Wales vs Australia, 5 November 2016, (1:30am 6 November AEDT) @ Millenium Stadium

[Dave Beat]

All this stuff on the 6 - 12 months ago we were talking about the 7
On the 6,7,8
Take the set piece out of the game, what do we want each # to bring.
Line bending
Pilfering.
Link.
Destroying rucks.
Go forward.
In close.
Out wide.
Throw in a couple of more if required.

I cant stand picking players out of position, but with a pair like Hooper & Poey with such vastly different games - which one is out of position.

Now on the set piece;
Scrums - they are becoming less & less frequent.
Line out - these are important, and being shite at these can wreck our game. Get a real line out technician as we have been found out there a couple of times now.

 

[Train Without a Station]

It's amazing how people will tell themselves a lie and use that to convince themselves of something.

BR, Simmons was never a failure at 6. He played 1 game there in 2013 during the EOYT and was quite good in fact despite basically everybody thinking Link had lost his mind making that selection.

You're probably thinking of Horwill. Who was tried there maybe in 2010. For a couple of games. And even then, he wasn't necessarily a failure, but more so the combo of him at 6 and Ed Quirk at 7, who wasn't a 7.

 

[Brumby Runner]

You can have your penalty magnet mate. He's all yours.

Any day of the week Mate. And I'll happily see Rob remain with the Reds. As for penalty magnet, I agree that Fardy gives away too many on occasions but they are all pretty much with the intention of either turning the ball over in a ruck or to protect Wallaby ball at the breakdown. Over time, I daresay Simmons has been equally a penalty magnet, but most of those are just brain explosions.

My comment also was in relation to comparing the two of them for the position of No 6. If we are considering a lock spot, then I'd think that Simmons has it over Fardy because any time I've seen Scott in the second row, our scrum seems to go to pieces. Horses for courses, hey?

 

[Brumby Runner]

It's amazing how people will tell themselves a lie and use that to convince themselves of something.

BR, Simmons was never a failure at 6. He played 1 game there in 2013 during the EOYT and was quite good in fact despite basically everybody thinking Link had lost his mind making that selection.

You're probably thinking of Horwill. Who was tried there maybe in 2010. For a couple of games. And even then, he wasn't necessarily a failure, but more so the combo of him at 6 and Ed Quirk at 7, who wasn't a 7.

Nah TWAS. I am remembering to the best of my fading mental capacity the experiment with Rob. I really don't accept that he was a success in the position - that he didn't ever play there again probably supports my contention to a degree. On the other hand, how many tests has Scott Fardy played at No 6? There is surely no grounds for argument that Fardy is a superior test No 6 to Rob Simmons.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I never contended that Simmons was a better 6 option than Fardy.

I have in fact said Fardy would be my choice. On the basis that many claim Mumm is selected I believe Simmons would be a superior option.

Anyway, my point was merely pointing at that he was not a failure. It was tried once and went surprisingly well in fact.

And I don't think that him being moved back to lock, as he was our best lock during 2013 and none of Horwill, Douglas or Timani set the world on fire is any indication of his failing at 6. Just their failing at lock.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I never contended that Simmons was a better 6 option than Fardy.

I have in fact said Fardy would be my choice. On the basis that many claim Mumm is selected I believe Simmons would be a superior option.

Anyway, my point was merely pointing at that he was not a failure. It was tried once and went surprisingly well in fact.

And I don't think that him being moved back to lock, as he was our best lock during 2013 and none of Horwill, Douglas or Timani set the world on fire is any indication of his failing at 6. Just their failing at lock.

I have no disagreement with anything you've said here TWAS, other than it's my recollection that Rob wasn't at all a success at 6, but that could just be my prejudices coming out.

The main reason I was posting about Fardy/Simmons was in response to a few posters who are suggesting Rob should be picked at 6 against Scotland, or even more unbelievably, opting for Mumm to be returned over Fardy who had a massive second half against Wales and who would be an ideal complement to the newfound aggressiveness of our locks and No 8.

 

[Strewthcobber]

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries...tralia-attack-makes-wales-look-sluggish-73811

Very comprehensive look at some of Australia's attacking stuctures. Very interesting

 

[amirite]

Last full half that Simmons played - against South Africa - he hit 19 rucks, with 10 tackles and 8 hit ups - total of 37


Fardy hit 25 rucks in this game, with 7 tackles and 2 runs - total of 34

SC - You can't honestly add rucks, tackles, and runs together for a net total score to prove effectiveness. These stats are mutually exclusive.

