France v Australia, Saturday 19 November

[Quick Hands]

But do Australians really care that much? I think we mostly want the Bledisloe and the Webb Ellis. There's no special trophy for a grand slam right?

I actually think this France match is really important because you don't want your first free-to-air match (of this tour) to result in a loss.

And I might add that after a horror winter at home, we've just had a comfortable win against Wales and a close fought win with Scotland. A loss tonight would put us back a couple of steps, while a big loss puts us right back to where we were after Bledisloe 1.

 

[Quick Hands]

There's a good article by Mark Ella in the Aus this morning:

He believes Cheika is right in taking a calculated gamble with this game. Winning 4 games on tour will be hard enough, let alone trying to win all 5 with the same players each week.

But there's a world of difference between trying to win all 5 with the same players and making 11 changes for one match.

The middle ground is where we should be for a number of reasons.

 

[chasmac]

Cheika could not give two eggs getting square.


Nice analogy // description.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[fatprop]

Feel for Cooper in the lead up. He is behind a weaker pack, with likely worse scrum and line out. He has been injured all week and unable to train. He has only had 15 minutes of game over the last three games for some inexplicable reason.

He is missing the two best high ball takers as a kickoff, up and under or cross kick target. He is missing the three most damaging ball runners of the last few games as targets. He has a debutant at 12.

Does anyone think it is realistic that Cheika is giving him any real chance to push for a starting spot next week?

Actually it will be a good example of how I expect Aus's two following games to pan out, I expect the Aus backline to be working off backwards ball and a rush defence hounding them for the rest of the tour.

Cooper will get to demonstrate his wares under "like" conditions IMHO

 

[KOB1987]

But there's a world of difference between trying to win all 5 with the same players and making 11 changes for one match.

The middle ground is where we should be for a number of reasons.

I think it's just a different approach. By the sounds of it you would rotate 3 or 4 players each game, so over 5 games of the whole tour everyone would get a run and 15-20 key players would get one game off, so we'd never have a 100% strength side, but never far off it. I think it's just that Cheika believes to win the last 2 games we need all of our best players in the 23 and at 100%. SO he's identified the France game as the one we can win with an understrength side, which is understandable given their form over the last 12 months, their lack of a 10, big slow loosies and a similar number of total caps, plus it's also conveniently placed as the 'hump' game so some players can have a rest.

There are arguments for and against for both approaches, yours certainly works if you're the All Blacks. But we're not, we're the Wallabies and we need everyone on deck the next 2 weeks.

 

[Brumby Runner]

THAT may get Cheika's attention since the England pack will dominate the wallaby forwards.

Sure it is a big ask but that is what is needed if he hopes to start.

PK are you sure? Just watched the England/SA game from last week. The England pack certainly didn't dominate the SA pack. SA scrum was stronger, and I don't think they (SA) were dominant against the Wallabies in the RC. England did play better in the open than the SA forwards.

 

[Twoilms]

Actually it will be a good example of how I expect Aus's two following games to pan out, I expect the Aus backline to be working off backwards ball and a rush defence hounding them for the rest of the tour.

Cooper will get to demonstrate his wares under "like" conditions IMHO

We really need to work on our approach to the rush defense. Nail that and we overcome most teams best defense against our backline plays.

 

[PeterK]

PK are you sure? Just watched the England/SA game from last week. The England pack certainly didn't dominate the SA pack. SA scrum was stronger, and I don't think they (SA) were dominant against the Wallabies in the RC. England did play better in the open than the SA forwards.

The pack against Eng was significantly bigger than the one wallabies faced. They played a big lock Stephen Du Toit at blindside and Alberts a very big man at openside. Francis louw did not make the side.

England won the breakdown and handled the collisions well.

SA only won the scrums.

England beat the wallaby forwards in june. After June in the rc there was an improvement when Coleman and Timani were added. Coleman is out.

Of course I am not sure, it is an educated guess.

 

[PeterK]

We really need to work on our approach to the rush defense. Nail that and we overcome most teams best defense against our backline plays.

Kicking behind and up in the air so it can be contested, this forces the wings to stay back.

Go direct up the middle , get them back on the heels and then wide since the wingers are back.

Need a good kicker and a long pass, big forwards to get over the adv line.

