Wallabies 2023

[Viking]

I think there's little doubt Cooper would have started more games under McKenzie if not for injury (although it was also pretty hard not to select Foley in 2014 with the Waratahs form in Super Rugby).

My main point was that people seem to remember that period as one where Cooper was the consistent starter but the reality was it was for less than half the tests McKenzie coached.

In terms of which coach most consistently selected Cooper as the starting 10 it was undoubtedly Deans where he was first choice for 3 years (although missed part of that third year coming back from knee injury).

But where did Cooper play his best rugby. Undoubtedly, with McKenzie. Both at the Reds and the few games at Test level were his best ones.

 

[Viking]

Big effect on Leota with how competitive back row spots are going to be. Plenty of stock coming back/through like Swinton and Gleeson in competition for the spot Leota would want.

I really like Leota and think he moves well for a bloke with his frame. Maybe if he’s back with enough games for the Rebels he’s fit and fresh and may help his cause…

I don’t know if it hurts Phillip as much because you know what you’ll get from him and his selection is probably dependent on fitness of others as I see it right now. I’m off the opinion Eddie will want Skelton in his pack.

The whole forward pack selection is going to be interesting under Eddie. So many different options. Is a Holloway type 6 preferred over Leota at 6. Is Wilson at 8 preferred. Valetini surely is there but at 6 or 8. Is Skelton a sure thing now.

Honestly, I can't wait to see the first team.

 

[Braveheart81]

Sorry I'm not sure where you're going with this or what exactly we are debating anymore.

I was debating McKenzie knew how to use Cooper better then any other coach i.e. that Cooper played his best rugby under McKenzie compared to any other coach.

I think you may be arguing that McKenzie's wallabies weren't any better with Cooper compared to without?

Super Rugby under McKenzie, sure.

Test rugby? I think that's highly debatable. It's such a small sample size, there were no overly impressive victories and the performance everyone keeps coming back to is the Dunedin game we lost. Cooper was certainly good and the Wallabies best player on the day (according to the GAGR ratings but likewise, other players also played very well (3 other players were given the same rating as Cooper. It was hardly a lone hand).

The Wallabies did put together a couple of high point scoring games with Cooper starting in that period but they also had games where they scored 12, 14, 8, 13 and 21. I think it's really hard to argue that this was a period where the team really clicked and Cooper unlocked our attack because he was allowed to play in a manner he wasn't previously.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Surely most of Coopers love for McKenzie stems from the Reds pairing over the Wallabies though. They were fantastic to watch during that period

 

[Viking]

Super Rugby under McKenzie, sure.

Test rugby? I think that's highly debatable. It's such a small sample size, there were no overly impressive victories and the performance everyone keeps coming back to is the Dunedin game we lost. Cooper was certainly good and the Wallabies best player on the day (according to the GAGR ratings but likewise, other players also played very well (3 other players were given the same rating as Cooper. It was hardly a lone hand).

The Wallabies did put together a couple of high point scoring games with Cooper starting in that period but they also had games where they scored 12, 14, 8, 13 and 21. I think it's really hard to argue that this was a period where the team really clicked and Cooper unlocked our attack because he was allowed to play in a manner he wasn't previously.

It is a small sample size, but it is the only sample we can go off. I recall that EOYT and Cooper was solid. Add the Dunedin game and that is probably a period of consistency that Cooper rarely had at Test level, if ever.

Plus add the super rugby, then I think the small evidence we do have leans more towards Cooper was better under McKenzie then Deans or Cheika or any other coach.

 

[rodha]

I agree with your post. McKenzie was the only one who knew how to use Cooper. Give him more control and leadership not less.
But at the end of the day, if Cooper wanted to be picked then he should have "reigned it in" to keep the coaches happy. Not that it would have been the right strategy to win or get the best out of him but it would have helped his selection.
His ego got in the way of that. He wanted to do it his way not the coaches way. Just as much as Chieka and Deans ego got in the way they wanted to control Cooper instead of giving him a leadership role.

No, Deans and Cheika simply couldn't handle Quade's unprecedented magnitude of unfiltered unadulterated genius.

