Pumas vs Wallabies - Sunday 9th October @ Twickenham

[TOCC]

Since 1999 we have been consistently average. There are no trophy's for that.

Well.... besides the Tri-Nations Trophy, Rugby Championship, Bledisloe Cup, Mandela Plate(RSA), Puma Trophy(Arg), Tom Richards Cup(B&I Lions), Cook Cup(Eng), James Bevan Trophy(Wales), Lansdowne Cup(Ire) and a few others which the Wallabies have all won since 1999.

To be fair, the William Web Ellis Cup is the only trophy they haven't won, but they have managed to feature in 2 of the 4 RWC Grand Finals in that period.

 

[mst]

Well.. besides the Tri-Nations Trophy, Rugby Championship, Bledisloe Cup, Mandela Plate(RSA), Puma Trophy(Arg), Tom Richards Cup(B&I Lions), Cook Cup(Eng), James Bevan Trophy(Wales), Lansdowne Cup(Ire) and a few others which the Wallabies have all won since 1999.

To be fair, the William Web Ellis Cup is the only trophy they haven't won, but they have managed to feature in 2 of the 4 RWC Grand Finals in that period.

I was mainly referring to the big dance with the comment but point taken, we had did win some silverware before the current run of mediocrity.

As for the 2 of 4 RWC GF - more chances than most but still nothing to show.

 

[ForceFan]

Final Bench selection:
16 James Hanson
17 Tom Robertson
18 Allan Ala'alatoa
19 Kane Douglas
20 Scott Fardy
21 Leroy Houston
22 Nick Phipps
23 Tevita Kuridrani

Has to be one of the most unbalanced Wallabies teams that I've seen.

Pumas Team:
1 Lucas Noguera Paz
2 Agustin Creevy
3 Ramiro Herrera
4 Guido Petti Pagadizaval
5 Matias Alemanno
6 Pablo Matera
7 Javier Ortega Desio
8 Leonardo Senatore
9 Martin Landajo
10 Santiago Gonzalez Iglesias
11 Ramiro Moyano
12 Jeronimo De La Fuente
13 Matias Orlando
14 Matias Moroni
15 Joaquin Tuculet

16 Julian Montoya
17 Santiago Garcia Botta
18 Enrique Pieretto Heilan
19 Marcos Kremer
20 Juan Manuel Leguizamon
21Tomas Cubelli
22 Gabriel Ascarte
23 Lucas González Amorosino

Updated.....

 

[Joe Blow]

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/sanchez-montero-ruled-out-for-argentina/

Sanchez and Montero confirmed out. Big blows for Los Pumas

 

[KOB1987]

Wallabies by 30

 

[TSR]

Well.. besides the Tri-Nations Trophy, Rugby Championship, Bledisloe Cup, Mandela Plate(RSA), Puma Trophy(Arg), Tom Richards Cup(B&I Lions), Cook Cup(Eng), James Bevan Trophy(Wales), Lansdowne Cup(Ire) and a few others which the Wallabies have all won since 1999.

To be fair, the William Web Ellis Cup is the only trophy they haven't won, but they have managed to feature in 2 of the 4 RWC Grand Finals in that period.

Your post just made me think of this, and I believe the golden rule is never pass up a chance to throw in a Monty Python clip -

 

[dru]

Can anyone tell me what's with the now routine "one to be omitted" Wobs bench?

WoB, it's bloody frustrating when you're writing a preview. Worse now that he starts with "bench to be named" and later "one to be omitted". It IS bollocks. The only excuse I can find is he hasnt decided on 6/2 or 5/3.

Similarly, barring multiple injuries, how can you possibly burn through so many locking duos?.

Also doing in my head. My guess, fwiw, is He wants Coleman to take over as the "locked in" lock. Simmons doesnt offer enough around the park. I suspect he wants another BIG lock with him. Skelton would be ideal (I'm working from a presumption of being in Cheik's head space" but just not mobile enough.

Predictably the line out has suffered. So he drags back Simmons. And Mumm. You will have noticed that Coleman is calling, but recently only after a conflad with Simmons and Mumm, clearly in a training role (being called leadership).

So Simmons is using his "leadership" to put himself out of a job. Admirable.

The second lock is going through a similar transition, initially from Horwill but also from Douglas.

In time I suspect we will see the same thing with Mumm.

This week against the short, not very renowned, argy locks, he's trying the combo he wants. Against the ABs, dont be surprised if he reverts to Simmons and or Douglas.

 

[Joe Blow]

I take it the extra person on the bench"to be omitted" is two fold in that it keeps the opposition guessing and gives recognition to the 24th player who has trained well but is just not needed.
I hope Arnold and Coleman go well together. Neither have played a full test match yet so we may see Mumm finishing off in the row with Douglas.
Hope they kick arse!!

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Mate, you're all over the shop.

First you had a crack at the number of locking combinations we've played as being "mind games bullshit" while saying that "Even rotating three or four guys makes more sense than what TGC is doing".

When told that we were in fact rotating four players (having presumably failed to realise that four players yield six pairs in combination) you then took a set against that, claiming that "not like any of them have played so many consecutive games they're in need of a break to prevent burnout", implying that managing workload is some form of godless Michael Cheika invention.

Now, when challenged on that, you're having some kind of whiny, passive-aggressive gloat.

