Wallabies - where to from here?

First topic message reminder :

The pain and disappointment of Saturday is finally dissipating, and it has left me considering where to now.  I don't have a background in rugby, but sport is sport, so I have been thinking about the more general (or non-technical I guess) actions and attitudes I hope the camp are taking.  

1.  The first thing is that I hope they haven't dropped their bundle and decided they need to become a narrower side.  This side simply isn't going to be effective at that, will be beaten by every other contender if they try, and we don't have a kicker to carry it off, so I hope they stick to what they have been developing.

2.  Accept and embrace the changed challenges ahead.  There are also positives in playing teams you know well.

3.  Get Barnes onto the field to get some practice and rhythm, but back Cooper to the hilt.  He is the best playmaker we have for bringing Beale, JOC, Ioane, and AAC into the game.  With any other playmaker, the opposition get a narrower field to defend, and that suits them more than us.  He takes a lot of flak, but people don't only obsess about him because he stole a laptop and can't tackle.  He also brings a little bit of fear.  And besides, he's one of ours now and everyone else can ...

4.  My last sentence leads me here. Id like to see them go all siege for the remainder of their time in the tourney.  I wont care if i dont hear another thing out of their mouths, if they can use the anger. While not everything, emotion is valuable and has certainly worked against us this year.   So go old school and make sure they know people from all over no longer rate them.  The hosts are showing their hate of us and our team, so tap into it and use it to advantage.

5.  Do whatever it takes to get Palu, Taf,and Mitchell up to speed.  They are players that will bend the line and we are going to need them even if only backup. Also play Horne for the next two at 13.  Where Phipps and Sai'a are there as the next best available, there really is no point in Horne unless they consider him as offering some thing to the main team.

What are you blokes thinking?  I'd be interested especially in the technical stuff that we have a chance of fixing.

Feckless Rogue wrote:

Full Credit wrote:While the loosies aren't pushing at scrum time, the hooker's not throwing the ball in straight, the personnel aren't committed and aggressive at the breakdown, and the kicks are being missed we'll continue to get the same kind of sporadic results.

Ha. That sounds exactly like what us Irish posters were saying about our team just a week ago.

There's one thing that hasn't been mentioned much. It was actually the oldest team in the tournament against the youngest. That's what the Irish commentator said anyway. The Irish had bucket loads of experience and plenty of domestic silverware to draw on. The young Aussie's have bucket loads of talent but limited experience. The Irish were smarter and more composed as well as more passionate and physical.

No doubt, when the Lions go on tour in two years they'll find they've timed it just right to be facing the best team in the world. Again!

Once again,
Too much taken from the one game methinks.

This is one game from pool play.

2 examples from 2007. England at about this point in the tourney lost 36-0. NO ONE was picking them for a final berth, even the hardest of English supporters.

NZ were probably scoring their 300th point in pool play within a week from now. Out last 8.

When considering those examples, the Oz result means ZIP. In fact all it serves is to give Ireland overconfidence- the foundation for a fall, and it gets Oz back to the learning phase.

My guess is the next Irish performance when compared to the next Oz performance will favour a far better Oz performance, purely off the back of this result, regardless of who either is playing. I'm referring to the 'performance', not the result.

Let's test it...

OzT wrote:Well after yesterday's discussion of lack of leadership in the Wallabies, today we hear Genia's skipper for the USA game.

Not sure that's the way to go, but with such a young squad I guess it's best to start them young.

And Deans have to continue with brain explosions cause we just haven't got the backup! Fragile I don't think the Wallabies are, but defo lack of depth in positions, except maybe wing and full back.

But I am still excitied about the Ws, no reason why this lot shouldn't go all the way in this compo.

I think we are really undervaluing Nathan Sharpe. I'm only a fan, but I respect him and what he offers as a player. I'm suprised he seems to only fits their plans in relation to SA, and not the other bigger teams.

I with you on the last sentence as well. They just need to hold their nerve, and in my view, make it all a bit more personal to stir up the fight in the dog.

