Wallaby babies to go out with the bathwater?

"And if you don’t understand that how opposition looks depends heavily on how the forwards are fronting up, then you don’t understand rugby." I was explaining to you that perhaps I do know something about rugby. But maybe you are right and I know nothing, or maybe you are so full of your own inflated self importance that you think that counts for nothing, in which case any further communication with you is pointless for both of us. "Painted myself into a corner." That is another of your assumptions based on your own imagination. Please be aware your opinion is yours and you are entitled to it. I am not part of your debating team and nor do you have a monopoly on what I think or don't think. I have not changed my mind, that the course of the game was altered more as a result of Phipps taking the field than it was changed as a result of there being nothing left to play for. It is perfectly reasonable to disagree. It is not reasonable to make personal comments because someone doesn't agree with you. So making ludicrous and incorrect statements to back up your claims like that I rely on statistics. is rather weak, especially when I have never quoted any. You were suggesting Phipps made an impact because of his organisational skills not because of the state of the game. But if you are suggesting that the state of the game had an impact on whether or not Phipps was effective, then its a mute point, because that is all I was saying. Anyway, be as you will. I won't be replying to this any further or with you. Hope you can do me the same courtesy. Cheers.

Oh spare me your wounded dignity, Chivas. You have boxed yourself into an impossible corner and are now just trying to talk your way out of it. 30 years experience at anything doesn't give you the right to shrug off stubbornness. Your argument that the Wallabies only scored tries around the 60th minute due to the All Blacks switching off is unsustainable. You attempt to support it by citing a luatua try right at the death – that is an absurd argument for two reasons: Firstly, tries against the Wallabies have very little to do with Phipps' performance – the impact of a half back on the forwards is primarily in the attack, and that was my assertion which you dispute – that Phipps had an impact on the Wallabies in attack. Secondly, it was the 80th minute for heavens sake. What part of "20 minutes later" do you not understand? Why are you ignoring the All Blacks tries which occurred just before the Wallaby tries, or the All Blacks attacking raids which occurred just after it? That brings me back to the main point: Actually watch the game, not the stats. The All Blacks looked good in attack both before and after the two Wallaby tries. The difference was that the Wallaby forwards finally looked like they were co-ordinated in the attack, whereas they didn't before. "In addition, when the game is so far gone, the true impact players would have made had it happened earlier is virtually impossible to ascertain." Who suggested otherwise? I am referring to the impact Phipps had when he came on, not some hypothetical 40 minutes before. I have never suggested he is a world beater – I have simply taken issue with your assertion that he had NO impact, because the Wallabies tries were solely due to the ABs losing interest. "The way the AB’s moved up field and Luatua scored at will didn’t show a change in the commitment or organisation levels of the Wallabies." What an irrelevant comment! Even if that had occurred at the 60th minute, it wouldn't be relevant to Phipps' abilities to organise the attack (you know, the thing that is different from defence). But at the 80th minute, it proves nothing about anything.

Ok Mike. You are right I don't understand rugby. And no the AB's didn't explain that to me. 30 years playing rugby to NPC level and following it for a lot longer taught me how teams button off. It isn't really something new. In addition, when the game is so far gone, the true impact players would have made had it happened earlier is virtually impossible to ascertain. In fact IMHO the Wallabies we're overpowered through the forwards and that Phipps would have made no difference to that. The way the AB's moved up field and Luatua scored at will didn't show a change in the commitment or organisation levels of the Wallabies. As such it is impossible to make the assertions that you are making, no matter how loudly you proclaim it as if they were facts. That is my point, but if you can read something into it, then good for you.

“Ok they Phipps turned the team around.” You know perfectly well I didn’t say that. My point was that the whole pack looked better and more co-ordinated with a half back giving them direction and steady supply. “It just happened to coincide with the fact there was nothing left to play for.” Errr right, so there comes a certain stage, a certain score, when All Blacks have “nothing to play for”. Is that what you are saying? That’s a rather extraordinary suggestion – do any All Blacks actually agree with it? “Wonder what happened in the end when Lyatua strolled over.” How is that in any way inconsistent with my point? “If you think the Wallaby tries were well worked against stuff opposition then we were definitely watching something different.” And if you don’t understand that how opposition looks depends heavily on how the forwards are fronting up, then you don’t understand rugby. “The Wallaby forwards better harden the fk up before next week or they will be getting that déjà vue feeling and just start looking to make it through the RC with only their hardcore supporters intact.” Thanks for the statement of the obvious. However, I doubt that your last point is correct: Wallabies went down by 27 points and 21 points to the ABs in the Deans years and crowds continued to turn up for games afterwards.

