Scotland v Australia 12Nov16 Saturday

[Brumby Runner]

If a 6/2 split is the better option for poor weather conditions in Scotland, then I'd prefer to see Simmons, Fardy, McMahon on the bench. Simmons to provide stability to the lineout; Fardy to contribute to the lineout as well while offering more aggression and on the ball play than others, and McMahon to backup Timani in case Lopeti has to come off. Sean has put in the best efforts at No 8 of the other contenders (including Pocock) in recent tests and does actually jump in the lineout as well. Note that it is very rare for Poey to jump, and to consider him as half a jumper is being very generous (to him, while overstating his value to the Wallabies in that context).

 

[KOB1987]

If a 6/2 split is the better option for poor weather conditions in Scotland, then I'd prefer to see Simmons, Fardy, McMahon on the bench. Simmons to provide stability to the lineout; Fardy to contribute to the lineout as well while offering more aggression and on the ball play than others, and McMahon to backup Timani in case Lopeti has to come off. Sean has put in the best efforts at No 8 of the other contenders (including Pocock) in recent tests and does actually jump in the lineout as well. Note that it is very rare for Poey to jump, and to consider him as half a jumper is being very generous (to him, while overstating his value to the Wallabies in that context).

BR you are one of the most vocal against EVER having Fardy in the row. With your bench he would end up there.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Yes and no KOB. Yes, I am the most vocal opponent of Fardy playing in the second row. It is a recipe for disaster.

No, I don't see him finishing in the second row if he is on the bench. Simmons obviously is the first replacement in the second row. Both starters would have to be replaced before Fardy would be used there, and I don't see that happening.

Although I do concede that looks to be Cheika's plan with both Simmons and Skelton on the bench. I just don't like that plan.

 

[KOB1987]

I am actually curious as to when MC is planning to unleash McMahon. I'm thinking it will be next week v France. Anyway, that's a subject for next week's match thread.

I think it's a reasonable plan to expect to replace both locks v Scotland and with the forecast conditions, whether Mumm and Skelton were the right choice remains to be seen. Of course if either or both don't perform well then it's reasonable to assume that Douglas and/or Fardy would have done better

 

[PeterK]

McMahon is still having trouble with his ankle.

In the wet is not the time to try a dodgy ankle.

 

[KOB1987]

OK yes, I forgot about his injury when I wrote that.

 

[tragic]

Don't get me wrong
I hope he has a blinder and I'll be happy to be mistaken.
But I don't think size alone is a reason to have him in the side. He has had a tendency to flop from ruck to ruck this year.
And Micheal feel free to be patronising if it makes you feel better about yourself.
Technically you are correct that Naivalu has been dropped for Skelton in favour of a 6:2 bench but there are other forwards whose form justifies their inclusion ahead of the big fella if a 6:2 split is what we need (and that's debatable as well)
That's all I have to say on the matter.

 

[PeterK]

With a 6:2 bench it was a choice between poor options.

Simmons for a lock fine, done.

Then for the other lock it was between Skelton and Douglas , little between them Douglas in poor form and not fit. A minor issue because the expectation is that Skelton will only get on for 10 mins or so.

Then for the backrow it was between Fardy and Mumm. McMahon is injured.

 

[tragic]

With a 6:2 bench it was a choice between poor options.

Simmons for a lock fine, done.

Then for the other lock it was between Skelton and Douglas , little between them Douglas in poor form and not fit. A minor issue because the expectation is that Skelton will only get on for 10 mins or so.

Then for the backrow it was between Fardy and Mumm. McMahon is injured.

If we're only expecting Skelton to play 10mins is it really worth the risk of a 6/2 bench?
If no one's really putting their hand up for a second lock bench spot then just play Coleman or Arnold for another 10. Last week showed they were capable of it.
A 10 min cameo is a waste of a bench spot. Pick someone who's in form.

 

[wamberal]

Your last sentence is correct, your first not so.

Of course players strive for starting positions. Starters that are dropped after a good performance and a very good team performance have every right to feel hard done by.