Sharpe and Vickerman ,were once Oz`s best lock combo,USA is a gimme a bonus point win by as many tries as you like.Australia have less depth than some teams.No specialist 7 cover,well there not alone in that,lose some of there key players and there vulnerable/who is`nt?
Near invincible at full strength?2 wins out of the last 12 versus the All Blacks.1out of 3 versus England?
Pocock was`nt the difference versus Ireland,who played very well.Moore was.The Scrum tactics of Australia recently have been questioned,especially the binding.They had a Ref on the park who was very critical to both sides,some of the penalties he may have got wrong.
Only the "secret six" can answer that .
Angry with Australia?probably angry with Cooper`s antics thats all.

There is no doubt Wallabies in the forwards were off their game.

Given the way the games in the RWC are being refereed, they also need to adjust their style. 3N games and Super Rugby games are in my view refereed far differently allowing ball in hand play, phase play, a preference to the team with the ball and building momentum. The refs at this RWC are whistling stoppages a lot and often and the penalty count against OZ is huge. Attacking sides are being pinged more often at the breakdown than usual - denying momentum and phase play - shades of 2007 here.

They changed the rules to allow more attack and free flow which is what we got in 3N last year and this year but the refs have regressed in my view - or there are refs involved who do not normally get involved in 3N.

OZ have to adjust and not play their natural game. It is more of a forwards battle, more set pieces than broken play more penalties, kicks out, field position and kicks at goal.

Scrums, tactical kicking and penalty shots - not a W strength because they rarely need it. However they need it now. Having the best backline in the world, sadly, is completely irrelevant at this tournament. Team don;t really need talentd backs - just competent ones will do. they need a ferocious forward pack and a sharp shooting goal kicker. That's it.

Music to Biltongs ears Rob.

Sadly thats what even Genia is also saying. Your last paragraph practically describes the SA side to a tee. We probably have the side and ability to switch to it but wheres the fun in that.

Fun does`nt come into it either you win or you lose,Golden Rule first name on the team sheet.YOUR BEST GOALKICKER !!!!
Playing pretty Rugby does`nt win as many matches as Penalties.
3Ns was won and lost on that this year,Boks home games,if they had opted
to kick there goals.SA would have won that match.
The All Blacks played 20 minutes of pretty Rugby,failed to convert numerous
line breaks.Boks were pragmatic and took them in 3`s,bear in mind they have won 2 titles without scoring a try,a moral there?

Yes, theres a moral there. Its boring to watch.

Little wonder the game will continue to struggle in Australia if that is the case - people just will not pay up to watch penalty goals when they can go watch AFL and rugby league. Dull.

Exactly Rob. Highlights this year have been the Oz tries for me, not the coolly taken penalties.
NZers wont go for it either, because its...booooooring

Get real as long as you win the RWC you won`t care if its Penalties or Dropped Goals.Not put up with it because its boring,they put up with it for 15 solid years and did`nt give a damn.
Was Ireland v Australia boring because there was no tries?tight matches
without tries can be just as exciting as running in 13 tries against cannon fodder.

Alan, there is no use. Would I have liked if we scored a try or two in the final? Sure why not. Would NZ in 1995 and England in 2007 liked to have scored at least one try in those finals, sure they would.

But no one did, that is what happens in tough defence orientated matches.

But hopefully NZ or OZ can make the final this time round and again play against a NH opponent that they can outscore with at least one try. At least then there will be something in for those supporters who carry more value of the actual moment the ball is being dotted down, and can for the rest of the match sit back and do something else.

Precisely my point ,I was bought up in an era when one try a match was the norm..No one cared a stuff as long as they won,those were some of the
greatest teams ever.
Sure , I loved seeing beatuifully excuted text book move s leading to tries,something like the Tuilagi try,straight off the top from a lineout ,onepass,bang a hard running back under the posts.basic Rugby executed at pace.
At it`s best that`s All Black rugby basic skills at pace works every time,but
watching a perfectly executed Peel from a lineout to put a man in space was
poetry too.
Thats not rose tinted glasses thats the facts of life.in a tight game the better goal kicking side will win.

Last time I saw the try line was 68 metres wide.
Each team has 15 players who are all licensed to run the ball.

