The Wallabies Thread

[Brumby Runner]

I actually rate M. Phillip ahead of Douglas, Simmons, Tui, Rodda, Enever

Arnold and Coleman to start, Carter should be reserve hooker on current form, also throw Ned Hanigan on the bench as the back row reserve who can also play lock if required.

An interesting concept TOCC. Would you see his height being an advantage in throwing into the lineout? Or maybe, with his long legs he could continue to strike for the ball when it is at the back of the opposing No 8's feet?

 

[Braveheart81]

Clearly Coleman and Arnold are our best two locks.

I would say Carter is the next best based on this season but whether he is the best option to be the bench lock is another question.

In the situation where someone goes down in the first minute and you need an 80 minute performance, Carter is the best bet.

In terms of a tactical substitution where you are looking for someone to maximise their input in a ~30 minute period, someone else could provide greater impact.

 

[TOCC]

Any bench player should be prepared to play 80mins, that was always my issue with Skelton, he wasn't an 80min player at test level

 

[TSR]

Any bench player should be prepared to play 80mins, that was always my issue with Skelton, he wasn't an 80min player at test level

Agreed TOCC, any player picked in a test side needs to be able to play 80 quality minutes if required. However, if you were coach, wouldn't you give more weight to how you want to use the player, as opposed to how you may be forced to.

I think Carter is the best option at the moment regardless, but Cheika may decided to pick a more dynamic, powerful lock in the hope that they can just come on for 20-25 minutes and really throw their weight around. I'm not sure we have a test match ready option that fits the bill - but I wouldn't be surprised if Cheika picks one of Douglas, Rodda or Tui to try and fill that role.

Not saying that I would - but I reckon Cheika might.

 

[fatprop]

Any bench player should be prepared to play 80mins, that was always my issue with Skelton, he wasn't an 80min player at test level

So props and hookers as well?

 

[TOCC]

So props and hookers as well?

100% they should, every player in the team should have the base fitness to be able to play 80mins if required, anything less is a potential burden on the team. This wouldn't even be a discussion in New Zealand.

Under the correct S&C program there doesn't need to be an inverse relationship between impact and playing time.

 

[Braveheart81]

Any bench player should be prepared to play 80mins, that was always my issue with Skelton, he wasn't an 80min player at test level

Of course they should be able to play 80 minutes because they may be required to.

It's a valid part of the selection decision though when considering what their role will be. Different players have different abilities in terms of being able to have an impact off the bench.

A strength of Carter's game is that he can provide a pretty consistent effort across 80 minutes but with that, he probably isn't as good at providing impact across 20 or 30 minutes as someone like Tui might be able to provide (yes, I realise Tui is injured).

The bench has to be able to deal with injuries but a substantial part of the selection decision will be about who can best fill the role they are intended to play which will be to provide impact over a shorter period of time.

I agree that selecting Skelton for that bench role created a risk because if he was required to play 80 minutes he would be found wanting. Selecting the player that can play for 80 minutes but struggles to provide much impact in a shorter period of time is a safer option but has less upside.

 

[ShtinaTina]

Everyone should be able to put in 80mins.
Doesn't anyone remember when Stephen Moore did his knee the 1st minute (or close to) of the 1st French test?
Taaf had to play the whole match & started the rest of the series.

 

[fatprop]

100% they should, every player in the team should have the base fitness to be able to play 80mins if required, anything less is a potential burden on the team. This wouldn't even be a discussion in New Zealand.

Under the correct S&C program there doesn't need to be an inverse relationship between impact and playing time.

Well it sort of is, they can all do 80 minutes, they just pace themselves differently. TPN is a good example, he plays in quite a different style if he is expected to play long minutes vs the last 30

 

[wamberal]

Skelton could not jump in lineouts. Frankly, whether you cannot jump for 80 minutes or only 20 minutes is quite irrelevant to his suitability at the highest level. Or even at Soup, frankly. Although I do concede that in the right team (with a 6 and an 8 who are both bloody good jumpers, and the other lock is world class) he might be worth a run.

 

[dru]

Skelton could not jump in lineouts. Frankly, whether you cannot jump for 80 minutes or only 20 minutes is quite irrelevant to his suitability at the highest level. Or even at Soup, frankly. Although I do concede that in the right team (with a 6 and an 8 who are both bloody good jumpers, and the other lock is world class) he might be worth a run.

