P
Paradox
Guest
I don't think Deans will select Lilo won't be 12 (unfortunately). It'll be McCabe or Horne.
Wallabies 31 Man Squad
- Thread starter Bowside
- Start date
- Status
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Playing exciting Rugby need not be all that risky. It is dependant on skills execution. It need not "screw you" if the players are trained and practiced to execute the skills.
The plan seen from 2011 to the present is just the Tahs Hickey/Foley plan on steroids and it minimises risk by reducing the need for higher level skills execution. There are no long passes, no looping plays, no set piece plays.
This play killed the Tahs fan base and it is doing the same to the Wallabies and it still didn't win the games for the Tahs and not for the Wallabies up to this point as well.
Athilnaur
Arch Winning (36)
So true, every other forum is, why should we be any different?
lewisr
Bill McLean (32)
What little faith I have left in him tells me that he will be sensible enough to choose Lilo or Barnes. Otherwise it will come down to Genia to be our primary play maker....
Athilnaur
Arch Winning (36)
You couldn't really blame Deans if he does opt for a strong defender crash ball type given what we are seeing from the Lions. Clearly we're going to need good defense in the 10-12 channel.
But equally JOC (James O'Connor) is an excellent defender if not a dominant one, and it would be really good to see a Lilo or Barnes (the non-kick having a crack at the line model Barnes that is) in the mix. We'd lose a little ground on D and a bit more risk of a linebreak, but both are very good technical tacklers and we'd put a wider threat on the opposition.
But equally JOC (James O'Connor) is an excellent defender if not a dominant one, and it would be really good to see a Lilo or Barnes (the non-kick having a crack at the line model Barnes that is) in the mix. We'd lose a little ground on D and a bit more risk of a linebreak, but both are very good technical tacklers and we'd put a wider threat on the opposition.
gold heart
Ted Fahey (11)
FF (Folau Fainga'a)
Scotty
David Codey (61)
Yeah, I understand, was just airing my concerns regarding the squad and in particular the backs. I wouldn't much different in the squad, but i suspect Deans 15 may be different to mine, and the biggest concerns are regarding out of position players and non-test match fit players.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
Do you think Beale will be up for 80 minutes of test rugby?
I'd have him come off the bench.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
On the issues of the backs, I think about Rumsfeld's quote about known knowns etc.
The known knowns:
- Genia is fit and is by far the best candidate at 9
- JOC (James O'Connor) always plays well for the wallabies. His best form for the year has been at 15, and for the wallabies at 14.
- Lilo and Horne are the form oz super rugby 12
- McCabe hasn't had good enough form or fitness this year to warrant a starting spot for the Brumbies
- AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) is fit and will do the job for the wallabies at 13
- Folau is a fantastic talent and proven at the highest level in another sport
- Ioane had great form for the Reds, but we know he won't have played for months
- Cummins played very well for the wallabies, but only one game this year before again being injured (which I understand required a knee cleanout)
- Beale is an electric player that can tear defenses apart, but we know he hasn't played a high intensity match for months
- Barnes is good at directing play, but we know he hasn't managed 80 minutes of rugby
The known unknowns:
- is JOC (James O'Connor) an effective 10 at test level?
- can Folau and Lilo adjust to test level quickly?
- will any of Cummins, Ioane, Barnes, Beale, McCabe be fit enough for 80 minutes of test rugby?
- can Folau play wing in a test without play that position at any level previously?
The unknown unknowns:
???
The known knowns:
- Genia is fit and is by far the best candidate at 9
- JOC (James O'Connor) always plays well for the wallabies. His best form for the year has been at 15, and for the wallabies at 14.
- Lilo and Horne are the form oz super rugby 12
- McCabe hasn't had good enough form or fitness this year to warrant a starting spot for the Brumbies
- AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) is fit and will do the job for the wallabies at 13
- Folau is a fantastic talent and proven at the highest level in another sport
- Ioane had great form for the Reds, but we know he won't have played for months
- Cummins played very well for the wallabies, but only one game this year before again being injured (which I understand required a knee cleanout)
- Beale is an electric player that can tear defenses apart, but we know he hasn't played a high intensity match for months
- Barnes is good at directing play, but we know he hasn't managed 80 minutes of rugby
The known unknowns:
- is JOC (James O'Connor) an effective 10 at test level?
- can Folau and Lilo adjust to test level quickly?
