Wallabies 2020

[KOB1987]

The objective of test rugby is to pick your strongest team and 'test' it against another nation's test side. Especially the case in a Bledisloe series. I have no issues with form based attrition, but dumping someone because they are over a certain age is stupid.

 

[Zero_Cool]

What if you could lose 3 games this year but be assured of winning the next RWC. Obviously you can never know. But I think there needs to be a balance.

A good example is Trevor Hosea, Nick Frost, and Angus Blyth, vs Matt Philip / Cadeyrn Neville. I'd rather us picking someone from the first group -- an emerging lock who might actually be useful at the next RWC.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

What if you could win both?

 

[Derpus]

What if you could lose 3 games this year but be assured of winning the next RWC. Obviously you can never know. But I think there needs to be a balance.

A good example is Trevor Hosea, Nick Frost, and Angus Blyth, vs Matt Philip / Cadeyrn Neville. I'd rather us picking someone from the first group -- an emerging lock who might actually be useful at the next RWC.

Or we could let them develop at Super Rugby level where they won't get torn to shreds by the likes of Whitelock and Retallick in their first four test matches.

Let them earn their stripes like everyone else. There is no evidence that rushing prospects in helps them develop. On the contrary - NZ as an example are very slow to introduce their next big thing. Hard to argue with their results.

 

[KOB1987]

What if you could lose 3 games this year but be assured of winning the next RWC. Obviously you can never know. But I think there needs to be a balance.

A good example is Trevor Hosea, Nick Frost, and Angus Blyth, vs Matt Philip / Cadeyrn Neville. I'd rather us picking someone from the first group -- an emerging lock who might actually be useful at the next RWC.

I don't mind it in the example you are talking of because the older players are only in the mix because of an exodus, so it makes sense to invest in the future in that instance. But that's different to picking Joey Walton over Matt To'omua or James O'Connor. By all means include them in the squad but they need to actually be outperforming the blokes they are earmarked to replace to get selected over them in the match day squad.

 

[Zero_Cool]

Who the F--- is Joey Walton?

I'd think the only options at flyhalf would be Lolesio/Kuenzle, Deegan/To'omua, Harrison, and O'Connor. Obviously the players need to be at a comparable standard.

 

[hammertimethere]

When I read Kafer's article the first immediate thought I had was "Yep well that worked out well for Lancaster's England squad in 2015". Lancaster reportedly had fixed ideas about the average age and number of caps a RWC winning squad historically has and spent years in the lead up to a home world cup trying to manufacture that profile in his squad. Problem was, it's a classic correlation-causation fallacy.

RWC winning squads tend to have that profile because they are full of a generation of players who's ability was sufficient to introduce them to test rugby at ~22, and keep them in it such that they earned the 50-70 caps before peaking at the right time. England's run up to 2015 was marked by repeated calls to reward the form and ability of players outside the core group selected by Lancaster in 2011/12 which were largely ignored (other than the obvious exception of S.Burgess, but there were political factors at play there).

If you just aim to mostly pick the best team you can to win every test, while remaining open minded and ready to bring through a younger player in place of a veteran where a combination of talent, form and circumstance require it then something like this "model profile" should grow organically. It always has and always will come back to cattle and timing.

 

[Derpus]

When I read Kafer's article the first immediate thought I had was "Yep well that worked out well for Lancaster's England squad in 2015". Lancaster reportedly had fixed ideas about the average age and number of caps a RWC winning squad historically has and spent years in the lead up to a home world cup trying to manufacture that profile in his squad. Problem was, it's a classic correlation-causation fallacy.

RWC winning squads tend to have that profile because they are full of a generation of players who's ability was sufficient to introduce them to test rugby at ~22, and keep them in it such that they earned the 50-70 caps before peaking at the right time. England's run up to 2015 was marked by repeated calls to reward the form and ability of players outside the core group selected by Lancaster in 2011/12 which were largely ignored (other than the obvious exception of S.Burgess, but there were political factors at play there).

If you just aim to mostly pick the best team you can to win every test, while remaining open minded and ready to bring through a younger player in place of a veteran where a combination of talent, form and circumstance require it then something like this "model profile" should grow organically. It always has and always will come back to cattle and timing.

There have also only been 9 world cups. That's not many to cups to be drawing statistically relevant data from.

 

[Mick The Munch]

There have also only been 9 world cups. That's not many to cups to be drawing statistically relevant data from.

Agreed - it's click bait

 

[KOB1987]

Who the F--- is Joey Walton?

