Wallabies 2024

[Tomthumb]

Yeah, I don't really get the ikitau to 12 movement. He's a great 13 and there's not much in his game to suggest he'd be better suited 12 - he's not a massive crash baller or a secondary playmaker for example. I'm sure he could do a job there if required, but I'd rather a great 13 (which are generally harder to come by) than a solid 12.

There may be some merit to him getting a bit of time there so he's more capable of filling the position in a pinch (modern era cards/hia's make backline versatility much more important) but I can't see any sort of permanent move being good for the wallabies or ikitau in the long run.

We don’t have any good crash ballers, so it’s irrelevant. Moving Ikitau to 12 would be an option for the Wallabies because he’s got good footwork into contact, an elite passing game and one of the best kicks in the team

Problem with keeping him at 13 is that he is nullified by the fact our 10 & 12 aren’t good enough to get him the ball in space so he goes missing for large chunks of games due to the ineptitude inside him

Fact is nothing should be off the table considering we are 10th in the world

 

[rugbyAU]

In other news congrats to Tate on his engagement recently

 

[Wilson]

We don’t have any good crash ballers, so it’s irrelevant. Moving Ikitau to 12 would be an option for the Wallabies because he’s got good footwork into contact, an elite passing game and one of the best kicks in the team

These are reasons he's a great 13, move him to 12 and that footwork is less useful in traffic without the size to back it up and there's more required from his passing game as a playmaker then there is at 13. We're better off leaning into our strengths and building around them than compromising them to try and patch holes elsewhere.

If we're looking at shifting a current wallaby in to 12 we'd be better off exploring Donaldson there. It doesn't compromise our existing strengths and gets a second playmaker into the frontline with a good turn of pace and a decent boot. That said, I think our problems at 12 are as much due to us still building into new attacking systems as anything else. Outside of a physically dominant (and potentially limited) unit, no one is going to show well week on week there when players are still learning where and when they need to be and our ruck work is inconsistent (though promising and improving).

 

[dru]

I don't see what Donaldson offers at 12 over Stewart.

 

[Tomthumb]

Donaldson at 12? He and Noah defending next to each other would be tantamount to running past a couple of traffic cones

Leaning into our strengths? How is starving our best ball player and tackle breaker by making him play outside a bumbling 12 playing into our strengths?

 

[rugbyAU]

Foketi seems to be forgotten I remember he was decent in 2022

 

[cyclopath]

But I’m sure you can agree that Ikitau is likely to be capable of playing 12 so it is likely it wouldn’t be weakening two. Sometimes a player who is good in one position can be even better in another - Larkham being the perfect example. And there are plenty of guys like Roff, Mortlock, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Little, Nonu, Umaga etc who have proven a guy can be test level in more than 1 spot.

I get your hesitation - but if we shift Ikitau to 12 and our centre pairing still struggled I’m prepared to guess it won’t be because Ikitau is the issue.

Honestly, the level of dogma on these boards at times drives me nuts.
Players like Ikitau are proper rugby players and I cannot see why he could not adapt well to 12.

 

[Wilson]

I don't see what Donaldson offers at 12 over Stewart.

Donaldson at 12? He and Noah defending next to each other would be tantamount to running past a couple of traffic cones

Leaning into our strengths? How is starving our best ball player and tackle breaker by making him play outside a bumbling 12 playing into our strengths?

To be clear I was not arguing we should shift Donaldson to 12, only that it makes as much of not more sense than moving Ikitau there.

Ikitau is not starved of ball because our 12 isn't feeding him. If he is at all starved of ball (and his stats suggest he's getting a good amount of it) it's because we are playing a tighter game because our backline attack and forward support play is still building into the systems under Schmidt, and are generally less able to play to width as a whole.

 

[Wilson]

Honestly, the level of dogma on these boards at times drives me nuts.
Players like Ikitau are proper rugby players and I cannot see why he could not adapt well to 12.

Is anyone actually saying he won't adapt well? The argument is that he won't be as good at 12 as he is at 13 and it will weaken the team as a whole.

Realistically, if he were to move to 12 then we'd likely be running Paisami at 13, given he's the next most experienced and capable 13 in the squad. Does that shape as a better option as a whole then their current arrangement?

 

[cyclopath]

Is anyone actually saying he won't adapt well? The argument is that he won't be as good at 12 as he is at 13 and it will weaken the team as a whole.