- will any of Cummins, Ioane, Barnes, Beale, McCabe be fit enough for 80 minutes of test rugby?
- can Folau play wing in a test without play that position at any level previously?
The unknown unknowns:
???
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I keep thinking back to the blog piece about playing two playmakers and the key skills outlined there. There are only two "playmakers" that come close to filling the core skill sets IMO and one only barely. Lilo and Barnes. Beale and JOC (James O'Connor) just don't tick the boxes.
I look at the likely mode of play from the Wallabies and I see the later pair are included at 10 and 15 (as their most likely positions) not for their "playmaking" ability as we would traditionally think of such things, that is, as players who distribute the ball and act as a "Pivot" between forwards and backs to set up plays and organise attack. They are there for their individual attacking brilliance and their ability to do it on their own and thereby allow the Wallabies quick ball on attack with a retreating defence. To keep in the theme of this threat, it is the one of the reasons why Cooper isn't there, not because he can't attack on his own, it is the fact he is more about the traditional role of the 10, to facilitate the attack, not be the attack. Hence also Deans' comments about being more direct.
Now from a Lions perspective, shut down JOC (James O'Connor) and Beale and ensure that North tackles Folau as he receives the ball (with no kicks to him) and the Wallabies will be left to try crash balls in the midfield from the centres and Digby. Without Timani the only crash baller in the pigs will be Palu.
Hence my dismay at the selections of the squad. If Cooper was included in the wider squad at least the Lions would be second guessing what the overall game plan would be, this way it is totally predictable. The only way in which this could be changed within this squad would be to select Lilo at 10, a position which he hasn't played all year.
I look at the likely mode of play from the Wallabies and I see the later pair are included at 10 and 15 (as their most likely positions) not for their "playmaking" ability as we would traditionally think of such things, that is, as players who distribute the ball and act as a "Pivot" between forwards and backs to set up plays and organise attack. They are there for their individual attacking brilliance and their ability to do it on their own and thereby allow the Wallabies quick ball on attack with a retreating defence. To keep in the theme of this threat, it is the one of the reasons why Cooper isn't there, not because he can't attack on his own, it is the fact he is more about the traditional role of the 10, to facilitate the attack, not be the attack. Hence also Deans' comments about being more direct.
Now from a Lions perspective, shut down JOC (James O'Connor) and Beale and ensure that North tackles Folau as he receives the ball (with no kicks to him) and the Wallabies will be left to try crash balls in the midfield from the centres and Digby. Without Timani the only crash baller in the pigs will be Palu.
Hence my dismay at the selections of the squad. If Cooper was included in the wider squad at least the Lions would be second guessing what the overall game plan would be, this way it is totally predictable. The only way in which this could be changed within this squad would be to select Lilo at 10, a position which he hasn't played all year.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
From this we only have two obvious picks for the starting lineup:
9 Genia
13 AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
We have 2 guys that haven't played test rugby:
Folau, Lilo
Then we have 5 guys that might not be up for 80 minutes of test rugby:
Cummins, Ioane, Barnes, Beale, McCabe
Plus another two players who haven't had much or any test experience in the position they appear to have been picked for:
JOC (James O'Connor), Horne
So, what do we do? Well for one I can't see how McCabe can be picked in the starting lineup, as he has two negative known knowns, plus we don't even know much about his form at 12. We also can't afford to risk too many of the recently injured players (known knowns), and we must play with a 3 man backs bench. Because of this may have to risk some 'untried' players and players out of position (known unknowns).
What I would do/risk:
9 Genia
10 JOC (James O'Connor) (out of position risk) - least risky 10 option due to being able to play 80 and his ability to raise his game at test level
11 Ioane (fitness risk) - seems to be a big risk, but normally hits the ground running and has form this year. Other candidates don't.
12 Lilo (experience risk) - from a individual risk point of view, Horne would be the better option, but Lilo gives more support to JOC (James O'Connor) in his playmaking role and is just as good in defense.
