Wallabies v France 3
-
Rennie on the past Match interview with Stan when asked about the red card: "we thought it was shoulder on shoulder from the angles we saw but the refs made their call.
I mean, a few of our guys got clocked in the head but the difference is they just got up and got on with it..."
-
@mackerzzzz said in Wallabies v France 3:
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
@sparky lost to 14 men over 80.
This, 'oh its only our D team i wasnt even trying my hardest bro' is genuine schoolground nonsense.
They wont win the World Cup. When was the last time they even won thr 6N. They are flogs and will exit in the quarters.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. The depth and quality of france is nothing short of remarkable.
I would like to see australia try and beat a full strength french team at the very end of the season.
They may have lost this series but they are still one of the favorites for the world cup
That's a big call, I don't really follow NH rugby - have they been cleaning up the 6 nations lately?
-
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
@sparky lost to 14 men over 80.
This, 'oh its only our D team i wasnt even trying my hardest bro' is genuine schoolground nonsense.
They wont win the World Cup. When was the last time they even won thr 6N. They are flogs and will exit in the quarters.
They would have won the last two but for amusing slip-ups against Scotland. Think they will be a strong team in 2023 in their own backyard. But they are disadvantaging themselves by passing up opportunities to play together more often.
-
@no-quarter said in Wallabies v France 3:
Rennie looks to be building a great culture in the Wallabies, can only see them improving from here.
This is a key point. Rennie is clearly getting buy in from his players now and Australian rugby will only benefit from that.
-
-
Hard to take a team that regularly loses to Scotland seriously when it comes to WC favourites.
-
Great test to end an enjoyable series
That win by the wallabies is enormous for a young side. Good talent, good coach. Something building
-
@mariner4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
Great test to end an enjoyable series
That win by the wallabies is enormous for a young side. Good talent, good coach. Something building
Reality will greet them in a few weeks at Eden Park, unfortunately.
I'm overjoyed at the spirit but I'm resigned.
-
@nta said in Wallabies v France 3:
@mariner4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
Great test to end an enjoyable series
That win by the wallabies is enormous for a young side. Good talent, good coach. Something building
Reality will greet them in a few weeks at Eden Park, unfortunately.
I'm overjoyed at the spirit but I'm resigned.
Outcomes are irrelevant. Look for the things that work
-
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
@sparky lost to 14 men over 80.
This, 'oh its only our D team i wasnt even trying my hardest bro' is genuine schoolground nonsense.
They wont win the World Cup. When was the last time they even won thr 6N. They are flogs and will exit in the quarters.
What makes you say something like that ?
This is a third string French team. None of them are likely starters when the incumbents are back. Barlot must be ranked fifth or sixth in the pecking order behind Marchand,Chat,Bourgarit and Mauvaka. The same applies to the props and the locks. Couilloud is well behind Dupont and Serin, while today ´s 1st Five was not even cited among the top five players in his position..No one knew Jaminet before the series started.
And so on… -
Great watch
Great result -
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
@sparky 'would have won'. Go on, when was the last time they actually won something?
I think if you read carefully, he said they would have won - if they hadn't lost. Surely that's the kind of in depth analysis you're here for?
-
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@kirwan use your eyes mate, he only hit him in the jaw because the Frenchy was ducking. Needs to be some common sense here.
This is the sentiment that misses the point of the ruling altogether.
Sanctioning head contact is as much about getting players to change technique to reduce the amount of times it goes wrong unintentionally as it is to punish after the fact.
That's why they talk about a 'significant drop' i.e. you have to have been aiming below the nipple line or you were creating the dangerous situation.*I'm not judging this particular case just the way that some keep getting the basis behind the law wrong.
-
@crucial I get what the law is trying to do but you also have to take into account what the French player is doing aswell. I don’t think Koroibete’s technique is that bad in this case. In fact I thought it was a great hit, unfortunately he makes contact with the chin because the French fella leans into the tackle and then proceeds to act like a right twat.
There were worse tackles during the test, just take that reckless shot by Valentini late in the game as an example. If the refs are going to come down hard and penalise every tackle that’s around the chest area we wouldn’t have anyone left on the park. It’s a collision sport for Christ sake.
Saying to a player that they need to aim below the nipple line every tackle is all well and good, but it’s just not realistic due to how the opposition carry the ball into contact. Rennie summed it up perfectly post game.
-
@canes4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial I get what the law is trying to do but you also have to take into account what the French player is doing aswell. I don’t think Koroibete’s technique is that bad in this case. In fact I thought it was a great hit, unfortunately he makes contact with the chin because the French fella leans into the tackle and then proceeds to act like a right twat.
There were worse tackles during the test, just take that reckless shot by Valentini late in the game as an example. If the refs are going to come down hard and penalise every tackle that’s around the chest area we wouldn’t have anyone left on the park. It’s a collision sport for Christ sake.
Saying to a player that they need to aim lower or at the legs every tackle sounds fine, but it is just not realistic due to how the opposition carry the ball.
As I said, not judging against this particular instance or the diving/face clutching etc
Players/coaches need to go with the change of the game. If we are going to have bigger, faster harder players then there is a point that becomes unsafe. Front on upright tackles is that point.
If that means more offloads or more spilled ball from carrying it high then that is the new game. Target the ball/area above the nipples and you may find yourself on the sideline if it goes wrong.
I just don't agree that the tackler isn't at fault when they aim for a shoulder to chest level shot with no chance of pulling out and a player changes direction to try and avoid.BTW I wasn't targeting you either. Just that your post best summed up the point I wanted to make
