Larkham is playing the cards he has been dealt

Again it's the standard of players. Lark ham is doing a great job. Don't listen to spiro

The comment is not directed at the Tahs, and yes they do have their own problems....any dirt flinging with your spade should be directed at the Brumbies.

Sorry guys for commenting so late in the conversation but Rhys, you mention that counter attacking is contingent on skills training however, I suggest you have missed the most important ingredient associated with counter attacking, which I believe, is far more crucial than, skills training. Don't get me wrong because, skills training is a necessary requirement if you find yourself with a back-line full of piggies, instead of backs. So, back to the crucial ingredient - it is simply "playing what's in front of you". If you have the players who can recognise when, where and how to counter, then that is the greatest advantage, a side possesses. If you don't have those players, than having a team of skilled players, isn't going to help you if nobody recognises the moment, to "play what's in front of them" and go on, a counter attack. It will just be passing the ball out wide from one side to the other in the hope, that a gap in the opposition d-line, opens up. Dingo tried to introduce this with the WBs by getting players to take ownership and responsibility, with what they may visualise, on the paddock. The thing is, I don't believe the players wanted to do that - it just seemed much more structured if the ball flowed east-west, to find gaps, rather than a simple but snappy pass, to get the play heading, north-south. "Play what's in front of you" presents opportunities, that an opponent, doesn't expect. IMO, this is the beginning of a counter attack and thereafter, the skills will then, come into play.

Rhys, I don't care if Hawera is from New Zealand, New South Wales or Newfoundland. It's great that a young guy is getting a crack at Super Rugby (the only concern I have is the playing of non-eligible players which weakens the Australian player pool, if Foley doesn't come right the options after Cooper aren't there). I am not one of 'those' Kiwis. I come on here to discuss the game. If you are happy with the level of attacking play the Brumbies are putting on the park then more power to you. For mine I would expect more from a team with the level of coach they have.

Counter attacking is also contingent on skills training, particularly for forwards, which is something that New Zealand teams are ahead of Australia in thanks to the efforts of Mick Byrnes. That is being worked on now that he is here though.

Yeah Fionn, as you know I already pointed out that the Wallabies attack was one of their strong point's in 2016, but Shane is at that stage of a discussion where he has his mind made up, and is only reading and regurgitating what he thinks supports his preconceived position. If I hadn't mentioned Hawera as being a Kiwi journeyman who none of the New Zealand franchises wanted, he probably wouldn't have even joined in, as usual the Kiwis on here try to make every thread about them. Edit - It seems we are typing at the same time. The lack of counter attack had more to do with the poor kicking game and subsequently being played like a dope on a rope by teams who defended then counter attacked of a turnover. Some of those games we had over 60% possession, counter attacking opportunities were rare but it has nothing to do with Larkham's ability to train a team of appropriately skilled players to attack.

Fionn, I think you hit the nail on the head. Counter attack & attack off turn over ball are serious weaknesses. Turnover ball is gold as far as an attacking opportunity is concerned but how often do we see the first default option as kick to clear? Use that ball, kick as the last option or as an attacking play if the opposition has no one covering. I am not blaming an inability to attack as the sole reason for the Wallaby issues from last year but the inability to convert chances was a evident at times. I am concerned though with the proposition that the Wallaby attack coach can't elevate his Brumbies players with the time he has had with them so far. If that is the case then the relatively short time he has with the Wallabies doesn't bode well!

Shane, I am quite happily to be infinitely critical of the Wallabies in 2016. That being said, I don't think that it is fair to blame our poor results on an inability to attack. In my opinion with the exception of the matches against New Zealand, and 2nd Test against the Poms and Boks respectively, we attacked well and scored tries. Even those we lost (the 1st and 3rd England Test in Aus, Ireland, England at Twickenham) we attacked well and scored tries. The biggest problem was , in my opinion, our defence was poor and our kicking out of hand—especially out of our 22—was absolutely atrocious at best and non-existent at worst. We really need to improve our counter-attacking and attack in broken play, but our structured play was good. In that third match against England we had all the momentum at first and (once again) lost because they pinned us in our own 22 for about 30 minutes of the second half.

