RugbyRebels

Timbo wrote:

richy678 wrote:Just going to say its always Australia for us at world cups.

In some ways, I always feel we've got more chance against the Boks in a one-off.

Intuitively I would say that we have a winning record against Oz at world cups, and a losing record against the Boks?

Not actually sure as im not a stats guy. I just "feel" if we we match the boks we can beat them, whereas Oz never give up and have always got some sort of running threat, being individual or collective that can rip us apart.

Aus got us in 87, 91, 15
We beat Aus in 95, 03, 07
Don't think we mention 99 or 11

As for SA, I'm still haunted by Janie de Beer in 99
Obviously, they beat us in 99, 07 and 07
We beat SA in 03

What a lesson from the hosts in today's game: don't kick the ball away aimlessly!!!! If nothing else comes out of this RWC other than a reversal of the horrendous trend to just hoof it, I'll be happy. Will somebody tell, Jones, Farrell and Ford though?

There is no way we could play as Japan do.

Mellsblue wrote:There is no way we could play as Japan do.

We would need their 9 for starters.... shame they replaced him with their own Ben Youngs

Mellsblue wrote:There is no way we could play as Japan do.

True, but the principle of valuing the ball can't be bad.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:There is no way we could play as Japan do.

True, but the principle of valuing the ball can't be bad.

Agreed.

Timbo wrote:

richy678 wrote:Just going to say its always Australia for us at world cups.

In some ways, I always feel we've got more chance against the Boks in a one-off.

Intuitively I would say that we have a winning record against Oz at world cups, and a losing record against the Boks?

Vs SA - losses in 1999, 2007 x2, and our sole victory coming in 2003 pool stages

Vs Aus - losses in 1991 and 2015, compare with wins in 1995, 2003, and 2007.

Puja

Oakboy wrote:What a lesson from the hosts in today's game: don't kick the ball away aimlessly!!!! If nothing else comes out of this RWC other than a reversal of the horrendous trend to just hoof it, I'll be happy. Will somebody tell, Jones, Farrell and Ford though?

Probably something to do with the fact that the coach has them for about 260 days of the year and their whole system is designed to peak at the national level.

Just about the opposite to how we do things.

Oakboy wrote:What a lesson from the hosts in today's game: don't kick the ball away aimlessly!!!! If nothing else comes out of this RWC other than a reversal of the horrendous trend to just hoof it, I'll be happy. Will somebody tell, Jones, Farrell and Ford though?

Tell NZ and SA and Ireland and Wales too whilst you’re at it.

Feels like we have to wait ages for this game.

How do you think EJ will deal with the aussies?

twitchy wrote:Feels like we have to wait ages for this game.

How do you think EJ will deal with the aussies?

Does Jones vary the style of play much, regardless of the opposition?

My thoughts would be that the best way to lose would be to give their backs too much possession but avoiding that would mean changing our normal style of kicking for territorial gain. Stifling the game with multi-phase forward play is the way to start, IMO. Youngs box-kicking everything is not.

Oakboy wrote:What a lesson from the hosts in today's game: don't kick the ball away aimlessly!!!! If nothing else comes out of this RWC other than a reversal of the horrendous trend to just hoof it, I'll be happy. Will somebody tell, Jones, Farrell and Ford though?

They were pretty incredible in their tactics, skills and execution in general, but yes I agree with this.

I wonder how much of the benefit comes from their rather creative structuring/allocation of club players but it appears Jamie Joseph is an absolutely fantastic coach.

Oakboy wrote:

twitchy wrote:Feels like we have to wait ages for this game.

How do you think EJ will deal with the aussies?

Does Jones vary the style of play much, regardless of the opposition?

My thoughts would be that the best way to lose would be to give their backs too much possession but avoiding that would mean changing our normal style of kicking for territorial gain. Stifling the game with multi-phase forward play is the way to start, IMO. Youngs box-kicking everything is not.

I think the Curry/Underhill back row is a deliberate attempt to combat Pooper, so there is that.

