• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[2015 TRC] Australia v South Africa in Brisbane (18/07/2015)

Let's get rid of HM, bloody useless coach. And your'll used to give Pdv lip. HM has only beaten the All blacks once in 3 seasons. Dismal Eoyt last year and average in the years before that.Doubt we'll go far in the World Cup as well. Whereas Pdv beat the ABs on numerous occasions and 2009 we were simply unstoppable and don't tell me it's cause of players running the show whereas when we lose only Pdv would take the blame utter bs, Pdv is a better coach then this guy simple as that.

Our gameplan was absolute rubbish today and we did not deserve to win this game. All I'm saying after the world cup let's get rid of this Heyneke guy.
 
Let's get rid of HM, bloody useless coach. And your'll used to give Pdv lip. HM has only beaten the All blacks once in 3 seasons. Dismal Eoyt last year and average in the years before that.Doubt we'll go far in the World Cup as well. Whereas Pdv beat the ABs on numerous occasions and 2009 we were simply unstoppable and don't tell me it's cause of players running the show whereas when we lose only Pdv would take the blame utter bs, Pdv is a better coach then this guy simple as that.

Our gameplan was absolute rubbish today and we did not deserve to win this game. All I'm saying after the world cup let's get rid of this Heyneke guy.
I completely agree, as the best rugby playing nation to ever exist, it is quite unacceptable to lose to anyone, therefore any coach who doesn't achieve a 100% record is useless and should be sacked etc etc.
Typical unrealistic bleating of the masses.

Edit: Our game plan was fine other than all our aimless kicking, which I do agree is a persistent problem in our game. Also the substitutions were ill-timed which needs to be rectified, but I'm honestly not sure if HM would have done that had it not been a WC year, it felt like he was testing our depth.
 
Last edited:
Edit: Our game plan was fine other than all our aimless kicking, which I do agree is a persistent problem in our game. Also the substitutions were ill-timed which needs to be rectified, but I'm honestly not sure if HM would have done that had it not been a WC year, it felt like he was testing our depth.

You're game plan was that aimless kicking - it was clearly a set tactic badly executed.
 
I completely agree, as the best rugby playing nation to ever exist, it is quite unacceptable to lose to anyone, therefore any coach who doesn't achieve a 100% record is useless and should be sacked etc etc.
Typical unrealistic bleating of the masses.

Edit: Our game plan was fine other than all our aimless kicking, which I do agree is a persistent problem in our game. Also the substitutions were ill-timed which needs to be rectified, but I'm honestly not sure if HM would have done that had it not been a WC year, it felt like he was testing our depth.

You got to stop making excuses for this guy, since he started coaching people have been making excuses for him when we lose, he's been very average at best with the Springboks. He has to take responsibility ,you can't just Base him on his previous success with the Bulls, we have to judge him now on how he's been with the Springboks on these past 3 seasons or so.. And mate its not looking good.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay besides me ranting about the coach. The gameplan was just bad, besides the execution. Our tactical kicking was was terrible, we were defending most of this game.I think it's time Lambie had a go. De Allendale was rather anonymous today to be be honest, but still our best 12 option at this point .

Substitutions were a bad call especially the whole front row being taken out. I did not even see Adrian Strauss the entire game when he came on. Our defence has been good though. But if we going to be kicking the ball away like we did today next weekend against the All Blacks, it's gonna be a long day.
 
You do have a point, the aimless kicking has been a persistent problem in SA rugby, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better, unfortunately though, running from your own half doesn't always work, and can be even more high risk if they turn it over in your 22. So basically sometimes you have to kick, my issue is therefore the execution of the kicking, and bad execution isn't the coaches fault, maybe the frequency of kicking is and for that he does deserve some chastisement.
Additionally while HM has his faults his win rate is perfectly acceptable A) and B ) he's capped far more players that have a chance to meaningfully impact SA rugby in the future. PdV did very little to change the World Cup winning template of 2007.
I'd give HM another 4 years if he wants the job (he might not, he looks liked he's aged 10 years since this he took the Bok job), partly because there isn't anyone better but still. Think about it, the Springboks still play a better brand of rugby than the majority of our Super Rugby franchises, specifically the Stormers, Bulls and Sharks.
 
Just watched the game, it's obvious that chieka has some head scratching to do, toomua looked great as did pocock, those are givens.. I think going back to foley 10 toomua 12 probably better option.

For some reason I still think the Aussies won't beat the AB yet I think SA have chance. I think you beat AB at the breakdown and the boks breakdown was very impressive, JP offered nothing I'm afraid, Eben was unreal and pollard looked great.

I think SA deserved the win, but it shows the game changers Aussies posses..
 
History should tell you Aussies that all this talk of a Pocock/Hooper loosie combination wont work. You need to select one and stick with him and for me thats Pocock. Hooper didnt offer much in this match for me. The big SA loose trio actually dominated for the majority of the match. When the SA 7 went off injured this also contributed to the change in fortunes.

I just dont see how a Hooper/ Pocock combination is going to work against almost any loosie combination NZ can put on the field. NZ's top combination of Kaino, Read and Mccaw will simply own them off the back of the scrum and in set piece and im sure will be smart enough not to just wander into the Pocock trap.

I remember Australia running double opensides back when George smith (and Phill Waugh) was around with Pocock and he's a better player than Hooper so how anybody thinks this will work is beyond me.

I think a better way of doing it is starting Pocock and Hooper comes on early like 50 minutes in or earlier.

- - - Updated - - -

The level of dominance of South Africas back row for the first 50 of this match was a real surprise I must say though.
 