13 AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
14 Cummins (fitness risk) - I understand his fitness risk is low, and the other options are limited.
15 Folau (experience risk) - low experience risk since he has played at the highest level in league
21 Phipps (cover 9 and wing at a pinch)
22 McCabe (cover 12, 13, wing)
23 Beale (cover 10 and 15)
9 Genia
13 AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
We have 2 guys that haven't played test rugby:
Folau, Lilo
Then we have 5 guys that might not be up for 80 minutes of test rugby:
Cummins, Ioane, Barnes, Beale, McCabe
Plus another two players who haven't had much or any test experience in the position they appear to have been picked for:
JOC (James O'Connor), Horne
So, what do we do? Well for one I can't see how McCabe can be picked in the starting lineup, as he has two negative known knowns, plus we don't even know much about his form at 12. We also can't afford to risk too many of the recently injured players (known knowns), and we must play with a 3 man backs bench. Because of this may have to risk some 'untried' players and players out of position (known unknowns).
What I would do/risk:
9 Genia
10 JOC (James O'Connor) (out of position risk) - least risky 10 option due to being able to play 80 and his ability to raise his game at test level
11 Ioane (fitness risk) - seems to be a big risk, but normally hits the ground running and has form this year. Other candidates don't.
12 Lilo (experience risk) - from a individual risk point of view, Horne would be the better option, but Lilo gives more support to JOC (James O'Connor) in his playmaking role and is just as good in defense.
13 AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
14 Cummins (fitness risk) - I understand his fitness risk is low, and the other options are limited.
15 Folau (experience risk) - low experience risk since he has played at the highest level in league
21 Phipps (cover 9 and wing at a pinch)
22 McCabe (cover 12, 13, wing)
23 Beale (cover 10 and 15)
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
Sorry fellas but if you want to talk of the Wallabies 31 man squad fair dinkum then the merits of the squad are a fair discussion and the players selected and omitted are fair game. How the squad was selected is fair game. The benefits and weakness of the squad are fair game. Who should or shouldn't be there in our individual opinions come into play. Two key rules here are one to respect it is your opinion only and second to respect that other posters may have different opinions and they are every bit entitled to express theirs as much as you are yours. If you are going to post something that may be remotely deemed as controversial, please take the time to articulate your point of view so it can form part of a productive debate.
RoffsChoice
Jim Lenehan (48)
Makes sense, especially with Horne as the likely 12.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
USARugger
You are quite right. The thing they do have is a very balanced complete Rugby side able to play any number of ways. Yes they have shown up to now the Welsh backline attack and better than English defence.
But given the strength they have in the likely starting side at the lineout, scrum, maul and ruck they could play any number of overall styles. For instance they could play a full conservative kicking game plugging the corners and only running when in the opposition 40, and they could execute that well with their lineout strength. Do you think if the weather turns to shit the Wallabies could match the Lions in skill with kicking from the tee or the hand? These being two of the keys to succeeding in inclement weather.
The Wallabies do not have that flexibility. That is a big area I could have seen for Mogg to be included. He has the biggest and most accurate boot in Australian Rugby since Gerrard. If the Wallabies are force to the foot to clear the line the pop guns of Barnes and Beale at 15 just aren't going to relieve the pressure. JOC (James O'Connor) has a far better boot this year (he must have been working on it extensively) but isn't he supposed to be defending in the front line?
You are quite right. The thing they do have is a very balanced complete Rugby side able to play any number of ways. Yes they have shown up to now the Welsh backline attack and better than English defence.
But given the strength they have in the likely starting side at the lineout, scrum, maul and ruck they could play any number of overall styles. For instance they could play a full conservative kicking game plugging the corners and only running when in the opposition 40, and they could execute that well with their lineout strength. Do you think if the weather turns to shit the Wallabies could match the Lions in skill with kicking from the tee or the hand? These being two of the keys to succeeding in inclement weather.
The Wallabies do not have that flexibility. That is a big area I could have seen for Mogg to be included. He has the biggest and most accurate boot in Australian Rugby since Gerrard. If the Wallabies are force to the foot to clear the line the pop guns of Barnes and Beale at 15 just aren't going to relieve the pressure. JOC (James O'Connor) has a far better boot this year (he must have been working on it extensively) but isn't he supposed to be defending in the front line?
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
I just think the balance of our backline just doesn't cut it. We have fantastic players but with JOC (James O'Connor) at 10 they are all finishers without a genuine play maker to create the opportunities. What shits me about the Quade omission is that he is that play maker that can provide the opportunity with his ability to draw the attention of defenses and distribute with that fantastic passing game. I see him as that point of difference we need. I think we are poorer in his absence for these reasons. I would loved to have seen a Quade and Lilo combination at 10 and 12.
