Australia v New Zealand - Sydney 16 Aug

[Braveheart81]

I think the most interesting conundrum for Link is whether he puts AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) at 13 now or waits until Speight is available to make that move. I think with the lack of wingers available, Kuridrani at 13 and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) at 14 gives the Wallabies a stronger side overall but AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) is definitely our best 13 and one of the most certain starting XV players in the team. The fact that after 94 tests he's in the best form of his life is quite phenomenal.

The two big improvers from the bench in the June series are clearly Phipps and Beale. I would probably keep them on the bench at this stage but the question Link has to answer for himself is how close are they to the starting team and whether he's willing to consider Beale as a 12 or just as a 10.

If Link is thinking that they'll make the starting team only if White, Foley and/or To'omua have an almight shocker then keeping them on the bench is the right move.

If Link is thinking that a loss in the first Bledisloe Test at home with an average performance by any of them will result in the switching to the bench, then perhaps he should be selecting Phipps or Beale for the first test.

Interesting situation and clearly excellent for the Wallabies to have bench players pushing so strongly for a starting position.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Kob, Beale has been great. But he has not been so exceptional and flawless that he has to play and they should look at any way they can fit him in. He has been great in attack and played a very good Super Rugby style that may not be as effective in tests.

I think your suggestions is actually ridiculously stupid. We have since Stirling Mortlock, lacked a penetrative runner and imposing presence in the backline. Link seems to have found that in Kuridrani finally and your suggestion is we drop him for a bloke that's 90kgs ringing wet. Should be the perfect backline to get steamrolled consistently by Nonu, Savea, De Villiers and co.

 

[Train Without a Station]

BH, I still don't see AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) taking Kuridrani's spot. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) was in better form at 13 than him last year too and was moved to the wing. Kuridrani provides the option we need in the midfield. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) is basically a certainty to start so surely it will be the other winger that drops out to make way for Speight.

In addition AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) as a former test fullback is good under the high ball and provides a decent (but not great) back 3 kicking option we lack.

 

[KOB1987]

what is ridiculously stupid is the notion that one has to be big to be penetrative and imposing..size is much easier to counter than class

 

[Scoey]

at least he gets to play

This is the exact opposite to the thinking that we need. My disdain is not directed at you personally KOB but the attitude as a whole that has crept into the Wallabies fan base at large that seems to think that if you shoehorn 15 excellent players into a team then the wins will come.

Rugby has always been a game for all different shapes, sizes and skillsets. We need to focus on where each player is best suited and then pick them or not solely based on this.

 

[Train Without a Station]

All things being equal a bigger player will be more penetrative and imposing than a smaller player. That's a fact, not ridiculous. Some players play above their weight and some below which changes that but as the old saying goes, a good big player will always beat a good smaller player.

I'd not saying we need a backline of loose forwards, but we do need one guy who can get over the gain line. Considering that just about every international team does this, I'd some I'm not exactly Robinson Crusoe.

Or we could just do the same thing we have done since Mortlock retired and just wonder why we can't beat teams like the All Blacks.

 

[Braveheart81]

BH, I still don't see AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) taking Kuridrani's spot. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) was in better form at 13 than him last year too and was moved to the wing. Kuridrani provides the option we need in the midfield. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) is basically a certainty to start so surely it will be the other winger that drops out to make way for Speight.

In addition AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) as a former test fullback is good under the high ball and provides a decent (but not great) back 3 kicking option we lack.

I do. I'd be surprised if Link wasn't considering that if he had Speight, JOC (James O'Connor) and Cummins (and any other excellent wing options) all available and in form he wouldn't be thinking that AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) is still in his starting side and that position would be at 13.

If it came down to it, I can see Kuridrani getting benched or dropped far more easily than AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) if there was only space for one of them.

 

[Train Without a Station]

BH I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm sure one of us will be proven right by December either way.

 

[Brumby Runner]

A good impact, or a bad impact? The impact that any given player has at Test level has to come in addition to his achievement of the bread-and-butter aspects of the position he players.

A hooker who is an impact player, but cannot throw into the lineout, or organise a scrum, for example, would not be in my team.

Ditto for Skelton, at the moment. He can and must learn to do the bread-and-butter stuff efficiently at Test level, against players who certainly can. His "impact" has to be the icing on the cake. Cannot make a particularly good cake out of just icing.

Think you're selling Will a bit short on his abilities to do the bread and butter. He is the most effective maul spoiler we're likely to see, and to my mind that is bread and butter for a lock. He also seems to scrum better after some time with the Wallabies. It's just his lineout work that need a lot of improving. In my opinion, when he is used in the lineout he should stand at 2 where his natural height presents an obstacle for opposing hookers to surmount, thus putting pressure on the throw. When not in the lineout, he can be used to hit the ball up in the 10/12 channel as an option to using Palu there all the time.