For a team to spend 80 minutes trying to get one of 15 players over that line with the ball in hand and fail lacks skill and should lose the match.

And to charge people money to watch that is a crime. To me its that simple.

Taylorman wrote:
For a team to spend 80 minutes trying to get one of 15 players over that line with the ball in hand and fail lacks skill and should lose the match.

I disagree Taylorman. I pay to watch my team win, not score tries. Obviously I hate to see negative rugby but for me the objective of a team is to play to their strengths in a attack and try to negate their opponents strengths in defence.

There's nothing as boring as one sided try fests and basketball rugby. I used to love RL and now I can hardly watch it there's so many tries and so few genuine contests.

A great touch finding kick, great tackle or well exectuted maul can be every bit as entertaining as a try depending on the context of the game. Thats the beauty of rugby union.

I for one am looking forward to Argentina v Scotland much more than Samoa v Fiji even though the latter is much more likey to yield tries than the former.

All good Roddersm,
okay to disagree. I mean if you support a team that doesnt score tries often, how can you possibly agree.

Fair point.

Taylorman wrote:All good Roddersm,
okay to disagree. I mean if you support a team that doesnt score tries often, how can you possibly agree.

Fair point.

Don't get me wrong Taylorman, I'm disappointed with Ireland's lack of tries so far. It's the area we need to improve on but what's more important for me is that we are starting to lay the foundations i.e. the set piece is improving, the breakdown and defence are going well. Handling errors are down and discipline is good.

We've lost a number of games over the past year were we have outscored the opposition, for example against France in the 6N, were it was 3 tries to 1 and that is of no consolation to me. You don't get trophies for scoring the most tries or plaing the most entertaining rugby.

The AB's for me have the balance. They get the basics right 1st and then they put away their chances but it's their ability to blow teams away at the breakdown and kick their goals that makes them the best as much as their ability to score great tries.

[quote="roddersm"]

Taylorman wrote:

You don't get trophies for scoring the most tries or plaing the most entertaining rugby.

Too bleeding true roddersm, but unfortunately for supporters like me of a side that cannot kick goals to save their lives, or, unless they decide to really make an effort, push anyone off the ball for a forward's try, then entertaining rugby is what gives me pleasure... win or.. gasp.. lose!!!!

Rugby Club tonight, Horan suggested they may be building towards a Horne AAC centre pairing, and that he would be happy about it. The others thought Barnes to 12, presumably with AAC when Ioane returns. They also thought Sharpe into 22 over Simmons. Not much else on us specifically.

Australia as we all know do not have the best front three, it's been questioned time and time again, even though they have up and coming players in those positions like Saia Fainga'a, James Slipper and Sekope Kepu they have always been intended to struggle in the scrum, Ireland countered that when we beat them only last week, Ireland's front three dominated Australia's.

Sharpe and Horwill needs to start every game, there is no point testing Vickerman or Simmons in big match games. Australia back row, is fine as it is a very strong point of their side with plenty of depth.

Watching the Australia games, Genia seemed to do all the work running from scrum-half instead of looking for Cooper, even though the Reds won Super 15, if teams shut Cooper down he becomes frustrated and the whole team starts to weaken, really think playing O'Connor at 10 or Barnes would be a better option.

Maybe bring Mitchell back into the reckoning aswell may help, despite having injury problems like Barnes, he is one of the best finishers in the world, meaning Australia should push Ashley-Cooper or O'Connor to centre to give them that extra creativity. Fainga'a and McCabe had excellent Super 15 campaigns, but I think it's the wrong option that the Aussie's start them at centre.

1.Kepu, 2.Moore, 3.Alexander - Australia need two of their best front rowers to stand a chance against some dangerous packs.

4.Horwill, 5.Sharpe - Need to play this combo all the time, it has the potential to be very very good.

6.Elsom, 7.Pocock, 8.Higginbotham - That is a strong back row, I would have Higginbotham over Samo any day of the week.

9.Genia, 10.Barnes - Genia and Cooper can work but some days it can't, Australia should give Berrick the chance to rekindle some form.

