Its pretty nuts. There is more to being a back than being fast.

Hoops to the bench if Pocock comes back near where he left off.

Agree – which is why NZ give this argument credibility. No one can argue they are trying to advantage themselves via rule changes as they are dominant under the current laws

Last time I chacked, Stellenbosch was in SA. My recollection was SA leading the charge on ELVs with the home unions pushing back.

What a shock that a BA board member doesn’t think they tanked.

Anyone who has played basketball at a decent level and is unbiased would agree that the players on the court wanted to lose that game in the 4th quarter.

Heads should roll – Ljemanis first.

Our help D has been non existent all tournament, even when not tanking, but there has been some effort in previous games when defending on ball. Against Angola, they just waived them straight through in the 4th quarter.

The Boomers bench players were playing hard for three and a half quarters, and the game wasnt even really close.

When it was clear this team was still good enough to comfortably beat the Angolans, they started forcing passes that werent there, defense was worse than usual and shot selection deteriorated massively.

This game was always going to be lost. The boomers hoped the Angolans would be good enough to beat our bench playing to win. When they weren’t, the game was thrown. The turnaround was just too severe in as little as 5 minutes.

I have no problem with a team resting its stars in a dead rubber following a heavy workload of 4 games in a week. But you cannot tell me the players on the floor were giving 100% in the 4th quarter and were trying to win. They clearly were not.

I know this behaviour is not without precedent and that the quirks of the draw and qualifying process make this possible but neither of those reasons are an excuse. Seriously, Basketball Australia should be punished for this.

It sounds crazy, and I dimissed it initially, but In some ways they would have an advantage over last weeks team – of course they aren’t going to be competitive with the top 4 test sides but if you run down the SR final team and last weeks team…

Kane Douglas and JackPot would walk into the wallabies pack if eligible,
Benn Robbo and TPN are massive front row upgrades,
Phipps and Foley are better halves combination
KB and AAC in their right positions in the centres
Back 3 pretty similar

I think last weeks wallabies team would lose to the tahs GF team.

The key difference, Greg, is one of improving the skill base vs. improving the tactical nous of the players.

If you give players a different set of rules with different incentives, this will impact the way they develop their decision making. If you then try to place them back in the old set of rules, they will intuitively react differently in pressure situations where thinking is not an option, instead players need to rely on instinct.

Skills can be improved much more outside of the 80mins of game time than tactical decision making, which really needs pressure applied.

Its the equivalent of giving the players a wider field or a smaller ball. Its just ridiculous.

Forwards were competitive at scrum and line out, but blown away at the breakdown.

Surprisingly not much talk about the disparity in the packs, particularly at the tackle and breakdown. ABs were absolutely dominant here, and for me was one of the two critical areas (the other being tactical kicking) which enabled them to hold on despite playing with 14 for 20mins.

A healthy Pocock would have been in his element last night. Hoops was good but the conditions were not in his favour. His lack of bulk was more of a negative than usual and his running game was limited.

Scrum was actually competitive which was a good result for the Wallabies. Havent seen much of Charles before – is he a good scrummager for the Force? Line-out wasn’t too bad either, despite the turnover in personnel. So set piece was much better than I feared, with Charles a big part of that.

Folau had his worst game of rugby to date. Bit harsh to write him off after this test though. I think he has accomplished enough now to excuse a shocker here or there.

The conditions couldnt have been worse for him. He is brilliant on a dry track on the end of a well functioning back line but is below test standard on a sodden track where experience, positioning, defense, tactical kicking, etc are valued. He had no opportunity to use his strengths and all of his weaknesses were exposed by the ABs.

Folau wasnt the reason we couldnt get the win by the way. Our forwards were outclassed much more than Folau.

Jaco was terrible both ways – seemed like the big ones went against the ABs… that 2nd yellow card was a joke (the first one was tough too). But the smaller penalties went against the Wallabies – line-out penalty that was missed by Cruden, not feeding the ball straight into the scrum (which happens every scrum without even being mentioned), the list goes on.

Consistently inconsistent best describes his approach.

To cut a long story short, its a surprise as:
– Foley has been in form at 10 and is the incumbent wallabies 10.
– KB is out of position and hasn’t been played at 10 for some time (chiming in occasionally at 1st receiver for the Tahs doesn’t count)
– KB has tried and failed at 10 at test level many times because, as Spiro correctly highlighted, he needs space to create in attack
– We lose our 1st choice goal kicker (Foley)

IMO this is a very risky decision with more downside than upside. Very few players can be effective at the highest level in multiple positions (The recent list of success stories are short: AAC, Matt Rogers, Giteau, etc) – KB is not one of them.

This isnt Soccer… A draw is a 1 in 20 or 1 in 30 outcome in rugby.

Having to win 2 out of 3, with 2 home games every other year, is much, much easier than having to win 2 out of 2 with 1 home game each year. Surely this is just indisputable.