You're like an old queen at a country barbecue.

[That lock-picking crack was pretty good though. I'll borrow that if I may. ]

If he were truly rotating four guys of roughly equal ability/ effectiveness, they'd have similar minutes. They don't, yet none of them has so many more minutes than any of the others for it to be about player welfare (as with Whitelock last week & Retallick earlier).

Agree to disagree, I s'pose.

You're most welcome to the Houdini reference, btw

 

[KOB1987]

If he were truly rotating four guys of roughly equal ability/ effectiveness, they'd have similar minutes. They don't, yet none of them has so many more minutes than any of the others for it to be about player welfare (as with Whitelock last week & Retallick earlier).

Agree to disagree, I s'pose.

You're most welcome to the Houdini reference, btw

Douglas and Coleman do, don't forget that Arnold was late on the scene as he was injured at the start and played a couple of rounds of NRC. As a rookie he's been eased into side. Mumm was in the row at the start of the series too.

However, it does look like Simmons is being 'phased out'.

I think this week is more about giving the young guys the helm as it's possibly the combination he sees for the future so is giving it a crack against a slightly weaker opposition. Most of the last 2 pages of this thread have been people arguing for him to do just that and personally I don't really see the issue with it in this instance, I think it's great.

 

[Marcelo]

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/sanchez-montero-ruled-out-for-argentina/

Sanchez and Montero confirmed out. Big blows for Los Pumas

Now this is a MUST win game for the Wallabies without Tomas Lavanini, Facundo Isa, Nicolas Sanchez and Juan Martin Hernandez

 

[Lindommer]

.....Coleman to take over as the "locked in" lock.

Would that make Coleman the first lock picked?

 

[Train Without a Station]

Haven't we used the following players at lock since the first test of 2016:

1. Simmons
2. Arnold
3. Horwill
4. Carter
5. Mumm
6. Skelton
7. Coleman
8. Douglas

That's definitely more than 3 or 4 options.

Cheika doesn't have a clue what he's doing with the second row and just makes reactive changes. LO suffers? Fuck, better bring Simmons back. Not as physical around the ground? Fuck Simmo off I'll bring Arnold or Skelton back.

No selections follow a consistent theme of trying to develop any specific strength. It's just bounce from one strategy to the other, seemingly without any actual plan of what is trying to be achieved, other than "a good lock combo".

 

[Scrubber2050]

Plenty of chat about the forwards particularly the locks.

Thought there may be a little more constructive criticism about the backs, particularly about the form of Cooper, Folau and Foley but, alas, obviously most think they are playing to an acceptable level.

OMG

 

[Twoilms]

Plenty of chat about the forwards particularly the locks.

Thought there may be a little more constructive criticism about the backs, particularly about the form of Cooper, Folau and Foley but, alas, obviously most think they are playing to an acceptable level.

OMG

I've decided you're a troll.

 

[Scrubber2050]

I've decided you're a troll.

Personally I couldn't give a shit what you think !

The point is relevant.

Get on record then fella that you are happy with the backs form

 

[cyclopath]

Plenty of chat about the forwards particularly the locks.

Thought there may be a little more constructive criticism about the backs, particularly about the form of Cooper, Folau and Foley but, alas, obviously most think they are playing to an acceptable level.

OMG

You really do think in binary, don't you? People discussing forwards = must be happy with backs. That's how 2 year olds think. I'm sure you're capable of more complex thought than that.
The irony of you criticising posters for a lack of constructive criticism, when you use the broad brush of Cheika selecting based on players he "loves" with some sort of blind infatuation. That's constructive.

 

[bigmac]

Personally I couldn't give a shit what you think !

The point is relevant.

Get on record then fella that you are happy with the backs form

Agree with the basic point that the backs are not functioning that well. Relates to the forward lack of go forward but there is no excuse for dropped passes, forward passes, hitting the line at half speed, lack of shpport play etc.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Scrubber2050]

You really do think in binary, don't you? People discussing forwards = must be happy with backs. That's how 2 year olds think. I'm sure you're capable of more complex thought than that.
The irony of you criticising posters for a lack of constructive criticism, when you use the broad brush of Cheika selecting based on players he "loves" with some sort of blind infatuation. That's constructive.

Gave me a good chuckle !

The lock discussion has been extensively done.

Is it not reasonable to go to another place (the backs) and discuss that.

What is your constructive criticism or comment of the form of some of the backs or are you also just glossing over the inadequacies in that area.

No point throwing your dummy at me

Your comment on Chek (in respect of favoritism or man - love) was/has never been meant as "constructive" It's pretty elementary to anyone over one and a half to seen and interpreted as an "observation"

 

[cyclopath]

Gave me a good chuckle !

The lock discussion has been extensively done.

Is it not reasonable to go to another place (the backs) and discuss that.

What is your constructive criticism or comment of the form of some of the backs or are you also just glossing over the inadequacies in that area.

No point throwing your dummy at me

Of course it's reasonable to discuss the backs. or anything, but accusing people of glossing over something because they are discussing something else is, frankly, infantile and borderline trolling. I also haven't discussed the deficiencies in the Argentine team, so probably glossing over that too. I don't discuss a lot of things. Clearly glossing over all of those. It's a big list.
I do however moderate the site.
Have your discussion without making pointless and annoying asides about what others are discussing.