Australia on the brink of a tough twelve months?

Sitting very prettily in the world rankings at the moment, Australia must recognise their precarious position. A poor 4Ns followed by a disappointing AIs could see them displaced from the top four going into the RWC draw.
And if not already full of some foreboding, the Lions will pitch up in the Summer. A tour win should be entirely feasible so long as the coach can see beyond the 'best' individuals but the optimal bend of players to gel in the short preparation time available.

The name in the frame for that tour is obviously Gatland of whom I have some reservations as this summer he led his Wales to a disappointing 3-0 whitewash. Maybe Joe Schmidt might be tappable?

Anyway I digress (not good in an OP).

A poor 4Ns followed by a poor AIs is certainly on the cards in my opinion and that could lead devastating effects on team morale and managerial changes before the summer.

Portnoy wrote:
A poor 4Ns followed by a poor AIs is certainly on the cards in my opinion and that could lead devastating effects on team morale and managerial changes before the summer.

I disagree there Portnoy (of course I would)

Certainly if that happens then morale, and world ranking, will be poor. But even as the generally thought of weaker side of the 3Ns, I do believe this will not be a poor tourny for us. By just scraping past Wales, and of course losing to Scotland, will have focused the players mind to ignore the rankings and get down to brass tacks. We have some new forwards, for sure not world beating ones but they would know that and I feel will play that bit harder to prove themselves. The backline even without Cooper and POC can still be potent, and with Mitchell on the bench will give it some power if guile fails.

Of course for us to do well in the 4Ns means the kiwis and boks will need to lose against us, and this is where it could be tricky. Great having kiwis first up, straight into the fray. I do think dingo's a slightly worried man, what I'm not happy is I cannot see any game plan for the Wallabies, relying too much on a moment's skill from someone. Prefer if we had the Jake white/Eddie Jones pair guiding the side, with Jake as the boss, at least then we coudl see soem set plans for forwards and backs.

Anyway, I have nothing concrete or facts to show why I think we will do well this season, just my 2c worth of gut feeling ( or just hope )

Are there any dangerous snakes on Australia Oz?

Just checking cos Gatland's no good on ladders down-under.

8 out of the 10 most venomous snakes in the world mate!!!

They are playing Wales in the AIs so that should be a boost

Portnoy wrote:Sitting very prettily in the world rankings at the moment, Australia must recognise their precarious position. A poor 4Ns followed by a disappointing AIs could see them displaced from the top four going into the RWC draw.
And if not already full of some foreboding, the Lions will pitch up in the Summer. A tour win should be entirely feasible so long as the coach can see beyond the 'best' individuals but the optimal bend of players to gel in the short preparation time available.

The name in the frame for that tour is obviously Gatland of whom I have some reservations as this summer he led his Wales to a disappointing 3-0 whitewash. Maybe Joe Schmidt might be tappable?

Anyway I digress (not good in an OP).

A poor 4Ns followed by a poor AIs is certainly on the cards in my opinion and that could lead devastating effects on team morale and managerial changes before the summer.

Glass half-empty.

But half-full, returning players and a good 4N sees them no.1 in the RWC rankings. Challenges are just opportunities wearing scary masks.

Definitely a tough year ahead Portnoy, but that's much better than facing the other way around. Its exciting.

While there's still holes, our sides been young but getting older all we can do is hope with that comes a bit more nouse and spine. There is a mountain of doomsaying around oz rugby supporters at present but I personally think we are in far better shape than we have been for years. Not perfect by any means, but better than 5 years back. The Lions tour will also be huge for us as beyond what it means for Rugby fans. All the hype and noise that comes with it will get us some extended time on the back page of the papers.

OzT wrote:8 out of the 10 most venomous snakes in the world mate!!!

Does that include the venomous snake-in-the-grass Camponausii?

There's weight to your theory Portnoy.

Australia, more than any team are the ones most likely to fold in Argentina and to be frank, having conceded matches to Scotland (twice) and Manu Samoa in the past 2-3 years that might just be the final straw for the ARU regarding Deans. A poor 3rd placing (or worse) and I wouldn't expect him to be in charge in November.

A change in management is always an interesting time. There might be factions and divsions within the Wallaby camp which other teams (Wales, Ireland and England) will look to exploit to secure a top 4 place.

