Make time to watch Heineken matches and 6 nation matches. Your opinion on BOD is clearly based on very sporadic viewing of his match time and as such is very skewed. And misinformed.

Unless this is wind-up to generate posts, in which case, well done, mission accomplished.

Beginning to suspect that George Smith is not as fit as has been made out in the media reports, hence the extra looseforward coverage, to make allowance for the eventuality that Smith lasts less than 30 minutes or so.

not sure about throwing in the white flag, but agree playing O’connor and Mccabe at 10-12 was never going to work out. They both play a similar running game rather than a distributing game resulting in a narrow attack. I would have preferred a Barnes at 12 (and Beale at 15). Not sure about O’connor at 12 as he hasn’t played in the position as far as I know(?)

Going forward, I like a Toomua/Beale – Taps 10-12 combo with O’connor replacing Ioane on the wing (given that he might be dealing with legal issues over the next few days). O’connor is a much better strike runner than distributor and should be operating in the wide channels.

Starting to believe the Folau hype. Helluva debut.

While I find some of these points a bit weak (like 14 for example. A Lealiifano – Ashley-Cooper combination should be in the same ballpark if not the equal of any Lions combination available), I think the sentiment is correct: The Lions will start this series as the favourites to win it.

Adding Lealiifano at 12 (instead of Mccabe as I expected) adds width to the Wallabies attack and gives another option for cracking open the Lions defense. Additionally, the players in the Wallaby backline will not have as many defensive frailties as most suspect. These players defend against the likes of Ma’a Nonu, Jean de Villiers, and forward runners like Willem Alberts and Kieran Reid week in and week out. They should have the measure of the likes of Haeslip and North.

To address some of the issues raised:

2. I assume there will be a little rust for the Wallabies as these players have had little to no Match practice for the past few weeks. However, they have all to man (except for Kurtley Beale) particpated in their franchise’s Super rugby campaign. The danger for them lies in playing too much rugby rather than too little. A rest could see them take the field refreshed and ready to take the game to the Lions.

My only concern is the lack of combination in the backline. As has been noted elsewhere, a lot of these players play for seperate franchises. And a in some cases will be combining for the first time. Hopefully Deans has used the time he requested from the franchises profitably to drill fluency into the team.

5. I have to admit that I’m not cardholder of team Deans. I’ve been less than impressed by his tactical and strategic thinking with the Wallabies over the last few years. I believe that Link or White possess more tactical acumen than Deans and would have imposed a more coherent gameplan on the Wallabies going into this series.

However, that said, I can’t say I’ve overly impressed with Gatland. His record with Wales against Southern Hemisphere teams shows a lack of adaptability for mine.

I think the influence of the coaches will come largely through the use of the bench rather than any dominant strategy of clever tactic. With weapons like Kurtey Beale and Liam Gill on the Wallaby bench, I believe Deans may have a slight edge on Gatland.

Have to say that the Lions have some intimidating goal-kickers. Hooper and co. will have to be exceptionally careful in their own half.

All in all, I think this series will be a lot closer than most think. I would probably go with 2-1 to the Lions with all the games being close and no dead-rubber game.

It’s fairly easy to map the progression of Jake White’s plan for the Brumbies. When he took over at the start of last year, there were very few superstars (arguably none at all). As seen in the Southern Kings gameplan and the Bulls circa 2006/2007, the quickest and easiest way to turn a group of nobodies (relatively. How many Brumbies were in Wallaby contention at the start of 2012?) into game winners is to implement a solid defence plan, play on the right end of the paddock and take any and all points on offer. I’m willing to admit that the Kings have had very limited success with the plan this year.

The game plan (defence, territory, points via penalties/turnover tries) is a relatively low risk strategy, and one employed effectively by White in 2007 with the Boks. Essentially, it comes down to which is more important, results or style points? Results pay the bills.

