The Red Baron
Chilla Wilson (44)
No, you'd have McReight kick it. He's adept at kicking 50/22s.
Wallabies 2025
- Thread starter rugbyAU
- Start date
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
I think that grubber listing might include all/most of the kicks off the deck (I can't see where else they'd fit).
LeCheese
Greg Davis (50)
Hopefully no news is somewhat good news - less likely that it's a flat no from Joe.
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
At this stage I think no news probably indicates he's done as far as a traditional head coach role goes, but there's a good chance of some sort of managed transition/ongoing role for him after the Lions. Straight yes or no probably would've been a bit quicker to hear something, at least via the regular leaks if not the official channels.
JRugby2
Bob Loudon (25)
Unless it's a "yes, but" and they are spending this time working out what the but is? A straight yes or no definitely would have been quicker but I don't think there was any indication given in the prior reporting that it was going to be that simple.
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
For mine that's the case where the but is "as DoR with a new head coach" or "as a senior assistant/technical advisor to a new head coach". If it was a yes as the head coach but someone else takes the team on the EOYTs or with this special leave allowance I feel like we would've heard by now.
That is just my feel for it though, the counterpoint is probably that anything that required someone coming in a more official capacity (the cases were Schmidt leaves or steps back) would've been more likely to leak just because more parties would be involved. Payten does also talk about Schmidt being famously tight lipped here and how that may not be as indicative as everyone is assuming:
TSR
Andrew Slack (58)
I’d assume that it is a bit self perpetuating. Australia was often playing in poor field position. So when they did get the ball they kicked more often then not. We weren’t getting enough territory on our kicks and missed reclaiming a lot of our shorter kicks, so remained in poor field position. Cycle repeats.
I think the flipside to that of winning teams historically kicking more than losing teams is also situational.
They're not winning because they kicked more, they're kicking more than their opposition because they're winning. Losing team chances their arm more running the ball from positions they'd ordinarily kick for territory from and the winning team trying to play a territory game and happy to keep banging the ball into touch and causing a stoppage.
Mick The Munch
Vay Wilson (31)
When is the Rebels next court case - I seem to remember its before Christmas?
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
I believe the next court date is December 20.
TSR
Andrew Slack (58)
Maybe. I don’t really agree 100% - I think they were winning more because they kicked more but I do agree it is situational - depending on what the defence offers you. In some ways I am probably arguing semantics with you - but I do think there is an important context.
I think there were a couple of keys which all supported a more kick heavy game and all of which explain to different degrees Australia’s lack of success -
- modern rugby is based around field position. Yes, teams can and do launch long range attacks, but they are more opportunistic and generally rely on poor opposition kicks, poorly constructed kick chase lines or an overread by defence waiting for the kick. Most teams are conservative from their own end. Australia has struggled for some time to develop kickers with both distance and accuracy to win kicking duals and have been one of fhe poorest exponents of box kicking
- to your point on ‘situational’ kicking a lot of this comes down the a genuine triple threat ball player. The likes of Russell, Smith, Mo’unga, Pollard are all genuine triple threats who read play and execute short kicking and cross field kicking well. Cooper is our only recent 10 who could be classed the same. Gordon had potential but didn’t get there before he left. The flip side of their potency with the boot is that teams have to defend the threat which opens other opportunities - the kicking threat making teams more successful in attack
- more successful teams generate more penalty advantage plays creating opportunities for the kick under advantage. Too often Australia has either been the team under pressure or haven’t been able to sustain the pressure for long enough periods in attack
- more successful teams are receiving more kick offs which leads to an exit strategy. Teams like SA, NZ & France nail these routinely - go to their kick, generate field position, start the cycle. This has been a real point of weakness for the Wallabies although we did see some signs of improvement
Whichever way you look at it the key point here is that it has been some time since Australia had both the vision and ability to execute kicking under pressure to consistently challenge the best teams and it was something that still held us back in the northern tour. But if you take that back to BR’s post I was replying to that showed the best teams weren’t the teams kicking the most I’d guess that they were probably having to do less because they were winning field position and that they were probably still kicking better if if they weren’t having to kick as often.
Last edited:
Micheal
Alan Cameron (40)
As others have said, a 'no' is very simple. A 'yes' requires details, and details take time.
The Ghost of Raelene
David Codey (61)
There's a lot of thinking to go on from all in his family and fair enough. This isn't a call to be made just by Joe.
For RA it's tricky. You want to give him as much time as needed if you are to be a good employer and you care about your staff. But, you also need to find out as soon as you can for planning purposes. Push it too hard and there's a chance you just a get "look, I won't" from Schmidt just because he doesn't need any more pressure in his life I'm sure but given time and a plan in place it could work out.
I do think we can afford to wait and his career has earned that right as well. He'll see us through the Lions and hopefully an answer either way by the start of the Super Rugby season which can allow enough time for RA to have the next coach and coaching team locked in through to the RWC.
We are all right to be skeptical of RAs ability to be a functional organisation but so far Waugh, Herbert and Horne are doing good things from what I can see. Some hated the seeming lack of corporate experience Waugh had but at the point Rugby was/is at nationally I think we also need a bit of Rugby blood and guts in there that Waugh & Herbert have. I think they care and get it far more than the Pulver, HMAC, Castle, Clyne types.
For RA it's tricky. You want to give him as much time as needed if you are to be a good employer and you care about your staff. But, you also need to find out as soon as you can for planning purposes. Push it too hard and there's a chance you just a get "look, I won't" from Schmidt just because he doesn't need any more pressure in his life I'm sure but given time and a plan in place it could work out.
I do think we can afford to wait and his career has earned that right as well. He'll see us through the Lions and hopefully an answer either way by the start of the Super Rugby season which can allow enough time for RA to have the next coach and coaching team locked in through to the RWC.