Foley relied on Beale and Gits for the kicking and only showed it was in his arsenal against wales. Then the time was taken away against scotland and he couldn't do it again.

 

[Brumby Runner]

The pack against Eng was significantly bigger than the one wallabies faced. They played a big lock Stephen Du Toit at blindside and Alberts a very big man at openside. Francis louw did not make the side.

England won the breakdown and handled the collisions well.

SA only won the scrums.

England beat the wallaby forwards in june. After June in the rc there was an improvement when Coleman and Timani were added. Coleman is out.

Of course I am not sure, it is an educated guess.

The Wallabies invariably have the heavier scrum whomever they play. Whether they are against England or not, they just need to play like they are the heavier and stronger unit. Very much need Douglas to come into form to sit on the bench and for Fardy to replace Mumm at 6.

 

[Scotty]

This would be best placed in the thread for next week's game but it's relevant to this one as well so I'll plop it here.

I've been doing a bit of tea leave reading. It's reasonable to assume that the 7 players who are being 'rested' are going to occupy starter's jerseys for next weekend and are key to the game plan. The 4 forwards speak for themselves so I just want to focus on the backs for this exercise. Using last week's jersey numbers:

12. Hodge
14. DHP
15. Folau

What I find interesting is that Kuridrani is in the starting side tonight. I'm making an inference here that either he's playing for his spot for the next 2 games or that next week is when we are going to see Folau switch to 13. It also explains the persistence with Speight. I reckon the plan is for Folau to play 13. with Speight on the wing and they switch in defence so that Folau can man the back with DHP. Naivalu and Nayarovoro are playing off for the other wing spot.

Or it could simply be because Kuridrani is the only specalist 13 in the tour squad!

I don't think so. He would have been completely nuts if he also rested our defensive leader. Kuridrani is now very critical to our success in this game.

I expect that there are only two backline positions up for grabs:

Halfback - wouldn't be surprised to see Phipps start next week

Wing - the two wings and Morahan are in a shoot out for Speights wing in reckon.

 

[Scotty]

Actually it will be a good example of how I expect Aus's two following games to pan out, I expect the Aus backline to be working off backwards ball and a rush defence hounding them for the rest of the tour.

Cooper will get to demonstrate his wares under "like" conditions IMHO

If you regard like conditions as one having a bunch of blokes that haven't played (or barely trained together) vs one that has played the last three matches unchanged as 'like' conditions, then you are right.

 

[Quick Hands]

I think it's just a different approach. By the sounds of it you would rotate 3 or 4 players each game, so over 5 games of the whole tour everyone would get a run and 15-20 key players would get one game off, so we'd never have a 100% strength side, but never far off it. I think it's just that Cheika believes to win the last 2 games we need all of our best players in the 23 and at 100%. SO he's identified the France game as the one we can win with an understrength side, which is understandable given their form over the last 12 months, their lack of a 10, big slow loosies and a similar number of total caps, plus it's also conveniently placed as the 'hump' game so some players can have a rest.

There are arguments for and against for both approaches, yours certainly works if you're the All Blacks. But we're not, we're the Wallabies and we need everyone on deck the next 2 weeks.

That's pretty much how I'd approach it - it's also better long term IMO.

While I'd love to beat England - it's not really the scale upon which we should judge ourselves. The purpose of this tour should have a long term goal of RWC 2019 and a medium term goal of TRC/Bledisloe success in either 2017 or 2018. I can't see how having a narrow focus on a one-off test against England and/or the dubious claims to a grand slam is so important in the scheme of things.

And I'd note that while I am generally an enthusiastic Cheika supporter, I have disagreed with some of his decisions. Needless to say that he's been right more than I have in these matters.

 

[Scotty]

I think it's just a different approach. By the sounds of it you would rotate 3 or 4 players each game, so over 5 games of the whole tour everyone would get a run and 15-20 key players would get one game off, so we'd never have a 100% strength side, but never far off it. I think it's just that Cheika believes to win the last 2 games we need all of our best players in the 23 and at 100%. SO he's identified the France game as the one we can win with an understrength side, which is understandable given their form over the last 12 months, their lack of a 10, big slow loosies and a similar number of total caps, plus it's also conveniently placed as the 'hump' game so some players can have a rest.