12.Fainga'a, 13.Ashley-Cooper - Australia need to have a big name or one of their big players at centre, whether it's O'Connor or Ashley-Cooper, they just need some creativity and attacking flare.

11.Mitchell, 14.O'Connor, 15.Beale - Ioane of course is another option, but Mitchell deserves a chance he is a very good finisher and try scorer, O'Connor is one of the most exciting players in the World, as is Kurtley Beale who should start at 15 every game.

Rob B wrote:Little wonder the game will continue to struggle in Australia if that is the case - people just will not pay up to watch penalty goals when they can go watch AFL and rugby league. Dull.

I've seen a few comments like this from Aussie's. If you want to see try fests then watch rugby league. It's a good sport too. If you ask me there's many ways to win a game of union and that makes it better. Argentina and Australia could hardly play the game more differently, but they're both welcome to bring their own style and try and win in my opinion.

Scoring tries is hard against good opposition. And so it should be. You have to work for them. They'd be devalued if they were easy. Australia could tear most teams in the world to shreds. But Ireland had a great and legal game plan. They executed it perfectly. Australia couldn't get over the try line. So well done to us. Australia could have scored tries if they played better but they didn't.

It reminds me of the Kiwi aversion to drop goals. As if a drop goal is beneath them and they don't want it to be part of the game. Well they could have done with one in '07 and they didn't attempt one and so they lost. I heard that half the World Cup finals to date have been decided by a drop goal. Is that true? Wouldn't surprise me. I can think of '95 and '03 off the top of my head. Could be an achilles heel for New Zealand. They don't have to build their game around drop goals. I wouldn't want them to. But they should be at least willing to take one if they really need it.

I just don't understand how a tryless game is boring. How is a man running past a line so much more exciting? For me the excitement is in the contest. The contest on the scoreboard. The contest for possession at every scrum lineout and breakdown has me jumping between joy and despair. A well executed maul is great to watch. And yes, line breaks, offloads and tries are brilliant too. There's lots of ingredients in the stew of rugby.

Does anyone really think South Africa's 87-0 win over Namibia was more exciting than the Ireland v Australia match? There were 12 tries so by some peoples logic it was better and less boring. I find that hard to believe.

emack2 wrote:Get real as long as you win the RWC you won`t care if its Penalties or Dropped Goals.Not put up with it because its boring,they put up with it for 15 solid years and did`nt give a damn.
Was Ireland v Australia boring because there was no tries?tight matches
without tries can be just as exciting as running in 13 tries against cannon fodder.

Yes it was boring from my perspective - though tempered with deep seated frustration over all the penalties and stop start nature of the game. Never felt either side built up multiple phase play. It was a spoiling game played effectively by Ireland. Exciting from non W supporter yes as Ireland knocked off one of the top sides - but the actual game? No excitement at all. How many times did Ireland threaten the line? Once? Twice?

Feckless Rogue wrote:
Does anyone really think South Africa's 87-0 win over Namibia was more exciting than the Ireland v Australia match?

Brian Habana?

Rob B wrote:

emack2 wrote:Get real as long as you win the RWC you won`t care if its Penalties or Dropped Goals.Not put up with it because its boring,they put up with it for 15 solid years and did`nt give a damn.
Was Ireland v Australia boring because there was no tries?tight matches
without tries can be just as exciting as running in 13 tries against cannon fodder.

Yes it was boring from my perspective - though tempered with deep seated frustration over all the penalties and stop start nature of the game. Never felt either side built up multiple phase play. It was a spoiling game played effectively by Ireland. Exciting from non W supporter yes as Ireland knocked off one of the top sides - but the actual game? No excitement at all. How many times did Ireland threaten the line? Once? Twice?

But rob, is that not the beauty of Rugby union. you have a team who by all accounts have the most exciting backline in the world, and they are being negated by clever tactics.

This is precisely why I love rugby, the team that scores the most points wins. but that is not what makes rugby union great, it is the journey that takes you to the victory. Be it offensive defence, hard intesity forward bashings, good tectical territorial play. The tries are the cherry on the cake.

