How can the Aussie team find their mojo?

Thanks to everyone who contributed a question, or added to the debate at the call-out stage. First things first – Aussie team for the month of May!

Nick Bishop’s Best Rugby Aussie Team of the Month

Numbers Player
1 Angus Bell
2 Cruise line
3 Alan Alaltoya
4 Matt Philip
5 Jade Holloway
6 Charlie Gamble
7 Michael Hooper
8 Harry Wilson
9 Nick White
10 Noah Lolesio
11 Manasa is drunk
12 Lalkai Phoketi
13 Lane Ikitau
14 Mark I’m not afraid
15 Tom Banks

In the trans-Tasman section of Super Rugby Pacific, there were many questions about the forces and the under-performance of the rebels:

I think that forces, and [even] More so the rebels have cattle to be more successful and they will probably benefit from better coaching. I believe that’s why the army brought in Simon Kron. Poor performance due to lack of talent or squad depth, or more to do with coaching?


Are the rebels and the forces clearly doing something wrong that can be corrected with better coaching, aren’t they personally good enough to implement a good plan, or am I wrong and the defense is all about culture and effort?


TC And Andrew Discuss the Queensland Reds:

Coming to the last Walabi camp I thought the Raiders were a bit unlucky, but after playing some of the New Zealand, I changed my mind. Why can they play well against the Brumbies – who play well against the Kiwis – but can’t play 80 minutes against the New Zealand team?


How are the Reds traveling (related to their injuries) please give me a penny for your thoughts?


This is still a burning question: why can’t Australian teams succeed on a regular basis against New Zealand opponents? Why do some Aussie teams, such as the Brumbies and Waratahs, fare better than the Red, Rebels and forces in the Trans-Tasman competition?

I have already given some ideas as to why this happens on a macro-statistical scale. The New Zealand team still averaged 35 minutes plus ball-in-play time, compared to Australia’s average of 32 and a half minutes. They are accustomed to keeping the ball for a long time even in a game – 18-19 minutes versus 16 minutes.

The Brumbies and Waratahs, who have won five Australian wins against the original Kiwi franchise so far in 2022, are more bulletproof against such statistics. They don’t go for rock-building in large numbers and are happy to play their set-piece and a strong defense.

Both sides scored more than 60% of their efforts from the lineout starter, with New Zealand’s top two opener scores much higher than the counter – 43% for the Blues and 34% for the Crusaders, compared to 24% for the Brumbies and slightly 15 for the Tahs. %. The Aussie teams that do best against New Zealand tend to show their style contrasts.

Now let’s take a look at the Queensland Reds. They score 41% on the counter, just like a good Kiwi team. Flip the coin to the other side, and you’ll find one of the poorest lineouts in the competition, with Fijian Drua and Moana Pacific topping the table at 79%. The Reds do not have the same ability to maintain high speeds throughout 80 minutes, with a relatively low average of 32 minutes of ball-in-play time.

There is an idea that the Reds are falling into the malls against New Zealand opponents, playing the same style as the Kiwis but unable to keep up with them over time.

The Force and the Rebels, on the other hand, conceding an average of 47 points per game from Aotaroa to opponents, are not defending well enough. The statistic again raises the question mark that it would not be good for Australia to commit to their top three teams without five in the Trans-Tasman competition. Will Force and Rebels be more suitable for 10m than Super Rugby?

Frankly That possibility is raised in the forum:

“I think it would be more convenient to replace the NRC with a competition with the Super Rugby team – replacing Wallaby and Australia A representatives with emerging talent from Club Rugby.”

Let’s take some examples where the Waraats are thriving, and they fail when the rebels oppose the Kiwi opposition. Wednesday’s article illustrates what a supercharged bench can achieve in the final quarter of a game and how it can help New Zealanders eliminate or at least balance the benefits they enjoy in matches with high ball-in-play times. That’s a great strategy.

To reduce the Kiwis’ chances to score at the counter, Rock’s safety is a great place to start. In the face of threats from the Highlanders at the Forsyth Bar Stadium in the tackle area, Waratah’s ball-throwing was outstanding:

This is newcomer Langie Gleason setting a long distance immediately after a short tackle bust. The ball is presented in full extension, which means it is far from being stolen, and only one person is needed to appear on the rack.

The Waratas are not winning the first three tackles, but they are rapidly recycling the ball, and that’s just as important. Finally the fast rock delivery reaches a tipping point which gives a clear break in the next order!

New South Wales are also adept at getting back to shape quickly in defense after conceding a turnover. In the following example, the Highlanders have just won a turnover, and in normal Kiwi fashion they move the ball wide to make an immediate break engineer on the opposite side of the field:

In the second clip, there are five players from Waratahs D around the ball on the first rock after the break:

After only three stages it is back in perfect shape, which means (finally) the attack has stopped, and is kept on the side line. Ability to quickly reorganize neutral turnover counters on at least three or four occasions during the game.

