I think a lack of confidence plays a big part in reducing skill execution quality. But it is also likely that poor execution is a learned response, so continual poor play leads to further poor play. Team leaders have to stand up and lead the team on-field strategy and execution.
Obviously Phipps was an idiot, but I can forgive him one offence on his buck’s night. He’s smart enough to not do it again.
For the Waratahs, Beale, Hooper and Folau stand out as at least doing their part. Foley seems to be missing in action too often, but with Phipps back at the 60 minute mark last week against the Blues, the team did look more assured. I’m a fan of Jake Gordon, but Phipps needs to start against the Crusaders.
Foley is the one who has to take control for both the Wallabies and Waratahs.

Pocock is smart, and makes a huge difference to the Brumbies, but they need more than him unfortunately. Their 9 and 10 just aren’t good enough.

Maybe it is an admission. But an admission is not a cop out.
We certainly don’t want to hand any advantages to NZ.
The instigation of the Warriors in the NRL has also played a part in bringing the current NRL attack and defense tricks to a NZ TV audience, giving NZ the opportunity to get a source of information that was previously much less accessable. That’s not going to change, but the local derbies are both boring and assist NZ more than Australia or South Africa.
Australia used to win by guts, skills and cleverness. We can still do the guts, but we’re struggling on the skills and particularly the cleverness. This isn’t the fault of anyone but Australian Rugby itself, and are pressing issues that must be addressed before the Wallabies and Super Rugby teams show any consistent success. But providing formats for NZ to gain further advantage is not helping.

I agree 100% with that. Rebels certainly should have been dropped instead.

The Wallabies started poorly in mid-year off the back of a terrible Super Rugby season for all Australian teams, and a reported underlying lack of fitness. They got fit enough to play their 1st Rugby Championship match against NZ only to be blown away in the 1st half. NZ notably had had a warm-up match locally beforehand, so they were pumped and ready to go.
The 2nd half of Bled 1, Bled 2 (fell off at the end but kept fighting back to regain the lead in the 2nd half .. ok should have really won it, but still pretty good), and Bled 3 showed the Wallabies scoring more points than NZ. The one moment which for me showed the murmurings of a phsychological turnaround in the players belief was their try by Folau just before half-time. The Wallabies did to NZ what NZ so often do to their opponents – deliver a crushing blow when thoughts had drifted to oranges. And, it wasn’t just the scoring of the try, but the manner of the scoring that was most impressive. Fast ball, a Hooper major gain-line dent, fast ball and Beale creating defensive havoc to deliver to Folau in space 2-on-1 and on the angle to the corner. Naholo bamboozled.
The Wallabies dropped back in Perth after Bled 2 against the Boks, but put in a stirring performance to draw in South Africa in the return match. Up-and-down form but the ups are starting to look promising.
Ireland are a terrific team and maybe deserve a 3 ranking, but I like the Wallaby momentum at the moment when they have their major players playing. Depth is critical because players get injured, and the Wallabies can get exposed in that area as we have seen.
After Bled 3 it was flat to downhill for the Wallabies, with an ok performance against Wales, but not so good against England and terrible against Scotland. Up until the 71st minute they endured magnificently against England, but they still did not play that well.

You’ve misunderstood my point, Waxhead.
The lack of courage comment works both ways. Sticking with players too long and not selecting potential replacements are two sides of the same coin.
I was nevertheless really directing the comment toward the backs in this instance, and particularly about a fascination MK has with the “big” 12 crash-ball option, but also with his propensity to move players from positions where they had been performing well (e.g. Beale at 12) to shore up other positions where they could possibly play (e.g. Beale replacing Folau at 15). I think doing that is doubly disruptive, and Hunt should have played 15, leaving Beale at 12.
With Folau missing, Beale became the major focus of the defence attacking from 15, but with him still at 12, who knows what is going to happen? Will he run, will he grubber to Korabeti, will he offload to Hunt/Hodge/Korabeti/Kuradrani or to Foley on the wraparound. Both Beale and Foley feature more deceptively in that combination, giving opportunities to the ball-runners, and creating more for the defence to attempt to cover.