I didn't say they played the same, I said they played to the same strategy - play down the other end and contest the breakdown. The execution of that strategy differs significantly, as highlighted by that match. The Wallabies kicked 8 times, 6 to touch and the other two uncontested. Essentially all they were doing were clearing their lines and moving their defensive line up, but it turned the ball over. Fine if you are then getting or creating turnovers, but poor execution of the strategy when you aren't. By comparison the ABs kicked 21 times, most also to clear their lines. But only four went to touch, three of them in the last 10 minutes when they were just running the game out. Of the other 17 kicks, fourteen were contested. Of those, they got the ball back 10 times. On top of their contest at the breakdown, that is very successful execution and pretty poor defensive work by the Wallabies.

‘The coach’s selection of Beale was a risk that may have undermined team confidence’. There’s no MAY HAVE about it. McKenzie’s selection DID undermine confidence which finally fractured the forwards, who in the first game displayed parity in Bledisloe I. My concern is: In the aftermath of a drubbing we do a ‘snow job’ of cosmetic repairs for the confrontation with the Boks when all along the coach has demonstrated, first, his lack of perception by selecting the wrong back-line and then, second persisting with this so-called ‘x factor’ player who not only isn’t a fly-half, but who needs to be compensated in the side because he CAN”T TACKLE! This means only one thing: the coach (who is instrumental in losing us the Bledisloe for 2014) is NOT up to the task and should be replaced for lack of competence. But of course this doesn’t happen in this limp-wristed society of ours, so suck it up and play your stupid word games. The Wallabies will NEVER be world champions until some tough, smart people take over.

I think the biggest single difference if there us one us Aarons Smiths speed of both delivery and pass. Past AB sides could have done a lot better out wide if tgeyd had a 9 like Smith. Easily the best 9 in the game now.

Chivas, Confrontation from a bunch of Grammar boys? ........ Oh no, they must of been from AGS (Auckland Grammar School), not MAGS (Mount Albert Grammar School) - we from MAGS were all little angels (though some more angelic than others!).... we were much more behaved (yeah sure!) On the rugby field MAGS greatest opponents in those days were AGS, Kings College, interprovincial it was always Christchurch Boys High and Wanganui College. It has changed dramatically since then, but a change for the better, rugby in NZ is every boys/mans game - they way it should be after all, it 'is the game they play in heaven!'.

It takes time to get the game plan going after having been without matches. Although the ABs focus on the basics they operate at a very high level of skill. It simply takes time to gel. Some of if may be working out the opposition, probing for the weaknesses but against the same opponents the ABs generally get stronger with familiarity of both their own game and the opponents. For Eden park the two wingers were relative no names in terms of the top echelon. Same with England...Ashton and marble possibly the worst two defensively around. Getting the ball wide was the mission against both and with both sides unsure about who their best midfield is, the ABs, with assistance from the AB pack, were able to dominate that area.And like chess, you dominate the midfield you dominate the game.

Wallabies aren't all that bad. They just don't know what hit them until the 81st minute. Wallabies will improve this week, so will the boks.

How long have you been reading these forums? There was equal amounts of wailing and gnashing of teeth last year when he with the knowledge of how to beat the ab's kept that knowledge to himself, just like this year.

AB's are developing a rep as 'slow starters' in 3 match tours. Could it be that Hansen needs that first game to inspect the opposition's defensive pattern and by the second game the AB's tactics have been adjusted to take advantage of any identified weaknesses in that team's particular implementation of the rush defence?

So funny

More than the whole EOYT, the game against Eng looms as one of massive importance as a marker for RWC progress. If the Wallabies top pool a (beat eng and wales), they have a relatively easy run to the final.