Feckless Rogue wrote:

Rob B wrote:Little wonder the game will continue to struggle in Australia if that is the case - people just will not pay up to watch penalty goals when they can go watch AFL and rugby league. Dull.

I've seen a few comments like this from Aussie's. If you want to see try fests then watch rugby league. It's a good sport too. If you ask me there's many ways to win a game of union and that makes it better. Argentina and Australia could hardly play the game more differently, but they're both welcome to bring their own style and try and win in my opinion.

Scoring tries is hard against good opposition. And so it should be. You have to work for them. They'd be devalued if they were easy. Australia could tear most teams in the world to shreds. But Ireland had a great and legal game plan. They executed it perfectly. Australia couldn't get over the try line. So well done to us. Australia could have scored tries if they played better but they didn't.

It reminds me of the Kiwi aversion to drop goals. As if a drop goal is beneath them and they don't want it to be part of the game. Well they could have done with one in '07 and they didn't attempt one and so they lost. I heard that half the World Cup finals to date have been decided by a drop goal. Is that true? Wouldn't surprise me. I can think of '95 and '03 off the top of my head. Could be an achilles heel for New Zealand. They don't have to build their game around drop goals. I wouldn't want them to. But they should be at least willing to take one if they really need it.

I just don't understand how a tryless game is boring. How is a man running past a line so much more exciting? For me the excitement is in the contest. The contest on the scoreboard. The contest for possession at every scrum lineout and breakdown has me jumping between joy and despair. A well executed maul is great to watch. And yes, line breaks, offloads and tries are brilliant too. There's lots of ingredients in the stew of rugby.

Does anyone really think South Africa's 87-0 win over Namibia was more exciting than the Ireland v Australia match? There were 12 tries so by some peoples logic it was better and less boring. I find that hard to believe.

You may have seen these comments from OZ people all well and good, and if watching tryless matches with 8 penalty goals, a few frop goals and some really absorbing mauls does it for you, fair enough that's you.

But there is a reason why the IRB resolved to change the laws after the 2007 world cup after another tryless final. Why did they change the rules? Because the game was going into decline and crowds and revenue were down; by and large the 2007 RWC was a failure in terms of taking the game global. If the game was in good shape they would keep the old rules. Why did they change? Because it was boring and fristrating to watch. The law changes were designed to open the game up more, to ensure the attacking side was preferred the advantage, to reward sides with ball in hand and encourage teams to keep the ball in play rather than boot it out. There were too many stoppages, too many penalties and too many penalty shots. Certainly 3N games have change quite a bit over the past few years as a result of the new rules but most importantly how the refs were adjudicating the game. The result? The crowds have come back; the sponsors are back, the TV rights deals are getting better; clubs have more money to pay players, as a result we keep the best players from switching codes. Why? People like to see attacking rugby, running rugby, and guess what? Tries in hard fought and close battles.

Don't you want to see a few tries every and then for goodness sake????? Is the primary goal to get the ball over the line or milk penalty shots all day by collapsing mauls and scrums??


Now at cup time it seems to be regressing due to the radical change the game is being adjudicated compared to SH rugby. Kill the ball; collapse the maul; collapse the scrumget another scrum; get another penalty; have another shot.

Don't get me wrong - fair play to Ireland - they deserved to win against W - but the above point is different.

Rob B wrote:It was a spoiling game played effectively by Ireland. Exciting from non W supporter yes as Ireland knocked off one of the top sides - but the actual game? No excitement at all. How many times did Ireland threaten the line? Once? Twice?

Sorry for not giving you quick ball old chap, would you like me to explain the rules again? Uncontested scrums maybe?

I think you'll find Ireland threatened Australia's line as much as vice versa and made more 4 times more clean breaks, beat the same number of defenders, passed more and ran more with the ball. We did kick more but hey we're not Fiji you know.

Oh yes, sorry it was pulsating stuff - my mistake.

There was never any problem with crowds or sponsorship in the European game. But yes, the rules were changed. And Ireland won under these new rules. Should we change them again? Will they only be right when they perfectly suit the strengths of Australia?

