The great question mark of Salta

I’m intrigued with the idea that the Wallabies were so good in the 2nd half. Looking at the game I thought the Argentinian performance dropped more than the Wallabies improved. Yeah they did play better in places, but they still missed tackles - just not as many, still threw passes behind players, still looked impotent on defence. The Argentinian’s lost a couple of their better players and their depth is worse than Australia’s, they also looked absolutely stuffed and didn’t seem as intense. I’ll throw in a conspiracy that it was deliberate to keep Cheika knowing that it would retain him until RWC where they’ll win and get them knocked out of the pool.

you know - i see this as a 2 team thing. both teams needed to have a moment in their half time dressing rooms. the Wallabies needed to remember who they were... the argies ended up remembering who they had been in the past.... does that make sense. it was as much a wallaby re-awakening ... as it was an argentinian capitulation. both teams were in very unfamiliar territory with that half time score line. Both rejected the reality of the first half.

I hope AU Rugby ask the right questions because Samuelson certainly didn’t. He came up with an economics of nice equilibrium: A fantasy that ignored Finance -Banking, Share market, Derivatives, Insurance, Real Estate and Fraud on a grand-scale - and millions of students studied Samuelson’s text books. Chieka has had the WBs close to 4 years, and now admits he got some things wrong, but his selections are cross checked with proven peers - so his most obvious question will be ignored. AR need to appoint 3 official selectors so the process is at least more transparent. That’s an important start. So unlike present economics Chieka is not God that all unthinkingly bow to. Get back to the reality of basic skills and position play and, like the 2nd half at Salta, the WBs will be more predictable and successful. So Nick Turnbull, couldn’t let you get away with that huge and misleading economic reference.

Argies assumed they had won the game at 31-7 and entered the second half somewhat miffed about having to continue a match they clearly thought was over.

So Cheika says they found some "meaning" and was it "purpose"? At half time. My question is: how much more meaning and purpose do you effing well need? Is playing for your country (and a swag of cash) not enough? Give the disinterested and uninvolved members of the team the flick and bring in players who want to be there.

Great post. Agree 100%

Thanks Nick... compelling read. Fair enough about the 'questions' thingy but, to be brutally honest, I'm looking for answers only! ;)

Cheika must leave now before it`s too late. The longer he stays the less chance of us being competitive at the 2019 RWC.

Well said, he will keep his job. But hopefully he will lose the total control he now possesses. I would also like to see Laurie Fischer look after the forwards (good name Laurie), apart from being a huge positive for the Wallabies it would disadvantage the Brumbies which I also see as a positive lol. To get someone like Gary Ella in to coach the backs would be huge and I don't know who should replace Grey. Oh, and a selection panel including Fischer and Ella.

Absolutely Nick. In the same vein but slightly more specific. * In the first half why were we trying to get outside a speedier set of outside backs using cut out passes? * Why in the first half were our runners drifting towards the sideline (for an example - look at the effort where the ball winds up in Hooper's hands out wide just before half time) compare the much straighter running in the second half. Why does it take a half time talk to get players to run straight and let the ball do the work? * Given how out of form Beale is, why was Toomua dropped and then only brought in with 5 to play? Surely Beale should have been hooked after throwing the ball into touch, or dropping the ball at first receiver (with minimal pressure on him) as we finally mounted a raid in the Puma's 22 during the first half. * At what stage do you drop Koroibete for refusing to place the ball in the tackle and instead having him throw miracle passes and offloads every time? Such a waste of ball from many of the players but Marika in particular. * What is going on in the scrum? A draw against this Argentina pack is a loss against most other teams. About the only thing that I can picture Cheika's spray, and driving "meaning and personal ownership" into the team to have corrected was the first up tackle rate improving. But as others point out, the loss of Sanchez will have had a major impact there. The questions coming out of that game are much more important than any supposed answers.

