The Wallabies are through Pool A, the much-vaunted pool of death, with a perfect record. A 15-6 victory against Wales, including one of the most astonishing 10 minutes of play you’re likely to see, sealed that.
So we get our DIY Player Ratings out again.
My apologies about the tardiness of last week’s ratings. Between the public holiday, beers with Diggercane and a flash holiday in Wellington, as well as buying my first house (hooray!) I had a bit on my plate.
But we’re back, baby! And we’ll be on time this week.
So Roarers, what did you make of the Wallabies’ game against Wales? Were they gritty, tough and uncompromising?
Or were they sloppy, lacking in discipline and lucky?
Or was it a bit of both? To me, there’s probably an argument to be made both ways.
After the performance against England, you might have expected this Wallabies’ team to blow Wales off the park.
But it’s also clear that a lot of energy and body parts were spent to get that win, and with David Pocock and Israel Folau clearly not at their best, other players had to step up. And they did.
For any people new to DIY player ratings, here’s how it all works.
1. Fill out the form below, giving a player a rating between 1 and 10.
1.5. Tell me why my process sucks, or why my haircut is bad in the comments section.
2. I collate the votes over the day.
3. Tomorrow, the results will be out, and you all get to see exactly how bad our ratings are, and can lambast me for it.
Fun for the whole family.
Due to popular demand, I’ve put together a brief description of what I think the ratings should reflect. Use it as a guide, rather than a set of rules I stand by rigorously.
1. Had he not played, the team would have been better off. Negatively affected the performance of the side. May God have mercy on his soul.
2. Anonymous. Was he even there?
3. Did some things that you expect a player to be able to do, but did a whole bunch of other things that sucked.
4. Was passable in patches, but not up to standard in a squad of such depth.
5. Performed his role without anything really noticeable happening.
6. Good
7. Pretty good, actually
8. Very good
9. Excellent
10. Might as well have been John Eales
Happy voting everyone!
cs
Roar Guru
Hoy, you're right in that KB gives us a better Foles (and a better Izzy), but Gits has become indispensable. As PeterK has been saying (and Bobby Dwyer for, like, eons) , the easiest way to get Kurtley on the field is as a winger (in place of DM).
poyns
Guest
@Hoy. No.
Hoy
Roar Guru
Boy, without wanting to start something... or maybe I do, imagine if Cooper played the game Foley did? Foley sure answered the question about whether he could keep his England quality game coming... He didn't, but half his game was very good at least. People think Foley is weak in defense, but he sure showed them he wasn't afraid, and he brought down the big Welsh centres all day. HIs kicking was pretty good as well... but man, his game with ball in hand was terrible... As was the whole backline really... It is a worry that they are not clicking at all... Does Beale need a start instead of Giteau so that Foley can relax a bit?
Existentialist
Guest
haha, mates in Wallaby spirit #strongerasoneisfun
Brett McKay
Expert
:lol: "the odd bit of Roar social intercourse"
Machooka
Roar Guru
Hang on to ya hair Patrick... I don't even know the guy. Well... don't know him apart from the odd bit of Roar social intercourse. And even then it's usualy more about his rational comments, or decisions, whether confronting, or existing, in an irrational forum such as the Roar can sometimes be, or can become. Yep... that pretty much sums up what Existentialist is all about. Me ? There's not the time, or the resource.
advrider-oz
Guest
Two tough games and now you know why Cheika built 2 teams inside the 31 person squad. Injuries are inevitable and we have probably played the 2 toughest games in succession in the tournament to date. Not sure playing Folau was wise but hey I am not Cheika. My guess is is that he attracts 2-3 oppo players each time and thus opens up opportunities. I think I would play Beale next week and leave Folau to rest, AAC can cover full back if needed and Beale move to 10, 12 or wing. Good news is we have depth across the park and I see the only weakness (and this is relative to other positions) that of the 2 halves, but loads of other teams would be very happy if they had them...
Patrick Effeney
Editor
I feel like you and Machooka are mates. Possibly best mates.
Handles
Roar Guru
It may have been the first time that the Wallabies have been held tryless against Wales in a while, but a stats guru like you should know that in our last six games against Gatland coached teams, Wallabies not called Israel Folau have only scored four times. Tomane once, AAC once, O'Connor once, and Leali'ifano once. That is less than one a game, and since Israel was clearly on one leg, and three of the other four weren't playing, it is not surprising that we couldn't cross the line, considering that we only had 65 minutes with a full complement! More seriously, I agree that there was a certain lack of creativity, but that is the nature of key World Cup Games. The finals in NZ yielded only a handful of tries (16 over 7 live games). 2007 stats were blown out by SA -Fiji, but the rest including the final were tight. This is the type of rugby that is in front of us now, so if you only give votes to backs for tries, get ready for some low scores.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
And despite that, still made numerous errors. It's certainly bad to make errors when you are trying outlandish plays. What does it mean when you make errors and are trying to play safe?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I'm not trying to disregard a decent effort, I'm more so saying does 10 good minutes absolve 70 anonymous ones? This was the first time the Wallabies have been held tryless against Wales since 2001. If they had scored 2 tries, which they have managed in most games, that play wouldn't have been so significant in the context of the game. Due to the lack of penetration in attack it was.
Kaks
Roar Guru
I understand what you are saying TWAS, but I also believe you should take the nature of the game into account. When you are down to 13 men, defend as admirably as they did and come up with a massive play at the right time - well then you deserve a good rank.
Rob G
Guest
Foley did neither of the two core skills of a number 10....he didn't throw any behind the back passes, not any no look passes. He just isn't flashy enough for my liking. A game like that needed x-factor not solid tackling and impenetrable defence.
Machooka
Roar Guru
For me, and I 8 to say it... but what about if you combine the AAC tackle, and the pass he made against the English types to put Gits in ? I can't do anything with a 7 ;(
poyns
Guest
Do you cut it yourself?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
For me, you need more than one defensive moment to be considered, "Very Good", Kaks.
Kaks
Roar Guru
That AAC tackle made him an instant 8 for me
Existentialist
Guest
Whhhaaatt?? you must have missed my post on your Wallabies vs English players rating ... I am insulted PE, ha. granted like you said in the results page of yesterday it was a busy week. but really?!
Existentialist
Guest
a symbiotic amalgamation of your kind self, Patrick Effeney and our (my) 'Dear Debbie' WTF indeed Machooka... i am still on a visceral high from the weekend! :) but in digression ... i thought it would be great if there was a rating for the entire team ... just to make it easier for an overall vote. in retrospection always red velvet
Patrick Effeney
Editor
Fantastic! After all the times I posted that, this is the first time. Love it!