Realistically, if he were to move to 12 then we'd likely be running Paisami at 13, given he's the next most experienced and capable 13 in the squad. Does that shape as a better option as a whole then their current arrangement?

Yeah, they do seem to be.
Imagine if someone even better at 13 emerges.
As @Tomthumb says, we are 10th in the world, so maybe some new things could be tried.

 

[Wilson]

Yeah, they do seem to be.
Imagine if someone even better at 13 emerges.
As @Tomthumb says, we are 10th in the world, so maybe some new things could be tried.

Imagine if they emerge at 12, traditionally an easier position for players to find their feet.

I get the idea of trying new things, but what are we actually trying to achieve by shifting him to 12? There doesn't seem to be a strong argument for it beyond "he could be good there", when he's already good to great in his current position.

If we were 2 or 3 years into a cycle and had stagnated I could understand the need to shuffle and try and find something radical and new, but we're building almost from the ground up here, it seems like a good time to lean into what few strong foundations we have to work with. Does our progress from last year really seem so slow that we need to start rolling the dice like this?

 

[Tomthumb]

Is anyone actually saying he won't adapt well? The argument is that he won't be as good at 12 as he is at 13 and it will weaken the team as a whole.

Realistically, if he were to move to 12 then we'd likely be running Paisami at 13, given he's the next most experienced and capable 13 in the squad. Does that shape as a better option as a whole then their current arrangement?

To be honest, how much weaker can we get?

I don’t really see the downside of trying him there. And no, Paisami would not be at 13. The idea is to replace him as he’s had many chances by multiple coaches and never looked like the business

I’ll say it again, Josh Flook was impressive in the Welsh tests and deserves an extended chance in the role. I get he doesn’t weight 130 kgs, but he’s a smart player with good footwork, a good pass and a really smart defender and tackler

 

[cyclopath]

Imagine if they emerge at 12, traditionally an easier position for players to find their feet.

I get the idea of trying new things, but what are we actually trying to achieve by shifting him to 12? There doesn't seem to be a strong argument for it beyond "he could be good there", when he's already good to great in his current position.

If we were 2 or 3 years into a cycle and had stagnated I could understand the need to shuffle and try and find something radical and new, but we're building almost from the ground up here, it seems like a good time to lean into what few strong foundations we have to work with. Does our progress from last year really seem so slow that we need to start rolling the dice like this?

Is 12 easier? How? Why do wingers seem to adapt to 13 better if it is so complex to master; I mean wingers, apparently, are the vacuous show-ponies of the team.
We have the Lions next year. If we lose that 3-0, which currently seems likely, we may not see another Lions Tour.
We need to consider trying some things because what we are currently doing is way short of the mark.

 

[Tomthumb]

If we were 2 or 3 years into a cycle and had stagnated I could understand the need to shuffle and try and find something radical and new, but we're building almost from the ground up here, it seems like a good time to lean into what few strong foundations we have to work with. Does our progress from last year really seem so slow that we need to start rolling the dice like this?

We are building foundations on sand with the current backline

And honestly, what progress? We just went 1 from 6 in the Rugby Championship ending with a -106 point differential and conceded the most points we ever have in a game

 

[TSR]

Imagine if they emerge at 12, traditionally an easier position for players to find their feet.

I get the idea of trying new things, but what are we actually trying to achieve by shifting him to 12? There doesn't seem to be a strong argument for it beyond "he could be good there", when he's already good to great in his current position.

If we were 2 or 3 years into a cycle and had stagnated I could understand the need to shuffle and try and find something radical and new, but we're building almost from the ground up here, it seems like a good time to lean into what few strong foundations we have to work with. Does our progress from last year really seem so slow that we need to start rolling the dice like this?

To be honest I was mainly reacting to the suggestion it wouldn’t work or shouldn’t be tried. Personally I don’t agree Ikitau doesn’t have the skills to play 12 and I don’t agree either that 12 is traditionally easier for players to find their feet. That certainly hasn’t been the case in Australia for a long time.

A potential move to 12 for Ikitau would allow someone like Daugunu, Flook or, potentially Sua'ali'i to play 13. Maybe they wouldn’t be better than Paisami at 12, maybe they would. Maybe Sua'ali'i isn’t suited at 13. Maybe he can play 12. Who knows. But there is plenty of evidence players can successful change from one position to another - and even switch between positions. Some of the comments here seem to suggest it is a much bigger deal than it would likely be.