No need to stoop to insults Rhys. No the Brumbies played a good defensive game against the Crusaders as far as I can recall. The premise for your argument as far as I can tell is that Larkham hasn't had enough time to install attacking plays because his players aren't capable of performing them. He has therefore concentrated on defence instead. You further argue that he is in fact a good attack coach citing a Wallaby performance from last season in the third Bledisloe as an example of that. My opinion is simple. He recruited the players, he has had a full preseason to install & coach attacking plays. The game to which you refer from the Wallabies as evidence of Larkams coaching excellence was one in which the Wallabies had 65% possession & managed a total of 6 clean breaks. Your opinion of Crotty is interesting. Yes he is an organiser, in defence. Crotty is not an experienced playmaker which is your original assertion. He does not perform the role of a playmaker for the Crusaders. I agree with you that he is an experienced player, heck he has played nearly as many tests as Kuridrani.

Lol! Shane, the Crusaders only managed to beat the Brumbies in Christchurch by four points, when they had Mo'anga and Dagg healthy. Are you going to tell me that they like the Highlanders couldn't get past the Brumbies defence because they have "a defensively minded coach"? You really should think before you type, like when you equate a running 13 with an organising 12 next to a rookie playmaker.

I was referring to Kuridrani Rhys not Godwin, would have thought that obvious. Crotty is not a playmaker but a running inside centre, that's why he plays 13 as much as 12. I'll give you an alternative reason the Highlanders took until the 72nd minute to gain the lead (with their 2nd try by the way). Simply their attack was as poor as the Brumbies. Anyone who has watched Tony Browns teams play though would expect that as he is a defensive minded coach. Their lack of attacking punch even with Smith & Naholo has been why they are at the bottom of the NZ conference. Mitch Hunt is primarily a fullback not a 10. As a pure 10 Hawera has more runs on the board. Marty Mckenzie was signed to cover 10 but has not performed to Robertsons expectations & Hunts goal kicking gave him the nod. The Crusaders have no experienced playmakers in their current backline. Dagg would fill that role once fit. David Havili is chipping in to help out from fullback but is not experienced. Hawera was in the Chiefs development team for a couple of seasons but the rise of Damian Mckenzie both at the Chiefs & in the Waikato NPC team meant he went looking for other opportunities in Southland. Unfortunately for him Brown opted to go with Fraser Smith, who he has previously coached at NPC level as Sapoagas back up at the Highlanders when it was obvious Hayden Parker would be available. Hawera is a talented player and it wouldn't shock me to see him back in the NZ system sooner rather than later. It amazes me that an international level coach with the time he has had with his squad has had trouble installing anything above basic attacking plays. We aren't talking about the boys getting together a couple of times a week & only having time to work on defence. The Brumbies are a full time professional players, the Wallaby attack coach & have had a full preseason together. At international level, I really fear for the Wallabies if what they dished up in attack last year is considered acceptable.

Did you even read what I wrote Shane? I didn't say the Crusaders 10 was experienced, I just said he is obviously better than Hawera because he got picked for a New Zealand Super Rugby team. So I was obviously talking about Crotty, who with his 26 All Blacks caps you compare to Godwin with his single Wallabies cap. The last comparison is just ridiculous. And even injured the Highlanders fronted with the Smiths as well as Fekitoa, only Speight and Kuridrani have comparable international experience with the Brumbies and neither are playmakers. The real question you should be asking is why the Highlanders took until the 72nd minute to get ahead of this Brumbies team and still only managed a one try win that could have gone either way. I will answer it for you, Stephen Larkham has done a bloody good job prioritising defence and was smart for doing so under the circumstances.

Who is the experienced playmaker at the crusaders Rhys? The bloke who played fullback for Tasman last season & has now been thrown into the deep end of super rugby? Sure he has an international centre outside him but isn't that the case at the brumbies as well? Larkham has the players at his disposal but doesn't seem to trust them to run anything past basic backline moves either that or he can't conjure up much more. If his backline couldn't threaten a team severely weakened by injuries such as they faced in the highlanders then I think you are grasping at straws saying he coaching them well in attack.

