Quade Cooper's defence this year

[Scotty]

I compare Cooper to Latham in his early years as a wallaby. Latham was poor in defense and sometimes inconsistent in general for the wallabies. However we always knew he had the skills as he displayed them for the Reds game in, game out.

Once he started to feel comfortable in the wallabies and got an extended run for them (there you go, Scoey - consistency), he quickly became known as one of the best in the world, if not the best.

I full expect Cooper to progress along the same way. He is actually a few years younger than Latham was when he started to establish himself as 'world class'.

 

[Scotty]

Unless they are Bok teams who have great 9s and solid, dependable 10s

Or English. But those 10s are normally great kickers, working behind a great pack.

We don't have a great pack.

 

[Schadenfreude]

On the arguement of consistency at the expense of form - it's like this. You pick any truly great Rugby team over the ages and they all have one thing in common. Settled combinations. This is coincidently one of the things the Wallabies have been severly lacking for what seems like an eternity.

Yes, granted. Injuries have, for a long time, inhibited our ability to select the same group of players each game but when the opportunity arises to continue to select a group of players then the value of this should never be underplayed.

The key to a Rugby team performing is that they need to be one cohesive group. The S15 winning Reds last year weren't individually the best players in the comp but as a group they were one unit. The current squad of Brumbies were given the wooden spoon by many of the games experts before the season even began, but look how they are travelling.

Picking and dropping players each game can quickly erode and unhinge that sense of cohesion and I thikn this is magnified at the National level when compared to S15. I am encouraged by the prospect of us having played almost the same 22 for three tests and succeeding. If we can continue to biuld them team I am excited by what they may be able to achieve.

That's a pretty short sighted argument.

If you have a group of exceptionally talented players - better than the standard group of players, you will get consistently high results and therefore the players wont be dropped because a) they are the best and b) they are winning.

To then say that they are winning because they haven't had any changes in the side is very much looking at it from the wrong angle.

It's not a causal relationship.

There is never a reason to pick the second best for the reason of consistency.

 

[Roundawhile]

Had we absolutely annihilated Wales, then I would say don't change a winning combination, but the Wales we beat 3/0 was not the Wales that won the 6N.

The Wob team that beat Wales will not win against the saffas and the darkness.

Our major problem is still our pack and when its going backwards we need a different set of backs to the ones that played Wales.

If Genia and Cooper are in form (which they are at present) and his godliness RD allows them to play their natural game, then we may have a chance.

The consistency from this pairing far outweighs three games with BB at 10. If you want consistency a la Gregan/Larkham then play Genia/Cooper! This is our best chance of a long term Wobs combination that will truely make a difference.

 

[FrankLind]

I apologize as I interpreted what you said as your own personal opinion, not that of someone elses..

Kiwis look for a reason to hate him, I think it's an insight into someones character to judge a person on their socioeconomic background..

For the record Kevin Mealamu, Sean Maitland and Richard Kahui are also from Tokoroa.

Yes but Maitland, Mealamu and Kahui conduct themselves with a lot more class than Cooper has thus far demonstrated.

I think he has great (thus far) unrealized international potential.

A few things form my "trashy" image of him
1. Stealing the laptop.
2. Kneeing Saint Richie in the head while he was on the ground.
3. He looks thick.
4. He used to be scared to tackle - reinforcing the image of him as a cheap-shot coward

(though Zac Guildford is far worse)

The fact he plays for you guys and is capable of attacking brilliance is just the icing on the cake

 

[Sully]

Had we absolutely annihilated Wales, then I would say don't change a winning combination, but the Wales we beat 3/0 was not the Wales that won the 6N.

Which Wales did we play? 95 % the Same Players and We were missing lots.

The Wob team that beat Wales will not win against the saffas and the darkness.

How do you know? We played the undefeated 6 nation champ. Ireland could only win 2 games.

 

[Roundawhile]

Which Wales did we play? (5 % the Same Players and We were missing lots.

Sorry Sully but that's my point, we were missing a number of our best players, are we going to disregard them because we won?

 

[Roundawhile]

And Wales were not at their peak, in fact they were a long way from it. And we did not thrash them, we scaped by in two games.

My impression of the welsh supporters is that they would think the same.

I still do not believe that if we play the same in the TRC that we will win. Gut feel nothing more.

 

[vidiot]

The beauty of our wallabies is that they never string a heap of wins together, so predicting defeat eventually pays off, and the selectors get a chance to prove their mettle. Or at least to do stuff that seems either inspired or more often idiosyncratic.

 

[Scotty]

Which Wales did we play? 95 % the Same Players and We were missing lots.

How do you know? We played the undefeated 6 nation champ. Ireland could only win 2 games.

Do you believe that Wales are as good as the abs or boks? If they are then, we should expect to win playing with the same players and performance.