Worth a run at Soup, but depending on your game strategy (dictating the anticipated quantity of line outs) never appropriate an international level. Very few game plans can appropriately live with only three jumpers.

 

[wamberal]

Three jumpers would be good, but with Hoopcock and Skelton all in the same team we only had two. Counting Fardy as a jumper, which he is, but only just.

 

[dru]

Three jumpers would be good, but with Hoopcock and Skelton all in the same team we only had two. Counting Fardy as a jumper, which he is, but only just.

Imagine Fardy 6; Higgers 8; Gill 7. Decent line out there.

 

[Gnostic]

Any bench player should be prepared to play 80mins, that was always my issue with Skelton, he wasn't an 80min player at test level

I'd have to disagree. Its a 23 man game now days and the selection table is where the balance has to be made, that is where successive Australian coaches have failed.

Do not forget that Macqueen was selecting a 135Kg Willie O in 1998 to replace Kefu at the 50 minute mark. There was no way that Willie at that weight and advanced age would have been able to run at full pace for 80. I'd also point out that Phipps is usually gassed by about 55min due to the sheer distance he covers and if he is a starter he has to be replaced and Chieka has missed this replacement by 10 minutes in the last tests he started.

 

[Gnostic]

Skelton could not jump in lineouts. Frankly, whether you cannot jump for 80 minutes or only 20 minutes is quite irrelevant to his suitability at the highest level. Or even at Soup, frankly. Although I do concede that in the right team (with a 6 and an 8 who are both bloody good jumpers, and the other lock is world class) he might be worth a run.

Its a myth. There are plenty of examples of him jumping and winning lineouts both for the Tahs and Uni, and in the correct position for him at 2. Don't let facts get in the way. As usual its all about how he is used, and exactly the same issue was had with S. Timani because Deans/Blades had no idea on how to properly structure the plays to use the skills available.

 

[TOCC]

Well it sort of is, they can all do 80 minutes, they just pace themselves differently. TPN is a good example, he plays in quite a different style if he is expected to play long minutes vs the last 30

There's a difference between a fit player being fatigued at 70min and a less fit player completely fading out..

 

[TOCC]

Everyone should be able to put in 80mins.
Doesn't anyone remember when Stephen Moore did his knee the 1st minute (or close to) of the 1st French test?
Taaf had to play the whole match & started the rest of the series.

Yeah and in the 3rd test vs England 2016, Skelton and Simmons started with Coleman on the bench, no doubt the intent was to Sub Skelton for Coleman, but Simmons took a head knock and was subbed at half time for Coleman.. Skelton was off his feet by 50mins and was subbed for Wycliff Palu and Australia finished the match with Fardy and Coleman playing lock.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's always going to be a calculated risk though when your choice is between a player who is better over 30 minutes versus a player who is better over 80 minutes.

I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that Coleman and Arnold are our best two locks but after that it isn't so clear.

Carter is probably the best conservative option but someone else might provide greater upside for the intended use of that player.

I think it is a bad decision to leave yourself with too much risk in case of injury on the bench but I also think it is a bad decision to be overly conservative and pick your entire 23 based on players who would go best if they had to play 80 minutes.

 

[Scrubber2050]

^^^^^^^

Simmons will get a spot now he looks like becoming a Waratah

 

[TOCC]

It's always going to be a calculated risk though when your choice is between a player who is better over 30 minutes versus a player who is better over 80 minutes.

I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that Coleman and Arnold are our best two locks but after that it isn't so clear.

Carter is probably the best conservative option but someone else might provide greater upside for the intended use of that player.

I think it is a bad decision to leave yourself with too much risk in case of injury on the bench but I also think it is a bad decision to be overly conservative and pick your entire 23 based on players who would go best if they had to play 80 minutes.

Is it really unreasonable to expect an Australian rugby player to play 80mins if needed? Whitelock and Retallick are both 80mins players.

Props are one area, due to the power nature of the game which stand to benefit by keeping their match time to the 50min mark.

But certainly for locks and backrowers, the relationship between impact and match time isn't inverse.