The fact is that if Australia had a better scrum, a better lineout and were more physical at the breakdown they would have gotten the territory, possession and rhythm to score plenty of tries. But they didn't. They're not a complete team. And they didn't deserve to score any tries.

roddersm wrote:

Rob B wrote:It was a spoiling game played effectively by Ireland. Exciting from non W supporter yes as Ireland knocked off one of the top sides - but the actual game? No excitement at all. How many times did Ireland threaten the line? Once? Twice?

Sorry for not giving you quick ball old chap, would you like me to explain the rules again? Uncontested scrums maybe?

I think you'll find Ireland threatened Australia's line as much as vice versa and made more 4 times more clean breaks, beat the same number of defenders, passed more and ran more with the ball. We did kick more but hey we're not Fiji you know.

I didn't say Australia played a more exciting brand of rugby on weekend, than Ireland. Neither team did. Understand you're not used to it though....

That's the point.

Feckless Rogue wrote:There was never any problem with crowds or sponsorship in the European game. But yes, the rules were changed. And Ireland won under these new rules. Should we change them again? Will they only be right when they perfectly suit the strengths of Australia?

The fact is that if Australia had a better scrum, a better lineout and were more physical at the breakdown they would have gotten the territory, possession and rhythm to score plenty of tries. But they didn't. They're not a complete team. And they didn't deserve to score any tries.

Im not really debating the whys and wherefors of the game. It is a more genral observation on the way the game is being adjudicated the resulting style of rugby.

But on the game itself now you raised it, on the basis that Ireland had a better scrum, better lineout and were more physical at the breakdown, why can't they score ANY tries?

I agree totally with rodders here - I don't understand what people are complaining about at all. The reason rugby union is such a great sport is because of how diverse it is and there are plenty more ways to win a game than just running over the try line.

Why not just watch rugby league for that where there are plenty of tries and not as many stoppages? I would match rather watch a tight contest than a cricket score whitewash. Anyway, wasn't the team Deans picked for the Ireland match supposed to be a defensive one? That's what a few of the australian posters were saying about the inclusion of McCabe and Faingaa specifically before the match.

Rob B wrote:

Im not really debating the whys and wherefors of the game. It is a more genral observation on the way the game is being adjudicated the resulting style of rugby.

But on the game itself now you raised it, on the basis that Ireland had a better scrum, better lineout and were more physical at the breakdown, why can't they score ANY tries?

I think that is more to do with Ireland lacking creativity at the moment, mostly due to the midfield and not knowing which halfback partnership to go with. When Ireland sort that out, they will capitalise from their great defensive work and the set-piece.

Hopefully Aus will wake up and see that a midfield of Fa'ainga & McCabe just doesn't give them anything going forward. Cooper can create from nothing but when you have two centres as unproductive as those two you're putting a hell of a lot on your pivot (See England as example)

Either AAC has to come back in at 13 and Mitchell 11 (Fa'ainga has worse hands than Tindall!) or Barnes needs to replace McCabe to take some pressure off Cooper.

And they seriously miss Pocock

Rob B wrote:
I didn't say Australia played a more exciting brand of rugby on weekend, than Ireland. Neither team did. Understand you're not used to it though....

That's the point.

Well I don't recall you accusing the Wallabies of using spoiling tactics?

Rob both teams had a >90% tackle success rate. They are two of the best defences in the world. Get over it.

If O'Conner hadn't of chased down Bowe at the end, Murrays try hadn't of been disallowed and O'Brien hadn't of pulled of that tackle on Genia it would have been 2 tries to 1. Would that make you feel better?

Rob B wrote:But on the game itself now you raised it, on the basis that Ireland had a better scrum, better lineout and were more physical at the breakdown, why can't they score ANY tries?

They can when they play England the feckers!

It's not an accusation as to spoiling tactics. Ireland used negative tactics to nullify W - everybody accepts that - it's a plain fact. My point is that where you have a game with somewhere between 20-30 penalties you spend an inordinant amount of time watching blokes line up kicks and having a kick, or booting it out, have a lineout, whatever. Take say, 25 penalties in a game - that has to be a an average of 25 mins mucking around with penalties doesn't it? That's a pretty big chunk out of a game where the ball is not in play - it's certainly not what I go to see. If you're different good on you!