Just wondering whether the turning point was actually Pocock coming on or QC going off...IMHO Genia + QC and Giteau not working so a failed experiment that shouldn't be repeated as it almost cost the Aussies the win... Phipps, Foley and Leiafano for mine...anyone but QC
Needed those flying Fijian wingers to boost the attack as well i.e Speight and Nairyaravoro..Very lucky win thanks to the other Fijian Tevita Kuridrani's last gasp try...

Fijians also starring in the NRL at the moment with Radarada scoring five doubles in a row just recently and looking odds on to taking out top try scorer in the
NRL completion ...Watchout for the Fijian national team at the RWC too as they could cause a major upset...dangerous as hell on attack..
 
^^ I think it was Genia and Cooper going off more than anything. But the SA backrow dominated until one went off injured and pocock came on so its a combination of a few things.
 
History should tell you Aussies that all this talk of a Pocock/Hooper loosie combination wont work. You need to select one and stick with him and for me thats Pocock. Hooper didnt offer much in this match for me. The big SA loose trio actually dominated for the majority of the match. When the SA 7 went off injured this also contributed to the change in fortunes.

I just dont see how a Hooper/ Pocock combination is going to work against almost any loosie combination NZ can put on the field. NZ's top combination of Kaino, Read and Mccaw will simply own them off the back of the scrum and in set piece and im sure will be smart enough not to just wander into the Pocock trap.

I remember Australia running double opensides back when George smith (and Phill Waugh) was around with Pocock and he's a better player than Hooper so how anybody thinks this will work is beyond me.

I think a better way of doing it is starting Pocock and Hooper comes on early like 50 minutes in or earlier.

- - - Updated - - -

The level of dominance of South Africas back row for the first 50 of this match was a real surprise I must say though.

I agree with you. The All Blacks generally play 60 minutes with a conventional back row and then bring Sam Cane on for Jerome Kaino. Bringing another 7 on makes sense for the last 20 because they are very athletic players. They can get around the field when other players are tired. It is less important to win the collisions in the last 20 because there is more space. Starting with two 7's is probably just going to leave you too light. Australia lacked forwards hitting the breakdown hard and doing the clean out. Skelton is huge but never seems to impose himself physically.
 
I just dont see how a Hooper/ Pocock combination is going to work against almost any loosie combination NZ can put on the field. NZ's top combination of Kaino, Read and Mccaw will simply own them off the back of the scrum and in set piece and im sure will be smart enough not to just wander into the Pocock trap

The All Blacks dealt with Pocock very effectively in the 2011RWC semi, using a few play variations.

1. When Pocock positioned himself on one side of the tackle/ruck, they ran the play to the other side

2. When they were forced to run to the same side as he was (e.g. when there was a very short blind), they ran at the player beside Pocock so that the latter was not the tackler and would have to go through the gate.

3. On those occasions where they couldn't avoid being tackled by Pocock, they made sure that a cleaner was right behind the ball carrier so that Pocock could not get to the ball first - cleaner takes him out as he gets to his feet.

These techniques effectively neutered him. In that match he made 13 tackles (missed 1) was an arriving player at more than 1/3 of the 170+ rucks in the game, and did not win a single turnover. His other stats (10 runs for 22m, six passes, one defender beaten & one offload) point to a very quiet game for him.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty happy if I'm a player and the other team has to do 3 specific things just to stay away from me.
 
Not sure the criticism of Hooper is at all fair. He scored a try, made a beautiful tackle on burger when inside his in goal, had a 100% tackle completion rate while tackling more than any other Australian.

I think there are some people on this forum, who don't even watch the games. They just have an opinion.
 
Last edited:
Mate hooper was good.. But he did nothing in the rucks and maul
 
Mate hooper was good.. But he did nothing in the rucks and maul

I'm not sure how he was demonstrably worse in that area than Pocock. Neither of them had a turnover.

Realistically I don't think it was a Wallaby tactic to commit numbers to the ruck. There wasn't need as South Africa would kick.

For the record I'm not saying it is wrong to prefer Pocock to Hooper. They are both great players. It's just not true that Hooper didn't offer much this game.
 
Last edited:
Not sure the criticism of Hooper is at all fair. He scored a try, made a beautiful tackle on burger when inside his in goal, had a 100% tackle completion rate while tackling more than any other Australian.

I think there are some people on this forum, who don't even watch the games. They just have an opinion.

I'm not sure I'd criticise Hooper - who basically did everything right bar the breakdown - but I felt that the game offered substantial proof of Australia needing Pocock to achieve parity in the breakdown, and I don't see how you play both of them together.

edit: Post typed without seeing the previous page. If people said Hooper did nothing, then they need their heads checked.
 
He did offer lots, just not in the same areas. Pocock didn't get a turnover but he made at least one forced penalty and the ball came out the back of the ruck a lot quicker when he and horwill came on
Hooper played too good to leave out for me though. Make room for both
 
You could play poey or hooper at 6, and replace Skelton with horwill or another jumper
 
You could play poey or hooper at 6, and replace Skelton with horwill or another jumper

I think if Australia try playing with two opensides, Skelton wouldn't be able to keep up anyway. I was disappointed in him, personally.


Looking at the Bok side of things...

I don't think Pollard is the answer right now. Lambie?
If Coetzee is seriously injured that's a giant kick to the nads.
Conversely, I don't think Matfield was missed and that Lood de Jaeger had a big game
Agree with those who've been questioning Le Roux's presence at full-back - he's magical but unreliable. What's the options there?
I was led to believe JdP should be put down, yet on the basis of that game it should be the sub front row taken out back with the shotgun en masse. What gives, Saffas?
 

Latest posts

Top