We cannot lift the Cup unless we pick the right pack

Hi Wag, Like yourself, I noted the fact that very few respondents addressed the issue I raised. I was on about the principles in selection – what are your priorities, how do you establish them and then use the selection process to reflect those decisions. Clearly people had sorted those things out for themselves and then simply named their teams. I was pleased that no one challenged my assertion that the key criteria for making decisions would include “making the most of what you are good at and covering up what you are not so good at” as a high (chief) priority. And I was actually a bit pleased also that no one challenged my claim that the ruck/maul was primarily to be considered as a set play and not as a means to an end. Anyway back to the ABs – what on earth could we be good at and get a clear edge when playing them? You have to make something out of that or else concede defeat before you start. My best guess is the lineout – I think that this year their scrum will be extra good and they will be certainly competitive in the other aspects of forward play that I listed in my article. That being the case I am going for 4 jumpers – amongst other considerations we will then have the chance to contest their throws. The corollary would be that we would work hard to eliminate any consequent gaps in our lineout, as the ABs real lineout strength is exploiting opposition gaps. The scrum will be a cover up job – in which case • I will pick the best scrummaging props – no arguments • I will pick a back 5 where every player will work to become a unit with the front row now. No room for anyone who does not bind tight or falls off the scrum under pressure. I could actually see a pack, reflecting the choices for the scrum and the lineouts being effective at the ruck/maul, given 2 conditions 1. Everyone knows the team patterns and the communication systems work. If you have possession, you know what is going to happen next (well that is a high priority in my opinion). That of course then gives you an enormous advantage in getting to the next ruck/maul. My own personal bias for variety with the ball is an important corollary. 2. We are aggressive – it doesn’t matter if it their ball or our ball. For me it is not just a question of the benefits from controlled aggression. It is that this aggression is often indicative of a switched on mindset. (and this is just as important and applicable in the tackle too.) With regard to this aggression, I have a question I do not know the answer to – are working off bent knees and acceleration any longer relevant to the drive? Maybe a “flyer” is not so essential as the ABs may not really have one – can McCaw really be classified as one these days? You could certainly pick a pack with a degree of mobility while satisfying other priorities. Many of my previous comments re the ruck/maul and the tackle are pertinent to this issue. I agree with the respondent who said you cannot entirely dissociate forward selection from the backs selection. My example of that consideration was deleted from the article I wrote. You are looking at work at the ruck/maul and support of the running forward just as a couple of examples where the backs contribute to “forwards” play. The pack I have selected stems from the application of the principles I have discussed. There are 2 potential problems with this application (I hope the principles are sound). 1. I know damn all about the modern game. 2. I know damn all about the current players. I know certain players are open to criticism from the SBs game. But they have talent and it is the coach’s job to extract it. Finally, how would my selections stand up in regard to my expressed list of desirable qualities for individual players. Mental strength and brains? God, I hope so – there are 5 national and provincial captains in the pack. Physical strength? Don’t know – I am not prepared to say yes. Controlled aggression? Good potential there. Slipper Moore Holmes Horwell Simmons Fardy Higgenbotham Pocock Hooper – has some great skills but I do not know about his scrummaging and cleaning out. Skelton – The Highlanders taught the rugby world how to deal with him and he has shortcomings in jumping and scrummaging at this stage of his career. I know there is a body of thought that says play both Hooper and Pocock while retaining Skelton, which leaves just two lineout jumpers – not for me. Sio(?) – I would like to see him play first up before I made a decision about him. In brief – cover up the scrum, accentuate the lineout and compete hard at the ruck/maul. My comments explain my view on mobility etc, etc. Can I take it that after all this, you will never again suggest that I give some thought to picking a pack to play the Abs and explain why. Sheek and Rob C may care to respond. Cheers, Roy

my guess is that higgers was hooked after coming out of the line to make (miss) a tackle that led to a try.