He functioned on a higher plane of enlightenment, one of which was unobtainable for his coaches to even comprehend.

 

[rodha]

Ultimately I think Deans moved on from Cooper because he didn't want the play of one player to have such a huge influence on whether the team (and Deans) succeeded or not.

How is that not an utterly counterproductive mindset when Deans had a superior winning record with Quade at 10? I can't remember the exact figure, it was something like 65% across 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 compared to (2008, 2009, 2012, 2013) when Giteau, Barnes, Beale, O'Conner filled the 10 jersey.

 

[rodha]

I don't think this a surprise. McKenzie was a great coach. He didn't necessarily favour Cooper. He didn't bring Cooper in straight away from memory. Once Cooper returned he played probably his greatest Test in Duniden and had a solid EOYT. We started playing some exciting rugby too. I think it was the To'omua/Cooper combo that was exciting. Prior to this McKenzie's stint was pretty forgettable but with Cooper the team started to play some great rugby.

Then it all fell apart.

People forget that the McKenzie's Wallabies played a much tougher South Africa in 2013 & 2014 than the year before. Apart from one match against Italy McKenzie didn't play any minnow teams to boost his winning percentage. He played a NZ team in 2013 that achieved a historic undefeated season which was perhaps the greatest ever All Black side tied with 2015. He played France in a home series and put over 30 points on them in each match. McKenzie's Wallabies also should have achieved the Grand Slam on the 2013 Autumn tour, they only lost to England due to an officiating mistake.

McKenzie's 50% record is actually pretty remarkable when you take into consideration that Pulver was embarking on a serial cost-cutting endeavour at the time which left the Wallabies without a dedicated team manager, strength & conditioning coach or liaison manager...

McKenzie also had to deal with a significant faction of players that didn't want to play for their coach simply because this one made an effort to enforce disciplinary standards properly unlike predecessor Deans.

 

[Braveheart81]

How is that not an utterly counterproductive mindset when Deans had a superior winning record with Quade at 10? I can't remember the exact figure, it was something like 65% across 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 compared to (2008, 2009, 2012, 2013) when Giteau, Barnes, Beale, O'Conner filled the 10 jersey.

We're talking about 2013 here. Deans was clearly coaching for his life in the Lions Series (and ultimately the Wallabies lost and he resigned).

I don't think it was a crazy decision at that point to try and find someone who could do the job to an average level and the success and failure of the team wouldn't rely on how they played.

Cooper wasn't playing like he had prior to his 2011 knee injury at that point.

 

[rodha]

We're talking about 2013 here. Deans was clearly coaching for his life in the Lions Series (and ultimately the Wallabies lost and he resigned).

I don't think it was a crazy decision at that point to try and find someone who could do the job to an average level and the success and failure of the team wouldn't rely on how they played.

The Lions Series is not the place to experiment. The bigger the occasion the more experience is required in key positions like 10.

And existing team cohesion is important, which is developed from fielding established combinations.

Quade's combination with Genia was vital, they had an almost telepathic understanding of each other's game at that stage, hence they simply had to play together during that series.

Also if Deans had simply played Lilo at 10, with O'Conner at 12 (instead of the other way around) then Lilo who was Australia's best player in that Series wouldn't have gotten knocked out in the 3rd minute of that Brisbane game because he was defending in the midfield channel against 110kg Welsh centres. That simple selection tweak most probably would've resulted in Australia winning Game 1 and going on to win the Series 2-1.

 

[PhilClinton]

There are 360 pages of discussion in the Wallabies 2023 thread, I reckon 324 of them have been about coaching arrangements outside of 2023.

 

[Viking]

The bigger question is, what is Eddie going to see in Quade. I wonder what he thinks of him as a player.

 

[rodha]

The bigger question is, what is Eddie going to see in Quade. I wonder what he thinks of him as a player.

He probably thinks Cheika was a complete dunce for not picking him between 2016-2019.

 

[stillmissit]

I think there's little doubt Cooper would have started more games under McKenzie if not for injury (although it was also pretty hard not to select Foley in 2014 with the Waratahs form in Super Rugby).

