Five talking points from Wales vs Wallabies

Charlie Lawry Roar Guru

By Charlie Lawry, Charlie Lawry is a Roar Guru

 , ,

74 Have your say

Popular article! 5,672 reads

    The Wallabies carried on their winning ways with a 29-21 triumph over Wales in Cardiff on Sunday morning.

    So, what was worth talking about?

    More Wallabies vs Wales
    » Match Report: Wallabies hold on
    » Quiqley: Wallabies discipline a concern
    » Team changes for the match vs England
    » Vote in our DIY player ratings
    » Re-live the match with our live blog

    1. Tic tac toe, 13 in a row
    We’ll start with the good stuff. It wasn’t perfect, but a win’s a win. And victory in Cardiff made it 13 straight for the Wallabies over Wales. That sort of record can easily give rise to complacency, but there were no shirkers in gold.

    Tatafu Polota-Nau continued his brilliant form. He gets involved in absolutely everything and does so at maximum intensity.

    Kurtley Beale wasn’t quite at his best, but still pulled off a brilliant moment of opportunism. As Wales were creeping back into the game, Beale stripped Steff Evans of possession mid-tackle and casually jogging 60 metres to score, all while Wales were poised over the non-existent breakdown.

    There’s also nothing like a few weeks of Nick Phipps to remind you how important Will Genia is. Genia was man of the match, firing a lovely pass for Coleman’s try and generally steering the ship with aplomb.

    Kurtley Beale

    (Photo by Dan Mullan/Getty Images)

    2. Wallabies defence still suspect
    It’s worth remembering this was Wales’ first test match since June. They were rusty, and Australia should have been able to control the game much better than they did.

    It’s no secret where opponents will find space against the Aussies at the moment. Too many times, Wales created significant overlaps out wide. It was only the home side’s poor handling that saved the Wallabies from being cut to shreds.

    Kerevi and Kuridrani might have bullied Japan last week but they were caught out here. It was telling that Michael Cheika dragged Kerevi relatively early for Karmichael Hunt. Though they weren’t the only ones at fault.

    Australia still overcommit at the breakdown and fail to realign quick enough when possession is turned over. Marika Koroibete’s rush defence is spectacular when it comes off, but it can compound the errors of those inside him when his timing is off.

    3. Have we stopped practising restarts?
    A year or two ago, criticism of the Wallabies’ restarts was so frequent it became a running joke. For a while they upped their game ‒ kicking high and short for tall, agile chasers ‒ but their focus seems to have wavered once more.

    Against Wales, not one of Bernard Foley’s kick-offs was contestable. They were all deep-ish into the corner, allowing a regulation clearance. It can’t just be Foley’s carelessness. It must be a rehearsed pattern. But it shows such a lack of intent to secure possession.

    Maybe they’re less inclined to kick short without their leaper-in-chief, Folau. But it’s been happening for a while now. In high pressure games, why would you give your opposition a moment’s respite?

    4. Dr Jackson and Mr Hyde
    When was the last time a team won after being on the wrong side of a 15-3 penalty count? The Wallabies discipline has been a problem area this year, but Glen Jackson loomed larger than he probably should have on Sunday.

    Jackson’s critics suggest he has a tendency to referee one team at a time. That kind of approach can really affect the game’s momentum. He was arbitrary at scrum time, to the annoyance of both teams.

    He pinged the Wallabies for ‘closing the gap at the lineout’ when they only did so to make a play at a wildly crooked Welsh throw. He was strict on the Wallabies offside line but less bothered by the Welsh rush defence. Then he penalised Jonathan Davies for deliberate knockdown when he made a genuine attempt to intercept.

    Several calls seemed inconsistent or selectively pedantic. It makes Jackson one of the most frustrating referees in world rugby.

    5. Is Scott Sio still Australia’s best loosehead?
    At times during his career, Scott Sio has been in imperious form. Yet within the space of 80 minutes, he can go from world-beater to park footballer. Against heavy scrum pressure, he too often seems like the latter.

    Sio was penalised early for collapsing, only to regain solidity as the first-half wore on. Then things went awry again in the second. Whether it’s sloppy binding or an issue of strength, something is amiss.

    With scrum officiating heavily reliant on the perception of ascendancy, it’s a big problem for Sio to be struggling early in games. His front row partners, Sekope Kepu and Polota-Nau, are proven scrummagers over a sustained period. Sio is currently the weak link. Speaking of which, who let Mario Ledesma leave his post as scrum coach?