Had a close look at Simmons action. From what I saw, he never once fell off a pilferer once in contact. But seemed to have serious timing issues, esp in 1H: - Generally he misses the BD when it goes a different way to what he expected. - He's not the only one. The ball moves v quickly in this WB game plan - He would spend time moving around from side to side, looking for engagement, but not finding it - Other players missile into action, and get there first. ie KTrain, Hoops, Fardy, Higgers. Well not Big Willy either, unless its nearby Around half or more his tackles was more like a tackle assist. Some rest were grapples to bring the runner down. Some were try savers / tryline tackles: - He seemed too aim for the hit, but ball carriers avoid him like the plague. Big Willy too. I guess that makes sense. - On other occasions, they step off to him, not allowing him to crunch them. Instead it becomes a grapple tackle Some of his runs were soft, some hit the gainline, one knock near the SB tryline: - no exciting breaks / semi-breaks. two steps or on step before its breaks down. - The best were to take two tacklers and cycle quick - and importantly predictably cycle My main criticism in this game: - he seems the least keen of all the forward to run into the D line. Unlike Big Willy. Maybe its his brief - He tends to over study the engagement to target his involvement. I think this is better than his former approach of blindly rucking any dude in front of him. On this I think Simmons needs to review 200 hours of Sir Richie: - watch how he manages BD engagements. - There are probably around 30 main different cleanout scenarios which he has to internalise - So when he sees it in a live match, he knows what to do. - Otherwise, he'll be spending too much time calculating his approach and ruck style. In anycase, I think once he's more comfie with the base game, he will know how to best put his shoulder in the rucks a lot more. He was pretty good with the Reds.

Utah at 47' Flo was already over the ball when Simmons was still a step away. The only other way for SImmons to get there earlier is to fly in off his feet. Thats even dumber Then Simmons bends over and rolls him. But it was too late. Flo had the pill and had shoulders well below Simmons, by the time he arrived. Simmons does the roll, the other WB ruckers still far away. This gives time for Biz, who nearby to rip the pill away.

Yes PeterK, hard to argue with that. The only other Australian with as little impact in contact for mine is Carter. But Simmons and Carter are close to our best in the lineout, which complicates things. Personally, I can't believe SA are sticking with Matfield. I couldn't believe how slow he was around the park this year and how much he avoided contact. I'm not bagging him, because it's totally understandable given his age. The guy has been incredible but it's time to move on. It's insulting to the younger guys to persist with a 38yr old IMO.

when I watched the game, I thought australia lack strong ball runners... inability to penetrate the defence. Admittedly, that midfield runner seems to be easily covered by test defences these days... I really hope there is more to the wallaby gameplan that they are holding back- I have a suspicion that the pick and drive will be aust shock tactic come the wc

Agree with that

" do you pick a great tighthead scrummager at the expense of another’s mobility around the park?" Yes.

Exactly right there you have no idea ffan about Cheiks bench moves. Higgers looked pretty surprised (pissed off really) when he came off so early in the second half no doubt because he is an 80 minute ultra competitor with plenty left in the tank. Skelton on the other hand looked spent after 10 minutes. Why can't people see that he's just not ready yet. Two more preseasons and he'll be a weapon but not now.

Thanks RK. Great wrap.

Brilliant post CB2! I'd love to see what I call the 'superlative negative' binned on the roar. Not just for posters but also for comments on players.

Not Bothered, do you actually have any opinions of your own? You seem to love hiding behind the credentials of others... I'm just curious as to whether you've ever tried thinking for yourself... It's really quite a rewarding experience. Try it some time.

Utah - I cannot think of 1 super rugby lock from NZ or SA except for Matfield with as little physical impact as Simmons. In Aust all locks except for Wykes have more. Skelton, Dennis, Pots from the Tahs Horwill from the reds Arnold, Fardy, Enever and Carter from the Brumbies. Carter is close to being as soft in contact though maybe mark them equal. Timani, Jones, Neville from Rebels Coleman from Force Argentina, France, Wales, Ireland , and England all starting locks are more physical. Not sure on Scotland or Italy. How come every other country can manage good lineout locks who are also physical at contact?

except that he wouldn't know how to pilfer McCaw's boots... he'd need Pocock or Smith to do it with a nice pop pass to Hooper on the burst...

