ForceFan
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Sorry - don't gather this type of information.
The Wallabies Thread
- Thread starter KOB1987
- Start date
Sorry - don't gather this type of information.
The torpedo
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Happy to post in the Forum where the real discussions take place.
Didn't include field goal stats as EVERYBODY knows that Liam Gill is an expert!
But not at all other kicking stats.
I don't think Pocock would get picked at 8 if we had an outstanding candidate for the position. It's been a position that has been one our weaker ones since Toutai Kefu and Pocock's selection there allowed us to play two of our best overall players in the same XV.
I think the die was cast for Gill a couple of years ago when Deans and then McKenzie picked Hooper ahead of him. He only got to play when Pocock was injured.
Once Hooper had a certain amount of experience and Pocock returned he was never likely to bump either of those players out of the side. They were both consistently excellent and core leaders within the playing group.
McMahon is an interesting one. He has more versatility but as yet hasn't really managed to produce the damaging ball running that is the hallmark of his game at Super Rugby level in the test arena. You'd have to question whether his continued selection somewhere other than 7 is really ideal for the Wallabies.
I really don't think Liam Gill regularly missing selection for the Wallabies is a failure of selection. He is without doubt a test quality player which is pretty much all that matters to a provincial side and will mean his value in terms of salary on the overseas market is far greater than he could ever earn in Australia without being a consistent test player.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
I think what the stats highlight are three things in the main:
1, Cheik had two outstanding back rowers and wanted to find a way to have them both on the paddock at the same time. No shame in that, they're both great in their own right.
2, Pocock and Hooper had two quite distinct skill sets that nicely complemented each other. It's not they they were objectively weak in attack or defence, but the combination of them together was greater than the sum of the parts, with the caveat that this only really works for these two individuals.
3, The availability of an eight in the class of Vermuelen or Read would have have changed the balance of the back row considerably (Fardy, Pocock and World Class Eight X). As it was, the next best thing was to change the structure of that unit and play to its relative strengths, in the hope it would overcome whatever the opposition had planned. I think the results in 2015 indicate that the gamble paid off against everyone apart from the All Blacks (and even then it still did once).
Unfortunately the plan fell apart against England, because Pocock got injured and we didn't have anyone (apart from maybe Gill) who could keep that combination intact. There is a fourth thing to take away from the stats: George Smith was absolute gun and by some margin the best openside to ever play for Australia and probably any other country other than NZ.
1, Cheik had two outstanding back rowers and wanted to find a way to have them both on the paddock at the same time. No shame in that, they're both great in their own right.
2, Pocock and Hooper had two quite distinct skill sets that nicely complemented each other. It's not they they were objectively weak in attack or defence, but the combination of them together was greater than the sum of the parts, with the caveat that this only really works for these two individuals.
3, The availability of an eight in the class of Vermuelen or Read would have have changed the balance of the back row considerably (Fardy, Pocock and World Class Eight X). As it was, the next best thing was to change the structure of that unit and play to its relative strengths, in the hope it would overcome whatever the opposition had planned. I think the results in 2015 indicate that the gamble paid off against everyone apart from the All Blacks (and even then it still did once).
Unfortunately the plan fell apart against England, because Pocock got injured and we didn't have anyone (apart from maybe Gill) who could keep that combination intact. There is a fourth thing to take away from the stats: George Smith was absolute gun and by some margin the best openside to ever play for Australia and probably any other country other than NZ.
Bairdy
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Forcefan, it is possible to laud Hooper's strengths (i.e. his ball carrying, tackling) while still having a preference for an on-the-ball 7.
The prominence of the Pooper, and especially the accomodation of a 'non-traditional' openside like Hooper highlights the dearth of ball carriers in Australian rugby rather than Australian rugby's infatuation with 'x factor'.
The prominence of the Pooper, and especially the accomodation of a 'non-traditional' openside like Hooper highlights the dearth of ball carriers in Australian rugby rather than Australian rugby's infatuation with 'x factor'.
The torpedo
Peter Fenwicke (45)
This is why I would rather Hooper at 8 - his ball carrying & tackling would be much better utilised there
ForceFan
Peter Fenwicke (45)
The Pooper is nothing new.
The Western Force had one of Super Rugby's most effective Back Rows with 6 Hodgson, 7 Pocock and 8 Brown or McCalman.
The Wallabies are being rolled by the ABs and by England in the June series as they were ineffective defensively. In particular there was little pressure placed on the opposition ball carriers.
The Wallabies Tight 5 have a focus on the set-piece and little else - it leaves a lot of work for very few.
Someone HAS to make the tackles and get involved at the breakdown.
In some way this has been compensated by selecting defensive backs such as To'omua, Kuridrani or Horne who are actively involved at the Breakdown but they are only partially effective at the breakdown and we miss their ball carries. To'omua's absence left, and will continue to leave a big hole to fill.
I reckon there is a lot of in-balance being created in the Wallabies set-up by trying to accommodate some players who lack the full skill set for their position but are considered to offer something different or competitive edge. (X-Factor?)
Would we be better served in developing Hooper and/or McMahon as Centres?
Is it time to get back to basics in Wallabies team selection?
What does that mean though?
Because to me it means a tight 5 focussed mainly on set piece, which is the one thing you say is problematic.