OzT wrote:8 out of the 10 most venomous snakes in the world mate!!!

the other 2 are bitter poisonous 'dragons'

Some of those dragons do have nasty saliva... but they're mostly out west. --> Perentie

Back to the thread... funny, ever since I started watching rugby seriously (about 30+ years ago) I've always felt as though we are on the brink. So any win against NZ/SA especially is a huge achievement in my mind and the title of this topic is nothing new to me.
(OzT, Boomer... do you agree or disagree?)

We are definitely the over-achievers in rugby. That might sound harsh but I can hardly remember a time when we were not vulnerable. The RWC wins in '91 and '99 were won by decent teams (a few greats) but I also think the opposition in those campaigns choked at crucial times and we took advantage of the situation.

Ditto, the late 90s - early 00s when we had our last BC series successes. The ABs had a few problems/doubts in their team selections and they were ripe for the picking. It proves the point that mentality and 'will to win' can reap rewards even when player-by-player we were at best on par with our opposition.

Agree with over achievers for sure, I always think our lot look like bleeding kids compared with other sides, rugby just not taken seriously back home.

But saying that, every time I watch the wallabies play and we win I am surprised, and very happy, but back of my mind I'm thinking geesh how did we pull that one out? Only a few times lately had I thought wow, we blew that lot away!

I disagree though about the late 90's - 00s BC wins, we had then I think the best wallaby side in the last 30 years. And that win against the Lions were due to grit, determanation and a very good game plan, keep their payers up on their feet in a tackle!!

Yeah, that's true. I agree 100%. I feel we could also be on the brink of another decent side like Eales' team - or we could get smashed.

We just have to get the right players in the right positions and try and keep them there for a year unscathed.

There is certainly some potential in the squad but we need more of the tougher, smarter, highly skilled player and less of the other kind who may have a blinder one match and go AWOL the next or have issues 'up top'.

1999-2002 you guys were definitely the dominant player in our little outpost of the world no one can deny that....pity is that we only played 2 tests a year because only in 2001 was it not a drawn outcome.

The 1991 side went sour quite quickly, and surprisingly to be honest.

The rest of the rugby world modelled themselves on us after '91.

No matter how tough circumstances are on them, we (Wales) should still be able to find a way to lose to them, not to worry

The Wallabies has risen with the coming of Professionalism,prior to that it was get a high profile for your CV then go to Rugby League.This year All the SH sides are on a new adventure common after RWCs with team rebuilding.Injuries are hampering all the sides but producing oppertunities for unknown players to shine.It is very presumptious to assume you will struggle before a ball is kicked and the AI`s are seldom a disaster for SH sides.Saturday first up the AllBlacks at Home,you are rested and have picked a physical team.At home all the advantages lie with the home side. I expect a lot of dirty and cynical play by both sides,if you can get McCaw,Thomson,or Read .Off injured as last year in the first 20 minutes you will win.A season of something like 15 or 16 Tests is never easy.When 5 of them versus the best in the World results are in the lap of the gods.By the end of the season many of your best players will be back again
best wishes for the weekend.I hope you lose as an All Blacks fan but with a some what experimental AB side it will be to close to call.

Gatland didn't lead Wales in Australia, Port. And Schmidt is a ludicrous choice. Do you live under a rock?

Alan, I would be extremely disappointed if the AB’s posted an experimental side. New look maybe, but certainly not experimental. Best players given the resources available I would think. SBW and Nonu in the centres could be viewed as experimental to the outsider but they’re our best options in the midfield right now.

Linebreaker wrote:The rest of the rugby world modelled themselves on us after '91.

the All Blacks model themselves on no one LB!

Seriously though, after 91 NZ went in a different direction under Mains. I don't think the genesis of one of the greatest teams ever (1995-96 All Blacks) was down to anything that the Wallabies did in 1991?

Morgannwg wrote:Gatland didn't lead Wales in Australia, Port. And Schmidt is a ludicrous choice. Do you live under a rock?

Schmidt is hardly a ludicrous candidate, suggesting so with two HC's in three seasons to his name is ridiculous in itself.

Backing it up just makes it more ridiculous. He has no international credentials, you can't expect him to just walk in and coach the Lions to beat the Wallabies. Ireland fans are hopeful he'll get a chance to show what he can do with their internatinoal team one day, but that'll be a slow process. Until then, it's ludicrous.

