• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Wallabies 31 Man Squad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pfitzy

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Most interesting bit for me is a full set of backup back rowers.

I think they all deserve to be there - though some may say Dennis was included due to leadership more than anything - but with both he and Mowen there it does put an interesting light on the "Simmons = lineout general" debate. Plus they are similar styles of player.

IMHO Mowen must start. Genuine kind of hard man to get stuck into the BILs and covers the ground between open side, blindside, and 8 in the same way Read does for the ABs
 

RoffsChoice

Jim Lenehan (48)
And what more does Hugh Pyle have to do to get a wallabies jersey? How many tries now is that for him this year?
Playing for the Rebels, he and Higgenbotham are the ones who set the platform for all others. However, for the Wallabies composed of the players named yesterday, you have a front row of platform setters, a second row of impact makers and a back three of breakdown and lineout generals. Putting Pyle in as lock means you need another impact maker, which is doable but just not worth it if this is Deans' plan.
 

Dumbledore

Dick Tooth (41)
Playing for the Rebels, he and Higgenbotham are the ones who set the platform for all others. However, for the Wallabies composed of the players named yesterday, you have a front row of platform setters, a second row of impact makers and a back three of breakdown and lineout generals. Putting Pyle in as lock means you need another impact maker, which is doable but just not worth it if this is Deans' plan.
What exactly is an 'impact maker' and how does Pyle differ in that compared to Simmons and Timani? I don't think he's got a shot at all mind, Deans has shown no inclination to pick him in the past, no reason that's going to change now.
 

jay-c

Ron Walden (29)
i think people are reading into the burgess comment too much
that being said- he'd do a pretty good 'mike phillips' at opposed training
 

Jets

Paul McLean (56)
Staff member
The 2 real surprises for me were Cummins and Dennis. I can understand Cummins to some degree as he's Robbie's type of player but think his spot should have gone to a halfback. The Burgess theory makes some sense but it could also be a case of Robbie letting the 9's play the extra Super games.
Dennis' spot should have gone to Pyle in my opinion. He's been in great form and would have benefited from being in the squad. Deans is a fan of Dennis though.

I'm expecting a backline of

9. Genia
10. JOC (James O'Connor)
11. Digby
12. Horne
13. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
14. Folau/Tomane
15. Barnes

Very happy that Leali'ifano and Mowen are there as they have been playing well, but don't think they'll be in the match day 23.
 

lewisr

Bill McLean (32)
It is getting ridiculous when people are making the claim that Cooper is playing a more mature/reserved game ideal for test football everytime the Reds backline can't score a point. The Force vs Reds and Cheetahs vs Reds weren't examples of solid low risk backline play by the Reds. They were just bad performances.

If you watch the force, brumbies and blues, he doesnt try to do anything fancy, he just plugs away, doesnt make any mistakes, kicks well and passes beautifully. Each of those teams were brutal in defence and the reds crossed the line in each of those games a number of times. To claim they were bad performances is like claiming Berrick Barnes and James O'Connor (at flyhalf) have never played a good game of football in their life. Quade has done exactly what Robbie wanted, he toned it down and against those defensive efforts it is extremely critical to say he had a bad game when he was simply playing cool, calm and collected.

The Cheetahs game was a different story. The Scoreboard did not represent the efforts the team (not just Quade) put in around the park. Specifically though, if you want to call his kick for Rod Davies, his numerous tackles in the frontline, his unmatchable front foot passing game and consistent challenge of the defensive line all aspects of a 'substandard match' then one has to question whether you watched that game closelt or judged it solely off the points. The reds played them off the park but didn't convert it to points and this was indeed their own fault (along with some questionable TMO calls).

There's no way Deans would be letting any personal differences get in the way of picking the side that he most thinks will keep him in his job. Pure self-interest would get Cooper selected, not left out.

Hahaha come on mate, he's done it in the past and he'd do it again. Giteau could have played 9,10,12 at the 2011 WC and regardless of his questionable form, he was an experienced back and utility player that would have been perfect for the campaign. Him and Deans have a niggle so its game over.