I really cannot understand the furor about the Brumbies playing a negative game in the own 22. Rugby is a game centred around the interpretation of the law. Play the man in the middle, arguably the All Blacks’/Crusaders’ greatest strength. Canes have noone but themselves to blame for not getting a man binned for repeat infringement. You just know Mccaw would’ve been in the ref’s ear at the second penalty offence.

As to whether the Brumbies can go the whole way on their current gameplan depends on whether George Smith gets back onto the field. White’s gameplan requires a wily and effective fetcher: to disrupt opponents’ ball in the Brumbies’ 22 and to secure penalties at the breakdown in penalty-goal range. Colby Faainga is probably not quite up to scratch at the moment. I would argue that the Brumbies’ chances are enhanced with Smith in the lineup instead of Pocock. While Pocock is a freakish talent, Smith edges him on sneakiness. Excuse me. Smith edges Pocock on experience.

Agree with the sentiment if not the particular players. Wallabies lack a Willem Alberts or Liam Messam, namely go-to-players that will secure front foot ball every time the attack gets slowed down or punch holes in the defence when the attack is fluent.

Not a fan of TPN as I feel that he fails on his first responsibility as a Hooker (namely lineout throws). Suspect Palu is the man that the Wallabies need fit and in the team. Can’t really think of another player that will provide what he provides on attack though…?

+1

Thought Nanai was going well before Kahui’s return had him benched. would love to see the two of them in the centres for a game. Think the only problem with Nanai’s game is the a lapse in concentration on defence every so often.

“Without giving too much away you don’t want to play into their hands, play to where he (Smith) is going to be,” Genia said.
“You have to play away from him.”

I would think this hints at putting as much width on the ball as quickly as possible from the Reds. Playing it short would allow Smith to get to consecutive breakdowns with minimal effort. Also imagine the Reds would be keen to match up Diggers and Davies against Speight and Tomane as often as possible.

Three place kickers in the matchday 22, with the worst of the three starting and the other two, better, kickers on the bench. Lions matches tend to be tight (as evidenced in 2009). Starting with the best kicker (CLL imo) would probably be a better idea.

+1

With Carlos Spencer coaching the backs.

To be honest, I’m not overly attached to Kruger starting for the Boks. My issue is more that dut Toit is a bit lacking in bulk to be catapulted into international rugby just yet. It’s the same problem I have with Goosen. No one can deny either of these players have oodles of skill and definitely are Springbok material. However, I’m concerned that their lack of bulk will lead to an injury-ridden career (as seems to be the case with Goosen). I would give du Toit another 2-3 years to add some bulk, get past the second year slump and mature as a player before giving him a run with the Boks.

We seem to have similar ideas for what constitutes a balanced loose-forward trio: a fetcher, a crash-ball runner and a quick, skillful ballplayer. Just differing on personel for each role. So essential it’s: Vermeulen vs Louw, Alberts vs Alberts (My money’s on Alberts) and Kolisi vs Spies. Louw is probably a better fetcher, but Vermeulen is a better carrying option. Spies is better in open space but does indeed lack a decent offload and Kolisi has a more dominant tackle. Comes down to preference and gameplan then.

I would really really REALLY like to transplant Fourie du Preez’s brain into Hougaard’s body. Hougaard has the natural talent, but is severely lacking in judgement (in my opinion at any rate). Surely he can be coached into better decision making?

Can’t argue with Aplon at 15. The usual argument against is that he’s too small. So far, his heart more than makes up for any size differential (as seen when he was steam-rollered for the Stormers cause against the Brumbies…did enough to slow Fotu Auelua down for the cover defence to make the tackle)

1. Beast
2. Adriaan Strauss (c)
3. Jannie du Plessis

4. Eben Etzebeth
5. Juandre Kruger (Stephen Sykes)

6. Marcell Coetzee (Francois Louw)
7. Willem Alberts
8. Pierre Spies

9. Jano Vermaak (Cobus Reinach)
10. Pat Lambie
11. Raymond Rhule (Gio Aplon/Willie le Roux)
12. Robert Ebersohn

13. JP Pietersen
14. Bryan Habana
15. Zane Kirchner (Louis LudiK)

Will just justify the differences:

5. du Toit is still way too young for top flight rugby. Out of the players in the squad, Juandre Kruger is probably the pick to partner Etzebeth (who has his name penned in at no. 4 with a permanent marker). Figure Sykes at the Kings would be a better choice if available.