I fail to see how not having international experience (yet) makes you a shoddy candidate. "Ludicrous" simply isn't the right word. Andy Robinson or Gareth Jenkins would be ludicrous choices. Schmidt would be more of a gamble most certainly but gambles are made and sometimes pay off, it doesn't mean he should be excluded entirely from consideration.

chewed_mintie wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:The rest of the rugby world modelled themselves on us after '91.

the All Blacks model themselves on no one LB!

Seriously though, after 91 NZ went in a different direction under Mains. I don't think the genesis of one of the greatest teams ever (1995-96 All Blacks) was down to anything that the Wallabies did in 1991?

That didn't take long!

Knowsit17 wrote:I fail to see how not having international experience (yet) makes you a shoddy candidate. "Ludicrous" simply isn't the right word. Andy Robinson or Gareth Jenkins would be ludicrous choices. Schmidt would be more of a gamble most certainly but gambles are made and sometimes pay off, it doesn't mean he should be excluded entirely from consideration.

Well that's your failure then, simply put. Robinson is currently a stronger candidate than Schmidt.

Not to exclude him from consideration, then most would consider him as some sort of backroom staff, back coach perhaps.

Morgannwg wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I fail to see how not having international experience (yet) makes you a shoddy candidate. "Ludicrous" simply isn't the right word. Andy Robinson or Gareth Jenkins would be ludicrous choices. Schmidt would be more of a gamble most certainly but gambles are made and sometimes pay off, it doesn't mean he should be excluded entirely from consideration.

Well that's your failure then, simply put. Robinson is currently a stronger candidate than Schmidt.

Not to exclude him from consideration, then most would consider him as some sort of backroom staff, back coach perhaps.

Yeah right, a Wooden Spoon winner who has won a total of two 6N games in three years is a more attractive candidate than a double HC and Top 14 winner. Makes perfect sense

By your logic Carwyn James should never have taken charge of and won the 1971 Lions tour because he didn't have international experience as a head coach

I see a good argument for the coach not to be any of the B&I national coaches.

Jake White spring to mind. But he's associated with the Brumbies.

Knowsit17 wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I fail to see how not having international experience (yet) makes you a shoddy candidate. "Ludicrous" simply isn't the right word. Andy Robinson or Gareth Jenkins would be ludicrous choices. Schmidt would be more of a gamble most certainly but gambles are made and sometimes pay off, it doesn't mean he should be excluded entirely from consideration.

Well that's your failure then, simply put. Robinson is currently a stronger candidate than Schmidt.

Not to exclude him from consideration, then most would consider him as some sort of backroom staff, back coach perhaps.

Yeah right, a Wooden Spoon winner who has won a total of two 6N games in three years is a more attractive candidate than a double HC and Top 14 winner. Makes perfect sense

By your logic Carwyn James should never have taken charge of and won the 1971 Lions tour because he didn't have international experience as a head coach

Going by his experience, he is a stronger candidate for head coach, both are pretty ludicrous.

Oh dear are you really going back to the 70s? I mean before the greatest SH teams and professional era? How desperate are you.

I'd love to see Schmidt take on a role in the Ireland team. Backs coach or head coach in a year or two. Then he may head back to NZ, coach at SXV level and get ready for the AB job. Seems a logical progression. It's not to say that NZ SXV teams operate at a higher level, rather that it would make sense to get a year or two of that under his belt to familiarise himself with the strengths and weaknesses of NZ rugby in order to make the step up.

Carwyn James was a great coach and innovator from what I've heard and read. Just a shame the Welsh glory days were tied into the Lions-they still didn't beat SA or NZ during that time. Sure they supplied some amazing players to that team but man watching Duckham McBride and co was something else and the ability of the team was spread over the countries involved.

Not that desperate, just pointing out the blatantly obvious. Based on the fact you're the one throwing out increasingly bizarre excuses I'd say you come across as more desperate than me. But to each his own

70's, 2010's, how is the time period relevant? It's still rugby and coaches we're talking about, NZ were formidable opposition then just as now. Ever hear of Sid Going, Colin Meads and that lot? Anyway, the fact remains that if your logic was applied back then the only ever Lions series win in NZ to date might not exist.