 

[Wilson]

Is 12 easier? How? Why do wingers seem to adapt to 13 better if it is so complex to master; I mean wingers, apparently, are the vacuous show-ponies of the team.
We have the Lions next year. If we lose that 3-0, which currently seems likely, we may not see another Lions Tour.
We need to consider trying some things because what we are currently doing is way short of the mark.

Defensively 12 is generally considered significantly easier, particularly because 13 has to cover more space and either move or decide faster (ideally both). There's also more room to play one-dimensional 12s working a power game then there is at 13 where the position tends to demand a better read of the game. Wingers moving to 13 is at least in part because 13s are often given the chance at wing when making the step up, as it's less likely to see them exposed. Beyond that it's probably pace that helps them most.

As far as the Lions tour goes that's a reason not to reinvent the wheel where we don't need to, given how close it is. At very least try Feliaui and possibly Foketi before declaring the cupboard bare.

To be honest, how much weaker can we get?

I don’t really see the downside of trying him there. And no, Paisami would not be at 13. The idea is to replace him as he’s had many chances by multiple coaches and never looked like the business

I’ll say it again, Josh Flook was impressive in the Welsh tests and deserves an extended chance in the role. I get he doesn’t weight 130 kgs, but he’s a smart player with good footwork, a good pass and a really smart defender and tackler

How much weaker? Significantly - we could lose to Wales, for example.

Flook is a solid player and I rate him, but he's still young and making his very first steps at this level. I don't agree with others that size is that much of an issue for him at 13 but I don't think he'll offer more than Paisami there right now.

This is probably the key disagreement I have here though - I don't think Paisami has been anywhere near as bad as you (and others) seem to. I agree he's been uneven, particularly after his injury, but I also think he's been close to our best in some games this year, and when our attack has looked most fluid it's been when he's been heavily involved as an alternate 1st receiver and 2nd line playmaker.

That said, he's definitely left the door open to others at this stage, I just don't see why Ikitau would be the first port of call there, seeing us either swap our 12 and 13 out of their preferred position or run a rookie at 13 with a 12 new to the role and trying to find his feet when that partnership could instead be a rookie 12 supported by an experienced and capable 13 in Ikitau.

 

[cyclopath]

I think it's the talent of the player, not the number on their back.
Anyway, it's a circular argument. If we have a dud tour to the NH over the next little while, we are in real strife come next year. Plugging along as we currently are won't do.

 

[Tomikin]

Just select Sua'ali'i at 12 and hope for the best. I wouldn't move Ikitau to 12..not a dumb idea but the next 13's Flook not a roaring experienced 13 we can't decide between, just select him at 12.

Anyway I think this close to the Lions we won't see much movement unless someone demands it, Sua'ali'i got the football profile to make a difference. E.g size, skill, talent, but not the experience, he could force his way in. Kerevi has it all, but has to be fit and want to play, if his not on the Northern tour he won't make it.

 

[eastman]

Is anyone actually saying he won't adapt well? The argument is that he won't be as good at 12 as he is at 13 and it will weaken the team as a whole.

Realistically, if he were to move to 12 then we'd likely be running Paisami at 13, given he's the next most experienced and capable 13 in the squad. Does that shape as a better option as a whole then their current arrangement?

We are only considering Ikitau at 13 because Paisami has been pretty woeful this year (and in the past) despite his strong Super Rugby.

I‘m not advocating for a Ikitau/ Flook partnership but I would strongly argue that an Ikitau/ Sua'ali'i (or even Petaia) partnership would be stronger than any permutation with Hunter or Stewart.

Ikitau‘a hardly a classical outside centre in the mold of Huw Jones of Garry Ringrose. He’s not necessarily a hole runner or trying to beat guys on the outside but he is elusive and effective- as Cyclo would say it would hardly be a stretch to play him there.

 

[eastman]

This is probably the key disagreement I have here though - I don't think Paisami has been anywhere near as bad as you (and others) seem to. I agree he's been uneven, particularly after his injury, but I also think he's been close to our best in some games this year, and when our attack has looked most fluid it's been when he's been heavily involved as an alternate 1st receiver and 2nd line playmaker..

His error rate has been terrible and his decision making has been poor.

Stewart doesn’t have the athleticism (strength/ robustness) to ever be a good test player but at least he knows when and how to pass.