I wasn’t claiming the official ranking of 3 for the Wallabies, but saying that they had a strong claim on being 3rd best due to the Brisbane win over NZ.

I was really trying to put across the idea that the 2 ball-players (Foley 10 and Beale 12) were the better option for the fluidity, spontaneity and directness of the back-line attack, and the crash-ball option (Kerevi) was not.
Kerevi versus TK as the “big” centre option is tough for Kerevi on defensive comparisons, particularly at outside-centre if it was one or the other.
Hunt at fullback has shown good highball capability in 2017 and there was a chance to give him more game-time there.
Obviously also, Haylett-Petty was injured, and I’d have him at 15 as the option if Folau was unavailable.

Good point about Simmons positive contribution capabilities.
I actually think he is a good buy for the Waratahs, as he’s very reliable at set-piece particularly. It’s always been his ball-carries and defense as weaknesses, but these are intermittent. 2018 could see him improving quite a lot too.
I put him on the list for a rest as a part of the way to inject that freshness and energy in the pack that the Wallabies really needed.

It seems that some things don’t seem to change, though the players and coaches must be well aware of them.
1. Will Genia can’t box kick. Oppositions know his technique is ripe for a chargedown, and at least 1 will happen every match, so they keep having a go until they succeed. When they do it’s 50-50 whether they get a try out of or not. Powell has a better pass and can box-kick. Jake Gordon is a real attack threat. Nick Phipps is by far the most robust and best defender. We’ve seen NP and WG, Time to give the other two a half each.
2. The Wallabies cannot maintain their effort over 80 minutes. Is it on-field leadership? Or is it individual frailties? Or Both? Or poor coaching? Or all three?
3. The Wallabies started the match in 2nd gear. Foley and Genia took poor clearing kick options and the breakdown was inefficient. Better to not kick at all. Genia’s early grubber was a shocker. Poor skills. Gave away possession in own half. Very damaging.

When the flow of possession is slow, the backs have no space and look poor. The Wallaby forwards have to get a mindset that they have to throw everything including the kitchen sink at the breakdown and gain-line, and the backs have to back them up by throwing themselves into the melees as well when they are needed or can make a difference. It’s a mindset.

The Wallabies really do look outside the top 5 international teams at the moment, perhaps hardly surprising given the poor Super Rugby form. No confidence, no combinations, no ticker appears to be the picture. Can they turn it around? Probably not soon. A new defense coach would be a start, but the players really have to man up and put in. Chris Alcock looks tough and strong over the ball, and Hanigan looks young and boyish – not man-hard. His time can come later. Now we can use Higginbothom for lineout takes as often as Q’land use him. We need some mongrel, not boys.

So new halfback, new no. 6, and start looking for a new defense coach.

“Dying” might be over-the-top, but “going downhill since about the time of Eddie Jones taking over the Wallabies” is definitely true.
Nevertheless, there are many things wrong with Rugby Union, and this article mentions a few.
One of the main reason fans are not identifying with RU is definitely a lack of success for the Wallabies v NZ, as the author states, but it is not the only cause for concern.
Free-to-air TV hasn’t died after all, and Rugby desperately needs it. A share deal with Fox as per NRL is essential. The NRC needs to be on FTA as well. But, could a FTA/Fox deal get enough money?
I thought the NRC product was terrific.
But Super Rugby? Not so terrific. The conference system is a complicated failure. 16 teams with every team playing each other once is the only way forward. A SA team has to go plus either Melbourne Rebels or the Sunwolves. Rugby in Perth actually has a chance to take hold with SA and English immigration there, and a market not so AFL crazy as Melbourne.
On the Club Rugby front, the fact that Sydney’s Eastwood Club says it “has to” sell its grounds to “survive” indicates that it probably has a player budget problem. But that level of competition should be totally amateur. Why isn’t it?
Killing a club’s history and tradition is not going to help Eastwood in the medium to long term, but maybe seriously damage it.
The Olympic 7s leverage is the only hope for a grassroots/schools/junior rugby player development. To have spectators at senior matches, there has to be enough ex-players and parents of players to have a base of interest. No kids, no parents, few spectators. That affects TV as well, even though people can be drawn by winning teams – i.e. Wallabies beating NZ, and Super Rugby success.
The NRC product is superior in my view to NRL and AFL, so a FTA arrangement might be a masterstroke at the tail-end of the season. Soccer has benefited by aligning with the Northern Hemisphere, so having AFL and NRL finished allows the NRC clean air.
I hope Rugby can pull itself together. While I’m a rusted on fan, I’ve been watching cricket lately in preference, finding out the scores in Super Rugby, and not bothering to watch the recorded match, or just flicking through. For me, the conference system killed it.

I thought it interesting that Lealiifano said in an interview after the match that the Brumbies didn’t get as much as they should have out of their rolling maul (Carter penalties killed promising positions and rolling maul attempts), but overall thought they had the right strategy and that was their best plan of attack in the coming matches.
He’s basically saying that the game would have been entirely different (i.e. Brumbies likely winners) had the rolling maul not been penalised repeatedly. If the Brumbies had instead scored one or possibly even two more tries from those penalised rolling mauls, than he may well have been correct, but there are a lot of ifs in that, and teams who counter those tactics well have a walk up start.
Also, Kuridrani put in a pretty bad missed tackle on Fekitoa to offer up a try which was probably the major cause of the loss in the end, notwithstanding the missed rolling maul opportunities.
Lealiifano has disclosed Brumby tactics, but are those tactics good enough? To me, the Brumbies attack seems to lack backline guile and creativity, and now finishers without Tomane or Speight. Nick White and Jesse Mogg were major losses I think, particularly in terms of finishing from the 22, where Mogg could use his speed and elusiveness to do something decisive. Robbie Coleman only really got involved closer to the action when the game was already lost late in the game, yet he is that type of elusive player who can create something.
I think Robbie Coleman needs to channel his inner Willie La Roux and get into 1st or 2nd receiver from early on in a match, not when it’s too late.
I also thought it interesting as others have commented, that Toomua was being subbed off early and not playing the full 80 minutes. He doesn’t seem to be adding much to the attack at all.
If the Brumbies really are relying too much on their rolling maul to win them matches, then their chances of making the semis are not good.

I made the comment previously ..

We accept that referees will make errors but often the TMO can change the referee’s opinion even though the referee can see the replay footage on the screen just as the TMO sees it. Wayne Barnes the English referee is a shining light, I think, on how the TMO should be mostly treated – as a replay technician with no input to on-field decision-making. Barnes makes the call himself after seeing the replay, so backs his own judgement.
The TMO is wonderful theatre, though, but it can get overdone and perhaps too often in recent times.

.. in a the article http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/05/20/referee-errors-are-just-part-of-the-fun-in-rugby/

The TMO is still a problem.

Good point dabiged, about the heat, though this year is particularly hot so far. Maybe a bit later in the season when it’s cooler that wouldn’t be a problem. Maybe only some games as well could be played on Sunday afternoon. I did suggest 7.30pm AEDT (or AEST when daylight saving stops) as well as 5.30pm as possibilities, so in the early part of the season perhaps 7.30 AEDT would be the earliest. Later still could work as well, because the point that I wanted to get across was to separate the WF product from the normal Fri/Sat 5.30pm/7.30pm two-match offerings, so the WF would be more likely to be viewed and so followed. 8pm AEDT/AEST is 6pm in Perth, which could work.

Your salary cap proposals seem reasonable to me as well.

I think a second Super Rugby team in Sydney would be disastrous for the Waratahs, and very bad for Australian rugby development as well.

One problem that CAN be fixed has to be the times that Western Force matches are played. As a third match on the night starting at ESDT 9.30pm after the 5.30pm and 7.30pm matches have just been played is just too much rugby, and because the WF are 2 hours behind, they are always the team that has to suffer from rugby overkill. Why not play their home matches on Sunday 7.30pm ESDT? That would guarantee a much bigger TV audience in Australia and NZ. 5.30pm would be even better. Sunday afternoon rugby matches have the potential for a more family-friendly offering and could get bigger crowds, so more revenue at the gate. I don’t know what the entry fee is, but charging a bit less always seems to work for the numbers, and the increased numbers balance the revenue loss from lower prices. Kids can be free. Ladies can be half price. Get creative to fill the stands and build the atmosphere.

Another problem is luring Sydney and Brisbane players to Perth, as well as affording OS marquee players, but a bit of creative thinking should solve those problems. Who has an ideas on this? There is a decent club comp in Perth, and the NRC allows that tier of player to get that higher level experience. Rome wasn’t built in a day, so the WF need to be supported until they can support themselves.

Winning teams always attract more support, but the downturn in mining is a cyclical problem for potential sponsorship in Perth, a mining town, so that will turn around as commodity prices start to recover.

Now is NOT the time to dump the WF, and if it was, Sydney IS NOT the place for a relocation. It would just have to be the complete removal of the team from the Super Rugby 18 instead, and that would be a major backward step.

The parallels to current politics (i.e. two people who want the same job either working together for the common good or each attempting to bring the other down) come to mind in the new situation that the Reds now find themselves in, with two co-coaches for the remainder of the season, who both want the top coaching job for themselves. So, will it pan out that way?

I was being a bit cheeky there, because I don’t think it will. The reason I don’t is that the team must improve really for either of the two to be the possible top man in 2017. Rugby administration isn’t yet as cut-throat as politics, I think.

So, what should they do? The common good IS the common good, so the more they help each other the better are both their chances. And, that is in any future coaching job, really.

This is a very positive move (finally) by the Reds, and don’t be surprised if they pull off a few surprises. Team spirit nearly always goes up a lot in these situations, and that counts for a lot on the field.

All good points, Taylorman. That shines some really positive light onto Cheika’s efforts.

Obviously, the coach/coaching team play a huge part in getting results these days, not that they didn’t in the past, but more so nowadays, I think.

Eddie Jones, Steve Hansen, Michael Cheika, Vern Cotter, and Joe Schmidt are all international coaches of renown, while Daniel Hourcade for Argentina has emerged as well, and as someone learning fast. may leapfrog some or all of the others. John McKee is doing well for Fiji as well.

In the end, it’s the cattle on the park that creates the opportunities for the coach to apply the finishing touches, but the different players/styles/tactics make things very interesting.

The Japan, France, and Italy coaches are missing form the above list of coaches, and the loss of Jones is a big hole for Japan to fill. I am hoping that Italy and France can get something going to add to the mix.

Well yes, it is one man’s opinion of course.

The object of the exercise was more to highlight the current value of the RWC in terms of the entertainment value and the heightening of tensions and excitement as the next RWC draws nearer. Along with that are my opinions on some near term possibilities, mainly the next 6 Nations and a little on the 2016 Rugby Championship, plus there’s a bit of whipping up some excitement and interest for team’s possibilities a bit further out and heading toward the 2019 RWC in Japan.

It’s the twists and turns, etc, that generate the interest, so the more the better!!

A few points of interest there, are that Cheika was experimenting with his team selection at Eden Park, and it might be fairer to say that Pooper was negated in the final by clever NZ tactics to keep Pocock away from the action as much as possible, but not overall outpointed, I think.
At Eden Park, Pocock was on the bench. I can’t remember when he came on, but somewhere around the 60min mark seems to feel right. The Wallaby team was not as good as the team of the week before in Sydney, and the Cheika experimentation with Quade Cooper, no Pocock, etc.. was just that. An experiment. MC would have expected and certainly hoped for a better Wallaby performance, but he did get a confirmation of a few things. QC has been the second ranked 10 after Foley since, while James Horwill hasn’t been sighted since either, after jogging over too late to effectively fill the defensive hole that Carter ran through to break the match open for the ABs.
It’s up to Cheika now to strategise his way around the Pooper negation tactics, because I’m sure the combination will be there next year.
Steve Hansen and his coaching team are the most organised, professional and clever in world rugby, and Cheika will have learnt a few lessons from the RWC from them. It’s up to MC now to outthink Hansen. So, let’s see how he goes. The changes to the AB team’s personnel, i.e. no Nonu, McCaw or Carter (in that order too, I think) will be a part of the equation as well, so everything in these matters is not cut and dried, or easily pidgeon-holed re cause and effect.
These sorts of nuances are the basis of the game’s attraction to followers. Can’t wait.