Thanks RT. It is always nice to share real stories and I love reading them so thanks for sharing. Just for the record I thought you were a top bloke before you said you went to Grammar :-). I even got into a physical confrontation with a bunch of grammar boys during and after a game of touch. But as you say, those were different days :-)

Staah, there is no way the Wallabies or SA's get up offside. They are not cheats or cynical. That is the domain of the AB's. What I do suggest is you go back about 20 odd years to when Wayne Smith took over the AB's. Watch the evolution of the AB's backline play from then until now. In the early days we were getting canes, for exactly the reason you point out. We weren't protecting the ball or showing it enough respect. The AB's were going backwards with the odd game here and there where they owned it. It was by no means the only thing that was going on at the time. Smith was also old school and if there was ever someone who respects the black jersey and expects others to maintain those same high standards it is Wayne. I felt saddened the day he handed in his badge. His family comes from just outside Puraruru and that is where he went to school. Consequently while CantabriansChiefs rightly feel they own him, so does Waikato :-). When he was called back into the coaching team that Genry put together, I was rapt for the simple fact we would see the project he started. So returning to my original point. This has not been something built over a year or two. What happens is if the opposition fails to commit your forwards and you can contain them with just a couple, it means you can run your loose forwards in the backs. Take a look at the Bok when they were on fire and the Bulls won the SR title. This is exactly what they did. They over ran the aaB's in line. Every time they took it up they got to the as line and recycled it. Did it again. Normally if the Bok get to within 10m of your line they will bulldoze there way over, so you have to bash them back. That is easier said than done. The idea is don't let them get close as they don't normally have the speed and ability across the 15 to do it the length of the paddock. The AB's don't have the grunt, but they have the speed and stamina. What you would have found is if the Wallabies committed the AB forwards and could play it tight with a hard running second five and forwards that could recycle the ball, the dynamic would have been quite different. The AB's would have been forced in and would have then been forced into getting it down the edges before giving the backs a shot. The difference is subtle but it is there.the AB's biggest strength is there ability to adapt to what is in front of them. It is also what makes players like Conrad, McCaw and Read among others so invaluable IMO. Something else which I find remarkably funny is how quiet Prince, Jameswn and others have been after writing lead up articles suggesting these guys contribute nothing and are overhyped. So yes Stash I did not see something new being played out on Saturday. I saw a team that has played together for the best part of a decade and know how to play depending on the circumstances. For the record I don't see this AB team as invincible, I just think if a team wants to test them, they should focus on bringing their A game rather than worrying if the AB's are bringing theirs. On Saturday they put the AB's under no pressure. They stood by and watched them run in 4 tries to zip. They never once put the AB forwards under any sort of pressure. And thanks for taking my earlier jibes in good humour :-).

Hi Chivas, I know, and knew your comment was made, in jest as I also know from your posts, you are a very passionate rugby individual. Thanks for responding. My participation in the code today is purely for the enjoyment of one who has appreciated what the code has bought to me me as 'non active' player now. It has in fact, other than my family exploits been my greatest source of enjoyment, over the past 21 years for reasons I will not go into here. All I will say is that I will continue to enjoy the code "and the All Blacks" for as long as I am able. To put things in perspective I was a nominee In 1960 for the Victor Ludorum at Mount Albert Grammer won that year by a John Mowlem, the then head prefect and captain of the 1st 15, who I idolised. The Victor Ludorum was awarded to the best sportsperson in the school as I recall. To see Mowlem and his fellow 1st 15 ers running up and down the slops of the raised playing grounds carrying in a fireman's like lift was mind boggling. Mr Eugene (?) Cheriton was the rugby coach of the 1st 15 supported by Mr York who chastised me for passing the ball of the ground once (something I still remember after more than 50 years!) and Murray Nain was the Head Master. Whats this got to do with rugby?..... absolutely nothing... but as with posting here from time to time, it allows me to indulge in my past. Back to the topic, I also am not a Cooper fan because he does not adhere to what I believed was the mould of how a No 10 should play and I am talking about an era which included the likes of Max Herewini, Sid Going etc. Maybe I was/am jealous of the talent QC shows or what that Carlos Spencer showed but I was bought up in the structure of rugby generally, a game that in NZ, anyone could play. I played my first game at a ground Western Springs, I never had boots, I wore sandshoes and spent more time on the deck than standing. Times have changed but my passion for the game hasn't and I still do not believe in the X Factor!!...