Four priorities for Wallabies improvement

I don't understand why the refs are telling the half to put it in, he should be telling the packs to keep it straight and steady. When it finally settles, the half can put it in at his discretion, as long as he puts it in properly and doesn't delay the game.

He was very sour. Better than Kearns would have been.

Great post Wal! As a NZ supporter I for years had the opposite view but nowadays I tend to agree with your observations. I still remember the power direct game of the ABs in the 80s and at times a lot of 10 man territorial stuff. Nowadays they just adapt so well and have gone to another level

Not the case on just stats alone. Rugby is about getting into a position to score 'points', whether that be field goals or tries (though we would all rather see tries) through the boot or with ball in hand. There were a number of occasions on the weekend where we were creeping forward racking up the phases whilst moving the ball from side to side. Eventually momentum started to build and slight gaps would open up and 3-5-10 metres gains where made on carries in tight and slightly wider of the ruck. It would be good to know how effective the wallabies were in getting into the 22 before the all blacks infringed to stop momentum. It would be disheartening to know if we were just throwing it around for 10 or so phases and going nowhere but i dont think this is the case. I feel like only scott could do this justice (and know he can from his time at GAGR:) and hopefully put together a piece that shows were the wallaby gameplan is building compared to deans and hopefully demonstrate how it will start paying dividends once things really start to click.

Why is this so hard? I played 10 years as hooker (25 years ago admittedly :)) and always tapped to tell the halfback when I wanted the ball. Halfback crouched and showed me the ball, then I tapped and hooked. Has this been deemed illegal?

In order to evaluate your belief, Scott would have to prepare an analysis of this game and a number of games under Deans. What did your last slave die of? ;) If you want to know whether the latest game plan is "actually getting us down field effectively" it might be worth looking at tries scored, for and against, over those games. After all, "effectively" doesn't just mean getting the ball down field - that is surely meaningless if tries are not scored?

Timani in particular seems to play too flat and wide - looks like he's under instructions and trained to do this too. It seems a particular fault at the Tahs. Watched Uni/Southern a couple of weeks ago and the Timani brothers were playing as was Douglas. They are the alternative Wallaby locks and were completely overshadowed by a Tahs train-on and an amateur. The Timani Bros were trying these pods 2 wide of the ruck which were being easily managed by an enthustiatic defence. Uni on the other hand hunted as a tight 5 pack and rolled over the top of Southern by coming around the corner at pace. With the backs Uni have they won by 40 points

Scott, Can you please prepare an analysis of the different moments in the game were the wallabies clocked up more than 3 phases and the amount of metres gained. As a fan of running rugby I believe we are seeing more go forward over an attacking period and holding the ball longer than we did under dean's in the last 2yrs. I would hope an analysis might show that our moving it wide and in tight gameplan is actually getting us down the field effectively. I felt like it was once we were in the nuns 22 they would suddenly infringe. I only thought of the idea after watching your gameplan analysis of bledisloe 1. I really believe that the go forward gameplan under link is working and its much more Australian than 3 phase kick rugby. Thanks

I remember an interview with bakkies Botha, they asked him about John Smit switching from hooker to prop. Bakkies reply should be drilled into the wallaby locks, he said "as long as I pack behind him, he is not going backwards"

When I played as hooker I tapped with my left hand to get the halfback to put the ball in on my strike. Does anybody still do this? And I held off the weight of the opposite hooker using left leg and right shoulder so I could strike with my right leg like a pendulum. I wasn't a big hooker and I could hold my own...

No way should the ref call the feed. It takes away a huge part of the advantage of having the feed. Remember, a scrum is meant to be an advantage to the feeding team. Imagine having the ref call when the lineout shoud be fed. No way, sorry Spiro, this rule is a disaster.

strength is an interesting one. I am not sure what the Wallabies do in terms of strength work, but I believe most of the kiwi sides do a lot of work with Olympic Weightlifting coaches to build explosive strength. Too much weight machine makes you strong and slow - Oly lifting makes you stronger and faster. It was nice to see Genia tapping Moore's arm before he fed the scrum. Even though the ref calls the put in, Genia was still setting his own pace, to a degree, and telegraphing it to Moore. Agree they need to ditch the ref calling the put in. Although that said, I have yet to see a ref give away a penalty, under the new rules, for the scrum half taking too long. So maybe Genia needs to just take his time. If the ABs push on the refs call without the ball being fed, they should be penalised.

Scott,before he was appointed Mckenzie said he had worked out how to beat NZ sides because of his success in the Super 15 .His supporters also claimed he was the key to unlocking the ABs doimance over the Wallabies. In your analysis of Bledisloes 1 & 2 have you seen any changes or new initiatives to support this.Are there changes in approach etc from the Deans era.

Hi Scott, I finally got a chance to view the video. Its all good and of course much of it reflected in the article. But the material on the line-out was fascinating. Great points to draw out. I hope Wallabies look at this.

