0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
I'll give one concession to DHP, the flooding of the breakdown was leaving too much space at the end of the defensive line, I think if Matthew Burke was out there, even he would have been caught short.
But I'm defending the local boy, aren't I Beej?![]()
Japan and the Pacific Islands for Aussie Super 9's!
Let's have one of these in WA! Click this link: Saitama Super Arena - New Perth Stadium?
Dip was caught short in several 3 on 1s which is difficult for anybody to manage.
In the end, I thought he would have been better served to stay on the chalk, smash the guy who's on the wing and trust his team mates for the inside defence.
C'mon the![]()
![]()
Yeah, but there are bigger decisions to be made when it's 3 or 4 on 1. Most wingers will come in and try to tie up the ball, knowing that they won't be blamed for being beaten. But Dane fell off a lot of desperate tackles when trying to cover an entire back line. He'd be better to defend more conservatively and actually make the tackles
C'mon the![]()
![]()
Poor game plan cruelled DHP and AAC, they had to come in to cover the AB's inside runners while Pooper and Maccalman tried to pilfer every breakdown. Game plan should've changed in the first 15 mins but they persisted for 65mins. AB's sliding defence was iron clad, to be honest Cooper, Beale, Folau and DHP are the only players in Aus able to bend and break that style of defence, and even then its not often. AAC, Giteau, Kuridrani, Foley, Horne, Kerevi etc. just aren't inventive enough to trouble the ABs in broken play.
Giteau has a broken ankle so that's him done for the RWC.
No wonder the poor bugger couldn't stay on the field! The Doc would have known it was most likely broken and would have wanted him off immediately. So it sounds to me like he was overruled by the player and/or Cheika. Doc's word should be final imo, not the coach's.
Proudly Western Australian; Proudly supporting Western Australian rugby
So Giteau back to rehab again. I'll bet Mourad Boudjellal may be foaming at the mouth. What a complete debacle this Giteau Law has turned out. Thanks Cheiks!
I too couldn't understand why he showed the AB's the line during the game instead of marking the outside man. But read this morning (on the trusty internet) that the Wallabies defence coach has been coaching the wingers to show the line and target the inside man and leave the man on the outside for the cover defence. AAC was doing it as well. And as we saw this worked so well.
It appears to have been a tactic for more than just the Wallabies, many of the SR teams use this one as well. It probably works OK if the ball gets shut down by the winger's tackle, and it probably works OK when it's 2 on one inside the 5m but it doesn't work all that well with 3 on 1 and 15m to cover with no cover defense coming across because everybody else is out of position through the rampant ball chasing.
C'mon the![]()
![]()
In reality there was very little "flooding of the breakdown" by the Wallabies.
The Wallabies averaged 2.2 players in support of the ball carrier (compared to an Aussie SR2016 average of 2.5 players per Attack Ruck.
Involvement in Defence Rucks averaged 1.0 players - compared to an Aussie SR2016 average of 0.8 players.
In the 1st half of SR2016 all Aussie teams committed >1.0 and up to 1.3 players per Defence Ruck (granted with little success).
The Wallabies effort was certainly well above what was a very poor effort in the RWC final when the Wallabies only averaged 0.4 players per Defence Ruck.
Our defensive skills, strategies and effectiveness were simply poor with 40 missed tackles - 70% tackle effectiveness (All Blacks 90%).
The All Blacks also had 26 Off Loads to the Wallabies 5 OL - a clear intent to keep the ball away from our 3 Back Rowers.
I've yet to collect the ABs Ruck Involvement data but I expect them to show that the ABs were standing off most Defence Rucks with a focus on maintaining their Defensive Line. This in itself would give the appearance of the Wallabies flooding the breakdown.
Pocock earned 7 TOW - at an impressive 1TOW per 3 Defence Ruck Involvements.
Pocock's Ruck Involvements were 10% above his SR2016 average.
By contrast Hooper earned only the single TOW - 1 TOW per 13 Defence Ruck Involvements.
Hooper's Ruck Involvements were at his SR2016 average.
But undoubtedly he was just following coach's orders.
Kuridrani has copped a lot of flack but his game high 17 Tackles (without a miss) don't seem to get much mention. Yes he did have couple of very obvious Handling Errors but his ball carries were more effective than Hooper (who had 3 Handling Errors).
Cheika appears to keep to a pre-determined replacement strategy rather than adapt as the game unfolds.
I struggle to understand why McCalman was subbed at 60 minutes. It may have been more effective to have a back line of Fardy 6, Pocock 7 and McCalman 8, move Hooper to 12 (where we had a problem and where he's played a lot in club rugby) and let Phipps replace an obviously hurting Genia.
Last edited by andrewg; 22-08-16 at 16:44.
Well Gits' accountant might. According to Boudjellal Gits is AWL. Grounds for tearing up a contract, probably. I agreed with recalling them for RWC. Not this time - should be blooding talent. Even if it's not actually screaming "Pick Me!!!!" Having said that I admire Giteau's willingness to ignore the pressure and return anyway.
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David