That, is the reality of human nature

I will say it again. Any player who believes he has a divine right to a Wallaby jersey does not belong in one. End of story.

 

[gel]

Interesting comment that. Shame its already got two likes.

Last week on the bench we had Simmons and Fardy to act as our 2nd row and backrow replacements.

This week we have Simmons and Mumm. Mumm replaces Fardy for reasons extensively covered in this thread. Like it or not you can understand his decision and its a marginal call. Simmons unchanged.

So who are the incumbents that Skelton is unfairly usurping?

Obviously, Skelton has replaced Naivalu on the bench. Whys that? Because we're playing Scotland in Scotland and being Scotland in Scotland its going to be a miserable, wet, cold, physical forward-oriented encounter.

Cheika wants to win the battle upfront and wants to continue to win it once all subs have been deployed in the 2nd half. This decision then clearly finds its basis within the fact that Cheika thinks that carrying an extra forward on the bench provides greater benefit for the team than carrying an extra wing on the bench. This decision is justifiable due to the immense versatility of the backs we have in our arsenal at the moment.

So really gel, there no incumbents that have been unfairly shafted after doing 'nothing at all wrong'.

I personally don't mind it given Arnold and Coleman are big, big men and big men are known to tire easily. They're also physical, which can take its toll and their still largely fresh.

Besides, with

4. Simmons (1)
5. Skelton (0.5)
6. Mumm (1)
7. Hooper / Pocock (0.5)
8. Timani (0.5)

We have 3.5 viable jumpers and the set piece should survive. Of course there are also other permutations of subs that could occur as well.

Lets blast the game plan after it fails (if it fails) but theres no point to have a big cry about it now. Skelton could impress for all we know. We haven't seen much of him recently, and the stuff we have seen was when he wasn't in top shape. Apparently he's closer to that now.

No.

 

[fatprop]

If we're only expecting Skelton to play 10mins is it really worth the risk of a 6/2 bench?
If no one's really putting their hand up for a second lock bench spot then just play Coleman or Arnold for another 10. Last week showed they were capable of it.
A 10 min cameo is a waste of a bench spot. Pick someone who's in form.

I think they are expecting Skelton to put in a shift of at least 25 minutes being the point of a pod and getting over the advantage line to keep us going forward at the end of the match.

We fell off towards the back end of the Wales game and lost our attacking shape, we weren't getting that go forward and the subsequent quick ball

 

[tragic]

I think they are expecting Skelton to put in a shift of at least 25 minutes being the point of a pod and getting over the advantage line to keep us going forward at the end of the match.

We fell off towards the back end of the Wales game and lost our attacking shape, we weren't getting that go forward and the subsequent quick ball

Yeah I agree that's the more likely scenario
I just don't think it's going to achieve the desired outcome.
And it will force other changes as well to cover the lineout.
Also one injury to a jumper anywhere in the game leaves us very exposed.

 

[KOB1987]

No.

Just out of curiosity gel, since you went to great lengths to explain yourself, which part of Michael's reply are you are actually refuting? There are parts in there which I don't agree with and there are parts which are correct. I chose to leave it alone. Since it was a reply to your post I can understand that you want to refute it but surely you can do better than that!

 

[KOB1987]

Yeah I agree that's the more likely scenario
I just don't think it's going to achieve the desired outcome.
And it will force other changes as well to cover the lineout.
Also one injury to a jumper anywhere in the game leaves us very exposed.

Not really, we've got Mumm and Simmons covering that.

As for your second sentence, you might be right, you might be wrong, we will find out soon enough.

 

[Micheal]

No.

Sometimes.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Move on.

 

[tragic]

Not really, we've got Mumm and Simmons covering that.

My bad. Forgot the 6/2 bench
Carry on..

 

[biggsy]

Celebrating that he's back

 

[Tangawizi]

Looks like it's a great day in Edinburgh. So expecting us to come out all guns blazing and try blow them off the park in the opening 40.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk