Bigger is not always better - well not for the Wallabies.

[The_Brown_Hornet]

We probably see the game from a different perspective but I think Pocock & Hooper are the two best players in the country & they have proven that they work well together so I would go to greater lengths to mould a forward pack around them rather than Skelton.

That's a good point. Given that Hooper and Pocock combine so well and also create a point of difference (and headache for opposition coaches) you could make a strong argument for building a back five around them. That means the other three guys must be genuine line out jumpers and strong scrummagers.

Not a bad thing when you think about it: the tight five are focused on the set piece and winning first phase ball and our mobile back row getting around the park and securing possession, running it up the guts and linking with the backs. I rather like that as a strategy. It's also not a million miles away from the strategy that great coaches like Jacques Foroux, Alan Jones and Bob Dwyer had: big tight fives who could dominate the first phase, with skilful perpetual motion machines in the back row who could run and scavenge and support and link all day.

 

[Langthorne]

All things being equal, go for the big guy. The problem is that all other things don't tend to be equal, and there is the risk of making size a primary consideration when it should be the tie breaker.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I don't think coaches only look for size either anyway.

If that was the case Mitch Inman and Selasi Ma'afu would have 100 Wallaby Caps and Sitaleki Timani wouldn't have been shipped around to his 3rd franchise before cracking it.

 

[dru]

That's a good point. Given that Hooper and Pocock combine so well and also create a point of difference (and headache for opposition coaches) you could make a strong argument for building a back five around them. That means the other three guys must be genuine line out jumpers and strong scrummagers.

Hey Hornet. This has been the issue, one way or another, for the whole selection thing with the pigs.

Pooper is fab. So now add in Palu and big Will. Just doesn't seem sensible. Can only imagine that the options under consideration are NOT a Pooper A plan, and shuffle in options around them. But two clearly different back 5 strategies. Pooper is one.

Interesting to see exactly what is in mind with the other.

Commentary here, and everywhere else btw, seems focused on the first 15, or sometimes the first 23. But it does not gel with Cheikas language and his selections.

We would get into his mind, I suspect, by thinking through the 2nd 15 (noting that to Cheika this does NOT mean the second best 15).

Or more accurately, we seem to have something of a handle of Cheikas "A" game plan. But I'm not convinced he has sorted his "B" Plan. And I think most pundits are hung up on the former and showing little time for the later.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I think that's a good point. I don't know that Plan B is fully formulated yet, because what we ran in Bled 2 (Electric Boogaloo) didn't work against the All Blacks. It might against NH opposition though.

 

[Scotty]

The other 3 of the back five to complement Pooper must be something like:

Simmons
Douglas
Fardy

With Mumm and Skelton on the bench. When Skelton comes on they go to a short lineout?

Apart from the imbalance of Skelton it carries risk with Douglas likely lack of match fitness.

A more balanced side would have been:

Simmons
Horwill
Fardy

Mumm, Douglas

I understand the attraction to the potential of Skelton but more and more I believe Cheicka is a bit obsessed with him.