Rob there was 20 penalties conceded which isn't that high compared to other matches.

Most of them were by you and mainly at the scrum. How the feck can you blame us for that? What do you want us to do take quick tap penalties to keep the Australia fans happy because your team are conceding penalties?

Which negative tactic are you talking about? Tackling? Counterrucking?

You need to get in the real world Rob. Do you expect other teams not to tackle your player and not counterruck so you can have nice clean quick ball?

I suppose you boo at the screen everytime Pocock wins a turn over for your guys because he's stopping the opposition playing attacking rugby??

Rob B wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:There was never any problem with crowds or sponsorship in the European game. But yes, the rules were changed. And Ireland won under these new rules. Should we change them again? Will they only be right when they perfectly suit the strengths of Australia?

The fact is that if Australia had a better scrum, a better lineout and were more physical at the breakdown they would have gotten the territory, possession and rhythm to score plenty of tries. But they didn't. They're not a complete team. And they didn't deserve to score any tries.

Im not really debating the whys and wherefors of the game. It is a more genral observation on the way the game is being adjudicated the resulting style of rugby.

But on the game itself now you raised it, on the basis that Ireland had a better scrum, better lineout and were more physical at the breakdown, why can't they score ANY tries?

Because our backs weren't great in attack. It wasn't a complete performance from us either. But it didn't have to be, because our pack won the game. I don't see how it could have been adjudicated much differently. There was one point where Ireland were in a good attacking position when they were really starting to get the upper hand. Horwill flew into a ruck from the side and prevented the Irish from getting the ball away quickly. Professional foul. What else could the the ref do but give a penalty? Let them away with it? Allowing fouls like that would probably result in less tries. And when Australia infringe at the scrum then it's a penalty. If its not then it makes the scrum irrelevant, and it's not really rugby union anymore. What else can he do but give a penalty? Maybe it would be more exciting if he let the Irish run over the try line unopposed, rather than let them try and kick it between the posts.

Look, I actually have sympathy with your wish to see running try scoring rugby. I'm a Leinsterman. That's the Leinster way. But for years we had brilliant backs and a soft pack. We could put in some scintillating wins and then get strangled in the next match. So we built a big nasty pack, and started to win silverware. Then last season we finally married our ugly bruising pack with incisive back play and the result was this.

At the weekend the Aussie pack and backs underperformed. Bob Dwyer say as much in this article which I posted before. At the same time Ireland won the scrum, the lineout and the breakdown, but didn't show any creativity in the backs. The result was a 15-6 win for the better team on the day. No tries. It happens sometimes. Neither team managed to manufacture a try. And it wasn't the refs fault. We'll see plenty of tries in the tournament. Can't wait for New Zealand v France.

[quote="roddersm"]

Rob B wrote:


If O'Conner hadn't of chased down Bowe at the end,

Probably the best chase and tackle, and the best move from the Wallabies, that game!!! LOL!!!

Why we really need him and more like him that will chase and play with a bit more determination for the rest of the games.

Yeah. I need to get in the real world of boring, tryless rugby - good point (again).

Feckless Rogue wrote:At the same time Ireland won the scrum, the lineout and the breakdown, but didn't show any creativity in the backs. The result was a 15-6 win for the better team on the day. No tries. It happens sometimes. Neither team managed to manufacture a try. And it wasn't the refs fault. We'll see plenty of tries in the tournament. Can't wait for New Zealand v France.

Again this simply is not true. Ireland made the same amount of clean breaks against Australia as Italy made against Russia (4). The Wallabies made 1 linebreak despite having 48% possession.

The failure of either side to score a try is because of the incredibly organised and commited defences that both sides had. Both sides had >92% success rate on their defence.

The stats are there to be scrutinised http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/match/93473.html

The only glaring difference between the two sides was the amount of penalties and turnovers conceded by the Wallabies.

Sin e? Is that you?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Sin e? Is that you?

