The Wallabies Thread

[mst]

Cheika could have selected Toby Smith each time. If he really wanted to avoid blooding new props he could have.

He could have kept Horwill here and selected him. He could have kept selecting Simmons. He selected Arnold to start and debut in the first test with a capped lock on the bench.

Speight could have been selected instead of one of the new wingers. Morahan could have also been selected.

DHP debuted as a starter in the first test of the season when Horne was still healthy.

People seem to be suggesting that Cheika has been reluctant to blood new players where the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

Smith didn't perform and doesn't look like he fits in Cheika plans anymore, Speight was coming off an injury and the 7's.

Trying to use the "lock rotating door" selections as the centrepiece of your argument (pun not intended) is grasping at straws.

DHP was the form "pine rider" and should have always been a starter based on form. He would still be a sub if it wast for injuries.

 

[fatprop]

Absolutely. I agree with all of this. Foley at 12 a good example. I think playing him at 12 was a fair call to begin with, although now that Hodge has really stepped up and is defending at 12 I really don't see the plus side in persisting with Foley there.

Sorry, but how has Hodge "really stepped up"

 

[Braveheart81]

OK, sure.

It totally makes sense that because a coach went with a preference for experienced players in a RWC year that they would continue that policy absolutely in the year afterwards.

The evidence available this year is that 10 people have made their test debuts for the Wallabies.

Suggesting that some or all of those debuts only happened because the coach was forced to against his will is pure supposition.

DHP has never been on the bench for the Wallabies. He has started every test this year.

Anyway, this argument is pointless. There are clearly a number of people who think that Cheika only wants to select certain players and that anyone from outside that group only gets selected because there was no other choice.

 

[Viking]

Sorry, but how has Hodge "really stepped up"

Yeah look that was probably a bit of an exaggeration. He defends in the 12 channel, low error rate and whilst he hasn't set the world alight on attack, he has been strong in contact.

So I guess when I said "stepped up", I mean playing him at 12 IMO, is low risk as he ain't going to be missing tackles and messing up too much. The risk in playing him at 12 is diminished as it looks like he can handle the pressure of test rugby.

Then on top of that, apparently he has played 10 a lot in his career so he could potentially be a second distributor, big boot will come in handy, I see more potential in him long-term then Foley who will never be as strong in contact.

 

[Braveheart81]

Yeah look that was probably a bit of an exaggeration. He defends in the 12 channel, low error rate and whilst he hasn't set the world alight on attack, he has been strong in contact.

So I guess when I said "stepped up", I mean playing him at 12 IMO, is low risk as he ain't going to be missing tackles and messing up too much. The risk in playing him at 12 is diminished as it looks like he can handle the pressure of test rugby.

The on top of that, apparently he has played 10 a lot in his career so he could potentially be a second distributor, big boot will come in handy, I see more potential in him long-term then Foley who will never be as strong in contact.

His distribution game is probably the weakest point of his game right now. His passing hasn't been fantastic.

I think we will continue to see the Cooper/Foley combination for the time being which realistically has got better each outing.

I doubt Cheika will try and select Beale on the EOYT as he is only expected to make a return to rugby in November for Wasps. He is likely to come back into the reckoning next year.

You'd assume Hodge is a good chance to be the first choice 12 for the Rebels next year and after another season of Super Rugby there we might see him play 12 for the Wallabies.

 

[Viking]

OK, sure.

It totally makes sense that because a coach went with a preference for experienced players in a RWC year that they would continue that policy absolutely in the year afterwards.

The evidence available this year is that 10 people have made their test debuts for the Wallabies.

Suggesting that some or all of those debuts only happened because the coach was forced to against his will is pure supposition.

DHP has never been on the bench for the Wallabies. He has started every test this year.

Anyway, this argument is pointless. There are clearly a number of people who think that Cheika only wants to select certain players and that anyone from outside that group only gets selected because there was no other choice.

"Against his will" "no other choice" - no one said that? Or even implied that?

 

[Braveheart81]

"Against his will" "no other choice" - no one said that? Or even implied that?

Seems to be the consensus amongst the group dismissing the 10 debutants from this season as only happening because there were injuries and otherwise Cheika wouldn't have selected them.

