What went right for the Wallabies

thanks 2Beers. Two thoughts: - Need more effective use of WB finishers - WBs need to learn how to finish from the redzone

Look at the fitness of J.Savea. At the beginning of the season he looked tubby and slow. In the last game he was sleek and fast. And devastating!!! Fitness does make a huge difference

They did leak 2tries in the first 10mins and a third, by HT....don't think they were knackered but I would agree, they were still trying to get their second-wind, in those first 10mins. I still reckon, the measure of any player's fitness, is dependant upon how quickly they're able to get their second wind which improves, the player's breathing intake, for the remainder of the match.

The two go hand-in-hand. When you start to get physically tired your concentration and mental sharpness suffers. You need the physical fitness in order for the mental side to stay together.

They leaked tries once they were knackered. Before that they were pretty good. Everyone talks about superior fitness on the ABs part, but i think it is also because they play a superior brand of rugby that forces the opposition to put in MUCH more effort to gain parity. Once they exhaust themselvses maintaining parity then thats all she wrote pretty much.

Perhaps not HIS attack that cost them the game but definitely the WALLABIES attack as a whole was terrible. In reality how good can your attack be when you are so slow at recycling at the breakdown?

The wallabies had a defence that broke down in the end, but their attack was as weak as kittens for the whole game. Otherwise they would have scored more tries given how much time in the ABs 22 they had.

Don't think so James. If the WBs had attack then, they would've scored more than a single try which incidentally, was scored by a lock. The WBs were lacking in both attack ability and experienced leadership - get those improvements and their chances up north will IMO, be much, much better.

Speight is poor, no where the class of Folau , Speight is not that quick anyway.

I stated often before the match that the correct match up would have been Pocock starting and Hooper bench.

A Traditional #8 A Traditional #12 2 Traditional #11's (that can Play #13) All of a sudden Australia start to play cohesively as a well organized, balanced team. This isn't rocket surgery, blind Freddy can see what happened. Imagine if we had a Traditional #7 , A Traditional #14 and a traditional #15 We might start looking like professional outfit My barrow has Pocock, Morahan and DHP in it, but I am open minded enough to take anyone who can play these positions "Traditionally" I am sorry Izzy, but you aren't on the list, your years of rugby league have not given you the skills you need to be a fullback. You are good at the 11 and 13 jobs but Samu, Henry and Sefanaia are faster and better. Tevita K has an actual defense and would probably get a bench spot. Breaking News: Kerevi is out Injured and as we know, injury is the only way to make positive changes in the wallabies. This may be an opportunity for Cheika to save face and put Izzy in at 13 as an "Injury substitute". Gill, Pocoack, J.Reid, Hardwick, Butler, McMahon @ #7, I don't care, they all know what a ruck looks like and don't play like they are a turn style at the MCG. I don't know of any other decent Wing Fullbacks but I am open to suggestion. If not, Speight or Naivalu would be a good start.

Agree it's not so much fitness but being able to execute under fatigue. Teams need to concentrate for the full 80min.

Shane D. It could be that there are any number of players outside the main squad that are putting their hand up also.

ooohhh... Not sure about created all game, but he did threaten, and that was through his running game. He didn't create holes for others, he didn't hit others running into holes... what he did do well all night was make breaks or half breaks himself.

James - the first bit of your post can be summed up as saying - 'it was all down to bad luck!' But there's a saying about luck - some people make their own luck. What you think of as bad luck was to a large extent, hard work by a better team. For instance, I know Perenara's charge down try looks soft - but good teams apply that sort of pressure constantly and only occasionally does it pay off. When it finally pays off it looks lucky. But it isn't. It's karma balancing the books. When the WBs lost their two best players, this year they hadn't manufactured any luck in advance. The ABs lost Nehe Milner-Skudder and Sonny Bill Williams, but they had built up some 'luck' in the form of Anton Leinart-Brown and Waisake Naholo. Both were groomed and prepared carefully and risks were taken with them to prepare them for their roles. The same thing is beginning now when Jordie Barrett goes away as a non-playing apprentice for the ABs northern hemisphere tour. In a year or two he will dazzle us with an appearance off the bench. He'll look 'lucky' but he won't be. He's the luck the ABs build for themselves. And I'd bet dollars to donuts that if the pass that put Leinart Brown in for a try had been intercepted, that the ABs determination to have wild speedsters like Barrett, Naholo, Dagg, Smith and Savea on the field would have made the intercept only a possibility for a try, not a certainty. If any of them had run down the interceptor, it wouldn't be luck at all. Its the calculated risk you have when you choose to put speed on the field instead of power or kicking skills or whatever. You could say that the WBs had a ton of luck when the ABs chose to put Barrett on kicking duty instead of starting Sopoaga as 10. But it's not luck. It's a risk we take that is finely and usually correctly calculated. Getting the risks right is one mark of a smart coach.

The WBs runners are mostly slower than the ABs. I don't care how many times you break the line, if even Dane Coles (a hooker for Pete's sake!) is chasing then your man is likely to be run down. The ABs most responsible for last ditch tackles after a line break has been made are Barrett, Dagg, Smith and Savea. That's a very pacy lineup and has been shown to be sufficient to run down most ball carriers.

WBs haven't got much pace at all. ABs have a lot. The game is all about possession position and ...pace.

I don't want much Rugby. I saw a one sided game, yet they were absolutely flogged. How much more do they need to dominate for a win? Forwards killed it for the most part, then the backs couldn't finish it off. Eventually NZ went rampant and that's all she wrote. Would be scary to see the score if NZ had that amount of possession & field position.

Seemed to me that the WBs also kicked less often and when they did, it was better directed than previously. That had to help their possession stats.

Amen brother.