Me, I reckon the abs would have won by an average margin of around 15 points vs the welsh, so we need to get drastically better, not stay the same.

(and, yes I know you weren't comparing Wales to those teams, but that is the main point of this discussion)

 

[qwerty51]

Had we absolutely annihilated Wales, then I would say don't change a winning combination, but the Wales we beat 3/0 was not the Wales that won the 6N.

Why do people keep downplaying our series win? FFS, we beat the 6N grand slam champions 3-0. Test matches are about wins, who cares about the margins. Isn't it good to see a Wallaby side finally win close ones? For those who did not watch the 6Ns Wales were pretty dominant throughout. We achieved a better result than SA for sure. As such I cannot see Robbie changing too much and nor should he until the results drop off.

I was expecting a Welsh series win and from what I remember most here were too and now that we've won 3-0 the opinion seems to be "how bad were Wales.."

 

[Scotty]

Do you think we played well enough to beat NZ, or do you think we need significant improvement?

No good resting on our laurels.

 

[Groucho]

Do you believe that Wales are as good as the abs or boks? If they are then, we should expect to win playing with the same players and performance.

Me, I reckon the abs would have won by an average margin of around 15 points vs the welsh, so we need to get drastically better, not stay the same.

(and, yes I know you weren't comparing Wales to those teams, but that is the main point of this discussion)

Their results suggest they're on a par with the Boks.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Hey didn't we win the tri nations last year with Cooper and Genia?

 

[cyclopath]

Yes, we beat Wales, who are no mugs, 3-0, but barely.
No, we did not have our best team.
There is something to be said for keeping some continuity and let combinations develop, but if players come back to fitness / form who would otherwise have been in the team, they ought to be looked at.
If Horwill came back, who'd not pick him?
But I think changes should be drip-fed, not wholesale reshuffles.
On current trajectory, Cooper is a certainty for me.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I'm very happy that we put the humiliation of the loss to Scotland behind us and beat Wales 3-0. However, the footy we played in that series (apart from maybe game one) was so far from the standard required to beat the All Blacks that I would certainly welcome Cooper et al back into the team. We wouldn't have got within 10 points of the Darkness playing as we did in the last two games of that series.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Yes, we beat Wales, who are no mugs, 3-0, but barely.
No, we did not have our best team.
There is something to be said for keeping some continuity and let combinations develop, but if players come back to fitness / form who would otherwise have been in the team, they ought to be looked at.
If Horwill came back, who'd not pick him?
But I think changes should be drip-fed, not wholesale reshuffles.
On current trajectory, Cooper is a certainty for me.

Care to comment on Horne?

 

[cyclopath]

Not specifically, no.
The thread is about Cooper, and I was talking to that point.
But since you and several others clearly do, I would have though that logically, if Cooper comes back, the 12 and 13 will change in some way to accommodate Barnes staying in, as I think Deans will want to do.
Personally, I see not a huge difference between Horne and McCabe as 13 options, in current form, and my gut feeling is both will get game time there, with Horne probably starting, as I suspect Deans will be happy enough with his progress.
I don't think he'll go for big change and bring in, say, Ant Fainga'a to start there, but with the Cooper / Barnes combo, that would work too.

 

[Athilnaur]

I wouldn't drop McCabe at all myself. McCabe made that evident for me in the Brumbies Tahs game. All game he played a floating defender there to shut down emerging threats. That is huge for us when faced with players like carter/nonu or worse linebreak wise cruden/nonu.

I can't see how Deans can deny an in form Cooper either. So Barnes at 12? Maybe, I am sure Deans will entertain it, but it is a quite different game plan to two crash ball centres.

 

[Scoey]

That's a pretty short sighted argument.

If you have a group of exceptionally talented players - better than the standard group of players, you will get consistently high results and therefore the players wont be dropped because a) they are the best and b) they are winning.

To then say that they are winning because they haven't had any changes in the side is very much looking at it from the wrong angle.

It's not a causal relationship.

There is never a reason to pick the second best for the reason of consistency.

Absolutely. I wasn't suggesting that maintaining the same group of players is the be all and end all. Just that there is benefit in doing this and this benefit is oft disregarded. Hell, if I grabbed 21 of my mates, and played with them for 10 years, we'd still get 1000 points put on us by the AB's - it goes without saying. You NEED quality players, but you also NEED consistency. And maintaining the balance between these two is difficult, but we have historically leant toward the quality players side.

If you get a group of exceptionally talented players, and each game replace every other one of them (with some of similar standard). They won't do as well as if you kept that same group of exceptionally talented players. That's all I'm saying.

I guess the argument comes down to your last point, that there is never a reason to pick the second best for the reason of consistency. I agree, but the very lengthy and numerous threads on this forum will attest that this is a far more subjective topic!