 

[Scrubber2050]

This last page is full of Harry Hindsighters. When someone says 'he waited too long to blood him' that's just your opinion right? Or when someone says 'they were poor selection decisions' they are just your opinion too right? Plus you have the benefit of hindsight. Then there's the people who are getting upset because he's picking his favorite players ( instead of yours eh?) - of course he does, he's entitled to!

Of course he's entitled to pick whomever he wants.

Double edge sword however.

If he continues to pick blokes that are not performing in the position he has selected them in or not performing to a high level at all then naturally he should be open to criticism.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and should not only be a tool for arm chair selectors but maybe the national coach as well.

Coaches always "live or die" pursuant to their teams success or lack thereof.

 

[Viking]

His distribution game is probably the weakest point of his game right now. His passing hasn't been fantastic.

I think we will continue to see the Cooper/Foley combination for the time being which realistically has got better each outing.

I doubt Cheika will try and select Beale on the EOYT as he is only expected to make a return to rugby in November for Wasps. He is likely to come back into the reckoning next year.

You'd assume Hodge is a good chance to be the first choice 12 for the Rebels next year and after another season of Super Rugby there we might see him play 12 for the Wallabies.

Fair call, I agree his distribution at test level has been quite poor, I re-call at least 2 offloads / final passes that missed the mark.

Not sure what he is like at the Rebels, but the fact he has played a lot at 10 gives me a lot of hope.

If it's not up to scratch he'd still be a solid fullback where his big boot will come in handy. Or even at 13. Certainly don't see him staying on the wing.

I like the idea of Beale back at fullback too, with 2 big ball-running centres and Folau on the wing. Not sure I am all that confident with a Cooper/Beale pairing, would actually rather Foley/Beale.

 

[Viking]

Seems to be the consensus amongst the group dismissing the 10 debutants from this season as only happening because there were injuries and otherwise Cheika wouldn't have selected them.

Don't think it was that exaggerated. Injuries certainly helped certain players get game time. (as they always do).

Anyways moving on.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't think the combinations really matter that much compared to the form of the players.

Just tracking Genia and Cooper together at test level over their careers is a good indicator. They have gone between being outstanding and awful based on the form of each of them.

A Cooper and Beale combination probably has both the highest potential upside and greatest chance of disaster based on the potential form variation of each of them.

 

[KOB1987]

Of course he's entitled to pick whomever he wants.

Double edge sword however.

If he continues to pick blokes that are not performing in the position he has selected them in or not performing to a high level at all then naturally he should be open to criticism.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and should not only be a tool for arm chair selectors but maybe the national coach as well.

Coaches always "live or die" pursuant to their teams success or lack thereof.

I don't dispute any of that Scrubber, it's all reasonable.

On the highlighted bit though, the inference that is being made in that argument is that [insert your selection] who has never played test rugby before would have done a better job than the said non-performer. Mumm is the best example. Against all previous form, there actually wasn't that much outrage on here when he got selected ahead of Fardy because most pundits know enough about the game to realise that (1) the latter wasn't playing anywhere near his true potential, and (2) a large part of the decision was to strengthen our piss-poor lineout. Now that the lineout has improved and that Mumm has put in a couple of sub-par performances, half the people on here are up Cheika for making such a dud selection. We all wish that there was a 22 year old 6'7" lineout jumping beast of a 6 amongst our ranks who was killing it in super rugby that we know would step up to test rugby, but the fact is there isn't. Because of that Cheika is still down to making a choice between Fardy and Mumm, it's that simple, there aren't any viable alternatives. It's a similar argument to our mythical line-bending 8 that Cheika needed to pick before Pocock got injured.

 

[Scrubber2050]

I don't dispute any of that Scrubber, it's all reasonable.

On the highlighted bit though, the inference that is being made in that argument is that [insert your selection] who has never played test rugby before would have done a better job than the said non-performer. Mumm is the best example. Against all previous form, there actually wasn't that much outrage on here when he got selected ahead of Fardy because most pundits know enough about the game to realise that (1) the latter wasn't playing anywhere near his true potential, and (2) a large part of the decision was to strengthen our piss-poor lineout. Now that the lineout has improved and that Mumm has put in a couple of sub-par performances, half the people on here are up Cheika for making such a dud selection. We all wish that there was a 22 year old 6'7" lineout jumping beast of a 6 amongst our ranks who was killing it in super rugby that we know would step up to test rugby, but the fact is there isn't. Because of that Cheika is still down to making a choice between Fardy and Mumm, it's that simple, there aren't any viable alternatives. It's a similar argument to our mythical line-bending 8 that Cheika needed to pick before Pocock got injured.

agree with a lot of that but in respect of your last sentence, I say that Chek didn't entertain the idea of Timani prior to Poey getting injured.

