The Wallabies Thread

[Strewthcobber]

A look at our locks from TRC. Numbers aren't quite complete as Skelton and Mumm spent some time in the second row as well.

With thanks to vodacom Rugby and ForceFan for the data

 

[amirite]

I think we've got a goer in Coleman. His impact is very good and his work rate is pretty decent.

Discipline is an issue, but you can't say we've lost any games because of his indiscretions.

 

[Train Without a Station]

SC that's interesting to look at.

I think with such a small and varied sample we need to consider certain factors.

Attacking rucks make up most of the players' involvements. Because almost 50% of Simmons minutes occurred in a gamed where Australia had only 36 successful attacking rucks this if anything drags his number down.

Likewise Douglas having only played less than 10% of his minutes in either of the 2 games where this was the case, his are inflated, or not impacted as a result.

Coleman having played both those games, to form a good 3rd or more of his game time shows how high his involvement is, still having the highest number despite having a pretty significant possession impairment against him. Pretty good when you consider the impact of his involvement too.

I think Mumm would actually be tracking lower than 40 per game. In his 80 on the weekend I think he had 22 involvements for example.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Mumm v Fardy

Disclaimer on this one - Mumm has started and played much more than Fardy and the locks above.

Think the key stat might be the last one too!

 

[barbarian]

Yeah I'm a big fan of Coleman.

You can break down all the numbers you want, but his try against Argentina this week told you everything you needed to know - running from depth, at pace, beautiful line, great catch, good try.

Something we haven't seen from an Australian lock for a long time. Probably since Skelton's debut against France in 2014.
.

 

[Viking]

Yeah I'm a big fan of Coleman.

You can break down all the numbers you want, but his try against Argentina this week told you everything you needed to know - running from depth, at pace, beautiful line, great catch, good try.

Something we haven't seen from an Australian lock for a long time. Probably since Skelton's debut against France in 2014.
.

Plus he did that same run against the AB in his debut? I think? So it's not a one-off it's something in his game that he does often.

I'd be surprised if anyone didn't have Coleman as their first choice lock at this point in time.

 

[ForceFan]

Average Ruck Involvements
June Tests + TRC 2016

To assist SC with his comparisons here's a slightly larger data set which includes the 3 June Tests against England + TRC games.

Games = Equiv 80 minute games.
All Ruck numbers as av/80 minutes.
Have excluded players with few games or time only off bench.

1. Pocock's average boosted by 54T (34A/20D) v Boks Brisbane Test.
2. Fardy consistently has more involvements in Tests than in Super Rugby (by ~10%).
3. McMahon's ruck stats slightly inflated as only 1 complete match. His numbers are usually on par with Hooper - both close to Super Rugby levels.
4. Arnold's Ruck Involvements are consistently lower than the other Locks and 50% of his Super Rugby stats. Other Locks at Super Rugby level.
5. Front Row close to Super Rugby levels.

 

[Tip]

A huge thankyou @Forcefan for these stats week in, week out. It really sheds light on how much hard yards and unsung efforts a player is willing to put in throughout the course of a game.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yeah I'm a big fan of Coleman.

You can break down all the numbers you want, but his try against Argentina this week told you everything you needed to know - running from depth, at pace, beautiful line, great catch, good try.

Something we haven't seen from an Australian lock for a long time. Probably since Skelton's debut against France in 2014.
.

Yeah I made a similar point in the match thread. Lock him in (pardon the pun), he's got a great future in gold if he continues as he is. The question is who partners him? At the moment both Simmons and Douglas make reasonable cases and one of them will be in the bench anyway.

 

[Tip]

Yeah I made a similar point in the match thread. Lock him in (pardon the pun), he's got a great future in gold if he continues as he is. The question is who partners him? At the moment both Simmons and Douglas make reasonable cases and one of them will be in the bench anyway.

I do not excuse the pun. I endorse it.

I think the Wallabies are best served with Coleman & Simmons with Douglas off the bench. Our lineout has gone to shit, true to Chieka's form. Obviously Simmons is on the outer every second week, but that also means he's... in the inner every other one.

