Most people when they saw the QF match ups, saw those games as pretty much 50/50, slightly favoring the higher ranked team. Ranked 1 team playing 4th, 2nd playing 3rd, was always going to be tight and could swing either way, and same with the other quarters. Doubt the QF would have gone against the odds if ranked 1 played 8, rank 2 played 6th etc, and I am less optimistic that upsets will happen in the SF.

You make some fair points, but it still feels pretty crushing for Ireland and France to exit in the QF, and your glass is more full than mine on the potential SF results…but Afghanistan DID just beat England in the cricket 😂

Good points made on playing to your strengths and forming your own style of play.

All the QFs were thrilling games to watch, but I am skeptical on your statement “Argentina and New Zealand, and England and South Africa…they’re all very deserving and definitely capable of winning though to the 48th and final match of the tournament.”

I wonder if the amazing QFs we have just watched are to the sacrifice of the SFs quality of matches? I feel that ARG and ENG will get well beaten in the SF, and I don’t think they are capable of beating SA/NZ to make the final.

I guess we won’t know for sure until the SFs are played, but If the ABs and SA win easily, I will pose the question, is it better to have close QFs and knock out potentially, and certainly on rankings, 2 of the top 4 teams, or blowouts in the QF to have the best teams in the SF?

I hope the SFs are close good games, but I suspect the next good game will be the final, and the SFs a fizzer, which bugs me a little.

Agree that the choke tag does not apply to Ireland here. You can’t play great rugby, with 37 consecutive phases included, and simultaneously choke. Saying Ireland choked also discounts the ABs mammoth defensive effort and offensive assault that just happened to click for the ABs on the day.

This game should be remembered as one of the great RWC knockout games of all time, NOT one of the great chokes 👍

Your feet are on the ground, JD. Lucid thinking and a awareness of our flaws.

The ABs can do it if the stars align enough in our favour, but not much weakness in this Ireland team to expose…unlike the ABs…but I do feel we have more X-factor in the backs, but will Ireland give us the room and enough front foot ball to use them? Probably not if we can’t get parity from jerseys 1-8!

Yeah, seems mad to risk breaking the rules where you miss the QFs of a huge game!

Young men with high testosterone are more prone to risk type behavior, which offers maybe some reason why players do this, but you would think that one should be able to control their discipline a such a crucial stage!

Great points made, Spiro. Yes, the tier 2 nations need more matches against tier 1 sides, not less!
.
“Japan was defeated by the All Blacks in RWC1995,147 – 15”
.
Yes, good case in point of more quality matches for tier 2 being beneficial in the long run with the uprising over the years with Japan. Minor correction, the score was NZ 145 – Japan 17. easy accidental keyboard mistake to make 😁

Yeah, I think Laurie is much like Wayne Smith in that regard. As an assistant coach you keep out of the media drama, and you can then channel all your concentration into technical side of rugby and having a good relationship with the players 👍

“Not even the excuse of rebuilding forgives 2 from 9”

Yeah, and 0 wins vs tier 1 nations. The 2 wins were against tier 2 teams ranked 13th/14th. Aus fans deserve far better than that! What a shamble. Hope the board gets wiped clean, that is where the head and main cause of the rot is. The board is ultimately responsible for hiring and firing, and a head coach rarely resigns before getting the sack first. Wayne Smith did resign as AB coach on a 71% record in 2001, which was a rare resigning for a head coach.

😂

Hi Ben, I feel for you in your questioning faith, but hear me out.

Australia has mostly been ranked in the top 5 since 2003, which is excellent considering the competing codes, despite RA having suboptimal people in charge often. I think the expectations carried over from the golden era didn’t allow enough appreciation from fans that Aus were still a good team in the face of bad management.

What this rock bottom result is, is a needed wake up call. Clear the board, and get the right people in who will implement a provincial comp and grow grassroots, and regrow from there. Ireland had to take that pill, and that turned out well for them.

Aus can easily be a top 6 team again, which fans should be proud of, and to judge the Wallabies future on THIS board and coaching strategy isn’t a good evidence test to conclude on. Let the common sense solutions tested before you lose faith.

Fans shouldn’t turn their back on the Wallabies. The fans need to shout from the rooftops, demanding the changes needed, and making sure that those that are running the game into the ground are promptly shown the door.

Here is the Breakdown show on YouTube, if you would like to see JK talking about the late blindside attack from the ABs. Time stamp is 27:25

I think the AB/Aus game highlighted how the small percentage advantages can really blow out a score. There is clearly shape forming in the Aus structure, and I feel if they get the possession game balance right and accuracy in tactical kicking , that will go a long way to where the Aus team needs to be.
.
A lot of metres were gained from the blindside attack from the ABS, and if anyone watched the Breakdown, JK did a good analysis on how the ABs are moving very late in attack to the blindside, which gives the defence bugger all time to line up in defence, and the ABs cleverly leave room for the outside and inside pass with how Mo’unga positions himself on the quick late move to blindside. That was very hard to defend against, and more teams than Aus should look out for this deception in attack.
.
Aus clearly have their sights on hitting form at the RWC, and that race to get their in the time given is tight, but it now really feels like they are moving in the right direction! 👍

All good points made, especially on other coaches outside Rennie coming short on getting the best out of the 10/12. Let’s hope EJ’s gameplan is all pivoting towards clarity by the RWC, and everything makes sense by then!

I value Peter’s knowledge of the game, but I am not sure exactly where he wanted those minutes of backup from in the limited tests provided in the case of an unfortunate injury to Cooper. The ABs? At the RWC?! 😛 You make absolute sense, Ken. I think Cooper has the experience to let the young gun have good time on the field.
.
“The big question for me is Eddie’s game plan. In 2003 “
.
Yep, that is the million dollar question, mate. Terrible game plan so far for Cooper, who needs to be put on the front foot with plenty of ball to utilize that great pass and variation in depth of where he comes into attack. 10 has such a huge influence on results, and to essentially have a game plan that plays Cooper out of the match is baffling!!
.
Just quietly, Rennie did have good minutes in his choice of backup 10’s, and when Cooper and Kerevi were selected together, the gameplan very much suited their play style, as the results showed, which I am sure iis at the back of your mind too…

The ABs can be ruthless on inexperienced 10’s with their expansive running play. though. I think the SA and ARG games would have given EJ a better chance to see how Carter does managing a game at 10, and an earlier look in on Carter starting would’ve been more beneficial IMO.

You definitely need a backup 10, Ken, and because Carter has shown form for the number 2 choice, he needs big minutes on the field internationally. Crazy not to give him time, as Cooper has had many injuries, and could easily go down injured.

The mistake is starting him vs the ABs…I would’ve started Carter in the first 2 tests, and then gauge from there that he is confirmed as 2nd choice, and then played him again vs France just before the RWC, rotate between Carter/Cooper in the WC rounds, then the best 10 takes the playoffs. That would minimize the chances of Cooper getting injured too.

Great post, Tim. Excellent points made 👍

It stands out to me that even with AUS having low possession, they are still conceding plenty of turnovers (you mentioned 15 turnovers conceded in the last game vs ARG). This is great for the opposition, low number of tackles needed to be made, tiring the opposition out with making them do all the tackles, and still plenty of turnovers on offer to take advantage of try scoring potential on the first 3 phases.
.
You can play a low possession ball game, and the ABs have done that plenty in the past, but the possession doesn’t usually go under 40%, and it is ideal compensate with good territory, which means smart kicking to make the opposition have a good chunk of their possession in their own half, which you turn into pressure for a turnover to hopefully score a try on early phase ball.
.
The question is also, how much turnover pressure are AUS putting on the opposition? If 75% of scores come in the first 3 phases, low possession is not the priority. The priority is putting the opposition under turnover stress, and low possession is only 1 of several ways to exert pressure for turnover opportunities, For example, a kick chase and tackle to put ruck pressure on broken defence, and you might recover the ball too….
.
The low possession game is dangerous to play that needs high skill level in defence and tactical kicking. I think working on better kicking, better ball retention at the breakdown, and gaining the most territory that you can, especially that gold territory in the opposition’s 22, which the Spingboks got plenty of in game 1 to score their tries, would be benificial for AUS over low possession…

Just because they come from league doesn’t mean they can’t understand rugby, and Andy Farrell played rugby for England in a few tests, so he does understand rugby too, which I am not so sure other league coaches bought in have that same experience…

League defence coaches seem to fall most on turnover ball. League defence in rugby can be brittle on phase 1 and 2 off turnover ball if you don’t understand the contest of the ball well enough, and perhaps this is where they get caught out?

It is a concern that the defensive errors were seemingly due to poor positioning, rather than just falling off tackles, which is more a mind set fixable in a week thing.

Perhaps the coaching defence has been poorly communicated, and perhaps it is overly complicated musical chairs type approach (like the Nathan Grey defence under Cheika), but no one was jumping in the empty chairs?

Perhaps it is the new combinations that are struggling to effectively communicate with each other, and more time together will move towards a clear structure?

When you kick that much without clear purpose of chase and recovery, you open up your defencesive line to structural positional weakness, and may be a headbutting clash between attack and defence coach who’s game plan contradicts each others goals for a cohesive team, much like Grey and Larkham working together.

A week is a long time in rugby, and next week should show us whether this was just first game blues, or an ongoing concern, and let’s hope it is the former!

Maybe it is a non-English speaking Romanian using google translate? 😂

The backrow has been so inconsistent in both selections and player performances under Foster, but things are looking much more promising for a cohesive unit for our backrow.
Synergy in key combination areas is so important for a strong team.

Really good observations, Highlander.

The ABs put huge defensive stress on ARG through variety and less predictability in attack, running very direct, and I think that difference was due to addressing the kicking and pod system game that the opposition s had clued on to.

DMac had a great game, and a game plan to his strength in running, to Foster’s credit. I will not be sold on DMac as a starting 10 until he shows he can play like that in a high pressure tight match without getting rattled a bit, but so far the evidence of DMac at 10 looks good.

Tight 5 did the job in set piece to dominate.

I was most pleased with our backrow, who all seemed to show up and compliment each other. Frizell had a great game at the breakdown with plenty of work rate and turnover pressure on the opposition. Sam Cane was again a tackling machine, and MoTM for me. Plenty of backs for the highlight reel, but that game was won by the forwards