England v Australia, Saturday 3 December

[fatprop]

Also the fun fact that we (and most countries) don't commit many units to defensive rucks unless there is a call

 

[PeterK]

Against Scotland Timani competed at 3 defensive rucks and 6 against Wales.

Are you really saying that he would have made all the difference in the first half against Ireland at the breakdown?

I think he would have had minimal defensive ruck involvement because we were on the back foot constantly, scrambling to defend and the only player we were at all willing to commit to defensive rucks was Pocock who had very limited success because there were few good opportunities to compete for the reasons already stated.

I don't think team selections in the backrow would have had any real impact in that first half against Ireland because we were comprehensively beaten across the park.

Surely Timani's ruck cleanouts have and will always be most beneficial when we have the ball which is not the situation in that first half against Ireland.

He competed mainly in attacking breakdowns i.e clearing bodies away which means the ball would have been protected better than it was. Those early pilfers by Ireland may not have happened. How many times did they get a penalty or turnover the ball in the first half, quite a few.

 

[Scrubber2050]

The minutes received by bench players during Cheika's coaching tenure seem to correlate pretty well to the quality of the bench.

At the RWC we had a far stronger bench and they got substantially more game time as a result.

Sounds like Chek not doing his job then. It's difficult to win test matches. Makes it more difficult to play 15 against 23 (except for a few minutes), particularly against the better teams - and now there are a few teams playing better than us

 

[PeterK]

Sounds like Chek not doing his job then. It's difficult to win test matches. Makes it more difficult to play 15 against 23 (except for a few minutes), particularly against the better teams - and now there are a few teams playing better than us

wallabies have been hit by injuries and by players joining clubs and are unavailable.

That is why the bench lacks talent, that is not cheika's fault.

In fact the super rugby coaches failed more in developing talent.

Cheika has done a good job improving the new players, biggest issue he delayed too long in introducing them.

 

[boyo]

Big bags of money perhaps? Because, there is no other logical explanation

The right biscuits.

 

[fatprop]

Sounds like Chek not doing his job then. It's difficult to win test matches. Makes it more difficult to play 15 against 23 (except for a few minutes), particularly against the better teams - and now there are a few teams playing better than us

Yeah clearly there is this set of experienced, game changing test players who are available at the moment to make major impact off the bench at home doing the gardening just waiting for the call up

 

[Moono75]

Wallabies v England.........or as some call it 'Rope a Dope 4'.

For the Wallabies to win we need 23 men who cherish that gold jumper more than an Englishman enjoys taking a bath

 

[dru]

Most of mumm's run metres are out wide, Timani's are all in tight getting front foot ball.

Is that correct though? At the moment with our structures both of these guys play in the inner pod in attack. Distance made is within the same game area.

Mumm might not be as "effective", and I know what you mean even if the term is somewhat subjective. But we gain in the line out. I realise that you are not in favour of the Pooper, but while it is there, the remaining loose forward must be a creditable jumper when we face a decent line out opposition.

Hoping we get away with it against England, there is a chance of it, but only because they a low on second row stocks.

 

[fatprop]

Despite being low in locks, Kruis & Lawes are streets ahead of we have to put out

 

[Highlander35]

Despite being low in locks, Kruis & Lawes are streets ahead of we have to put out

 

[amirite]

Is that correct though? At the moment with our structures both of these guys play in the inner pod in attack. Distance made is within the same game area.

Mumm might not be as "effective", and I know what you mean even if the term is somewhat subjective. But we gain in the line out. I realise that you are not in favour of the Pooper, but while it is there, the remaining loose forward must be a creditable jumper when we face a decent line out opposition.

Hoping we get away with it against England, there is a chance of it, but only because they a low on second row stocks.

Are you sure?

There are a couple of different shapes the Wallabies run. Mumm works in the middle in some of them, however in the primary one there's 2 pods of 3 in the middle, one of the locks/8 and one of the front row, then the flankers play wide.