Sorry sinE's stats only show that Munster men don't make mistakes

Jokes aside, I don't think Ireland have been very threatening in their backline compared to other sides. As I said before I think it is because of our lack of a solid halfback combination (Sexton or ROG?) and terrible form shown by D'Arcy and BOD. In fairness though D'Arcy performed well against Australia.

I will be interested to see the team for this weekend to see a) who Kidney picks at 12 between McFadden and Wallace and b) who he selects as our back three for this game.

Alright. "didn't show any creativity" is probably going to far. But they didn't show enough to score a try.

Rob B wrote:It's not an accusation as to spoiling tactics. Ireland used negative tactics to nullify W - everybody accepts that - it's a plain fact. My point is that where you have a game with somewhere between 20-30 penalties you spend an inordinant amount of time watching blokes line up kicks and having a kick, or booting it out, have a lineout, whatever. Take say, 25 penalties in a game - that has to be a an average of 25 mins mucking around with penalties doesn't it? That's a pretty big chunk out of a game where the ball is not in play - it's certainly not what I go to see. If you're different good on you!

True, does make you wonder how Australia avoided a yellow card for persitent infringing despite giving away 28 penalties over two games.

roddersm wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:At the same time Ireland won the scrum, the lineout and the breakdown, but didn't show any creativity in the backs. The result was a 15-6 win for the better team on the day. No tries. It happens sometimes. Neither team managed to manufacture a try. And it wasn't the refs fault. We'll see plenty of tries in the tournament. Can't wait for New Zealand v France.

Again this simply is not true. Ireland made the same amount of clean breaks against Australia as Italy made against Russia (4). The Wallabies made 1 linebreak despite having 48% possession.

The failure of either side to score a try is because of the incredibly organised and commited defences that both sides had. Both sides had >92% success rate on their defence.

The stats are there to be scrutinised http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/match/93473.html

The only glaring difference between the two sides was the amount of penalties and turnovers conceded by the Wallabies.

Stats don't tell you whether it was an exciting game. (when I say exciting exciting I mean you don't sit there all night watching shots at goal - I understand others find it rivetting).

Certainly agree the difference was the penalty count (50% more penalties to Ireland) - and the worst forwards performance I have seen from W in 2 years.

True Rob they don't. Look I thought it was good game and I think a lot of neutrals did too.

I take your points and agree on some of them but we'll have to agree to disagree on others.

Rob understand your comments.

Only way to make this point is on the field.

We'll kick it off this weekend against france and show them how tries can be scored and believe it or not, actually make the game appear exciting.

Then its your turn. Get oz back into gear for the knockouts.
Remember. Those who dont score tries are the only perpetuators of this myth.

And ill be damned if ill be teaching my son to play the game to 'kick for touch'.
'Get your team in a position for johnny over there to kick all your teams points'
'donr risk spinning the ball wide or running it because you might get turned over and penalised'
but above all son. Enjoy the game!

Man some people need a reality check.

But Taylorman, nobody is preaching to Australia and New Zealand about how they should play the game or how your kids should be taught to play it. I love the way they play actually. It's you and Rob who are holding your style of play up as the only way to play rugby. And anybody who plays differently or stops you scoring tries is just boring.

There's room in the rugby world for all styles. That's the beauty of it. And how on earth are the penalties Ireland's fault anyway? It was Australia commiting the fouls. Why did they do that? Oh yeah, they were trying to stop us from getting into try scoring positions and scoring tries. How boring of them.

Next time we meet we'll promise to let you score tries if you promise to let us score tries. It'll be so exciting. We won't have to work for the avalanche of tries at all.

Taylorman, now this is where you are going overboard, there goes the baby, the bath water and the soap.

As you saw on the other thread, and I did it because of what you and Rob were talking about 10 hours ago. All teams score tries, yes there is a marked difference when comparing NZ's scoring and other teams. The most common reason is that NZ really only has 4 teams who can compete with them on the day.

But even when taking that in consideration when looking at SA compared to OZ, there isn't much difference in the percentage breakdowns of how many tries they score per match.

It is just the approach that is different,

The problem is your preconceived idea that there is only one way to play the game, and that is ill placed and slightly conceited or arrogant, whichever you prefer