Ive been giving the Wallabies a hard time. Only because I feel everyone was so negative about Deans and his Wallabies and imo his tenure was nowhere near as bad as was made out. I hope fans can understand why Barnes was used at 15 and JOC at 10 during the Lions series. Also perhaps people can understand why a direct running 12 was used before Lealiifano became available. Deans and his selectors were picking what they thought was the strongest team and after Mogg and Toomuas debut I hope that those so passionately against those selections can at least understand why he made them if not appreciate that he possibly may have been right in doing so. As far as making changes goes, I wouldnt. If one thing that has really messed the Wallabies around in the last few years its been the high turnover of players and the way Deans has had to reshuffle due to injury, form and player stupidity. The players McKenzie has selected are selected for a reason (except Anae!!!?). He should not drop Mogg or Toomua from the squad imo and if he is going to make changes it should only be minor. Personally I think Robinson should be in the 23. Give the team the RC at least. It remains to be seen if Mogg can adjust but I do think we should at least wait and see. When the likes of Higginbotham, Palu, Pocock and Speight become available the team will be a lot better. Personally I think Hooper is the best 7 Australia has now but his backrow partners need to be doing their job a a similar level. Pocock can do his thing without much help but imo, his thing, is less influential than what I think Hooper will be able to offer. Its a massive shame that Gill, Hooper and Pocock are specialist 7s and I hold little hope that they could play any other position apart from 7, although my dad once said of Pocock "no wonder we just beat them, they have the worlds best hooker playing openside". Maybe hes right. In 2014 the Wallabies should be a stronger team unless injury hits them hard again. The new players will be test hardened and those that are injured now will definately boost the side.

Thank you Scott, I have been banging on about the importance of locks that know what they are doing and flanks that contribute to set piece for a while now and in particular in the scrum but have failed to raise any recognition of this. I too coach the game or did up until a few weeks ago having stepped aside due to poor health. I have recognised for a long time now a real lack of knowledge surrounding the roles of forwards at many levels of the sport. I have found this quite strange because I am in no way specail as a coach nor was I as a player but there seems to be a big gap between what this average Joe from NZ learned growing up playing the game and many in this country who profess to know the game. Now don't take that as arrogance or an insult - I love Australia, my boys if they ever get that far will be Wallabies and I am proud of having given many years of service to the game in the 26 years I've been here but I have to be honest - very few Aussies either as fans or volunteers in the game have a solid understanding of forward play and locks in particular are misunderstood. They are not part of the lose trio, they have specific roles to play and as such require a different body shape and skill set so why in Australia are they expected to perform like losies? I tell my locks: Gather the ball on kick reception restarts and get it back for me when we kick short on restarts. Manage (and that means take responsibility for) the lineouts. Be the engine room of the scrum Chase your backs and provide the muscle they need when stopped. It is not your job to steal ball or score tries it is your job to secure our ball at the break down while the backs realign. If not in the ruck/maul then be pillar/ post. Follow direction of 9 - hes smarter than you. Instruction for losies is even simpler: Contribute to the shove unless ball is lost, if so prepare to peel off Stand at back of lineout and smack 10/12 opposing side on lost ball Get me the ball! Its not rocket science so why do I see it so musinderstood all the time. Incidentally my team finished age grade champs in division, haven't lost any of thier last 6 games and no points scored against them in the last 5 and thats with an average back line. Well drilled forwards win games.

IMHO it may never be possible to get this feeding correct under the present LAWS. from observing these 2 matches it seems there is too much time between bind and feed. as a result the scrum as 1 unit is never stable or stright ! from the camera angle all the feeds look crooked :) but this is actually becoz, there is minor showing before the feed. a smple example is to think of tug-o-war. a line is drawn on the ground and winner has to pull the other over it. now if we take the scrum and think there is a line in the middle, the angles change with the minor showing after bind. so when the feed comes the ball is not going in on that line, if the scrum was stationary. also note that the ref is not in the perfect position to judge it becoz his vision is covered by not 1 but 2 scrum halfs at the feeding point. only way is to go over to the other side and crouch and take a look. in doing so he will have to rely on the touchies to monitor off side line and breakng early and any front ow pulling ot shunting or anything else they do . i just wonder if people remember how things were before the game went professional and irb started playing with the laws. after watching this game for 30 years, me thinks there is too much time spent trying to perfect one aspect of a game that has many . but funny tat very litle attention ispaid to ensure a straight throw at line out. at least from the tel-camerangle many throws seem t be crooked, especially whe thrown to he front of the line-out. maybe they need tolook at cricket and try to avoid simillar mistakes. look at drs , something introduced to make t he game more perfect is causing havok and distrust ...

Agree.

jutsie--that CL was coming out of the line was highlighted by the Sky team here in nZ post-game.....('Marto' was in the studio at the time...looking like he had swallowed a lemon.)