There are arguments for and against for both approaches, yours certainly works if you're the All Blacks. But we're not, we're the Wallabies and we need everyone on deck the next 2 weeks.

You see though that he still could have done that over the first three games then gone into the last two with his best team (which may have changed based on performances in those games).

Instead he has picked his top team at the start of the tour and determined he will give them 4 games while nominating the B team for France.

It isn't the best way to grow depth and bring in new players and combinations at all. The motivation seems to about grand slam glory and saving facing on what has been a poor year to date.

 

[KOB1987]

You see though that he still could have done that over the first three games then gone into the last two with his best team (which may have changed based on performances in those games).

Instead he has picked his top team at the start of the tour and determined he will give them 4 games while nominating the B team for France.

It isn't the best way to grow depth and bring in new players and combinations at all. The motivation seems to about grand slam glory and saving facing on what has been a poor year to date.

I understand the rationale and benefits behind that approach, but it also has it's disadvantages. More often than not they are going to be introduced from the bench, so the amount of game time they get could be determined by how the game plays out (take Cooper & Latu last week who didn't even enter the arena), or if it's because of an injury they could find themselves playing in a big game in a position other than their preferred one. If they start and it's not going well there is the temptation to pull them and get the A grade reserve on the field.

This way at least they all get to start and play most of the game in their preferred positions and the destiny of the game is in their hands. Cheika has given them an opportunity against an opposition he thinks they can beat, it's totally up to them now. Massive experience.

 

[KOB1987]

That got me thinking about the use of the bench for this game:

Moore - reserve only
Sio - will come on at 50 mins
Robertson - same
Skelton - when Douglas knocks up
Mumm - reserve only but could come on when Skelton does, probably for McMahon
Phipps - come on at 50 mins
Foley - reserve only
Nayarovoro - will share a game with Naivalu

 

[KOB1987]

When you actually sit down and think about it there's a fair bit of logic behind the makeup of this team.

For starters, I'd say Cooper and Godwin have gotten to know each other pretty well over the past month. Cooper and Morahan know each other. Godwin and Morahan know each other. The link between Godwin and TK is probably the weakness, but I suspect we'll see a fair bit of Godwin trying to get over the gain line and TK slotting in at 2nd receiver in general play. Defensively they should work. Wingers are wingers, Speight and Kuridrani know each other.

For the forwards the back 5 all have played a lot of test footy together in varying combinations (except Pocock & McMahon but they should work together pretty well). The question mark is how well the front row will combine together. But you'd think it's been selected on what has been working at training.

Signing out, see you in the morning!

 

[Twoilms]

When you actually sit down and think about it there's a fair bit of logic behind the makeup of this team.

For starters, I'd say Cooper and Godwin have gotten to know each other pretty well over the past month. Cooper and Morahan know each other. Godwin and Morahan know each other. The link between Godwin and TK is probably the weakness, but I suspect we'll see a fair bit of Godwin trying to get over the gain line and TK slotting in at 2nd receiver in general play. Defensively they should work. Wingers are wingers, Speight and Kuridrani know each other.

For the forwards the back 5 all have played a lot of test footy together in varying combinations (except Pocock & McMahon but they should work together pretty well). The question mark is how well the front row will combine together. But you'd think it's been selected on what has been working at training.

Signing out, see you in the morning!

What you mean the coaches thought about the team they put out? no!

 

[Gagger]

I see the real reason for a lot of this butthurt is how playing in the B side doesn't shoo Cooper into the first team.

Everything we've seen last two years shows he's clearly second choice at 10 (out of two flawed candidates) and Cheik/Larkham have him pegged that way.

Therefore, excepting a few Queenslander's heads, there's no drive work Quade back to first choice 10 in an A team. Sinking or swimming this weekend is his best shot (other than Foley blowing up)

 

[KOB1987]

^^^^^Could be very unlikely given he hasn't trained since Tuesday apparently. Would Lance get a run to Keep Foley resting on the bench?

Further to this they said on sky news that foley and lance shared the duties at training. Given Godwin is at 12 and morahan at 15 it actually wouldn't be dumb to start lance and if QC (Quade Cooper) can't play I'm tipping that's what they will do.