I expect him to start, with Barnes finishing off the game
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Ruggo,
Whilst I agree fully with you and your reasoning, if I was selecting this side and was told these were the tactics that would be played, I would most likely pick the same squad, or at least the same backline, with the addition of Mogg for his boot as I said.
I would put more emphasis on the set pieces though and would be looking to have the best lineout and scrummagers I had in the squad.
Playing the game plan that this squad selection telegraphs, well there just isn't a place for Quade in that plan. His strengths just lie in totally different areas. So really the argument should move on from Quade not being selected to the game plan that is likely to be employed and whether or not we think that it truly is the best way to play and the most likely to get a win. I would argue that the Tahs execution of a very similar philosophy proved that not to be the case on more levels than the win:loss ratio.
Whilst I agree fully with you and your reasoning, if I was selecting this side and was told these were the tactics that would be played, I would most likely pick the same squad, or at least the same backline, with the addition of Mogg for his boot as I said.
I would put more emphasis on the set pieces though and would be looking to have the best lineout and scrummagers I had in the squad.
Playing the game plan that this squad selection telegraphs, well there just isn't a place for Quade in that plan. His strengths just lie in totally different areas. So really the argument should move on from Quade not being selected to the game plan that is likely to be employed and whether or not we think that it truly is the best way to play and the most likely to get a win. I would argue that the Tahs execution of a very similar philosophy proved that not to be the case on more levels than the win:loss ratio.
USARugger
John Thornett (49)
Gnostic
'We' have the flexibility to run any number of game plans. The side Deans will select doesn't
9. Genia
10. To'omua
11. Ioane
12. Lealiifano
13. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
14. Folau
15. Cooper
That lineup could execute just about anything you'd ask of them. But a selection like that would require a genuine risk-taking mentality and a willingness to try something new. Afraid that Robbie withdrew into his shell far too long ago for anything remotely resembling that lineup to take the field though.
The Lions' execution of the kick-chase has been spotty at best so far (mainly because of Cuthbert) so I'm not totally sold on them using that as a tactic.
Have to agree about the lineout ascendancy, that is the area I've got some deep misgivings about now. I don't think the Lions have demonstrated much at scrum time so far.
They will punish us from the tee regardless of the weather as long as Halfpenny is healthy.
Agree re: Mogg but he doesn't have a chance now. A boot like that (or White's) provides such a blindingly clear tactical advantage. Let them get sucked into a few rounds of kick tennis and lose 10-15m every time. Beale will be the starting 15.
RE: Tahs gameplan of the past and negative rugby. Expansive attack and low error rates are not mutually exclusive of each other. This is just a ridiculous mentality. The Reds had some mistakes against the BIL but they were playing an outrageously expansive attacking pattern in pouring rain. On the other side of this issue, playing 'negative' rugby is in no way a 'winning' strategy either. What do you do if the other side gets a lucky break or two and dumps 10-15 points on you in a few minutes?
'We' have the flexibility to run any number of game plans. The side Deans will select doesn't
9. Genia
10. To'omua
11. Ioane
12. Lealiifano
13. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
14. Folau
15. Cooper
That lineup could execute just about anything you'd ask of them. But a selection like that would require a genuine risk-taking mentality and a willingness to try something new. Afraid that Robbie withdrew into his shell far too long ago for anything remotely resembling that lineup to take the field though.
The Lions' execution of the kick-chase has been spotty at best so far (mainly because of Cuthbert) so I'm not totally sold on them using that as a tactic.
Have to agree about the lineout ascendancy, that is the area I've got some deep misgivings about now. I don't think the Lions have demonstrated much at scrum time so far.
They will punish us from the tee regardless of the weather as long as Halfpenny is healthy.
Agree re: Mogg but he doesn't have a chance now. A boot like that (or White's) provides such a blindingly clear tactical advantage. Let them get sucked into a few rounds of kick tennis and lose 10-15m every time. Beale will be the starting 15.
RE: Tahs gameplan of the past and negative rugby. Expansive attack and low error rates are not mutually exclusive of each other. This is just a ridiculous mentality. The Reds had some mistakes against the BIL but they were playing an outrageously expansive attacking pattern in pouring rain. On the other side of this issue, playing 'negative' rugby is in no way a 'winning' strategy either. What do you do if the other side gets a lucky break or two and dumps 10-15 points on you in a few minutes?
- Status