I think key to this game is defensive pressure. Their backline, especially the half-backs, have talent, but no consistency - if we push hard on whoever's playing 10, then there will be mistakes.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

twitchy wrote:Feels like we have to wait ages for this game.

How do you think EJ will deal with the aussies?

Does Jones vary the style of play much, regardless of the opposition?

My thoughts would be that the best way to lose would be to give their backs too much possession but avoiding that would mean changing our normal style of kicking for territorial gain. Stifling the game with multi-phase forward play is the way to start, IMO. Youngs box-kicking everything is not.

I think the Curry/Underhill back row is a deliberate attempt to combat Pooper, so there is that.

I think key to this game is defensive pressure. Their backline, especially the half-backs, have talent, but no consistency - if we push hard on whoever's playing 10, then there will be mistakes.

Puja

That's one of the big question marks over Curry's new role to me. I don't think there's been an English 7 as good at the classic playmaker-harrying role as him for quite a long time, but is he now being told to do less of it? Deploying both of them on the blitz is a risky tactic but I don't see Aus getting too far if Underhill is able to take out any primary ball carrier off 10 and Curry is right in the face of whoever they pick at 10/12.

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

twitchy wrote:Feels like we have to wait ages for this game.

How do you think EJ will deal with the aussies?

Does Jones vary the style of play much, regardless of the opposition?

My thoughts would be that the best way to lose would be to give their backs too much possession but avoiding that would mean changing our normal style of kicking for territorial gain. Stifling the game with multi-phase forward play is the way to start, IMO. Youngs box-kicking everything is not.

I think the Curry/Underhill back row is a deliberate attempt to combat Pooper, so there is that.

I think key to this game is defensive pressure. Their backline, especially the half-backs, have talent, but no consistency - if we push hard on whoever's playing 10, then there will be mistakes.

Puja

I hope you are right, Puja. Furthermore, if you are, can we at least not kick away turnover ball?

Sometimes, I find it hard to go on living when a commentator says, "That is a clever kick from Ford."

Yes, it temporarily gained us 40 yards. Then, . . . no effective kick chase, the opposition have comfortable possession, we concede yet another penalty followed by a net loss of 80 yards . . . . We get possession back, Youngs box-kicks . . . .

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Does Jones vary the style of play much, regardless of the opposition?

My thoughts would be that the best way to lose would be to give their backs too much possession but avoiding that would mean changing our normal style of kicking for territorial gain. Stifling the game with multi-phase forward play is the way to start, IMO. Youngs box-kicking everything is not.

I think the Curry/Underhill back row is a deliberate attempt to combat Pooper, so there is that.

I think key to this game is defensive pressure. Their backline, especially the half-backs, have talent, but no consistency - if we push hard on whoever's playing 10, then there will be mistakes.

Puja

I hope you are right, Puja. Furthermore, if you are, can we at least not kick away turnover ball?

Sometimes, I find it hard to go on living when a commentator says, "That is a clever kick from Ford."

Yes, it temporarily gained us 40 yards. Then, . . . no effective kick chase, the opposition have comfortable possession, we concede yet another penalty followed by a net loss of 80 yards . . . . We get possession back, Youngs box-kicks . . . .

The one that kills me is when we go for constant high balls against Ireland, the best catchers in the game, and seem surprised that they keep refusing to spill it. If the tactic relies solely on opposition mistakes and they keep not making mistakes, it's time to change the tactic.

Puja

Puja wrote: The one that kills me is when we go for constant high balls against Ireland, the best catchers in the game, and seem surprised that they keep refusing to spill it. If the tactic relies solely on opposition mistakes and they keep not making mistakes, it's time to change the tactic.

Puja

As ever, is that sort of thing down to coaches or players - in the initial choice of tactic, the ability to recognise it's not working, the decision on changing it etc.

The trouble is, where pre-conceived tactics dominate, is the tactic not working from concept or bad execution? The coaches might opt for the latter, I guess, rather than be proven wrong.

Maybe, any team needs at least one maverick who will do his own thing - a Cipriani rather than a Farrell?