As BH said, if you are talking about backrow balance, that's fine- but unfortunately I can't see a 'back to basics' #8 we have running around currently in Aussie rugby.
.
A big part of the problem with our forwards is our tight five often get outplayed in general play by our opposition. We don't have world class locks and our front row are fairly hit and miss in terms of their performances, particularly in general play.
If we pick the strongest set piece tight five we often do well there and then get beaten in general play so we make some concessions to try and improve our general play (such as Skelton).
Both South Africa and New Zealand have outstanding locks and that is an area they often dominate us in.
If we pick the strongest set piece tight five we often do well there and then get beaten in general play so we make some concessions to try and improve our general play (such as Skelton).
Both South Africa and New Zealand have outstanding locks and that is an area they often dominate us in.
ForceFan
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Suggest you read points 5 & 6 of my post #1876.
Getting back to basics DOES NOT mean going back to a more traditional style of play! Of course we have to match the new opposition. NOT the opposition of 20-30 years ago!
I'm still confused who these players we are leaving out are.
I don't think we're picking players based on X-factor. I think largely we're trying to pick our best players and in a couple of positions where we are really lacking we are prone to picking a player slightly out of position because they are better than any player we have who plays that position regularly.
I don't think we're picking players based on X-factor. I think largely we're trying to pick our best players and in a couple of positions where we are really lacking we are prone to picking a player slightly out of position because they are better than any player we have who plays that position regularly.
ForceFan
Peter Fenwicke (45)
If Pooper is the plan - and I'm not saying that it should be - and Pocock gets injured, then why select McMahon over Gill at the cost of losing so much defensive impact?
Gill is obviously superior in Ruck Involvements and subsequent TOW. Marginally fewer m/carry but does more with the ball and has more Try Assists and Tries.
I don't think McMahon has been overly effective in test rugby yet so I don't disagree that with Pocock missing, Gill should probably have been selected.
McMahon seems likely to play a lot of test matches. We need him to be more effective in the things he is best at.
With heavy domination of territory and possession in the first two tests, inability to contest England's ball wasn't really our issue though.
The third test was far more even in terms of those metrics so perhaps Gill would have had a bigger effect in terms of the overall game if he'd played that test. McMahon played very well in the third test though so he also justified his selection.
These don't seem to be the areas where the Wallabies are being let down though.
McMahon seems likely to play a lot of test matches. We need him to be more effective in the things he is best at.
With heavy domination of territory and possession in the first two tests, inability to contest England's ball wasn't really our issue though.
The third test was far more even in terms of those metrics so perhaps Gill would have had a bigger effect in terms of the overall game if he'd played that test. McMahon played very well in the third test though so he also justified his selection.
These don't seem to be the areas where the Wallabies are being let down though.
ForceFan
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Totally agree, it's what I've been highlighting since last year's TRC, before and during the RWC.
But what are we doing about developing the necessary skill sets in our Tight 5.
I reckon one product of the ARU Wallabies top-up system is that these players (20-30 of them) are virtually assured squad selection even when their form doesn't justify their inclusion at the cost of in form players.
It doesn't appear to have helped to keep players but has certainly been the cause of some good players leaving Australia.
I'm looking forward to the opening up of selection for some of the up-and-comers who may help change the outcomes in future Tests - even if we have to go through a lean period for a season or two as I don't think there are any quick fixes.
I disagree that the top up system is what assures selection.
Incumbency plays a huge part because the coaches try and build on what they've been doing before.
No countries select purely on form because they acknowledge that there is a benefit in trying to work with a certain group of players and build on what they've done before.
Part of the downside of a limited build up that having existing knowledge is a bonus and the playing group is brought together before the squad is selected when there are opportunities to start working on strategic things.
Isn't your suggestion just deciding that we'll pick and stick with a different group of players and hope they turn out to do well in the future?
Was it 5 players that debuted during the June series? That is a fair few new players getting an opportunity in a three test series.
Incumbency plays a huge part because the coaches try and build on what they've been doing before.
No countries select purely on form because they acknowledge that there is a benefit in trying to work with a certain group of players and build on what they've done before.
Part of the downside of a limited build up that having existing knowledge is a bonus and the playing group is brought together before the squad is selected when there are opportunities to start working on strategic things.
Isn't your suggestion just deciding that we'll pick and stick with a different group of players and hope they turn out to do well in the future?
Was it 5 players that debuted during the June series? That is a fair few new players getting an opportunity in a three test series.
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
"that selection was totally justified by results" - we lost.
McMahon was also very poor in the second test, so it's hard to say his inclusion was justified over Gill. Personally I'm baffled he is continually selected ahead of Gill.
But I do agree with your last statement, backrow issues are wayyyyyy down the list.
ForceFan
Peter Fenwicke (45)
We have a big problem at number 8.
Jed Holloway appears to have the best potential but his defence needs a lot of work.
I reckon Curtis Browning has certainly come on with more game time in 2016. He is a bit light for Test Rugby.
Any others?
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
Just change Hooper and Pocock around.
That is all until a good, traditional big bopper 8 appears - then they both can compete for the seven spot
That is all until a good, traditional big bopper 8 appears - then they both can compete for the seven spot