The Wallabies Thread

[Braveheart81]

The number 8 is always going to play in the middle of the park in Cheika's system.

I do think Higginbotham is more suited to 6 at test level and perhaps he should have been considered there because then he can play the sort of game he wants.

As it stood, he got selected as an 8 and was expected to do that job.

A substantial part of Cheika's coaching is that the structure remains the same regardless of the players. If you are the 8 you play in the middle of the park in attack.

I don't think there's any real evidence of Higginbotham being a world class number 8. I think the few really good tests he played were early on when he played at 6.

 

[upthereds#!]

100% he is a 6 in how we play.

 

[Sauron]

Aye. I think one of our better on-paper back rows is

6. Higgers
7. Pocock
8. McMahon/Timani/Nasairani

But there's a glaring problem with it, too.

 

[Scrubber2050]

The number 8 is always going to play in the middle of the park in Cheika's system.

I do think Higginbotham is more suited to 6 at test level and perhaps he should have been considered there because then he can play the sort of game he wants.

As it stood, he got selected as an 8 and was expected to do that job.

A substantial part of Cheika's coaching is that the structure remains the same regardless of the players. If you are the 8 you play in the middle of the park in attack.

I don't think there's any real evidence of Higginbotham being a world class number 8. I think the few really good tests he played were early on when he played at 6.

Agree with a lot of this.

My only comment is that Chek plays favourites with certain guys particularly Hooper.

Only in the top few sevens in Australia but gets picked every time, yet he doesn't play like a 7, he's paying out in the backs half the time.

But for Hoops, that's OK. For others it is not

 

[Ash]

Whatever you say, Higgers was head and shoulders above Hanigan this year both in Super Rugby and the first Test. I thought Higgers was also better in the second Test, too.

Cheika clearly doesn't like Higgers, his selection of Korczyk (a fraction of the player of Higgers currently, not to mention rightly kept out of the Reds by Higgers and Tui), Hanigan, and Dempsey ahead of Higgers speaks clearly to that.

I watched Hanigan closely in the last few Super Rugby games, after barely paying any attention to him earlier in the season. All I see is a big engine who is easy to notice due to his hair. For everything he did really well, he did two to three massive blunders, including barely being able to hold onto the ball. Hanigan has the engine, but hell, so did Neville. In a few years the kid may be a Super Rugby level player. The fact this guy is a starter for the Wallabies despite better options (he wouldn't start for any other of our - or maybe even any - Super Rugby teams in my opinion, and wouldn't even make the bench for some) speaks massively about selection issues. The fact the guy can sadly even be considered for a starting Super Rugby spot, let alone making the Wallaby squad, says something tragic about our depth and quality of players right now.

And don't even get me started on the Douglas selection. He stank every game he played this year. He got counter rucked by small backs, missed clean outs, fell off tackles, dropped balls, got yellow carded by failed and pointless shows of aggression. Got rightly dropped for a couple of rookies.

Hooper is the most uninspiring captain in a long time. Highly polarising player.

It's little wonder fans (including me now) have been turning away from rugby for a few years now.

 

[TSR]

I would have absolutely had RHP in the squad, but Higgers hasn't done anything to suggest he should remain at number 8. Looking forward he would clearly be a far better lineout option than Pocock if he was number 8 but is hardly more physical.

I think Timani is the likely number 8 for the Rugby Championship and if he can't produce the form necessary to keep that spot then it will be McMahon.

I would certainly take McMahon there about Higginbotham.

My recollection of Higgers June tests is a bit different to yours BH.

Out of interest I went back and reviewed the last half dozen or so pages of the Fiji & Scotland test match threads and some of the other info.

Against Fiji I recall him playing a tighter game. This appears supported by the fact that he topped the tackle count & had the 3rd highest ruck involvements, albeit it the current regime where we rarely contest the other teams ball. He featured in a number of peoples MOM voting and drew mostly postive comments.

Vs Scotland, the team was crap, and certainly I didn't think he was great, but I thought he was far from the worst. In the match thread, he really only attracted one direct negative comment and one other about a group of players, including him.

I take your point that he hasn't nailed his opportunities, but out of his 32 tests, how many have been under Cheika. I can't recall more than a handful. Overall I can't remember a time when he was given a reasonable run at the jersey. He has had injury interruptions at unfortunate times, but he has also been given sparing opportunities to have an extended run at locking down a jersey. Certainly he must look at the run that Dean Mumm was given, and the recall of Kane Douglas, and shake his head.