    Have Your Say

    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (74)

    • November 12th 2017 @ 12:07pm
      Fionn said | November 12th 2017 @ 12:07pm | ! Report

      “There’s also nothing like a few weeks of Nick Phipps to remind you how important Will Genia is.”

      Brilliant 🙂 .

      In regards to the point about restarts, the fact is that the Welsh commentary were constantly talking about how poorly Wales dealt with our restarts. It’s interesting that both this point and your comment can come out of the same match.

      Sio has been scrummaging brilliantly for almost the entirety of the RC. Poor day today, no doubt, but there is no one else even near the doorway let along knocking on the door. Yes, he is Australia’s best LHP.

      • November 12th 2017 @ 1:06pm
        Dave_S said | November 12th 2017 @ 1:06pm | ! Report

        “In regards to the point about restarts, the fact is that the Welsh commentary were constantly talking about how poorly Wales dealt with our restarts.“

        I’m siding with the commentary in that regard, I thought the long kick was often effective, it just takes one good chaser to put the catcher under pressure to get a result from it. The short kickoffs are a bit of a lottery.

        • November 12th 2017 @ 1:13pm
          Fionn said | November 12th 2017 @ 1:13pm | ! Report

          I agree, mate. I liked the long ones that saw Koroibete racing behind them to smash the catcher. He missed the tackle a couple of times, but it always put the catcher under pressure and forced them into errors. Even when they didn’t make errors at least it meant we got a line out in their half the majority of the time.

          Short kicks off are basically only justifiable when we have Folau there to regather.

          • November 12th 2017 @ 1:57pm
            Dave_S said | November 12th 2017 @ 1:57pm | ! Report

            The last one of the game was a great example. Koro made the tackle on Davies and suddenly Wales were under pressure about 15m from their line.

            • Roar Guru

              November 12th 2017 @ 3:16pm
              Charlie Lawry said | November 12th 2017 @ 3:16pm | ! Report

              Fair point. At the end of the game especially it was the right play to try and pin them down there. But I’d like to see a bit more variety in general.

              • November 12th 2017 @ 7:45pm
                Dave_S said | November 12th 2017 @ 7:45pm | ! Report

                Good point Charlie, if the long kick is predictable it can be countered to good effect.

    • November 12th 2017 @ 12:20pm
      CJ said | November 12th 2017 @ 12:20pm | ! Report

      We seem to, and have been for some time, operating at about 70% of our optimum capacity. Reminds me of the Wallabies from 1981-83. Lots of talent but too many problems with fundamentals and too much inconsistency, but in fairness to that era, and even with the Queensland v NSW politics of that time, we didn’t see some of the poor selections we see now. Time for some major changes.

      • November 12th 2017 @ 12:27pm
        bennalong said | November 12th 2017 @ 12:27pm | ! Report


        • November 12th 2017 @ 4:34pm
          Reverse Wheel said | November 12th 2017 @ 4:34pm | ! Report

          I think he wrote this in June and only just hit send?

    • November 12th 2017 @ 12:20pm
      advrider-oz said | November 12th 2017 @ 12:20pm | ! Report

      Sio struggled when Ned was behind him.

      • November 13th 2017 @ 10:23pm
        armchair sportsfan said | November 13th 2017 @ 10:23pm | ! Report

        replace hannigan with beale, he seemed to know what he was doing when he joined the side of the scrum

    • November 12th 2017 @ 12:21pm
      oddz1987 said | November 12th 2017 @ 12:21pm | ! Report

      Anyone else see the spray Genia giving Foley that resulted in Moore stepping in at the end of the game ?????

      • November 12th 2017 @ 12:42pm
        enoughisenough said | November 12th 2017 @ 12:42pm | ! Report

        How hesitant was Foley with his kicking on the field? He was very lucky not to be charged down, and seemed to be really unsure as to what to do when he had the ball at times.

        • November 12th 2017 @ 1:06pm
          Cynical Play said | November 12th 2017 @ 1:06pm | ! Report

          you made that up

        • Roar Guru

          November 12th 2017 @ 3:15pm
          Charlie Lawry said | November 12th 2017 @ 3:15pm | ! Report

          Definitely a few too many aimless bombs in midfield. Invited pressure back onto us too easily.