We are all right to be skeptical of RAs ability to be a functional organisation but so far Waugh, Herbert and Horne are doing good things from what I can see. Some hated the seeming lack of corporate experience Waugh had but at the point Rugby was/is at nationally I think we also need a bit of Rugby blood and guts in there that Waugh & Herbert have. I think they care and get it far more than the Pulver, HMAC, Castle, Clyne types.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Probably wouldn't read too much into the early squad. Maybe they figure better to let him come back via Super Rugby after his break.
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
Yeah, lots of the recent, long term injured not included - Daugunu, Liam Wright, Dave Porecki, Charlie Cale, etc.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Ahh, the mysteries of squad and team selection.
We have a sqaud announced of 40 players, consisting of 14 Reds, 11 Tahs, 8 Brumbies and 7 Force. At face value. it looks to be a bit Reds heavy. But for the Tahs to have 11 reps after two seasons where they won only two games against the woeful Crusaders, surely that's enough to raise some eyebrows?
However, five of those Tahs were not part of the 2024 squad, 4 from the Rebels and one fron League. Still 6 looks to be generous against 8 for the Brumbies.
The Brumbies' injury list at the end of the last Super Rugby season explains this to an extent. If fit, it is conceivable that players like Schoupp, L Lonergan, Cale and O'Donnell might have made the list. Eleven or twelve would be a more consistent number compared with the Reds contingent given their respective Super seasons.
A Wallabies starting XV selected from that squad would probably look like:
1. Bell, 2. Faessler, 3. Tupou,
4. Frost, 5. Williams
6. Valetini, 8. Wilson, 7. McReight
9. Gordon, 10. Lolesio
11. Pietsch/Jorgensen, 12. Ikitau, 13. Sua'ali'i, 14. Kellaway
15. Wright
So, out of 14 Reds, we have only 3 making the starting XV. Seems odd?
From the 8 Brumbies, we have 5 starting.
The Tahs actually provide 6 of the starting lineup, though 3 of those weren't part of the 2024 roster.
The Force have Williams as the sole representative.
Going to the likely bench, we'd perhaps have:
16. Paenga-Amosa, 17. Slipper, 18. Ala'alatoa, 19, Salakai-Lotto, 20. Gleeson, 21. McDermott, 22. Donaldson, 23. Jorgensen/Pietsch.
Again, we have 2 from the Reds to give a total of 5 in the XXIII. Could be seen as a bit light on given 14 players selected in the squad. Or, alternatively, perhaps they are over-represented in the squad?
The Brumbies have 2 bench players giving a total of 7 for the XXIII. Only one, the third rated Hooker, Pollard, misses a guernsey.
The Tahs gain 2 bringing them to 8 in the XXIII. Perhaps a bit over-represented based on Super Rugby form?
The Force add 2 to their solitary starter, giving tham a total of 3 in the XXIII. Perhaps about what would be expected?
The Brumbies and Tahs are the two sides to get more than half their squad members into the XXIII. The Reds and Force numbers possibly raise a few questions about some of those squad members.
My overall feeling atm is that the squad is close to the best fit players available, but that there are quite a few who could have their spots challenged by better players returning from injury elsewhere or by players who missed selection having strong performances in the Super competition in 2025.
We have a sqaud announced of 40 players, consisting of 14 Reds, 11 Tahs, 8 Brumbies and 7 Force. At face value. it looks to be a bit Reds heavy. But for the Tahs to have 11 reps after two seasons where they won only two games against the woeful Crusaders, surely that's enough to raise some eyebrows?
However, five of those Tahs were not part of the 2024 squad, 4 from the Rebels and one fron League. Still 6 looks to be generous against 8 for the Brumbies.
The Brumbies' injury list at the end of the last Super Rugby season explains this to an extent. If fit, it is conceivable that players like Schoupp, L Lonergan, Cale and O'Donnell might have made the list. Eleven or twelve would be a more consistent number compared with the Reds contingent given their respective Super seasons.
A Wallabies starting XV selected from that squad would probably look like:
1. Bell, 2. Faessler, 3. Tupou,
4. Frost, 5. Williams
6. Valetini, 8. Wilson, 7. McReight
9. Gordon, 10. Lolesio
11. Pietsch/Jorgensen, 12. Ikitau, 13. Sua'ali'i, 14. Kellaway
15. Wright
So, out of 14 Reds, we have only 3 making the starting XV. Seems odd?
From the 8 Brumbies, we have 5 starting.
The Tahs actually provide 6 of the starting lineup, though 3 of those weren't part of the 2024 roster.
The Force have Williams as the sole representative.
Going to the likely bench, we'd perhaps have:
16. Paenga-Amosa, 17. Slipper, 18. Ala'alatoa, 19, Salakai-Lotto, 20. Gleeson, 21. McDermott, 22. Donaldson, 23. Jorgensen/Pietsch.
Again, we have 2 from the Reds to give a total of 5 in the XXIII. Could be seen as a bit light on given 14 players selected in the squad. Or, alternatively, perhaps they are over-represented in the squad?
The Brumbies have 2 bench players giving a total of 7 for the XXIII. Only one, the third rated Hooker, Pollard, misses a guernsey.
The Tahs gain 2 bringing them to 8 in the XXIII. Perhaps a bit over-represented based on Super Rugby form?
The Force add 2 to their solitary starter, giving tham a total of 3 in the XXIII. Perhaps about what would be expected?
The Brumbies and Tahs are the two sides to get more than half their squad members into the XXIII. The Reds and Force numbers possibly raise a few questions about some of those squad members.
My overall feeling atm is that the squad is close to the best fit players available, but that there are quite a few who could have their spots challenged by better players returning from injury elsewhere or by players who missed selection having strong performances in the Super competition in 2025.