6. Kolisi is too similar a player to Alberts. In my mind, pick one or the other. Based on ability to supply go-forward every time, I pick Alberts. Kolisi is arguably a better athlete, but Alberts is bigger and stronger. So Alberts gets the 7 (Blind-side in SA) spot. 6 should go to a fetcher. In this squad, that’s Marcell Coetzee. I would pick Louw based on form last year for the Boks. Brussow does not get a look-in due to the number of penalties he gives away at the break down.

8. Spies is in terrific form this year since he’s cut out the lateral run from his play. Runs straight and hard,takes some putting down, is quick and has been making his tackles. Also links well with the backs on Kick-return. My pick ahead of Vermeulen who I would have on the bench as he’s a better cover for all three loose-forward positions than a Kankowski say.

9. Jano is less likely to have a brain explosion than Hougaard so gets the nod in this squad. Reinach is the form 9 at the moment. Ahead of Pretorius who is electric on the run but has a weaker pass. Having a strong passing game is the core competency of a 9, so Reinach edges Pretorius.

11. & 14. 11 is the attacking winger. He should generally be looking to be running off the inside backs shoulders or providing a blindside option or mismatches against forwards in the backline. With these criteria in mind, Aplon/le Roux seem tailor made for 11. Not in the squad so pick Rhule who has better footwork than Habana. 14 in my mind should usually be a strong defender to contain the opposition’s 11. Habana has been pretty solid for the Boks, when he stops chooses to defend instead of look for the intercept.

13. For mine, JP is better suited to 13 than 12. Was the SA form player in 2012 in this position. The sooner he makes the move to this position at international level, the better.

15. SA stocks in the fullback position are particularly low. Francois Steyn was woeful for the Sharks against the Crusaders. He was out of position on virtually every Crusader attack. Probably needs to slim down and re-read the FB positional play manual. Out of the Fullbacks on offer from the five SA franchises, Ludik has probably been the pick. Kirchener is the only FB in the squad, so in he goes.

“This would be a tremendous thing for the South African conference as the Cheetahs style, like that of the Crusaders, is more attune to winning finals matches (although this is untested by the Cheetahs, of course) than the kicking/pressure game played by the major South African sides.”

This opinion seems to be particularly misinformed, considering that the most successful South African Super rugby team has won three Championships playing the kicking /pressure game. Seems to indicate that the kicking/pressure game is more suited to winning finals rugby.

Also, don’t think the Cheetahs game-plan is that similar to the Crusaders game-plan. Cheetahs fit a loose, running game-plan to every situation. Crusaders play percentage rugby in their half, meting out the helter-skelter razzle-dazzle sparingly, when the option is likely to yield maximum results.

Agree that the Reds benefited from some dubious calls from the ref, perhaps to the extent that they would’ve lost the game had a better ref officiated.

Not sure about writing off the Reds season at this point though.

Cooper is a different player with Genia on the park. I expect by the end of the season (barring injury) this half-back combination will be back to their best circa 2010/11 and the Reds will be in with a very decent chance of making the playoffs.

Assuming the brumbies do not fall off the pace ala 2012, Reds should finish second in the conference and probably be contesting the three wild card finals slots along with the Bulls/Crusaders/Stormers/Blues/Sharks…

Guilty as charged Biltong 😀 not a fan of Bekker at all, my bias is showing. Figure cos I’m a little too old school for a lock ranging up among the outside backs. In my mind, the tight five should be operating in close, doing all the hard yards. If you must have a forward out wide, leave it to the blindside or 8th man (I’ll allow the openside some leeway on account of having the title “loose forward” on his CV. But only every other phase mind :P)

As an aside, aren’t those ruck attendance figures low? Or did the Chiefs dominate possession?