Old argument I know but I reckon Poey should have been 7, Timani 8 and either Fardy/Mumm at 6.

The Pooer thing had run it's course a while ago but Chek persevered with the principle even after Poey outed, by bringing Sean into 8.

Suppose it's an old discussion point, that is, being reactive or proactive.

Not my job. Thankfully that is Chek's area of responsibility

 

[Braveheart81]

I still don't get the whole "The Pooper had run its course" schtick.

We lost against England (although Pocock didn't play the whole series) and NZ who are now the top two sides in the world.

We've managed to beat South Africa once and Argentina twice with McMahon and/or Timani at number 8.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Cheika brings back in Pocock again if he's healthy.

Timani's workrate was really good and he made a lot of tackles but he hardly provided that big ball running number 8 that people have been saying we need from our number 8. McMahon has done that better than anyone else.

I don't think beating Argentina with Timani starting proves the argument that having a more traditional number 8 is going to provide us with better results.

 

[mst]

BR
I think you are being overly generous when you use the phrase "the whole selection team"

Team of one, methinks

On first read I would agree with you comment, but after some thought I realised that it may actually be more of a "group" selection thing and a good argument why Wallaby coaches, or the process need to be independent of Super Rugby teams to prevent bad habits or practises influencing other levels of the game.

It looks like Larkham has the same mindset with the Brumbies in favouring certain players and a reluctance to bring in the new fresh blood. Have a look at the back-line dilemma right now and some of the other odd recruitment. Things like signing Butler first up before even looking for a 7 even though Poey was going. Most of all the lack of succession planing - all similar.

I also think it may have effected the Tahs somewhat.

 

[KOB1987]

And I'd say (regardless of whether on not he was the line bending 8 that we needed) Cheika did entertain the idea of playing Timani at 8, he didn't think he was ready so he waited for the right opportunity. Much like many of the other 10 debutantes this year.

 

[Gnostic]

His distribution game is probably the weakest point of his game right now. His passing hasn't been fantastic.



I think we will continue to see the Cooper/Foley combination for the time being which realistically has got better each outing.



I doubt Cheika will try and select Beale on the EOYT as he is only expected to make a return to rugby in November for Wasps. He is likely to come back into the reckoning next year.



You'd assume Hodge is a good chance to be the first choice 12 for the Rebels next year and after another season of Super Rugby there we might see him play 12 for the Wallabies.

Not if the rubbish "two playmaker" plan remains the tactic.

 

[Braveheart81]

Not if the rubbish "two playmaker" plan remains the tactic.

Isn't having a ball playing 12 rather than a crash-baller the structure the Wallabies have had for most of the last 25 years?

Outside of the period where Pat McCabe was the 12 and we scored very few tries, we've generally opted for a 12 who is closer to a 10 than a 13 for example.

It would also seem that more international sides are moving towards more of a ball playing 12 than a crash baller.

 

[Scrubber2050]

And I'd say (regardless of whether on not he was the line bending 8 that we needed) Cheika did entertain the idea of playing Timani at 8, he didn't think he was ready so he waited for the right opportunity. Much like many of the other 10 debutantes this year.

The opportunity that came for Timani had nothing to do with thinking he was not ready.

It was "forced" upon Chek only after the injury to Pocock and then McMahon.

Have never had a problem with debutantes. They are obviously but generally chosen to cover injury or dare I say it, to cover a position from which a player gets dropped for unsatisfactory performance.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Isn't having a ball playing 12 rather than a crash-baller the structure the Wallabies have had for most of the last 25 years?

Outside of the period where Pat McCabe was the 12 and we scored very few tries, we've generally opted for a 12 who is closer to a 10 than a 13 for example.

It would also seem that more international sides are moving towards more of a ball playing 12 than a crash baller.

Suppose it depends on how good a "crash baller" the player is.