          • Roar Guru

            November 12th 2017 @ 7:52pm
            Sluggy said | November 12th 2017 @ 7:52pm | ! Report

            Charlie, please see below post. He’s not the one who was supposed to chase them by the way.

            • November 12th 2017 @ 8:02pm
              Fionn said | November 12th 2017 @ 8:02pm | ! Report

              Sluggy, it’s actually hard and risky to compete for high kicks under the current laws. It isn’t like the 07-09 great Boks team. Nowadays there are sooooo many yellow cards for putting the player in the air in a dangerous position. Even if you get up yourself, if you don’t get up as highly as the other player and touch them at all you might get a yellow card or at least a penalty.

              There is also the fact that at the moment structured defences are very good, and as a result a lot of tries are scored via running back kicks. I love that we are finally moving to a kicking game, but I think we should shelve the up and unders a little bit more and use other kicks instead.

              • Roar Guru

                November 13th 2017 @ 9:59pm
                Sluggy said | November 13th 2017 @ 9:59pm | ! Report

                Yes agree, its better for the players to wait for the defender to catch it, put a leg on the ground, and then tackle them. Unless your name is I. Folau. It seems to me the Wobs were doing that on Sunday morning, and inviting the Welsh to attack from 60 metres out, rather than play with the ball in their own “penalty zone”. I don’t think the high balls were aimless though, and Foley wasn’t the only one kicking them. I am thinking MC prepared them for Wales defensive pattern, and that was part of a planned response.

        • Roar Guru

          November 12th 2017 @ 7:49pm
          Sluggy said | November 12th 2017 @ 7:49pm | ! Report

          enoughisenough, I’m not sure what game you were watching, but it seems to have been a different one to a number of UK rugby writers. I’m guessing you are firmly placed in the anti-Foley camp, and run these lines out regardless of what really happens on the field. Its becoming a bit tired. No wonder Brett won’t engage in discussion about this anymore. Here are three examples of people who disagree with you:

          James Corrigan in the UK telegraph:

          “Bernard Foley soon established himself as the game’s notable conductor and the more he touched the ball the more his side took control. There was not much in it – there rarely has been in the last decade between these two – but when a player such as Foley is using his boot as the baton, then it is so easy to be mesmerised by his tune.”

          Michael Aylwin in the Observor, (under the headline: Wales suffer old woes against wiles of Australia’s Bernard Foley)

          This victory was built on three first-half tries that seemed all too easy to score, which is precisely what the best players make them look. The cleverness of Foley’s kicking set up the first two …”

          BBC Sport’s Richard Williams:

          “The visitors were well marshalled by half-backs Will Genia and Bernard Foley”

          “Will Genia returned to the Wallabies’ starting line-up after missing the win over Japan and his experience and class was evident in a superb display alongside his equally-assured half-back partner Bernard Foley” (photo caption).

          • November 13th 2017 @ 1:33pm
            enoughisenough said | November 13th 2017 @ 1:33pm | ! Report

            Yes I watched and listened. Did you? A couple of examples being Foley taking the ball in his 22, shaping to kick, taking another step, shaping to kick again, stuttering, and then putting up an ineffectual midfield bomb, with the commentators saying something to the effect that he took far too long, and commenting how slow it was. Then shortly after, a Foley clearance was touched in flight right off the boot (so Wallabies had lineout throw), now I kind of think if it was touched in flight off the boot, it was probably fairly close to being charged down, or doesn’t that work for you? And then at the end of the game, Foley shaped to kick, then changed his mind and took on the line, was tackled and had the ball stripped. So there’s a few examples for you, where he was hesitant and took far too long to get set for his field kicking. Facts, not like your fake news, wherein Foley was magnificent and his kicking impeccable. I suppose you didn’t see the only conversion attempt that he made from not close to in front – a total shank….Next you’ll be telling us that Foley doesn’t have issues with being charged down, nor does he have technical issues with his kicking.

            And as for Brett not bothering to engage in conversation on it, so what? The same Brett whose logic dictates that Foley is the supreme 10 in Australian rugby, hands down, because he is. Compelling stuff, whereby opinion is fact eh?

            But why worry, your man Foley is locked in to the 10 position, no matter how poorly he goes, so you’ll have abundant opportunity for your hero worship.

            • Roar Guru

              November 13th 2017 @ 2:53pm
              Sluggy said | November 13th 2017 @ 2:53pm | ! Report

              You sound tired mate. Get some rest.