A little unrelated, but it would be good to see Chieka actually work on some combinations for 2019. Come next WC, noone can look at me in the eye and tell me that the Front row, Second row, Back row, Inside backs or Back 3 we are fielding now will be remotely the same.

In a few years time, I think we'll look back in amazement that we spent an entire "rebuilding year" without sampling a Kerevi-Kuridrani or Hodge-Kerevi centre combination. Instead we experienced a year more of Dean Mumm with a single digit on his back. A year of Bernard Foley being atrocious at 10, only for the coach to think his form will improve in the 12 jersey.

Why can't DHP play fullback and be our 2nd playmaker at the same time?

Why are we settling for an openside flanker that takes 2 and a half minutes to hit a ruck?

The only good thing that's come out of this year is Coleman, Hodge, Haylett-Petty & Kerevi. Hodge, Kerevi & Haylett-Petty got their chances due to multiple injuries not through astute team management. Coleman and Kerevi's player management has been appalling at best.

 

[wamberal]

Cheika is the coach (not "Chieka", incidentally).


If you want to nominate a better candidate who will do things the way you think they should be done, feel free to send your opinion to the ARU.


Good luck!

 

[KOB1987]

In a few years time, I think we'll look back in amazement that we spent an entire "rebuilding year" without sampling a Kerevi-Kuridrani or Hodge-Kerevi centre combination. Instead we experienced a year more of Dean Mumm with a single digit on his back. A year of Bernard Foley being atrocious at 10, only for the coach to think his form will improve in the 12 jersey.

Why can't DHP play fullback and be our 2nd playmaker at the same time?

Why are we settling for an openside flanker that takes 2 and a half minutes to hit a ruck?

The only good thing that's come out of this year is Coleman, Hodge, Haylett-Petty & Kerevi. Hodge, Kerevi & Haylett-Petty got their chances due to multiple injuries not through astute team management. Coleman and Kerevi's player management has been appalling at best.

Actually the Kerevi-Kuridrani combination was selected for the first 2 tests v England but was ditched for the 3rd test because it wasn't being effective in attack. This decision was somewhat ratified in the 3rd test when To'omua (who had done little at super level this season) was selected at 12 as a second playmaker and we piled on 40 points.

Kerevi was selected on merit for the England series then reselected during the RC displacing Kuridrani at 13. No injuries were involved. Similarly DHP was selected on merit for the first test v England and has been there ever since. Hodge got his chance with the return of AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) to Europe. Aside from the 4 players you mention another 7 have been debuted during the year so they weren't 'the only good thing to come out of this year'.

You are obviously one of those people who think that selecting our 2019 RWC side right now will yield immediate results, or at least result in a better outcome in that year. I'm in the other camp, introducing the new players over time as opportunities allow their selection is a far better approach for the young players and also for the team.

 

[Train Without a Station]

KOB that ignores the fact that for Kerevi to be selected, it required Giteau, Beale, To'omua and Hunt all unavailable and Leali'ifano unable to train all week.

In the first test Australia scored 4 tries. If I recall correctly all 4 tries were scored through the backline, with Hooper being on the end of 2 of them.

One of them was a try assist to Kerevi where despite Phipps, Kerevi and Hooper being defended by 5 players, Kerevi drew all inside defenders and put Hooper away to score outside. He also ran for something like 68m, had a defender beaten and 2 line breaks in that game. Not bad returns on debut.

It was goal kicking and the set piece that lost us that game.

The combination wasn't very effective in the 2nd test certainly, but considering it went pretty well in the first to score 4 tries with it, To'omua being there when we scored 5 in the dead rubber wasn't necessarily as vindicated as you make out.

 

[KOB1987]

OK, fair call, so maybe K2 getting a run was because of injuries, but I don't think Kerevi's inclusion in the side necessarily is, certainly not during the RC, he was picked there on merit ahead of TK. Admittedly he may have debuted later if it weren't for those unavailabilities and it probably would have been at 13.