Conversely, I don't see where Sean McMahon fits the bill of the hard running, high impact player at test level. At super level, he has been great (but not better than Higgers). At test level he is an undersized jumper who has consistently been unable to demonstrate his power game has impact against the likes of NZ, England & SA for mine. Who cares if he dominates USA, or indeed at super rugby. From what I can tell, Cheika loves him because he loves his attitude at training. Great, he might as well pick Rudi from Notre Dame.

More and more I am finding Cheika's decisions to be plain dumb. His back row selections for this squad - the inclusion of all of McMahon, Hardwick, Hanigan, Dempsey & Korczyk (of which I will conced McMahon is the pick of them) while omitting Higgers & RHP just smacks of a bloke determined to make left field decisions just because he wants to be different. There is no way in fuck I can see that any combination of Hooper, Timani and any of the above are going to achieve parity with our key rivals.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

We really do have problems in the back row don't we. I can't think of a player other than Pocock who is a slam dunk right player for their position (7 that is, not 8).

 

[TSR]

We really do have problems in the back row don't we. I can't think of a player other than Pocock who is a slam dunk right player for their position (7 that is, not 8).

I'd contend that Hooper, Timani & one of Higgers/RHP with the other on the bench would be competitive. RHP is getting the benefit of being assumed to be able to bring his super rugby form to test level, but I'd argue he's a better fit than those that have been picked ahead of him.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

RHP possibly yes, though unproven and Timani has shown some decent signs. I really like Hooper as a player, but I want him doing more openside things and less seagulling on the edges. I know that's probably under instruction but doesn't mean I like it! Higgers has talent but I don't think has ever done enough to cement a spot.

 

[fatprop]

I am quite amazed to see our best forward by quite some distance being pictured as one of our major issues

And I will remind everyone again, the fetcher as we once knew it is dead as a role, it has evolved over the last 10 years from a specialist role to a responsibility every player has. The rules have killed the role, they are now expected to do much more

And all the RHP love at the moment, whilst he looks to have potential and probably should have been in the train on squad, he ain't the messiah

 

[TSR]

I am quite amazed to see our best forward by quite some distance being pictured as one of our major issues

And I will remind everyone again, the fetcher as we once knew it is dead as a role, it has evolved over the last 10 years from a specialist role to a responsibility every player has. The rules have killed the role, they are now expected to do much more

And all the RHP love at the moment, whilst he looks to have potential and probably should have been in the train on squad, he ain't the messiah

No Fatprop, you're right. It's quite possible he is benefitting from having not played test rugby and therefore having not been exposed to scrutiny at that level. Neither for that matter is Higgers.

I understand that the likes of yourself and BH are trying to understand why Cheika has gone the way he has rather than get caught up in the decision itself - but personally I don't think the explanations match up with my observations. He wants high impact, high work rate players yet fills his squad with players who don't fill that role or, in the case of McMahon (IMO) can't do it at test level. Hanigan I think at least has potential one day, but is a long way short of a test player at the moment. I'll hold opinion on Hardwick, but I'd be very surprised if he is the answer. Why Dempsey and Korcyzk are is a bit beyond me to be honest. I don't see either of them as likely test players anytime soon.

RHP actually seems closest in player/type to what Cheika wants, (again IMO) which is why I (and I am guessing others) are baffled by his omission.

 

[Sauron]

I am quite amazed to see our best forward by quite some distance being pictured as one of our major issues

And I will remind everyone again, the fetcher as we once knew it is dead as a role, it has evolved over the last 10 years from a specialist role to a responsibility every player has. The rules have killed the role, they are now expected to do much more

And all the RHP love at the moment, whilst he looks to have potential and probably should have been in the train on squad, he ain't the messiah

The problem is that the selection of Hooper is not one that occurs in isolation.

The question isn't "is Hooper the best player in his position?", but "is the team best served by Hooper wearing the seven?".

Given Pocock's sabbatical, the answer to the first question is 'yes'. The answer to the second question is much less clear, and will become even more uncertain when Pocock comes back.

Every time the ruck laws change slightly, people say that it's the end of Pocock's dominance. They've never been proved right.

 

[fatprop]

No Fatprop, you're right. It's quite possible he is benefitting from having not played test rugby and therefore having not been exposed to scrutiny at that level. Neither for that matter is Higgers.

I understand that the likes of yourself and BH are trying to understand why Cheika has gone the way he has rather than get caught up in the decision itself - but personally I don't think the explanations match up with my observations. He wants high impact, high work rate players yet fills his squad with players who don't fill that role or, in the case of McMahon (IMO) can't do it at test level. Hanigan I think at least has potential one day, but is a long way short of a test player at the moment. I'll hold opinion on Hardwick, but I'd be very surprised if he is the answer. Why Dempsey and Korcyzk are is a bit beyond me to be honest. I don't see either of them as likely test players anytime soon.