              • November 13th 2017 @ 3:13pm
                enoughisenough said | November 13th 2017 @ 3:13pm | ! Report

                Oooh good comeback mate. Get caught out with a few facts so you come back with this gem? What a champ! Sluggardly indeed.

            • Roar Guru

              November 13th 2017 @ 3:32pm
              Sluggy said | November 13th 2017 @ 3:32pm | ! Report

              It’s not only overseas journos who disagree with you:

              Christy Doran – Fox Sports/Courier Mail:

              “It was a clinical return from Foley at fly-half after missing last week because of illness.
              Foley’s first half in particular was fantastic, with his control and kicking game brilliant.
              He perhaps attempted to play too much field position in the second half, but nonetheless it was a strong night.”

              But you just carry on.

              • November 13th 2017 @ 6:30pm
                enoughisenough said | November 13th 2017 @ 6:30pm | ! Report

                How cute, someone who still believes journalists don’t have agendas, and who believes everything “because the newspaper sad so”.

              • Roar Guru

                November 13th 2017 @ 7:31pm
                Sluggy said | November 13th 2017 @ 7:31pm | ! Report

                Not really.

                What do you say the UK journos’ agenda is that caused them to write nice things about Foley?

      • November 12th 2017 @ 2:06pm
        Dave_S said | November 12th 2017 @ 2:06pm | ! Report

        “the spray Genia giving Foley”

        Do you mean just after the siren? Not sure if it was a spray, but there was some animated discussion and Foley seemed to apologise for something. A short time later, Beale is also involved in it.

        I suspect it related to the last play the WBs had the ball, when Foley trucks it up into the D and is stripped. Probably a miscommunication over what was to happen, eg supposed to be a pass from Foley to Beale for a drop goal? Just speculating ofc.

        • November 13th 2017 @ 12:29am
          ozinsa said | November 13th 2017 @ 12:29am | ! Report

          I am pretty sure the reason for the spray was that Foley was setting up to kick the ball out to close the game (which I’m certain he and Genia would have communicated to each other) and then decided for the glory shot of trying to run it and coughed up the pill. I know I screamed at him

      • November 13th 2017 @ 3:23am
        Steve said | November 13th 2017 @ 3:23am | ! Report

        Yes! What was that all about?

      • Roar Pro

        November 13th 2017 @ 2:16pm
        Matt Davis said | November 13th 2017 @ 2:16pm | ! Report

        Didn’t look good, did it?

        • November 13th 2017 @ 2:33pm
          oddz1987 said | November 13th 2017 @ 2:33pm | ! Report

          Certainly didn’t look good….. I can understand the frustration on behalf of Genia, the game was closed out and with no bonus points on offer whats the point of continuing the game???
          But definitely not the time or place to carry on the way that both of them did.

    • Roar Guru

      November 12th 2017 @ 12:39pm
      Mango Jack said | November 12th 2017 @ 12:39pm | ! Report

      The deliberate knockdown is one of the most contentious and frustrating. Such a fine line between a botched intercept attempt and a knockdown, yet the result of the former is a knock-on, and for the latter a penalty or even worse, a yellow card. In many cases it is impossible to tell what the intent of the defender was. Personally, I think it should be only be used in cases where it is clearly deliberate and a try would have been scored.

      • November 12th 2017 @ 1:19pm
        Dave_S said | November 12th 2017 @ 1:19pm | ! Report

        Yeah I think it’s a pointless rule that should be dropped altogether. As you say, the reffing of it is arbitrary, and deliberate charging down a kick is allowed. Crazy when you see it YC’d.

        It’s not a penalty in league, and you don’t see a heap of deliberate knockdowns as a result.

        • November 12th 2017 @ 1:22pm
          Fionn said | November 12th 2017 @ 1:22pm | ! Report

          I feel like it should be a legitimate tactic, and agree it should just be counted as a regular knock it. It punishes poor passes even when done intentionally. The charge down comparison is completely apt.

          • Roar Guru

            November 12th 2017 @ 3:21pm
            Charlie Lawry said | November 12th 2017 @ 3:21pm | ! Report

            I think the difference is that if the defender has read the play and got in a position to make an intercept, then well done to them. Whereas the deliberate knockdown is usually a desperate/cynical attempt to shut down an overlap.

            I see the logic in the rule, but I agree that it’s usually adjudicated on very poorly. More often than not, the defender is making a genuine play for the ball, whether it’s a direct catch or to knock it up for themselves to regather.

            • November 12th 2017 @ 3:55pm
              Fionn said | November 12th 2017 @ 3:55pm | ! Report

              Fair comments. I think my problem with it is, as you say, how it is adjudicated.

              I remember Jean de Villiers got a highly questionable intentional knock on call against him and he said ‘do you know how many like that I’ve caught?’ and the referee replied ‘yes, but you didn’t catch that one.’

              If that exchange doesn’t ring alarm bells then I don’t know what does. So if he successfully caught it it would have been a reasonable attempt at an intercept, but if he drops it it means it is an intentional knock on? Very questionable interpretation of it in my opinion.

              • November 12th 2017 @ 4:18pm
                Cuw said | November 12th 2017 @ 4:18pm | ! Report

                @ Fionn

                it used to be kind of unwritten rule that if the player had his hands upwards its an attempt to catch and if hands were downwards its a knock down.

                it seems they have ditched that now and just call almost all as intentional and give e penalty AND not card people.

                a lot of things are getting complicated becoz there is no consistency – like the card given to the argie coz Brown landed badly , but at first the ref thought it is a fair contest AND the argie had his hand on the ball.

                the UK guys i watched with kept on saying the attacker has a duty to be careful – but what does it mean when both go up ???? in that Lions test Read got his hands on the ball and it was fine !!!!

                rugger seriosly needs to get some consistency , else it will become harder to spread the gospel….

              • November 12th 2017 @ 4:38pm
                Fionn said | November 12th 2017 @ 4:38pm | ! Report

                ‘rugger seriosly needs to get some consistency , else it will become harder to spread the gospel….’

                Well put, Cuw.

            • November 12th 2017 @ 5:29pm
              soapit said | November 12th 2017 @ 5:29pm | ! Report

              i have a problem wth rules that reward poor play. if you pass where an intercept can be taken thats poor and not fair that you benefit a penalty and a yellow card.

              would be happy enough if they just only penalised the ones where its clearly slapped down with no attempt to catch as has been suggested above

              • November 12th 2017 @ 7:48pm
                Dave_S said | November 12th 2017 @ 7:48pm | ! Report

                “i have a problem wth rules that reward poor play. if you pass where an intercept can be taken thats poor and not fair that you benefit a penalty and a yellow card”

                Spot on

          • November 12th 2017 @ 5:11pm
            Ruckin Oaf said | November 12th 2017 @ 5:11pm | ! Report

            Not really a good comparison because you can score from a charge down.

            You can’t score from a knockdown be it intention or not.

            To me the charge down is a good bit of play putting pressure on the kicker and trying to create some unstructured broken field play which is part of the joys of rugby. Anything can happen from a charge down.

            The knockdown is often a spoiling tactic used when the other team’s outside backs are firing and you don’t have a chance of stopping them legitimately.

        • November 12th 2017 @ 3:22pm
          soapit said | November 12th 2017 @ 3:22pm | ! Report

          you do see a few dave, its not seen as a problem when it happens tho. they just have another go.

      • November 12th 2017 @ 3:49pm
        double agent said | November 12th 2017 @ 3:49pm | ! Report

        I used to not like the rule but have changed my mind. Deliberately knocking the ball down is very annoying.

        • Roar Guru

          November 12th 2017 @ 4:44pm
          Mango Jack said | November 12th 2017 @ 4:44pm | ! Report

          If it’s clearly a deliberate attempt to prevent a try when the defence has been outnumbered, I have no problem with it, but the problem is in most cases the ref is just guessing the intent of the defender. A lot of the time, I think he’s trying to both intercept the pass and shut down the attack, which should be legitimate play IMO. If he snares it, good luck to him, if he can’t, knock on.

          • Roar Guru

            November 12th 2017 @ 10:42pm
            Handles said | November 12th 2017 @ 10:42pm | ! Report

            So to fix a rule that many think is too subjective, you want to add a new degree of subjectiveness? When has the defence been outnumbered? All the time, if you are playing a sliding defence like Australia.

      • Roar Guru

        November 13th 2017 @ 11:34am
        Timbo (L) said | November 13th 2017 @ 11:34am | ! Report

        My 2 Cents.

        A deliberate knock down is cynical and should be penalized, penalized hard.

        A deliberate Knock Up is an intercept attempt and if not regained, is a knock on – Pack Down the Scrum.
        If you are passing a possible intercept, you deserve to lose momentum.