Perhaps a mathematician/rugby fanatic could calculate how important each of these are and work out a formula for overall effectiveness, but X + Y + Z = 'how good player is' is silly.

It's amazing how people will tell themselves a lie and use that to convince themselves of something.

BR, Simmons was never a failure at 6. He played 1 game there in 2013 during the EOYT and was quite good in fact despite basically everybody thinking Link had lost his mind making that selection.

You're probably thinking of Horwill. Who was tried there maybe in 2010. For a couple of games. And even then, he wasn't necessarily a failure, but more so the combo of him at 6 and Ed Quirk at 7, who wasn't a 7.

TWaS - It was against Italy, and you're right he basically played his usual self (high work load and low impact, with a terrific lineout). It was what we needed and it was fine.

Horwill was a funny one, by memory he was moved there because Adam Byrnes (remember him?) was a ridiculously hard working preseason trainer and was screaming for a shot. Once against, he did the same stuff he does at lock but stood somewhere different in the scrum.

I feel like a test level coach could perhaps target the slower 'close out' speed a 6 that is usually a lock would have off the scrum, and maybe in small ways that one less dynamic player would show over the course of a game in general play. But largely, moving a lock to 6 is sensible and wouldn't detract too much.

 

[Twoilms]

http://www.rugbyworld.com/countries...tralia-attack-makes-wales-look-sluggish-73811

Very comprehensive look at some of Australia's attacking stuctures. Very interesting

One of the key points i took from reading that is a lot of our positive attack came from being able to organize and re-organize far quicker than Wales were able to in defense, which really shows the positive effect of having played 10 tests together recently. Finally starting to gel.

 

[Braveheart81]

SC - You can't honestly add rucks, tackles, and runs together for a net total score to prove effectiveness. These stats are mutually exclusive.

Of course. It's a better indication of workrate than just using one of the stats alone though.

 

[USARugger]

He's the crucial extra threat out wide the Wallabies need, because you can't double-mark both him and Folau without leaving gaps inside for Foley (or Cooper).

The same applies to Kerevi, if not more so. I'm equally happy to see TK back in 13 though because his defense is quite a bit better than Samu's right now - really nice to have that steadying presence in the seam.

 

[Strewthcobber]

SC - You can't honestly add rucks, tackles, and runs together for a net total score to prove effectiveness. These stats are mutually exclusive.

Perhaps a mathematician/rugby fanatic could calculate how important each of these are and work out a formula for overall effectiveness, but X + Y + Z = 'how good player is' is silly.

Of course. Qualitative v quantitative. But have a read of the comment I was replying to.

Number of involvements.

 

[amirite]

Of course. Qualitative v quantitative. But have a read of the comment I was replying to.

Number of involvements.

Fair enough, but I guess what I was getting at is not all involvements were created equal.

 

[PeterK]

The same applies to Kerevi, if not more so. I'm equally happy to see TK back in 13 though because his defense is quite a bit better than Samu's right now - really nice to have that steadying presence in the seam.

I would be equally happy to have Kerevi, Kuridrani as the 12 and 13 and move Hodge to wing or f/b.

 

[Gnostic]

What a great refute to a well evidenced argument.

Well evidenced. Yes. Fan boy parochial evidence repeated every week. It got more response than deserved. Your following posts trying to say he is one of the best 6s we've had is more proof of it.

 

[Pfitzy]

I liked Fardy's contribution in terms of sheer prickliness. He was straight into the Welsh with aggression and niggle.

No stats for that.

 

[dru]

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/team-of-the-week-november-tests-4/

The thing I found i teresting about this, is that our locks are being recognised internationally. Very, very good.

 

[Slim 293]

I think if the lineout is functioning fine without Mumm in the team, then there's no need for him in the 23, especially if we're carrying Simmons on the bench.........

Fardy provides more around the ground, and if there's doubt about Pocock's fitness then he's a good substitute because he goes hard at the breakdown.

 

[dru]

I think if the lineout is functioning fine without Mumm in the team, then there's no need for him in the 23, especially if we're carrying Simmons on the bench...

Fardy provides more around the ground, and if there's doubt about Pocock's fitness then he's a good substitute because he goes hard at the breakdown.

I'm less sanguine but understand completely your thoughts. Test it out on Scotland. Make sure its nailed before Ireland and England.

 

[KOB1987]

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/team-of-the-week-november-tests-4/

The thing I found i teresting about this, is that our locks are being recognised internationally. Very, very good.

Agree, but the other interesting thing is there are no Kiwis in it!