Wallaby backline containing all three would be a disaster defensively. Only real defender of the three is JOC, but after watching Rathbone steamroller him in the Brumbies vs Rebels game, I think the Wallabies are going to be in dire straights regardless of which of the three they stick in 10. Especially with the likes of Tuilagi, North or Roberts potentially in a Lions backline.

Figure Deans should be looking to select combinations. If the Genia-Cooper partnership yields the results that it did in 2011, Deans will need to build a defensive pattern around Cooper, by perhaps selecting a hard hitting inside centre and a quick openside who can complete the tackle if Cooper can hold up the attacking player.

Alternatively, Deans could select CL who is a proven defender and great with ball in hand. However, the Lions tour is probably not the place to find out if CL has what it takes to make and impact in the international arena.

If the Reds combo fires, I would think Deans should go with:

9. genia
10. Cooper

11. Ioane
12. Taps
13. Mccabe

14. JOC
15. Mogg

with Cummins, Beale and White on the bench.

Not quite sure about lauding Bekker for camping out in the number 13 channel on attack. For my money, you should almost never see a lock running in open play. He should be too busy picking himself up from the last ruck that he had to clear, or standing off one of the halfbacks with a pod of his forward mates looking to suck in defenders to give the quicker and more skillful backs space out wide.

Admittedly, Bekker had a great show and go break that made metres. However, at no point did I think he was going to score or set up a try. The defenders would reel him in, and Bekker suffers from severe whiteline fever. There was no chance of an offload at any point in his run

Bekker does not deliver on one of the main core competency of a lock, namely dominating the tight aspects of open play (namely rucks and mauls). He’s an adequate linout option on Stormers ball but not nearly as dominant as Etzebeth on opposition ball. All in all, I would pick Juandre Kruger, Flip van der Merwe, Anton Bresler and Steven Sykes ahead of him for a Bok place.

I’m less interested in entertaining rugby and more interested in innovative rugby. High scoring games in my mind speak to leaky defences which turns me off rather than piques my interest. That said though, the Stormers vs Sharks game, and SA rugby in general, seemed bereft of fresh ideas. I believe Nick Mallet harped on about this point in the post-match analysis. When was the last time you saw a SA backline spread the ball to the wings , let alone run a planned move? with the hours of footage available, surely it should be possible for attack coaches to engineer plays, tailor made to crack open a particular team’s defence? otherwise, what are they being paid for?

From the Sharks vs Stormers game:
– Frans Steyn needs to develop and offload. Usually, it takes 2-3 defenders to bring him down and he almost manages to stay on his feet in the tackle. With runners like Paul Jordaan, JP Pietersen, Lwazi Mvovo and Louis Ludeke outside him, a short ball around a tackler should lead to a try.

Also, Frans Steyn used to have an excellent passing game. Why isn’t he used to pass the aforementioned runners into gaps? Just taking the ball to the line (with his size) should create doubt in defensive lines, allowing a pass to outside players in space.

– Jean de Villiers is on the wrong side of 30 and played at 13. His opposite number was Paul Jordaan, a 7s exponent with exceptionally quick feet. I would think the Sharks would be keen to match the two up as often as possible to gauge the passage of Father Time on the Stormers captain. Don’t think it happened once.

– why did Gio Aplon, possibly the most elusive runner in SA rugby, only have two opportunities in the game? One from a cross-kick, the other from fielding a kick. That’s like leaving the AK-47 at home and only taking the Bear Grylls survival knife to a gunfight.

– Both teams: after the forwards trucking it up channel one resulted in zero line breaks in the first 40 minutes, why was there no call to shift the forward pods out a channel or two to create a size mismatch of forwards running at backs? What is being said at the halftime break?

The main problem with SA rugby is that innovation and enterprise are coached out of the players. Nick Mallet alluded to this in the post match analysis. Players with lower error rates are rewarded with game time, the net result being players without a willingness to chance their arm.

