior bunch of wallabies - they believe they are above the coaches, administrators, supporters and the game itself (probably a result of being paid far too much $$ and living sheltered lives - but that is another story/rant)

For too long the players (mostly the senior players) have had it easy - having a whinge about coaches and coaching methods - Nucifora being sacked from the ACT because players not happy even though the team won - whinging about a bonding camp in Qld because they might catch a cold.

Well tough.

The players are the custodians of the game and are damn lucky to be there. So fare thee well Gregan et al. Once great but great no more. Consumate professionalism is for test cricket. Rugby needs nut-jobs with enormous pain thresholds. Bring on the young guns with passion. Players willing to put their bodies on the line and take pain for each other and enjoy doing it.

A team of Sam Scott-Youngs and Poidevens

[El Presidente]

I am hurt that you would ever accuse me of winding you up ;-)