I'd think the only options at flyhalf would be Lolesio/Kuenzle, Deegan/To'omua, Harrison, and O'Connor. Obviously the players need to be at a comparable standard.

Waratahs centre, one of the cases Kafer cited:

Bayley Kunzele (22) or Joey Walton (20) over Matt To’omua (30)

 

[Wilson]

When I read Kafer's article the first immediate thought I had was "Yep well that worked out well for Lancaster's England squad in 2015". Lancaster reportedly had fixed ideas about the average age and number of caps a RWC winning squad historically has and spent years in the lead up to a home world cup trying to manufacture that profile in his squad. Problem was, it's a classic correlation-causation fallacy.

It reminds me of Ben Darwin talking about the way teams try and find tricks or new secrets to getting things write and read too much into the data:

Warming to his subject, he adds: “Teams who have settled get time to work on the extra stuff and often times the extra stuff gets regarded as causative and it’s actually not. For example, we looked at the study, “Tactile Communication, Cooperation and Performance: An Ethological Study of the NBA”, which assessed the impact of touching teammates on performance. Many teams have been trying to introduce touch into their practice with little to no impact.

“What is most likely taking place is not causative but correlative: those that trust each other, through shared experience will be comfortable to touch each other, but they will also know each other’s role and have a stronger shared tactical understanding.” Too often, he says, we see outcomes of stability as causative rather than the stability itself.”

I don't always agree with his points around cohesion, but he's bang on here. The idea that we should do this because this is how successful teams have looked in the past doesn't really hold water when you dig into it.

 

[Brumby Runner]

The Reds lineout sure as shit ain't vaunted BR

Sorry D, my bad. Meant to say vaunted Tahs lineout. Guess we can stick with the adjective?

 

[wamberal]

Let them earn their stripes like everyone else. There is no evidence that rushing prospects in helps them develop. On the contrary - NZ as an example are very slow to introduce their next big thing. Hard to argue with their results.

Maybe that is because they have huge strength in depth covering most positions. On the other hand, did somebody mention Brodie Retallick? How old was he on debut, 19?

Circumstances alter cases. As a general principle, I believe we should be picking players on both form and potential: when there are a couple of players competing for one slot, go with the younger, all else being equal.

 

[Derpus]

Maybe as the last selection metric, things are never otherwise equal anyway.

 

[qwerty51]

Hooper is doing a Japan sabbatical next year although still available for Tests you'd think would rule out his Test captaincy chances.

Not really sure who the other options are.. maybe Matt To'omua or Nic White.

 

[lpd]

The objective of test rugby is to pick your strongest team and 'test' it against another nation's test side. Especially the case in a Bledisloe series. I have no issues with form based attrition, but dumping someone because they are over a certain age is stupid.

In 2016 (grand slam) + 17 England won the six nations doing just this. Captained by Hartley, Robshaw and Haskell in the backrow and Brown at full back. All v experienced, helped build a winning culture for the youngsters to come up through, then didn't make the 19 World Cup. Got them to a WC final

 

[Zero_Cool]

I think JO'C is a sneaky good option for the test captaincy. He's clearly in the XV. He's our best 10, top two 12's and best 13. So some kid playing well isn't going to put him under selection pressure.

I also think Hooper can't be captain going forwards, his leadership has been good, but that's about it. He is probably the worst communicator with the referee I've ever seen, he very often makes awful tactical decisions. At best he's going to be under a mountain of selection pressure from Wright (maybe an option) and McReight.

Plus I think Hooper is (and always has been) better suited to coming off the bench.

 

[qwerty51]

As much as JOC (James O'Connor) has matured... yeah nah I can't agree at all there.

 

[Up the Guts]

Matt To'omua will be captain if Hooper is not.

 

[Derpus]

I think JO'C is a sneaky good option for the test captaincy. He's clearly in the XV. He's our best 10, top two 12's and best 13. So some kid playing well isn't going to put him under selection pressure.

I also think Hooper can't be captain going forwards, his leadership has been good, but that's about it. He is probably the worst communicator with the referee I've ever seen, he very often makes awful tactical decisions. At best he's going to be under a mountain of selection pressure from Wright (maybe an option) and McReight.

Plus I think Hooper is (and always has been) better suited to coming off the bench.

Ever heard of Jordan Petaia?

The odds of Hooper being dropped are slim because he's still the best 7 going around.

McReight is the future but he's still no where near Hooper. Wright is a different player and i can see him getting selected if Rennie wants something different from his backrow. But, again, hes not a better player.