Best analysis I’ve read on the Roar to date. Great read.

I read Mortlock’s comments as: “Less focus on razzle-dazzle, more focus on the hard yards”. Wallaby team seems really keen on pulling a rabbit out of a hat without first wearing down their opposition and sucking up defences with the direct play before using the wide/quadruple-switch-with-a-five-man-cut-out play.

Consider the difference in Beale’s play and Dan Carter’s play. Beale tries to force a magic play every time he touches the ball. Carter will patiently shovel the ball on to 12 or play a short pass to a forward 80-90% of the game. Once the opposition take their eyes off him for a second, he pulls out the magic play. Not every touch is trying crack the defence wide open. Patience in grinding down a defence and recognition of when it is finally on are what the Wallaby attack lacks.

By moving Barnes into 10 or 12, pretty much all the backline positions are covered, except for 9 (which is where Sheehan comes in) effectively having 6 forward Subs (in the extreme case) which allows Deans to combat the perceived chink in the Wallaby armour. The team will be stuck if more than one injury (or an injury after a tactical sub) occurs in the backline. We may get to test the theory that Hooper will make a decent centre. Not sure I agree that the potential gains (forward parity) outweigh the risks (playing slower forwards in the backline against the French quick men) in this case.

Looking at the starting lineup, who takes over the captaincy reins if Sharpe leaves the field?

Valid question. My 2 cents worth on the problems with the Wallabies:

1. Too many players taking too many soft options. I make this claim on the back of the horrendous injury run that the Wallabies have experienced this year. To my mind, this speaks to poor conditioning pre-season. Compared to the relatively lighter injury experience of the All Blacks and Springboks, there appears to be a flaw in Australian players’ pre-season preparations. I’m not sure if Deans has a direct say in the conditioning regimes of the respective Super franchises (so i’m not sure if blame should rest with him), however, it would appear that Wallabies players seem to more about the gratification that comes with playing in the GOLD jumper and not prepared to make the sacrifices required for the privilege.

2. Inconsistent selections. Here the fault does rest with Deans to an extent. I can’t remember the same players running out in the same positions for more than two games in a row. The team seems to be in a constant state of flux with players playing musical chairs. how are combinations supposed to settle and achieve synergy when you’re playing with a different partner from one week to the next? Admittedly, injuries have limited Deans’ ability to make consistent selections, however, I get the impression that Deans’ (And many Roarers’) solution to a poor result is to shuffle players around. Pick a player for a position and give him an extended run to make it his own.

3. Over focus on the backline. Admittedly, this is where Australia’s strength lays, but before creative glory boys can punish a team, the hard men upfront need to grind the opposition into submission. The Wallabies lack of dominant forward displays can and should be laid at Deans’ feet. He should’ve realised very early in his tenure that the Wallabies’ forwards were getting owned by all and sundry and he should have developed and implemented a plan to grow forward talent (which could have been bearing fruit now). Instead, the Wallabies don’t have a single forward that could challenge for a spot in the world XV. Unacceptable for a team with aspirations for the number one spot in world rugby.

Chris, I can recall the exact moment in the game that you’ve mentioned in your first paragraph. The kick option in that situation was a poor option in my opinion.

Using a kick-and-chase game plan requires either gaining territory with your kick and contesting the subsequent line-out or giving the ball enough air to allow your chasers to compete. In the situation you’ve outlined, the four men dropped back covered the line effectively, cutting out the option to kick for territory. Also, having that many players back reduced the Boks’ ability to isolate the kick-receiver to work a turnover or a penalty.

Plan B in the form of ball in hand was a go. And they didn’t have to do anything flashy. A couple drives from the forwards would have sucked in the men dropped back allowing the kick option to be on again. Or the Boks could have chanced their arm with the overlap and given the ball to their quick backs.

As mentioned by Biltong above, the current crop of Bok players don’t seem to know when it’s on out wide. Lot’s of work to be done for Meyer and his coaching team I suspect.