I'm not saying that Kerevi at 12 is a bad idea BTW, I think it's more a product of our current attacking system (rightly or wrongly) requiring that second playmaking option. As you point out the combination went OK in the first test and was reselected for the second, but then we went back to 2 playmakers for the 3rd test. That decision may have also had something to do with England ditching Burrell after the first test for the Ford/Farrell combination which exposed us badly in the second test.

 

[amirite]

OK, fair call, so maybe K2 getting a run was because of injuries, but I don't think Kerevi's inclusion in the side necessarily is, certainly not during the RC, he was picked there on merit ahead of TK. Admittedly he may have debuted later if it weren't for those unavailabilities and it probably would have been at 13.

I'm not saying that Kerevi at 12 is a bad idea BTW, I think it's more a product of our current attacking system (rightly or wrongly) requiring that second playmaking option. As you point out the combination went OK in the first test and was reselected for the second, but then we went back to 2 playmakers for the 3rd test. That decision may have also had something to do with England ditching Burrell after the first test for the Ford/Farrell combination which exposed us badly in the second test.

Most modern attacking systems require 2 play makers, but the Wallabies' idea they have to be at 10/12 is just wrong. South Africa for example see 10 and 15 as very interchangeable (bad example currently but not historically).

I don't think Foley is a lost cause, but I remember Folau slaying on the wing against the Lions, and Foley doing well for the Tahs at 15. It's an option worth exploring, whilst also bringing TK back in at 13 and Kerevi to 12.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I think the combination we've been missing is either Quade/Kerevei/Kuridrani or Quade/Hodge/Kerevi.

Even when out of form, Kuridrani still ran straight and most often beat the first tackle or took the tackler with him over the gain line. In his "finishing" efforts in the last couple of tests he has looked a lot stronger with ball in hand and seems to be getting a bit of form back.

I'd really like to see the two Ks in the centres with Quade at 10. An extra benefit would be to have the best two defenders in the centres.

 

[KOB1987]

Most modern attacking systems require 2 play makers, but the Wallabies' idea they have to be at 10/12 is just wrong. South Africa for example see 10 and 15 as very interchangeable (bad example currently but not historically).

I don't think Foley is a lost cause, but I remember Folau slaying on the wing against the Lions, and Foley doing well for the Tahs at 15. It's an option worth exploring, whilst also bringing TK back in at 13 and Kerevi to 12.

That's true and it's probably more a function of not wanting to move Folau from 15 than it is about desperately needing to have Foley at 12. Alternatively an in-from Folau to 13.

So:

9. whoever
10. Cooper
11. Folau/Hodge
12. Kerevi
13. TK/Folau
14. DHP
15. Foley

 

[Brumby Runner]

9. whoever
10. Cooper
11. Folau/Hodge
12. Kerevi
13. TK/Folau
14. DHP
15. Foley

I'd go :

9. whoever
10. Cooper
11. Folau/Hodge
12. Kerevi
13. TK
14. Naivalu
15. DHP

Foley to the bench. I am not keen on an out-of-form (though still good) Folau moving to the centres. Wing would be a better spot for him to regain form/confidence/whatever.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Yeah that's kind of my point KOB. Kerevi was not seen as a fit due to the insistence on the attacking system which has hardly yielded spectacular results.

When have we looked like we had great attack in the last 2 years?

BR, could not agree more on the K + K midfield. I think Kuridrani performs a very underrated role. You don't need every player in the backline to be game breakers. Sometimes you need a guy like him who you chuck the ball to when nothing is on and he gets on the front foot.

He isn't going to have the runs that Izzy and Kerevi will, but if you hang off him he's gonna be hard to take down if he gets going, so you can't just drift off him.

I think Kerevi would be much more potent with the threat of Kuridrani outside of him than he is with the threat of Foley inside. In that situation I think Folau would also be much potent with 2 big powerful options inside that defenders cannot drift off until the ball has passed them.

 

[KOB1987]

I don't disagree BR, I was just extrapolating out what armirite said which assumes a requisite selection of foley somewhere.

The biggest curve ball Cheika got thrown was the injury to Beale. As a second playmaking option he easily trumps all the others, whether at 12 or 15.