I’ve just drilled down to the guts of contest.
AAC should score at least 1 try the way he’s going .. and who could forget the astonished look on Savea’s face as he was going for the try then suddenly heading over the touchline in Sydney when Hooper smashed him on half time. Couldn’t beat him for pace and the Maori side-step came a cropper. If the same two are in the same positions in the Final, I wonder what Savea will do?

My take on the SA v NZ SF was that the Boks froze after half time with a win in sight. Du Preez could not orchestrate a clean exit after a restart, and all the Boks did was kick away their possession to a NZ back 3 waiting to receive the ball.
From about the 60min mark the Boks seemed to lift enough to make it a fight again, but the damage was already done. Too late.

NZ didn’t do a lot really, and the Dan Carter drop-goal, which was a real turning point I think, was the result of an incredible lack of defensive urgency. The Wallabies beat NZ in Sydney by defensive line-speed shutting down their attack, combined with Pooper destroying their breakdown and pinching their ball.

The Pooper factor vs Nonu is the deciding element of the Final.
Can Nonu dent or break the line before being cutdown by Hooper and stripped by Pocock? If he can, then NZ win. If he can’t they won’t.
The ABs know this, so the Pooper countering tactics will be fascinating.

Look out for
the “burial in the ruck by the AB forwards ‘accidentally’ falling on top of Pooper”
the hand holding a leg or jumper
the leg “accidentally” sticking out
the “Lazy runner” coming back onside and getting in the way (with arms held high to show innocence).

Nigel Owens has a big job, but the NZ record under him is unbeaten. Not so good for the Wallabies .. alas..

I’m not sure the TMO is a definitive answer, Sheek, because the Sean Maitland yellow card was a TMO decision, along with Joubert, and Maitland nearly caught the ball, which would have been another intercept try perhaps to Scotland. In the Argentina / Ireland match, an Argentinian forward applied a left-handed tennis forehand to a ball that was the most blatant knock-down I’ve ever seen, yet it was adjudged a knock-on. The application of the law is pretty inconsistant.
The TMO would have struggled to find and apply law 11.1(b), I suspect, and I think Spiro is correct about that, with the Wikipedia off-side law essence in support.

Nevertheless, a Wallaby scrum on the Scottish 22 would have been the result, and a good chance of a Wallaby try given that they had already scored 5 and scored just about every time they got down there.

Well done Spiro,
Rule 11.1(b) could have and probably should have been applied. The penalty was therefore fair within the rules. It is all a bit silly for people to select and apply the rule they want so they get the outcome they want.
#Emotion is a big part of the game, and long be it so .. but sometimes a few people go past an acceptable point. Vilifying the referee is beyond the pale, and World Rugby’s failure to defend their referee in the manner that Spiro has done above is truly lamentable. Gavin Hastings performance has blackened his name badly. We thought him better than that.

The Wikipedia offside law essence, as stated by Spiro, provides the balance needed to accept that law 11.1(b) was indeed the overriding law in this case, so Phipps admitting afterwards that he played at the ball did not have any relevance.

Really though, the closeness of the result and the pain for the Scots who thought that they’d pulled off a miracle, and the fact that no European team has made the SFs, is the real driver of the brouhaha.

The Wallabies would have had a scrum feed on the Scottish 22 if the penalty had not been awarded, and given that the Wallabies scored just about every time they got into the Scottish red zone, they very likely would have done again anyway. Obviously that would have been a better way to finish the match, and so avoiding any controversy.

Do referees make mistakes? Yes. Was the final penalty a mistake? Probably not. Were there other refereeing decisions during the match that were incorrect? This thread has mentioned many, with the Sean Maitland yellow card, and the poor refereeing of obvious Scottish scrum indiscretions being highlighted. That’s the give and take of complex laws and pressure situations.

Did the Scottish deserve to win? No.

Gee, Foley’s gone from hero to zero in one week!! I don’t think so.

I was looking at it from the point of view of France probably winning Pool D by beating Ireland, so France and Argentina would clash in the QF3, which I don’t think Argentina would win. But Argentina have looked good, and looked better than in the Rugby Championship, and so are a team on the rise. They’ve progressed in the Pool matches as well.
I should have put them in.