• Super Rugby
• Fixtures
• Wallabies
• Rugby Championship
• International
• Wallabies v All Blacks
• Rugby RSS

The Crowd Says (11) | Page 1 of Comments

• jimma said | June 5th 2007 @ 12:18pm | Report comment

  hmmm, Rod was diplomatically circumspect in his answers!

  I can’t see any way for the Wallabies to establish a “clear point of advantage” in the next few months. Except perhaps for the coaches to just drill into them excellent team oriented defense and good discipline, and a good team spirit. If they can again restrict the AB’s (and lesser teams) to 11 points then anything is possible.

  Ability to defend the rolling maul has also been a weakness in the last few seasons. Foley, get to work.

  Any side that is so resticted will get frustrated and is liable to give up penalties or throw a silly pass.

  I know that is a negative way to look at it, and the old cliche “the best defense is a good attack” is true, I just don’t see any way in the short period of time (in game time anyway) between now and September 15 (which is the real crunch game, I will be there, stoked!) that the Wallabies can produce anything on attack (or the set piece) that will establish “a clear point of advantage”

  Look at the All Blacks. They score the vast majority of their tries directly from turnover ball from excellent tackling and pressure on the opposition at the R&M. I think Australia has the players with the ability to utilise that turnover ball and turn it into points in the form of Turner, Giteau, Larkham and Latham. These guys are not Sitivini or Muliaina or Rockococko but they are good enough.

  The other area that the coaches must improve is support of the ball carrier at all times, as whenever a linebreak is made by the Wallabies, the ball carrier inevitably has no support, this must be drilled into the forwards and backs in equal measure. Support for the ball carrier at all times, like in league where there is always someone on the hip of a forward ready for the offload.

  Just my two cents on it. Bring on Cardiff!

  Reply

• taya said | June 5th 2007 @ 12:39pm | Report comment

  hi

  one small comment – if supporting the ball carrier is critical and we need to get to the breakdown as the AB’s do so well and turn the ball then can someone tell me why smith and waugh should not start together ? they are awesome to the breakdown and would this not help us ?

  i realise the lineout issue etc however at the moment we do not even get the ball as it is randomly straight …..bring back jeremy

  Reply

• jimma said | June 5th 2007 @ 12:51pm | Report comment

  taya:

  Eddie tried it and it didn’t go too well. I think Smith must be the number one fetcher, but knuckles painted himself into a corner by naming Waugh co captain. I can’t help but feel there was a bit of appeasing the NSWRU in his appointment. But that is one for the conspiracy theorists!

  I think a backrow of Chapman (who I consider just as good as Rocky)/Elsom, Smith and Hoiles would be constantly pressuring any opposition at the R&M. But if Cliffy keeps making linebreaks then he must wear the number 8 jumper. Cliffy also has the ability to pick up the ball behind a fast back tracking scrum, I am not sure Hoiles would be as good here. Masoe sure struggled against France.

  The All Blacks are blessed with both abilities in the form of Collins, McCraw and Rodders, all of whom are superb at the breakdown and can make linebreaks, particularly Collins, he seems to break tackles so easily.

  Reply

• matta said | June 5th 2007 @ 12:53pm | Report comment

  “Look at the All Blacks. They score the vast majority of their tries directly from turnover ball from excellent tackling and pressure on the opposition at the R&M”

  And just on that point, on saturday night did anyone notice when Mortlock dropped an easy pass? what did he do? he threw his hands in the air and let the ball bounce forward to a Welshman – we were luck the Ref blew the whistle just as the welsh fealla picked up the ball.

  My point is, do that agaist the AB’s with a ref that lets it go and 9/10 times it will end in a try. Its school boy stuff “play to the whistle and dive on the ball”!!!!!!

  Reply

• taya said | June 5th 2007 @ 1:06pm | Report comment

  Thanks jimma for this email

  Yes perhaps eddie just did not have the other parts right though – eg
  dunning baxter and co etc to support them ….

  I agree re cliffy yes …very good game I thought and reminds me of how
  the AB’s play ..

  Re masoe he is not a no 8 and we all know that.. Bad move but did not
  cost them the game but showed where not to play him !

  Thanks for the tips on nicknames – I had no idea

  Reply

• spiro zavos said | June 5th 2007 @ 2:07pm | Report comment

  This was an interesting interview as Rod Macqueen outlined the philosophy behind any IRB changes to the laws of rugby: rugby has to stay a game for all sizes and the contest for the ball is the key element in the structure of the game. This contest for the ball is something that many people do not get when they argued for rugby to become more like league. League has become a man-on-man game since its first specific laws were written, I think, around 1913. Before then league used to play rugby laws. The rugby laws, like all regulatory system, have become more and more complex as additions have been made. The laws have run to 192 pages at times. The Stellenbosch Laws regime aims to maintain the integrity of the game, as noted by Rod Macqueen, while taking the subjectivity of referees out of the process, as far as possible.
  Take one example. The Stellenbosch Laws suggest that either side can have as many players in the lineout as they like, or as few as two, as long as they stand within the 15m
  mark. The referee would NOT have to count numbers. Defending sides, for instance, can gamble on having a short lineout when the opposition has a full lineout, or it can have a full lineout when the throwing side has a short lineout, or it can match up the numbers …
  The point is the referee is not involved in whatever decision is made. But an element of cleverness is introduced which is good because at its best rugby is a game for clever thinking in skills and tactics.

  Reply

• Ben from Pretoria said | June 6th 2007 @ 12:49am | Report comment

  “Look at the All Blacks. They score the vast majority of their tries directly from turnover ball from excellent tackling and pressure on the opposition at the R&M”

  Very interesting. When the Springboks score tries in similar circumstance they are called “oppurtunistic, feeding off opposition ball and skill-less” to quote one of Spiro’s favourite words to describe the Boks.

  A clear point of advantage over other teams:

  I did not hear the interview but how would the Wallabies hope to achieve parity let alone an advantage over a team like the All Blacks who clearly have nothing to fear from a very limited team.

  Reply

• The ELVs: The sound of one hand clapping » The Roar - Your Sports Opinion said | December 5th 2007 @ 12:47am | Report comment

  [...] Listen to Rod Macqueen, one of the key players in the ELVs, discuss the new Laws with The [...]

  Reply

• Bob said | May 16th 2008 @ 4:36pm | Report comment

  Why the hell is SIMPLE BETTER, do you think the fan base is stupid ! Cricket is not simple, yet its interesting. Stupid Aussie has stuffed up rugby. No mention of exciting tactics, or executed plans !!

  Reply

• gavin said | August 21st 2008 @ 1:39pm | Report comment

  If the Wallabies want to know how Australian rugger should be played, they , and Deans and the selectors should attend a Randwick game when Randwick are at full strength. The show them a Baa Baa’s game. Improve the tackling and “Voila” Oz rugger as it should be

  Reply