Now when we had the Asia game as well, i thought that was harder to win 3 out of 4 (or 2 wins and a draw).

Very comprehensive Kane – that 20 point mark is proving to be a very good rule of thumb.

Hard to argue with this really.

Reinforces for me that Test rugby is very different to Super Rugby in style and emphasis. You cant just take an open SR style and apply it against the ABs, you will get torn a new one apparently.

I wouldn’t expect front foot ball in the bledisloe either unfortunately

Good halves need to be decent with lower quality possession as well. Genia and QC are excellent flat track bullies but run out of ideas quickly when pressure is applied

Interesting disparity in success rates – logical but the magnitude of the drop off is surprising as I would have thought the ABs would still win the majority of defensive slugfests.

This suggests the better approach is to play a tighter, defensive game plan (like the Boks) rather than the running rugby, Tahs style game plan

I would rather win ugly than lose attractively. It seems you can’t really have the best of both worlds vs the ABs

This also backs up the toomua over kb approach at 12 as well as including TK at 13.

Unfortunately the packs will decide the outcome of this series.

The ABs pack is far superior to the wallabies, with the advantage at pretty much every position. The only Wallaby in with a chance of making the starting ANZAC pack is Hooper. Even then he isn’t the ideal test 7. The front row in particular will be a bloodbath.

The backlines are pretty even IMO – certain positional advantages here and there for both teams but nothing significant enough to swing a test.

If the ABs gain ascendency at the break down and set piece as I expect, the Wallabies backs will be less effective than many expect, having to work with messy posession on the back foot.

Seriously? Hoops has been the standout 7 in SR and was the form Wallabies forward last year. Should be captain also.

Hodgo is an honest toiler who is a great servant of Aust rugby but is not test standard.

Its the equivalent of McCalman over Palu at 8

Interesting take

I actually view Higgers as a SR type player who is not suited to tests while Fardy is suited to the test environment more than SR.

A bit harsh to call Fardy “lucky” btw – he was consistently our best or second best forward last test season.

As long as JOC can get his attitude right, we could have a devastating back line for the RWC

Problem will be in the tight 5

Folau can be shifted, and would be 80-90% as good on the wing as he is at 15 but its not worth it to accommodate an out of position KB. Put Skelton and KB on the bench for impact in the 2nd half, but dont disrupt the back line Deans style.

My team is 1. Slipper, 2. Charles, 3. Kepu, 4. Simmons, 5. Horwill, 6. Fardy, 7. Hooper, 8. Palu, 9. Phipps, 10. Foley, 11. AAC, 12. Toomua, 13. TK, 14. Horne, 15. Folau

How weak are our hookers at the moment… jeez we are going to get towelled in the front row, and tight five for that matter.

I dont like moving AAC from 13 to the wing but he is more than capable and our wing and 13 options are limited. Horne is playing well and offers a bit more than McCabe. Not a massive Tomane fan. Should be in better shape with Speight and JOC available.

The facilities have gone up a notch or two from the 90s – I can assure you.

At Scots in the late 90s we had a servicable but limited weights room and cardio room and little direction for training programs, as there was one contracted physio across all sports with teachers still coaching the firsts. Now there are hyperbaric chambers at Scots, with dedicated professionals coaching and training the kids (sports scientists, etc)

Now I have to confess I was brought in on scholarship (not for rugby) so can’t really criticise too strongly, but the level it has gone to is just ridiculous. When I was there we were talking about free tuition as the cost of boosting performance… Now there is an arms race in multiple sports which is getting out of hand.

Not sure if I see the value in that if I was to pay full fee ($30K+) for my kids to get pushed down to the 2nds behind a team of semi-pro players.

KBs a great bench player, providing impact and flexibility across 10, 12 and 15. He is a very good SR player but unfortunately is not a test starter. Defensively, he is way behind Toomua. We cant play QC and KB at 10 and 12 long term.

David: “But there’s a further bonus, Beale re-signs, and Israel Folau stays, Beale goes, so does Folau after the Rugby World Cup”
Not sure how KB is the key to retaining Folau? Sure, there is a combination there, but Folau has been able to forge combinations with all manner of play makers over his career. I’m sure they are mates at the Tahs, but is this really the deciding factor? You dont provide any detail behind this statement, so would appreciate your reasoning here.

Couldn’t have been clearer that I think NZ are still clearly the best in the world but the gap is closing.

All players will peak at different times (of course) and I don’t pretend to have analysed every ABs squad member for where they are in their career arc. Move Crockett and Franks to the peak group if you want. It doesn’t chg the outcome.

Its pretty clear that rugby players (most athletes actually) peak in their mid-late 20s. While nuances exist, this is pretty consistent. The ABs have some trully great players on the downward slope of their careers (MCCaw, Carter, etc), with some very good but not great players replacing them. Therefore the gap is closing. I can’t see how this could be reasonably disputed.