RHP actually seems closest in player/type to what Cheika wants, (again IMO) which is why I (and I am guessing others) are baffled by his omission.

McMahan and Hooper and possibly Hardwick are all modern sevens, high workrate all rounders. The only straight fetcher dinosaurs left are absolute freaks like Pocock

"Dempsey and Korcyzk", agreed, but I will be surprised if either gets squad time, let alone game time.

I think Timani getting fitter and doing OK was the nail in Higgers coffin. Higgers had his chance in June and didn't do great again. Didn't do great and old equals less room for improvement over a youngling they think can grow into the role they want whilst holding the tackling bags. The open spot to me is 6, I wasn't happy at all with Hanigan's overall game in June, but there was more upside in his efforts than the others playing.

I expect McMahon to be the super sub backrower with Timani, Hooper & Hanigan starting.

 

[TSR]

Agree with most of that FP, although I'll be interested to see how Pocock goes. He may be a dinosaur in terms of style, but if so he's a T Rex based on his influence in games which just goes to show how exceptional he is. But you are right, every set of rule changes further and further disadvantaged his style.

I agree with what the backrow will probably be. I think the ongoing choice of Hanigan is wrong, and he should be sent away to physically develop. But I am probably beyond rule 10 on this, so I'll let it go.

I find myself increasingly trying to work out what coach they could bring in to replace Cheika. I think he deserves credit for what he achieved at the World Cup, but seems to have completely lost his way since then. Continual poor selections, stubborn refusal to address short-comings in his game strategy & promotion of support staff on no evidence they can do they job.

At least we could take comfort that Deans was a Kiwi and so clearly a plant.

 

[Braveheart81]

Higginbotham also has taken up a contract in Japan until the start of next year which was part of his Reds deal so that could have influenced decisions.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[wamberal]

Let's face it, all our teams were so awful in the Soup that it is little surprise that it is hard to pick the least worst 23.


I am glad I am not a selector.

 

[Braveheart81]

I watched Hanigan closely in the last few Super Rugby games, after barely paying any attention to him earlier in the season. All I see is a big engine who is easy to notice due to his hair. For everything he did really well, he did two to three massive blunders, including barely being able to hold onto the ball. Hanigan has the engine, but hell, so did Neville. In a few years the kid may be a Super Rugby level player.

His last couple of games of Super Rugby were poor. It was certainly very disappointing.

We're definitely lacking in the six role because whoever we pick at 8 isn't going to provide a good enough lineout option to play a shorter 6.

Maybe Cheika will throw a curve ball and pick someone like Simmons at 6. Otherwise it would seem that Hanigan is a good chance at 6 because of the options selected.

 

[Braveheart81]

So here's my prediction for the trimmed down squad today:

Props: Sio, Ala'alatoa, Kepu, Cowan, Robertson, Ainsley
Hookers: TPN, Moore, Uelese
Locks: Coleman, Arnold, Carter, Simmons, Douglas
Backrow: Hooper, Timani, Hanigan, McMahon, Hardwick
Halfback: Genia, Phipps, Powell
Fly half: Foley
Centres: Beale, Kerevi, Kuridrani, Hodge, Meakes
Back three: Folau, Speight, DHP, Nabuli, Korobeite

 

[Scrubber2050]

Higginbotham also has taken up a contract in Japan until the start of next year which was part of his Reds deal so that could have influenced decisions.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Meeting influenced decisions nothing else

 

[Brumby Runner]

The number 8 is always going to play in the middle of the park in Cheika's system.

I do think Higginbotham is more suited to 6 at test level and perhaps he should have been considered there because then he can play the sort of game he wants.

As it stood, he got selected as an 8 and was expected to do that job.

A substantial part of Cheika's coaching is that the structure remains the same regardless of the players. If you are the 8 you play in the middle of the park in attack.

I don't think there's any real evidence of Higginbotham being a world class number 8. I think the few really good tests he played were early on when he played at 6.

Ok, then the way I read it, Cheika then thought Higgers was a better No 8 than Timani (even though their whole histories would suggest the opposite was more aligned to his game plan - Genius) and now that he has discarded Higgers, he is left with, in his opinion, the second best option and NOBODY else (excuse the use of upper case for emphasis).

It looks like a very deep hole that Cheika is digging himself into, you know what I mean?