Red Kev - Good work. Interesting from your notes Hooper is more at fault than Skelton.

@ RobC The database not so big as I only started for the final 2 games of TRC last year and continued through the EOY Tests and Super Rugby season with a focus on the Western Force. With time on my hands I extended it into other Aussie SXV teams. Hope to continue through TRC and RWC for at least the Wallabies. It's not perfect but to comment upon a Forward's contribution is almost impossible without looking at his efforts/contribution at Rucks. In general, 80% of rucks engagements are made by Forwards. You can check out the Ruck analysis following last year's EOY Tests at: http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/spring-tour-wallaby-forwards-what-do-the-stats-tell-me.15091/

Hi RobC. Yeah I wouldn't blame Simmons for the one with Skelton, that was just an unlucky change of direction. The worst one of them was the one at 47' in my opinion. That was soft. He had no impact there whatsoever. The one at 2' wasn't that bad but still didn't have much impact. I agree Bismark already had hands on ball but he hardly moved him at all. If you compare those attempted clean outs to say Potgeiter or Bakkies there is a massive difference. Even Horwill seems to launch himself more into rucks. Gets the timing wrong sometimes but moves bodies.

3rd best... you forgot George Smith ;-)

Here we go, got my notes :D First scrum is pretty good. Both Skelton and Simmons are a little high, whole pack is shunted back a metre or so. Hooper’s shoulder slips off Kepu and he buckles to try and keep position, had the Springboks not cleared, they would probably have won a penalty from that. In the second scrum it is the same story, Skelton and Simmons are a little too high, this time Hooper is on the loose side and as soon as his shoulder comes off, Slipper and then Simmons lose their shape and the scrum gets shoved back. They do well to recover and not give away a penalty. The third scrum fractured on the Slipper-Simmons-Hooper side, I think because (a) Jannie went off, and (b) Higginbotham was applying no weight or direction, he was reaching for the ball with his massive hand for a fast clearance. Fourth scrum is rock solid. Matfield is off, Hooper is tightside and stays low with his shoulder engaged. Fifth scrum is solid, but starts to get beaten as the ball comes out Sixth scrum was solid for about 5 seconds then the Boks shoved them back at a rate of knots pressuring through the loose side to which Hooper didn’t even pretend to be bound. Seventh scrum was again solid but started to crumble on the open side (Kepu, Skelton, Hooper) as the ball came out. Eighth scrum has Pocock on and Jannie off, it is the one after the chargedown. The reset comes due to a collapse on the hit, the second engage is rock solid. Ninth scrum, the rest of the Springbok reserve front row is on, penalty against the Wallabies, for wheeling it Tenth scrum has another reset initially, then Slipper, Horwill and Fardy drive through the reserve Springbok tighthead and gain a penalty, which Cooper shanks. Scrum eleven. Immediate collapse, Slipper folds but to be fair Malherbe was driving in on a serious angle because Owens was on the other side. The second time they are pinged for a hit and drive before the ball is fed, free kick Springboks. By this time it is clear Slipper is fading, so Sio comes on at the next break in play. Scrum 12 is Sio’s first and the one after Simmons’ knock on that Hooper nails Burger from (he was a little lucky for not being pinged for an early disengage, shoulder up and hand on the Bok flanker – but that is rarely if ever called). The scrum itself was low and steady. Scrum 13 after the handover. This is the scrum that Holmes, Simmons and Fardy demolish the Springboks loosehead side. Penalty. The fourteenth and final scrum after the previous penalty making it three scrums right after each other. Steady, heavy pressure, Sio almost loses his shape and holds – impressive. I'd definitely consider starting the tight five that finished the match.

There you go...that's better, much more believable that scenario... Well done...