Having looked at the replay Powell was actually trying to get the ball out of the maul, the problem was that the Highlanders managed to kill it and force a scrum. Speight might well have got it had the Brumbies forwards succeeded, but oh well, you win some and lose some.

Shane, the New Zealand playmakers that you are talking about have been selected for a New Zealand Super Rugby team. Hawera has not, which obviously tells us that he isn't rated as good as those other players, at least yet. I am not saying that the bloke is a bad player, Larkham wouldn't have picked him if he wasn't, but the reality is that he has out of necessity been dumped into the Super Rugby deep end, which is far more challenging than the ITM Cup. That would explain why he is having trouble doing what he did at the domestic level. Also, you are ignoring the fact that when Larkham has the cattle his teams do attack well. Last year the running and passing game of the Wallabies wasn't the problem, it troubled all opponents including the All Blacks in the last Bledisloe and was better than any of the European squads. The problem was Michael Cheika's insistence on not having a decent kicking game, and discipline plus set piece problems were what undid the season, not Larkham. It proved that when he has the cattle they will score tries. The same goes for the Brumbies season last year, when Toomua was playing their attack was formidable, but when Toomua was injured and it was just Lealifano, who is more of a running and kicking fly half than a really good decision maker, the outside backs didn't get engaged as often. In reality brainpower is just like speed or strength, all players have a certain amount of potential that the coach can get out of them, but if the capability isn't there it just isn't there. If you want a good example of that, look at Israel Folau, he is probably the most gifted athlete in rugby but without the nous to make the most of it. It is why selections are such an important part of the game. The New Zealand teams bar the Blues have certainly benefited by being able to select at least one experienced playmaker/organiser in each backline, the Highlanders have two of the best in the Smiths. With the Brumbies Larkham just hasn't had that luxury, which is why he has done very well with what he has by focusing on his team's strengths.

The Brumbies beat Waratahs comprehensively with all those negatives, so that sure puts it to them in spades.

Some of the best players, make lousy coaches...ring a bell . Larkham , has not only not paid his dues by going through the coaching ranks and get oversea experience, he has been basically handed his position on a plate. If you do not earn your position or you get it by default due to lack of competition or just plain lack of available talent , then the position is truly worthless in the true sense. The Brumbies squad is not totally useless, yes there are some players who are out of their depth and shouldn't be on the playing field, but again that goes back to Larkham's coaching. Larkham has had time to form his squad, there are really no excuses anymore. On a final note, Fardy leaving is a surprise and you can make whatever you want from it.

it struck me as one of those games where the forwards from both teams would have had a beer & a laugh with each other afterwards while shunning their team mates who played in the backs.

Whilst I understand the point of the article I disagree with the argument. We are talking about the incumbent Wallaby attack coach & he not showing much of an attacking mindset in his teams backline play. The Brumbies with Larkham at 10 used to be innovators as far as attacking play were concerned but where has that innovation gone. The Brumbies do not appear difficult team to defend against as there is little deception in their attack. The players they have are professional rugby players that Larkham recruited. That journeyman 10 at the Brumbie seemed to be able to pick runners out in his previous teams. Given he has internationals at 13 & 14 I am wondering why he would have issues finding them. To say that they the players are not skilled enough to run plays is a little rough. The team I support currently has a journeyman 12 playing at 10, a wing trying to convert to the midfield at 12 & a pretty raw wing playing at 13 but they are still looking to launch attacking moves & attack from broken play when the opportunity arises. The competion leader currently has the youngest 9/10 axis in the competition with the 10 being very inexperienced & yet are still looking to run attacking plays. Larkham may well be keeping his 'powder dry' but he is running the risk of having some great training ground moves that his players haven't run in game situations when he decides to let them off the leash. My honest option is that Larkham was a great instinctive attacking player but those kinds of players don't always translate into great coaches. The way they see a defence unfold is often not something that is teachable.

They did, mate. That being said, one defensive mistake at the end of the match and they lose the game. Or if the Brumbies hadn't had that kick charged down.