My main point was that people seem to remember that period as one where Cooper was the consistent starter but the reality was it was for less than half the tests McKenzie coached.

In terms of which coach most consistently selected Cooper as the starting 10 it was undoubtedly Deans where he was first choice for 3 years (although missed part of that third year coming back from knee injury).

BH, now that surprises me. I thought Deans jettisoned QC (Quade Cooper) fairly early on.

 

[rodha]

BH, now that surprises me. I thought Deans jettisoned QC (Quade Cooper) (Quade Cooper) fairly early on.

I think there was an indication after the 2011 Semi-Final capitulation that Deans had run his course with Cooper and his intention was to develop O'Connor as his first-choice at 10. The first signal came when he picked O'Connor at 10 for the one-off test against Wales & Barbarians that November, O'Connor was out for the entire 2012 season, but was still viewed by Deans as his preferred flyhalf, hence why he picked O'Connor at 10 once he become available again in 2013.

 

[stillmissit]

Super Rugby under McKenzie, sure.

Test rugby? I think that's highly debatable. It's such a small sample size, there were no overly impressive victories and the performance everyone keeps coming back to is the Dunedin game we lost. Cooper was certainly good and the Wallabies best player on the day (according to the GAGR ratings but likewise, other players also played very well (3 other players were given the same rating as Cooper. It was hardly a lone hand).

The Wallabies did put together a couple of high point scoring games with Cooper starting in that period but they also had games where they scored 12, 14, 8, 13 and 21. I think it's really hard to argue that this was a period where the team really clicked and Cooper unlocked our attack because he was allowed to play in a manner he wasn't previously.

BH, wonder what impact the forwards at that time made as the game went down by 8 points.
The backs look pretty impressive: ‘Will Genia (9), Cooper (10), Matt To'omua (12), Tevita Kuridrani (13), Adam Ashely-Cooper (14), and Folau (15)
Fwds, Hooper and Moore both scored 6 the highest forwards in the team. There was a report that they missed Pocock and Fardy - hardly surprising.

 

[Brumbieman]

RE Cheika - the two most negatively influential player-based decisions he made were

1. Scott Fardy. Pocock and Hooper worked very well as a unit until Cheika inexplicably decided that Fardy as the balance of the unit as a whole wasn’t an option anymore. How and why he arrived at that decision is and always will be a mystery to me. To play two opensides, it’s crucial to have a 3rd line out option, that grafts away in rucks and allows the other backrowers to play looser. Utter madness.

2. Folau at fullback. He was an absolute freak under the high ball, and on attack, but he couldn’t kick his way out of a wet paper bag, which meant that we needed 3 million different structures in attack and defence to accommodate that. Folau on either wing, ready to take a crossfield kick (which I genuinely remember/think was only ever used in gold with him on the field maybe half a dozen times in total?!) or tear apart a broken field defence would have been far superior to him actually taking the high kicks and then either making fewer metres with a clearing kick than Foley could, or getting tackled behind the advantage line and out of play for two phases.

The last 3 years of Cheika, almost the entire playbook was - ‘after our predictable two phases of forward hit ups from the scrum half, we’ll throw it to Foley, with no momentum and one option for the short-ball hit up as a fake, then out the back to a hungover Beale and hope he can make something happen against 5 defenders and with 2 attacking options available.

 

[Derpus]

We are tackling all the big issues that have fuck all to do with Wallabies '23 eh

 

[Derpus]

BH, now that surprises me. I thought Deans jettisoned QC (Quade Cooper) (Quade Cooper) fairly early on.

Dude has 70+ caps. Hes hardly been dudded by anyone.

 

[rodha]

Dude has 70+ caps. Hes hardly been dudded by anyone.

He was once Robbie decided his golden boy O'Connor was the future, he says so in his book. Deans did a complete 180 after 2011 SF and decided that O'Connor was the anointed one, Cooper was phased out as Deans had a stubborn personality clash that just wouldn't budge, see how experienced players Mertehns, Giteau, Smith, Mortlock, Tiquiri, etc.. were also considered surplus to requirements. Once players mature & develop the ability to think for themselves they will eventually begin to challenge Dean's methods, hence why he promptly casts them aside.