Going by his experience? Experience of quite consistent failure when measured up to Schmidt's solid progress and success throughout his coaching career. My how hopelessly stubborn some people are

Chewded Minty when i say experimental AB side it is just what it is,with Kaino ,Thorn,Cowan,and Muliana gone that is a lot of caps.Conrad Smith is a huge loss,both Nonu and SBW are basicly 12`s and similar in there skills set.Brute force not guile the Wallabies have responded in kind,Adam Thomson is the form 6 in NZ currently.Luke Romano,Whitelock aside the best lock in NZ but Retalick and Messam are Chiefs so likely starters.Aaron Smith is likely to start at 9 but won`t get a full game.Weepu is on the bench with no current form,Nonu ditto.Julian Savea is getting the hype Hosea Gear got a couple of seasons ago
Gear went off the boil.Both are out right finishers not Creators in the style of Rocokoko or Zac Guildford for others.Savea seems certain to start on the strength of one decent game.THAT is what I mean about an experimental side no established 4,6,9,13,or left wing.

Well it comes across as shear desperation because it's stupid to go back and bring Carwyn James into this. If anything that was the bizarre excuse, I can't see where I'm coming out with them? Please act 21 years old when trying to make a point (although a silly point still).

How can the time period not be relevant? Rugby was different, so was the coaching, the players, the era was entirely different so it is beyond difficult to compare; how is that not blatantly obvious? NZ have always been formidable. The most renowned teams, often dubbed as the greatest ever were from 95 and 05 (both in the professional era, although NZ may have adapted a bit earlier than 94-95). You can still fantasize about the 70s and that Lions tour if you want though.

AR has coached at the highest level since 2004 I think, and that was under one of the best (apparently) coaches and one of the best teams. He has been coaching internationally for most years ever since. He would be by far a better candidate for head coach. But like I have been saying all along, he would be a ludicrous choice for that role as would Schmidt. No stubborness about it there, just common sense. So if you are going to respond then please try and see that.

I'd still pick Schmidt over Robinson ten times out of ten at the moment. You're right, Robbo has coached at the highest level for close to a decade but then so have hundreds of coaches who turned out to not be cut out for it. In the same breathe there have probably been many men in both eras who would have succeeded as int'l coaches but never did. Who is and isn't an international coach at any given moment really doesn't prove anything.

Now you're just ploughing on carelessly because your stubbornness isn't allowing you to take it on the chin and suffer the minor indignity of admitting you're wrong on this occasion even when your argument has long been shown up and swept aside. Your clear aggravation and increasing stream of insults in every new post is evidence enough. Sometimes losing is winning on the larger scale you know, didn't your parents ever teach you that?

The fact is in any era, whether the pro era or previously, your approach of experience first, success second would be futile and would fail more often than not imo. You still have yet to account for the fact that Carwyn James wouldn't have been appointed on that note and therefore a historic series win might never have happened. Whether or not coaching was different is irrelevant either way.

There's nothing, and I mean nothing, to prove that Schmidt wouldn't be successful in the role of Lions coach. As I said it'd be a gamble but one I'd still rather take than consider a long line of worse coaches before him. In his eight years as a head coach, what has Robinson done of note? Little to nothing is the answer. It'd be madness to prioritise him over Schmidt if it came down to a choice between the two.

Knowsit17 wrote:I'd still pick Schmidt over Robinson ten times out of ten at the moment. You're right, Robbo has coached at the highest level for close to a decade but then so have hundreds of coaches who turned out to not be cut out for it. In the same breathe there have probably been many men in both eras who would have succeeded as int'l coaches but never did. Who is and isn't an international coach at any given moment really doesn't prove anything.

Now you're just ploughing on carelessly because your stubbornness isn't allowing you to take it on the chin and suffer the minor indignity of admitting you're wrong on this occasion even when your argument has long been shown up and swept aside. Your clear aggravation and increasing stream of insults in every new post is evidence enough. Sometimes losing is winning on the larger scale you know, didn't your parents ever teach you that?

The fact is in any era, whether the pro era or previously, your approach of experience first, success second would be futile and would fail more often than not imo. You still have yet to account for the fact that Carwyn James wouldn't have been appointed on that note and therefore a historic series win might never have happened. Whether or not coaching was different is irrelevant either way.