 

[amirite]

Despite being low in locks, Kruis & Lawes are streets ahead of we have to put out

England have 4-5 test starting quality locks. It's insane.

We have 2, but unfortunately one seems to be burnt out and one is injured.

Other then that we have 1 guy who's returning from injury (but should be good eventually), and then 2 veterans who tick some boxes but not others.

They however have Tom Wood on their flank, who is past it and gave away a lot of penalties as is.

 

[dru]

Are you sure?

There are a couple of different shapes the Wallabies run. Mumm works in the middle in some of them, however in the primary one there's 2 pods of 3 in the middle, one of the locks/8 and one of the front row, then the flankers play wide.

Yes there are a couple of detail changes which changes how tight in members of that inner pod are. I'm not sure it's sufficiently material to change the nature of the stats though.

What i see in attack is the Pooper being wide. If they are flankers then we agree. But I think its the same structure when Pocock wears no 8.

Am I missing something?

 

[Scrubber2050]

Yeah clearly there is this set of experienced, game changing test players who are available at the moment to make major impact off the bench at home doing the gardening just waiting for the call up

Well you wouldn't know if they'd go well.Plenty of starters have faltered in the second half but Chek adheres to his favourites, irrespective of how they are playing.

It's a 23 man game. and we seem to play with less than that.

ANY knowledgeable exponent of the game knows that correct use of the bench is crucial. I have always said that if the starter is dominating, leave him on and flog him (no problems from me), but when he starts to falter or is playing shit (even at 20 minutes), hook him and chuck another bloke on.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Personally I think Phipps starting (even though a Tah ) is an added bonus for the team.

The bloke is a real team man (and others in the team are not) and brings immense enthusiasm onto the paddock. He may do a shitty thing or 2 but so does Genia.. He just seems to love playing rugby.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Is that correct though? At the moment with our structures both of these guys play in the inner pod in attack. Distance made is within the same game area.

Mumm might not be as "effective", and I know what you mean even if the term is somewhat subjective. But we gain in the line out. I realise that you are not in favour of the Pooper, but while it is there, the remaining loose forward must be a creditable jumper when we face a decent line out opposition.

Hoping we get away with it against England, there is a chance of it, but only because they a low on second row stocks.

At least against Ireland it looked as though 4/5/8 (Pocock) were in the closer pod and the front row were in the other.

Bring Timani in and he's really replacing Pocock in the attacking structure, while Pocock would replace Mumm out wide.

Whatever your view about Pocock v Timani v Fardy in close, I'd rather have Mumm out wide than Pocock - and Mumm out there for Fardy as well! And I think Cheik would too.

 

[PeterK]

Is that correct though? At the moment with our structures both of these guys play in the inner pod in attack. Distance made is within the same game area.

Mumm might not be as "effective", and I know what you mean even if the term is somewhat subjective. But we gain in the line out. I realise that you are not in favour of the Pooper, but while it is there, the remaining loose forward must be a creditable jumper when we face a decent line out opposition.

Hoping we get away with it against England, there is a chance of it, but only because they a low on second row stocks.

against England it makes more sens to play Mumm at 6 than against Ireland.

Arnold is out, Douglas is not that proficient in the lineout.

So 6 Fardy / Mumm, 7 Pocock 8 Timani hooper bench is a more balanced and better select against England.

Lineout will struggle, england will kick for territory and lineouts.

 

[amirite]

Yes there are a couple of detail changes which changes how tight in members of that inner pod are. I'm not sure it's sufficiently material to change the nature of the stats though.

What i see in attack is the Pooper being wide. If they are flankers then we agree. But I think its the same structure when Pocock wears no 8.

Am I missing something?

You've lost me, I'm just saying Mumm generally carries wider because of the shape they run.

 

[Twoilms]

Scrubber, it's probably because our bench is turd. As i said originally.

 

[amirite]

Scrubber, it's probably because our bench is turd. As i said originally.

It'd prefer to describe our bench as 'very green'.

Don't confuse that with a green turd though.