Get your questions in for Issue 31 of Coach's Corner

thanks Nick - i just had a read - the game has moved on - i probably should keep pace - i guess i'm still carrying scars of having to stomach SA playing in three successful world cup finals over the past 25 years and not scoring a try until the second half of the third match against England. I also can't expunge from my mind the number of times Australia over the years have lost test matches in the past 30 years by teams scoring less tries but kicking more penalties - these are deep wounds that probably will never heal. I'll look a bit closer during upcoming matches and see just how widespread this new practice of not taking the three really is - thanks for being so insightful Nick

https://www.therugbysite.com/blog/attack/why-have-the-top-teams-stopped-kicking-for-goal read this if you can Big A. Shorthand is this - out of a total of 36 minutes ball-in-play time in the English Prem final, 22 minutes was derived from pen kicks to touch near the goal-line (instead of taking three points). 9/10 kickable pens went to touch, and the two teams generated 40 points between them from short range lineouts, plus three yellow cards on opponents for cynical play... That's why they do it :happy:

Hey Nick - i had a bit of a squizz last night at the first half of Aust v Japan and even Japan didn't go for the three points 30m out right in front when down 7-0. Also Australia's second try came from decision to not take the three. I know it'd be nigh impossible to do some sort of study, of what % of turned down three pointers end up in tries in the next few phases - it would really be insightful - my gut feel is that no more than 25% of times when they turn down a kick do they score a try. Moot point i guess as you'd have to factor in what effect the decision has on momentum etc - it's real interesting though - i'm thinking that second or third bledisloe this year - can't remember - early in the second half we're down 15-10 - i think it was - AB's are down one man - we go for the lineout and BPA fluffs the throw in and they race down the field and score - 10 point turn around - 22-10 game over.

Not to mention the below par goal kicking of the day at 41%, so Big A the punters PA, your 12 is now roughly 5

yep will answer this one in conjunction with the Europeans...

I suspect HW will end up at 6, yes - at least at Test level...

I don’t know what matches you guys are watching but all of the good sides pocket the three 99% of the time Simply not true any more I’m afraid Big A.

yep well worth an article... :laughing:

SMIt, Yes, some other coaches might but Chieka would have still picked Foley and do nothing with regarding a game plan tailored for a particular opposition and stick to "running" rugby and no kicking dooming the WBs to failure. Cheers

ATW, You jump and bring your feet up and tuck them under you so your knees point forward and your feet are under your bum. The knees protect you from someone coming in from the front. Many players go up for the ball in this manner and it can be trained. So this thing about law of physics is a lot of baloney. Cheers,

Well now that Kerevi isn’t going we’ve not much chance of winning any, so might as well cancel Stan anyway and save the money till Super Pacific times come around to demoralise me even more

Good morning Nick - in answer to your question - if i'm captaining the Wallabies (if you allow me to indulge for one micro-second) and we're in front 7-0 early in a match and we get a penalty 35 metres out and 20 metres in from touch - i'm taking the three every time - period. I don't know what matches you guys are watching but all of the good sides pocket the three 99% of the time - it's called game management - sorely missing under Hooper's regime and if you're telling me that the modern day captain is just a puppet for the coach then fine - i find it impossible to believe that a good coach like DR would not be getting irritated when he sees these three point opportunities constantly flushed down the toilet and matches that should be routinely won unnecessarily turn into last 15 or 20 min arm wrestles because we didn't ice the game earlier with two or three 3 pointers. I'm referring to a couple of the French matches and one of the Argie matches as well - they should have been routine wins and poor decision making by the captain (or as you say the coach) turned them in to almost lucky wins in the end. Let's be under no illusions here - with a bit of luck the other day - Japan wins that game - not saying they were the better side - but with 9 minutes to go they get that kick 27-23 and the game was a lottery - so unnecessary - hope they learn some lessons. The only time you don't take the three is if you're putting someone to the sword - and lets face it the Wallabies are not in that league - probably never will be - they should stop believing/listening to all the hype and base their game on grinding out wins with a little bit of razzle dazzle only after they've earned the right. The best displays this year by them was that epic win over France when they lost Marika and against the Boks in both games - the reason was that they had their backs against the wall and limited their game to play within themselves and to their strengths - not this flashy nonsense where they go across the field at every opportunity and throw intercepts in desperation - case in point with the 3 points is Boks game II - 8 penalties kicks taken - why did they not go for touch - because they had their A game on and paid respect to the opposition and somehow ended up winning even though they only scored 1 try to 3.

About Harry Wilson, The coaches talked about him needing an off season to work on his physicality and footwork. Is this true? How does it compare to Valetini? While I can agree that Valetini’s physicality is more obvious, is his footwork that much better? Would HW be a good 6?

How are the tight five travelling? I thought Rodda was consistent and on script, whereas Philip seemed to drift away from that driving close play that made me a fan. None of the front three appeared to present a lot of opportunity for running lines in tight. (But some very nice work elsewhere, notably the front of lineout samba.

What a silly comment!

In terms of a (relatively) heavy runner who can offload I unfortunately cannot think of anyone better than Samu as a replacement for Kerevi :crying:

Thanks Nicholas Mate. That is greatly appreciated.

Just about all they have in common as rugby players is the name 'Samu' Obs - and even that isn't in the same place! :laughing:

Yes this is a persistent Q Obs, so well worth a look...

Interested in your view as who is the logical fullback replacement? A few on the other forum whose opinions I do greatly respect such as Geoff have suggested JOC as possible. Now if JOC was picked there I would not be surprised to see him doing well give his great talent, but I’m a bit concerned by his suggestion. I understand that Sale had him move into the centres as he struggled a bit at fullback. So asking him to make the switch to fullback after almost half a decade not playing the position, once he’s in his 30s and after he has bulked up to play in the centres seems overly risky to me. I remember Schmidt trying something different with a much younger Henshaw a few years ago and from memory he struggled.