Rebels and forces, by contrast, leave many soft scores for comfort.

From a defensive standpoint, very few objections have been raised to prevent hurricanes from doing what they want to do. With the ball winning uncontested from the tail of the line, four rebel defenders are still ‘in the box’ directly behind the set-piece:

Rebel No. 9 (James Tuttle) has every reason to be more outspoken towards midfield and to be more aware of his opposite number Tjeperenra.

As the play progresses, the TJ Rebels are able to move as far as space between # 10 Carter Gordon and # 12 Matt Tumuar:

This gives Andrew Callaway an irresistible job with the rebels’ outer center, trying to choose which of the two runners (one inside, one outside) will get the ball and he chooses the wrong option. Billy Proctor scores without putting his hand on it. It’s all so much easier.

Joe Schmidt’s obvious influence in the blues and the Crusaders’ continued form (despite some rough play), has made it increasingly clear that [Ian] Not people for foster work?

Captain Pugwash

Look at the size of three-quarters of the hurricane against the rebels, including four players weighing more than 6’2 and weighing about 100 kg and another who had a significant impact on the bench (Peter Umaga-Jensen). Joe Schmidt never picked a second playmaker for Ireland, he chose the strongest midfield available.

Ireland also played about 70% of their rugby scrum-half under Schmidt, and Joe developed a sophisticated move designed to pull the defense out before rapping the rapper in the middle:

Will we see something similar from 2022 All Blacks? This should come as no surprise to Joe Schmidt’s bird-watchers in Ireland!


DJ Asked about an understanding of defense that is currently evolving under the new rules about the ball placed above the goal line:

Brumbis’ goal line defense against the Blues on Saturday night was quite epic. Is it the four attempts that they were able to hold? Looking at the ground it seemed like they were quite intentionally holding them by absorbing the power of the runner in a tackling style?


World Rugby recently changed referee results when an attacker was held above the goal line and could not ground the ball. It was a 5-meter scrum for the attacking side, now it’s a goal-line drop-out for defense, and the change is having a serious impact:

“Goal line dropout: A goal line drop-out is awarded when an offensive player, who brings the ball into the in-goal, is held.

Argument: To reward good defense and to improve the speed of the game. “

Defensive teams are quickly learning how to manage the game towards a release-valve provided by a goal-line drop-out – either intentionally allowing the attacker to enter and hold the in-goal area, or aiming the ball with a punch. Slap

In the first instance, the Reds drag Angus Blythe to Brumbis Mall over Queensland’s goal line, knowing he can keep his body under the ball to prevent grounding; Hugh Tizard punches the ball from Lucio Cinti in the second, second row to try the English Premiership game between the London Irish and Harlequins. In both cases, the attacking side is unable to maintain pressure with another offensive 5m scrum.


Reference standards were surrounded by interest:

The referee / TMO is under more scrutiny than ever before. And they (some) are making bad calls regularly. The incompetents are hurting our game.


Is the value [of refereeing] Is that bad? Are we expecting too much as fans? Is technology just giving our fans a lot more visibility and watching me out there for us than we used to?


What are the key ingredients of a top referee’s ‘cooking’? This is a very important question in an age where officials may have to calculate 38 different potential offenses for each of the 200 possible breakdowns in a match.

Every mistake can be replayed Annoyingly, Later minutes detail on social media. Top referees are those who can look beyond endless protocol and cut the rubbish of by-laws to believe their simple insights about their events.

Take a look at Wayne Burns’ decision in the recent English Premiership match between Harlequins and Leicester:

England’s prop Joe Marler sank slightly into a straight tackle as a result of the Tigers’ second-row column green and head-to-shoulder contact. A few months ago, this would have resulted in an automatic red card for Tucker, but in this example, Burns noticed that the man behind Marler, Alex Dombrand, pushed Queens’ loose head into the defender:

“What has happened is that Dombrand is pushing Marler … that means there is no chance of Green adjusting. Punishment against Dombrant – that’s the danger, and fine Queens. “

This is the first time I can think that the attacking party was punished in such an event, but you can see the clear common sense behind Burns’ argument. It broadens the sense of responsibility for head-to-head communication and makes all players, attackers and defenders more aware of their role.

The controversy was further broadened in a recent article by journalist Michael Ilwin:

The gum-shield technology used by Harlequins and Gloucester already tells us that 30% of collisions in an elite match occur directly with the head, while the vibrating brain experiences more than half of the growing impact. It’s a question of “strategists” who came up with it five-and-a-half years ago.

If about one-third of rugby field collisions involve head injuries and can cause real injuries without direct contact with the head, it finds many problems outside of referee protocol as they are now understood.


Many thanks again to all those who contributed a question, or developed discussion in the forum!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.