 

[KOB1987]

All things being equal a bigger player will be more penetrative and imposing than a smaller player.

Yes, give me a 120kg Kurtley Beale and a 90kg one and I'll pick the former one any day.

That's not what you said though..you are suggesting that an out of form player who is big is more penetrative and imposing than an in form player who is smaller.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Who's the out of form player? Kuridrani was good last test season, average when he got back from suspension, good in the June tests and in the finals.

Beale's form is not being line breaking and imposing so it's irrelevant to the discussion of what the team needs. If he is going to be in the team it needs to be at the expense of Folau or Foley or another player who players a similar style of game. Not the one bloke providing a real point of difference.

 

[Braveheart81]

The best thing for the Wallabies right now is that the players who are being pushed for their starting positions most (White, Foley, To'omua, Kuridrani) all have to be considered form players as well.

 

[Highlander35]

Yeah, but Kuridranis acceleration reminds me of Ma'afa. Topline speed, yeah, that's pretty good, but he doesn't hit the gaps or the man at the pace that a Basteraud, or a Nonu does.

 

[KOB1987]

This is the exact opposite to the thinking that we need. My disdain is not directed at you personally KOB but the attitude as a whole that has crept into the Wallabies fan base at large that seems to think that if you shoehorn 15 excellent players into a team then the wins will come.

Rugby has always been a game for all different shapes, sizes and skillsets. We need to focus on where each player is best suited and then pick them or not solely based on this.

I don't disagree with this, but you need put it in the context it was used, and that is that he is wasted on the wing..but it's a position which his skillset and aptitude (i.e. size, shape) may actually be the best fit.

 

[KOB1987]

Who's the out of form player? Kuridrani was good last test season, average when he got back from suspension, good in the June tests and in the finals.

Beale's form is not being line breaking and imposing so it's irrelevant to the discussion of what the team needs. If he is going to be in the team it needs to be at the expense of Folau or Foley or another player who players a similar style of game. Not the one bloke providing a real point of difference.

I'm not actually saying that Kuridrani should be dropped for Beale, I'm saying (like most others here) that AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) should start at 13. That's separate to my other argument that Beale is a natural fit for the wing.
The outcome of course is that Kuridrani is benched or misses out completely, but I'm choosing Beale over McCabe, not Kuridrani.

 

[Train Without a Station]

You're advocating the shuffling of the side and changing 3 players. One comes out, one comes in and one changes positions. That's saying Kuridrani should be dropped for Beale. For the balance of the backline, Kuridrani needs to stay and Beale is surplus to starting requirements regardless of which position they play.

 

[KOB1987]

That is the outcome yes, but I am looking at the 2 in isolation. I was at loggerheads with you last week about playing Beale on the wing, and at the time that was over both Horne AND McCabe. I remain firm-footed on that.

Since the weekend I have joined the 'AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) to start at 13' bandwagon because he's on fire and Kuridrani is not at his best (not poor, but below par for him). The result of that is that another wing spot is created, and I've put Horne into that one over McCabe, although there isn't much between the two.

You're saying that my thinking is 'Kuridrani needs to go, and Beale's the one to take his spot'..it's not.

 

[Braveheart81]

If I was trying to squeeze Foley, Beale and To'omua into the starting side it would probably be Foley that I'd play on the wing rather than Beale.

That said, I wouldn't do that.

I think Beale is only a hair's breadth behind Foley at 10 right now as his attacking game is better and he's more instrumental in dictating the attacking play for the Tahs than Foley at first receiver.

I'd be tempted to give Beale a crack at 12 over To'omua but probably wouldn't because Beale's defence is an issue.

To'omua needs to straighten the attack though. He didn't do that well against France and Beale was better at it off the bench. The suggestion that Beale crabs has been completely shattered this year in my view. He's been very direct and his short and long passing have been superb.

Test rugby is a different beast to Super Rugby and mistakes are more routinely punished (hence why I'm not advocating for Beale to play 12 for the Wallabies). To'omua's defence at 12 is crucial for the Wallabies but he also needs to be careful. The better teams in Super Rugby did capitalise on his rush defence and that will happen more often in the test arena. It's brilliant when he makes that tackle but it's damaging when he doesn't.

 

[Slim 293]

...........

After all this time, Link is still likely just to go with the same team he took into the French series with only forced changes (hooker, wing)....

There really is no need for unnecessary changes.....

 

[Train Without a Station]

But Beale HAS TO START dammit Slim!