• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

The Wallabies Thread

RugbyReg

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
It’s the right decision. Unfortunately the selectors overplayed Moore last year when they should have spent more time brining in a new players.

I look forward to seeing Uelese, BPA, FitzPatrick, Fainga'a get their chance.
 
Inside Shoulder

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
RugbyReg said:
It’s the right decision. Unfortunately the selectors overplayed Moore last year when they should have spent more time brining in a new players.

I look forward to seeing Uelese, BPA, FitzPatrick, Fainga'a get their chance.
Click to expand...
That’s a bloody charitable interpretation.
Moore should have been nowhere near the squad in any playing capacity - as many here said at the time.
Is Fitzpatrick test quality?
 
Joe Blow

Joe Blow

John Hipwell (52)
Hopefully Uelese is good to go as our starter.
It’s not necessarily a bad thing but the Irish pack is pretty handy.
 
Micheal

Micheal

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
I'm picking BPA and one of Uelese / Latu, but neither of the latter pair have had much game time this season.
 
Zero_Cool

Zero_Cool

Arch Winning (36)
Can I ask (because I'm not sure) but is Uelese has been back from injury? Hasn't he been back for a few weeks now (and it was only a minor injury iirc). If he's back he hasn't taken that starting position back from Rungi, he's not even in the 23.

Like he wasn't even playing Super last year, yet somehow got selected so I have no doubt Cheika will do whatever the fuck he wants, but surely without very odd circumstances we shouldn't be picking guys who are playing from the bench?

Having said that we all know Phipps will be the reserve half back, I don't know how on earth that's justified!?
 
Derpus

Derpus

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Gnostic said:
I think you are fundamentally wrong here, Ta'avao is a long way better than he was at the Tahs or the Blues. Lousi similarly struggled to make any impression at the Tahs. Wether people want to say it is individual attitude or whatever, it is obvious the culture and environment at NZ teams is such that they are able to achieve their potential, if these two were the first or second such improvements we could argue they are an anomaly, but add in other players like Nadolo and it becomes undeniable.
Click to expand...
no no... i'm right. I'm always right. If you think 'man Derpus is off the mark here' you are thinking incorrectly. Derpus is correct.

Anyways, defo their training setup produces better results. Them and the English are swimming in well developed players. Although, i don't think Nadolo is a great example. A better example would be all the better players they have.
 
Rock Lobster

Rock Lobster

Larry Dwyer (12)
RugbyReg said:
It’s the right decision. Unfortunately the selectors overplayed Moore last year when they should have spent more time brining in a new players.



I look forward to seeing Uelese, BPA, FitzPatrick, Fainga'a get their chance.
Click to expand...



Who are these "selectors" you speak of???
 
cyclopath

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Rock Lobster said:
I was under the impression, as I'm sure many others are, that Cheika is sole selector.
Click to expand...

It's an oft repeated statement, and I think it stems from the fact he does most of the talking around selections. I don't know if it has ever been confirmed as a fact. Happy to be corrected if it has. I would find it pretty unusual if none of the rest of the coaching team had any input.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
cyclopath said:
It's an oft repeated statement, and I think it stems from the fact he does most of the talking around selections. I don't know if it has ever been confirmed as a fact. Happy to be corrected if it has. I would find it pretty unusual if none of the rest of the coaching team had any input.
Click to expand...


I think it is just on the basis that people don't like Cheika want to assume that everything that is done must be just done by him.
 
kiap

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
cyclopath said:
I would find it pretty unusual if none of the rest of the coaching team had any input.
Click to expand...
Obviously they have input but I'd suggest, even combined, they can't trump the Head Coach.

Not that it's necessarily a bad thing. The buck stops with Cheik. But if that's the case then calling the assistant coaches 'selectors' is a stretch.

It's an oft repeated statement, and I think it stems from the fact he does most of the talking around selections. I don't know if it has ever been confirmed as a fact. Happy to be corrected if it has.
Click to expand...

Closest I've seen is from here last year.

At present, the Test side is selected by head coach Michael Cheika with input from his assistant coaches Steve Larkham, Nathan Grey and Mario Ledesma. It is time Cheika was challenged on selections and that’s in no way to imply that his assistants are “yes men”.​
​
It may not be FACT but it was reported.
​
 
kiap

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
Derpus said:
It would be pretty fucken weird if he didn't have final say on the team.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think the old concept of a panel of selectors has gone by the wayside in test rugby.

It perhaps holds on in cricket but that's a very different game - almost an individual sport within a team environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top