Its just a shame that using cheerleaders as a distraction is no longer viewed 'acceptable'

Oakboy wrote:As ever, is that sort of thing down to coaches or players - in the initial choice of tactic, the ability to recognise it's not working, the decision on changing it etc.

The trouble is, where pre-conceived tactics dominate, is the tactic not working from concept or bad execution? The coaches might opt for the latter, I guess, rather than be proven wrong.

Yes; there's also the question of whether the tactics are designed with this match in mind, or another one? When playing against Italy or Scotland, is it more important to play the best plan to beat Italy or Scotland? or to practice the game plan you might want to use against Ireland or Wales?
When playing against Australia in a RWC QF, is it more important to play the best plan to beat Australia; or to practice the plan you want in an expected SF against NZ?
Especially if the plan you'll use for the "more important" match is the plan you feel best suits your players fullstop; and any alteration to that plan is less effective for you as a team.

We fans always want to see our team show that they can play 2-3 different game plans, and play them well. Most coaches seem to prefer the idea that Plan B is to do Plan A for longer and trust that it will come good in the end.

p/d wrote:Its just a shame that using cheerleaders as a distraction is no longer viewed 'acceptable'

This. I was lamenting with friends after the cameraman picked a 10/10 Wales supporter/WAG out of the crowd that such ‘tactics’ would soon be banned.

At the end of the day - I don't care how we play in the middle of the RWC as long as we win every game

Going forward, I'd love to see a quicker version of our game - and the area I'd like the most improvement is the 9/10/12 set up

But, that's for after the tournament, for the next 3 weeks - do whatever it takes!

Renniks wrote:At the end of the day - I don't care how we play in the middle of the RWC as long as we win every game

Going forward, I'd love to see a quicker version of our game - and the area I'd like the most improvement is the 9/10/12 set up

But, that's for after the tournament, for the next 3 weeks - do whatever it takes!

Tbh, it should’ve been for the three years before the tournament.

Mellsblue wrote:

Renniks wrote:At the end of the day - I don't care how we play in the middle of the RWC as long as we win every game

Going forward, I'd love to see a quicker version of our game - and the area I'd like the most improvement is the 9/10/12 set up

But, that's for after the tournament, for the next 3 weeks - do whatever it takes!

Tbh, it should’ve been for the three years before the tournament.

Yep - though, I look back and would have said that over the past 3 years, we've had issues in nearly every position at some point or another

Whether issues in depth, issues in the personnel being picked, issues in the game plan for the players we had (or didn't have), so to end up in a position where if someone focused on going quicker and improvements to one extended unit I'd be really quite very happy is quite something

Which Tyler wrote:

Oakboy wrote:As ever, is that sort of thing down to coaches or players - in the initial choice of tactic, the ability to recognise it's not working, the decision on changing it etc.

The trouble is, where pre-conceived tactics dominate, is the tactic not working from concept or bad execution? The coaches might opt for the latter, I guess, rather than be proven wrong.

Yes; there's also the question of whether the tactics are designed with this match in mind, or another one? When playing against Italy or Scotland, is it more important to play the best plan to beat Italy or Scotland? or to practice the game plan you might want to use against Ireland or Wales?
When playing against Australia in a RWC QF, is it more important to play the best plan to beat Australia; or to practice the plan you want in an expected SF against NZ?
Especially if the plan you'll use for the "more important" match is the plan you feel best suits your players fullstop; and any alteration to that plan is less effective for you as a team.

We fans always want to see our team show that they can play 2-3 different game plans, and play them well. Most coaches seem to prefer the idea that Plan B is to do Plan A for longer and trust that it will come good in the end.

I think most fans just want to keep winning. At a point where we don't, well into a RWC, for example, those same fans want to feel that we went down having done our best. Defining that is the crunch.

It means the head coach having picked the best team (subject to fringe debate), having shown imagination and organisation in providing the team with a strategy that worked and in preparing the team unit to produce its best on the day.

I don't think Jones ever gets the best out of the team and the only counter-argument he has is to win. If he does that, nobody can argue.