    • November 12th 2017 @ 12:45pm
      Wallace footrot said | November 12th 2017 @ 12:45pm | ! Report

      Great points Charlie, but there is still no 6 point to make……if the game could get more exposure it can only be good. No replay on FTA means its pay tv or nothing. Now I know there is that good old chestnut the ratings are also down on Pay tv, but the opposite arguement is if this is not given more possibility to expand then it will always struggle. Chicken and the egg. It is up to the administrators to invent creative thinking to get this done. Pay tv keeps going up in price and it has just as many advertisments these days as FTA. Time for some creative heads in the RA admin. It does not have to be one or the other. The other codes seem to manage this well, granted with a larger participation but they had to get there….Rugby is playing catch up….. lets get it done for the comp next year.

      • November 12th 2017 @ 2:12pm
        Dave_S said | November 12th 2017 @ 2:12pm | ! Report

        If FTA doesn’t want to pay a fair price for it, there is no point giving it away, that would just devalue the price Fox would pay.

        FTA is not keen on big investments these days, unless it’s a proven popular product like AFL, league or cricket.

        As a business model FTA is well and truly being destabilised by pay tv, VOD and YouTube. Under 30s barely watch FTA at all.

        • November 12th 2017 @ 2:49pm
          Wallace footrot said | November 12th 2017 @ 2:49pm | ! Report

          With information on the way market price is set in broadcasting, there is a lot more that goes on here than You mention. When the deal was done with Big Bash tv, there were many telling us it would fail, would not survive two seasons. Well that has proven incorrect as I think you can see. Recent meetings with industry colleagues, have shown in fact the research is showing under 40’s are integrating a lot more alternatives to FTA, however the model is not on the way out as your put. Broadcasters see more opportunities with more digital and cooperation now with both our Chinese, european and American conglomerates. We are in fact learning a great deal even monitoring new advances in social media…..the demographic here is also sliding! Throw in aces to partnerships with pay tv and cable, internet broadcasting there is a growing trend towards packages as your see with many of the telcos. The propersition and the challenge for admistrators of sport is to think as fast as the market is moving. More work should be done here by the RA as per the recent deals by their competitors. For commercial in confidence reasons I won’t disclose but they have provided a significant shift away from its this one or the other’….. towards having the best of all worlds…..we have to lock in the mums and dads as they are the ones steering their young children towards a specific sport. What is holding us back a little now is the speed of information….with fibre to the household the game will change again, and providing affordable access will be truely international. It is a very exciting area.

          • November 12th 2017 @ 7:55pm
            Dave_S said | November 12th 2017 @ 7:55pm | ! Report

            Wallace, some fair points, but I’ll guarantee the FTA operators have done their sums – there is a market for rugby on FTA, but the issue is the price they’ll pay for it. Sport is a buyers market (with some rare exceptions).

            My guess is that the demographics of rugby watches corresponds with those willing/able to buy content (whether thru Fox, VOD), and accordingly that’s the sweet spot. There is no guarantee the rugby watching market would grow just because it’s on FTA. It may well have plateaued.

            • November 12th 2017 @ 8:21pm
              Wallace footrot said | November 12th 2017 @ 8:21pm | ! Report

              Fair enough Dave, but all I am getting at is the Rugby administrators need to change the way they are promoting the game, its lacking, and their broadcast deals aren’t ground breaking.

      • November 12th 2017 @ 3:23pm
        soapit said | November 12th 2017 @ 3:23pm | ! Report

        can you not tape it and watch it in the morning?

        • November 12th 2017 @ 3:40pm
          Wallace footrot said | November 12th 2017 @ 3:40pm | ! Report

          Not entirely a dynamic response to promote the game. I would like the game to grow. SBS came to the rescue but it was not directly from a RA admin initiative… budget for them to even advertise let alone replay. If we stay with status quo we will get the same….if you want to improve you must continually strive to change the dynamic. SBS did this last year, they have done it again this year……what will change by this time next year? Hopefully a new CEO will bring a new direction for broadcast partnerships. Rugby needs it. It is the greatest code along with football.

      • November 12th 2017 @ 5:07pm
        The Slow Eater said | November 12th 2017 @ 5:07pm | ! Report

        You’re right about exposure. I found it really tough to find out where it was being played. The Roar only posted an article at about midnight which wasn’t particularly helpful.

        I did find a replay on channel 34 through pure luck.

    , ,