Gnostic's Week 11 - Form side

[Gnostic]

1. Robinson (Tahs)
2. Charles (Force) - TPN is just not 100% fit.
3. Kepu (Tahs)
4. Sharpe (Force)
5. Wykes (Force)
6. Dennis (Tahs)
7. Pocock (Force)
8. McCalman (Force)
9. Genia (Reds)
10. Cooper (Reds)
12. JOC (James O'Connor) (Force)
13. Delit (Force)
11. Morahan (Reds)
14. Turner (Tahs)
15. Shepherd (Force)

16. Hanson (Reds)
17. Cowan (Force)
18. Horwill (Reds)
19. Pyle (Rebels)
20. Robinson (Reds)
21. Phipps (Rebels)
22. Beale (Tahs)

I thought that this week was a game too far for the Reds. Even though it was a close thing I feel the Reds forwards in particular looked a bit off the pace and tired. Not to be unexpected given their schedule over the last couple of weeks.

IMO Phipps has to be firming in front of Burgess for the Wallabies back-up spot. Burgess is going backwards in terms of performance and skills execution. His running is top class as always but all other skills are declining.

Pyle has to be a smokey for the RWC. He has clearly overtaken all the other pretenders for the back-up TH Lock position. Sharpe and Horwill are first choice overall IMO with Wykes, Pyle and Simmons or Douglas to fill the squad. I know that this won't happen and Mumm/Chisholm will fill the spots again.

Note that Alexander was penalised heavily again for hinging and collapsing. It would be ludicrous to select him at prop for Oz in the RWC as he will get penalised out of the game again.

 

[Ali's Choice]

I thought Mumm was probably marginally better than Wykes. And surely a centre played better than Delit? Overall a pretty good team selection though.

 

[Richo]

I thought Gerrard played very well, but I only saw scraps of the Force v Saders so I don't really know if he was better than Delit.

 

[Gnostic]

I thought Gerrard played very well, but I only saw scraps of the Force v Saders so I don't really know if he was better than Delit.

Delit played very well against the best centre pairing in the competition. His defence was very good, especially considering this was his third? starting game. Gerrard played well but against pretty poor opposition that asked few questions.

I was unimpressed with Mumm, AC, driven back in contact too often and the lineout was forced to go short to 2 regularly, even before TPN went off. Again Mumm a regular test starter was up against relative rookies and didn't shine while Wykes a rookie was against the Saders and was dominant in defence and strong in attack while performing his core tasks of scrum and lineout very well. Considering the starting front of of the Force I thought they did very well.

 

[Ali's Choice]

I was unimpressed with Mumm, AC, driven back in contact too often and the lineout was forced to go short to 2 regularly, even before TPN went off. Again Mumm a regular test starter was up against relative rookies and didn't shine while Wykes a rookie was against the Saders and was dominant in defence and strong in attack while performing his core tasks of scrum and lineout very well. Considering the starting front of of the Force I thought they did very well.

I don't think Wykes played badly, but I don't think he was a prominent as Mumm at the breakdown area. IMO Mumm is one of the hardest working locks in SANZAR, though as you alluded to he sometimes gets out-muscled at the contest.

 

[qwerty51]

Mumm has an exceptionally high work-rate but a lot here question his effectiveness. He needs to bulk up a bit.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Mumm has an exceptionally high work-rate but a lot here question his effectiveness. He needs to bulk up a bit.

Or just get more aggressive

 

[Brumbies Guy]

I don't understand how James Hanson makes your bench. There's a few posters who seem content on blindly selecting this bloke as default at the moment in hope that he develops into that Moore/TPN hybrid we all want as the Wallabies 3rd string for the RWC, he just isn't it yet and last night proved it.

I do think that Peter Kimlin warrants a spot though.

 

[GC]

Hanson was shocking and got pulled. S Fainga'a was far better. An unfit TPN was far better. Just by walking in the field Moore was better.

Like the run-on team though.

 

[Gnostic]

Didn't pick Moore for the simple fact that the Mules lineout was under pressure and their scrum woeful. He was Ok in the loose - but far from his best. The fact that he was let down by his second row and front row partners is a big factor, but lets not lose sight of the fact that the Mules were playing the second worst team in the competition, while the Reds were up against half the AB front row and the Force the other half.

TPN isn't fit and shouldn't have played even before the latest head knock.

Kimlin was best on park for the Mules, by far. But I went for Dennis in the run on because he was also very very good and Horwill to cover 2nd Row and 6/8 from the bench along with Robinson for 7. Just no room for Kimlin. Do agree though he was their best.

 

[inthestands]

These sort of things are obviously subjective, but how can you pick nine players in the starting XV of a team of the week out of a side which conceded 42 pointss, scored 60% of their points from penalties and lost the game?

I'll acknowledge the Force's effort and their matches with the Crusaders, for some reason, are always competitive and great to watch, but they don't deserve that many in there.

Brumbies didn't concede many more points - and outscored their opponents for 60 minutes - yet got no one in the 22.

In saying that... I'm not throwing forward a 22, just my 2 cents worth...

 

[rugbysmartarse]

Serves the brumbies right for playing during the night.

 

[Groucho]

These sort of things are obviously subjective, but how can you pick nine players in the starting XV of a team of the week out of a side which conceded 42 pointss, scored 60% of their points from penalties and lost the game?

I'll acknowledge the Force's effort and their matches with the Crusaders, for some reason, are always competitive and great to watch, but they don't deserve that many in there.

Brumbies didn't concede many more points - and outscored their opponents for 60 minutes - yet got no one in the 22.

In saying that... I'm not throwing forward a 22, just my 2 cents worth...

The Force played infinitely better than the Brumbies.

 

[farva]

These sort of things are obviously subjective, but how can you pick nine players in the starting XV of a team of the week out of a side which conceded 42 pointss, scored 60% of their points from penalties and lost the game?

I'll acknowledge the Force's effort and their matches with the Crusaders, for some reason, are always competitive and great to watch, but they don't deserve that many in there.

Brumbies didn't concede many more points - and outscored their opponents for 60 minutes - yet got no one in the 22.

In saying that... I'm not throwing forward a 22, just my 2 cents worth...

So the idea is that you offer your opinion as to who should have been there and give your reasons.

 

[Gnostic]

Simply because as Groucho said the Force players were better, especially so given how well the Crusaders played.

Have a look at the Force players I picked and then consider who they played against and didn't get their backsides whipped. Now consider how average the Mules played and consider who they played against and how average the opposition actually played.

I don't look at who or how (penalty or try) points are scored. I look only for the modes of play, application and the technical skill aspects required.

Just think if I went on tries only there would be many more Tahs players in the squad, but the fact is their mode of play and application was pretty ordinary.

Not as many Reds this week, as I felt and (tipped as part of my complete round of tipping I might add for the Superbru Yellow Cap) it was a week too far for them, especially the pigs. Yet even in their lethargy they were better than the Mules, who show little cohesion. Kimlin as I said was their shining light.