I had a big spiel on this and my computer froze, so this is the shorter version, or what I can remember... I listen to Cheika talk and I like what he says... I want to like him as a coach, but I just cant see any benefit to his and his coaching team in regards to the Wallabies. Onto Salta... The first half by the Wallabies was the worst rugby I have seen from almost any team... maybe not a lower grade (like say 4ths or 5ths), but certainly they were not close to international level, or Super level, or premier grade level even... The second half, and the same could be said about Argentina. It really was such a strange thing to see. Looking at the game plan of the Wallabies... who is telling them to go wide so early in attack? Because they do it every game. I said on Spiro's article, it is a simple trap for simpletons, and that holds true. That Foley and Beale keep doing it shows they can't manage a sandwich order, let alone a game plan... but then are they actually managing their game plan? And this is where Cheika's actions don't stack up. Did the game plan change from him? Does he even have a game plan? If going wide early ISN'T his game plan, why does he keep selecting players who so blatantly disregard his game plan of plugging away in close first before going wide? Wouldn't you think after a game or two of that, you would sit those players down and say "Look, I want you to play tight, get over the gain line, stretch them close, then stretch them wide". And if they still don't do it, then that player shouldn't be there as they are going against the head coaches game plan. So what are we to believe? The players are going against the game plan early in the game, OR the game plan from Cheika et al, is actually to go wide early and is in fact so rubbish, he doesn't deserve to coach at this level... or any level really, because that trap is as old as rugby itself. Here is where I am up to... I do like what Cheika says, but his actions don't add up to his words... so either he has a bad game plan that isn't working, and he keeps sticking to it, or he is as bad a selector as we all think, OR both. Either way, his coaching team needs moving on.

The second half against Argentina is nothing more than fools gold, it wont be repeated against the other tier 1 nations. Argentina put the cue in the rack mentally and they didnt know how to get back into the game without their 10 Sanchez. We shouldn't look at the miracle comeback, but rather, the inexplicable position of being 31-7 down after 40 mins of rugby. How on earth did we stoop so low as to be in that position at half time to Argentina. Why do the players not start the game with the same focus and aggression that they started the 2nd half with? These are good questions but unfortunately, we keep getting trash answers from the Wallabies and Cheika.

Val, the ‘debate’ about Cheika’s tactical and selection abilities is over. He motivated a core inherited from McKenzie (which included his 2014 Tah stars) to a WC final. He has proved himself to be a world class motivator. But winning a cup of any kind also requires tactics, astute selection and continuing development, not just motivation. It’s not his fault that Australia has a dearth of coaches, or that our rugby culture allowed him a selection dictatorship. He strikes me as a good but stubborn guy. Hardly criminal. I met him once. He is earnest and passionate. Someone like McQueen, McKenzie or Ella could enlighten the tactical and selection blind spots he seems limited by. He could actually be more potent if he had less unilateral ‘power’.

The point you make about the press conference after the game is so telling - neither Cheika or Hooper knew what to say and to be honest they looked as shell shocked at the change in the game as everyone else. In the end though it does mean Cheika will still be coach for the end of season tour and given the lack of leadership strength at RA I would be surprised if any changes are made to the support team. Then you look at the next four fixtures - NZ (loss), England (loss), Italy (win) and Wales (?). Now obviously there can be narrow and worthy losses but the success of the tour may well come down to the result of the Wales game. A win will be expected but a loss will raise all the questions again about the Wallaby coaching team. A win against England will be a real bonus and a loss to Italy, highly unlikely would be catastrophic. The debate about Cheika and his team has at least another month to run!!

It was a famous win and I will try to focus on the tries and ignore the rest. Argentina seemed to run into some issues of own (including loss of Sanchez and, maybe, a lack of self belief). NH tour will tell whether this was a wonderful. isolated 40 minutes or something more long lasting. At the end there should be a thorough review of processes, personnel and structures to hold onto the good and improve on the rest. Otherwise it might be SA and Argentina who come away with the most from the last games of the RC, despite losing.

Great article Nick. You wrote everything I was thinking. I just rear Geoff's article and I think it is rubbish that - as he puts it - the players are still listening to him. If that's the case then why did he tell them to fall behind like that in the first half. The Pocock pass for the try was clearly forward and even our biased one-eyed commentary team said so. If they're only going to win games based on poor refereeing and historic turnarounds then he still needs to go.

Like to see the Wallabies play a combined NRC side at the end of this season. I think it would draw a record crowd. It might settle a lot of questions and discussion by Roarers.

IF Cheika stays or goes. Roar Editors. Where did the edit function go?

The turnaround was not just about us. We did adjust, but it was around the loss of Sanchez whose stocks just went up in Argentina. Pepper was inaccurate in both directions. On another day two of our tries may have been judged on forward passes. And there was plenty of ruck side entries going on, not to mention ‘cleaning’ of players for looking at, but not actually engaging with, rucks. I don’t care I’d Cheika stays or goes. But somebody has to do something about the selection policy of both players and assistant coaches.

Good questions. No easy answers can be arrived at till the end of the season. It was good to see the WBs rise up - they are a good team on paper anyway, RWC Finalists. And if anything the WBs are always best when in a corner. But let's not also forget they were playing the Pumas who though greatly improved in game strategy, back play are yet to realise rugby is as much a mental exercise in addition to all these things. All it would have taken is just holding the ball and grinding it up for 10 minutes. Just holding it phase after phase and kicking for territory.