There's nothing, and I mean nothing, to prove that Schmidt wouldn't be successful in the role of Lions coach. As I said it'd be a gamble but one I'd still rather take than consider a long line of worse coaches before him. In his eight years as a head coach, what has Robinson done of note? Little to nothing is the answer. It'd be madness to prioritise him over Schmidt if it came down to a choice between the two.

You see I don't get why people post that (the bolded bit), is it try and tell yourself you are having an arguement and you won because you're clever? Get a grip FFS. The rest is a bit odd. Does anyone else know what knowsit is talking about? (I would be willing to listen).

Look I won't repeat myself, I don't want to come across as a plus it is obviously turning out to be a waste of time. The position of 'head coach' of the Lions requires someone at the top, with international experience and some success. That's Gatland. Schmidt doesn't tick all the boxes, but would probably be a better backs coach candidate than any other on these isles, as I can't really think of anyone decent attached to the home nations at the moment. It was always as clear a point as was clear it is ridiculous and incorrect to compare different era's to show an inexperienced coach can win a Lions series (especially at a time when it wasn't professional).

Retracted in consideration of others Pete

As for you Morg, the reason I lost it there momentarily was because I've already explained how the fact that Schmidt has no international experience doesn't prove definitively that he wouldn't do well, maybe even win the series. In response you just called me desperate and repeated what you said before. How are you supposed to have a debate in this way?

And btw I never once suggested that Schmidt should get it over Gatland, I merely said that I'd keep an open mind and wouldn't exclude him entirely from consideration. What's wrong with that? Either way they'd be my top two candidates at present by quite a way and yes, as I said before I'd sooner appoint Schmidt than Robinson, Kidney and most other home-nations based coaches from what I've seen of his work with Leinster.

Returning to the OP

If (that wannabe 10000-letter word) results went forcibly in favour of both NZ and SA on Saturday, the difference between 2nd and 3rd would be cut from

Oz 87.05, SA 84.87
to
Oz 85.76, SA 85.01

Of course that is at one extreme end of that which is possible.

It might be worth pondering the much more likely outcomes if both NZ and SA win by <15pts.
https://www.606v2.com/t12724-irb-world-rankings#348344

Knowsit17 wrote:Retracted in consideration of others Pete

As for you Morg, the reason I lost it there momentarily was because I've already explained how the fact that Schmidt has no international experience doesn't prove definitively that he wouldn't do well, maybe even win the series. In response you just called me desperate and repeated what you said before. How are you supposed to have a debate in this way?

And btw I never once suggested that Schmidt should get it over Gatland, I merely said that I'd keep an open mind and wouldn't exclude him entirely from consideration. What's wrong with that? Either way they'd be my top two candidates at present by quite a way and yes, as I said before I'd sooner appoint Schmidt than Robinson, Kidney and most other home-nations based coaches from what I've seen of his work with Leinster.

I know you did, I just didn't consider that to be sufficient enough to show Schmidt could step in and coach. I'm not suggesting Gats, Schmidt or Andy should be Lions head coach either and I don't exclude any of them from consideration to play some sort of part in the Lions coaching staff.

Ewen McKenzie would be a front runner for the job if Deans falls out of favour. Jake White might be sniffing round too but I think he's behind McKenzie in the pecking order.

That said, this Aussie team first up makes me nervous. They've had some extra time to repair and have had a good look at the AB front runners in the Super playoffs. Plenty of preparation time. You never write off the Wallabies because they have a nasty habit of proving the critics wrong.

I very much doubt Australia will fall out of the top 3 this season. So lots of tough games but still a top team.

Actuallly any of the SH sides could fall out the seedings but it isunlikely

Well Argentina can certainly improve their position of 8th as you gain points against higher ranked teams and lose none by losing to them- in effect a smorgasbord ahead of them. That alone will always see them above 8, even if they lose them all as they'll pick up more against other teams with the experience.

emack2 wrote:Actuallly any of the SH sides could fall out the seedings but it isunlikely

Wouldn't that be funny if NZ, SA, Aus and Eng all dropped out of the top 4. Then Wales etc would take the seeded places and still come up against one of the teams they were hoping to avoid.

Course if NZ dropped out of the top 4 I would be the first to lynch Hansen.

Thats an excellent idea,we nee to drop out of the top four, being number one is hopeless, because we never get any points, because everyone is below us.

weve been on that 91.43 for ages.