He is clearly a bloke that has established views of players (i.e. PAT MCCABE) and this has a very strong influence on his selections.

I think it is indicative of his coaching ability if he doesn't think Quade Cooper is the man to win the Lions series when numerous past Wallaby players (some even present) and coaches disagree. These aren't just a bunch of nutcase QLDers. As Bob Dwyer said - "it is the job of the coach to bring out the best in players". We know what Quade is capable of, McKenzie is able to prove this on a weekly basis. The fact of the matter is that Deans is unable to produce the same results and yes, I agree, "chooses the side that he thinks will win the series". The issue is, it's not the BEST side we could have...
 

Ignoto

Peter Sullivan (51)
Naming one halfback makes sense if Burgess is in the mix.

Problem is, why should Burgess be in the mix?

The ARU constantly churn out the line that to be considered playing for the Wallabies you have to play rugby in Australia. Burgess unfortunately decided that going overseas was the best decision for him. I've got nothing against him going overseas, trying something new, but he should be starting at position zero.

McM and Smith all came back this year to have a crack and kudos on them. They played their cards correctly. They followed the rules (like every currently named Wallaby has) and are rewarded for this.

Whether we agree with the ARU's thinking, by considering Burgess without playing in Australia they're saying one thing but doing another. It's not fair on the blokes who follow the rules. We all moan about the ARU being an old boys club, if we believe the spots being held open for Burgess, well it's just another example of favouritism being played out.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Problem is, why should Burgess be in the mix?

The ARU constantly churn out the line that to be considered playing for the Wallabies you have to play rugby in Australia. Burgess unfortunately decided that going overseas was the best decision for him. I've got nothing against him going overseas, trying something new, but he should be starting at position zero.

McM and Smith all came back this year to have a crack and kudos on them. They played their cards correctly. They followed the rules (like every currently named Wallaby has) and are rewarded for this.

Whether we agree with the ARU's thinking, by considering Burgess without playing in Australia they're saying one thing but doing another. It's not fair on the blokes who follow the rules. We all moan about the ARU being an old boys club, if we believe the spots being held open for Burgess, well it's just another example of favouritism being played out.

McMeniman and Smith are in entirely different positions contractually. McMeniman was contracted purely in Australia by the Force and ARU.

As has been discussed many times, Smith had a contract with Suntory and as such, did not fit with the ARU selection policy of only picking players signed exclusively to Australian rugby. To even be able to consider him, permission had to be obtained from Suntory. At the end of the day, all control is with them.

Burgess is returning to Australia at the conclusion of his Toulouse contract and will be contracted exclusively by the ARU/Rebels. Whilst I wouldn't necessarily pick him, the ARU is following their own selection policy and does not require any changes to make him eligibile. Rocky Elsom was selected in a similar position in 2009 at the conclusion of his Leinster contract.

He is following the rules. These have been in place for several years and haven't been changed in this regard. It is the same for everyone.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
If you watch the force, brumbies and blues, he doesnt try to do anything fancy, he just plugs away, doesnt make any mistakes, kicks well and passes beautifully. Each of those teams were brutal in defence and the reds crossed the line in each of those games a number of times. To claim they were bad performances is like claiming Berrick Barnes and James O'Connor (at flyhalf) have never played a good game of football in their life. Quade has done exactly what Robbie wanted, he toned it down and against those defensive efforts it is extremely critical to say he had a bad game when he was simply playing cool, calm and collected.

The Cheetahs game was a different story. The Scoreboard did not represent the efforts the team (not just Quade) put in around the park. Specifically though, if you want to call his kick for Rod Davies, his numerous tackles in the frontline, his unmatchable front foot passing game and consistent challenge of the defensive line all aspects of a 'substandard match' then one has to question whether you watched that game closelt or judged it solely off the points. The reds played them off the park but didn't convert it to points and this was indeed their own fault (along with some questionable TMO calls).

Aside from the first half against the Sharks, the Reds backline has been struggling massively in the last month. That has varied from some games where they had opportunities and couldn't execute them to having very few opportunities and not really threatening.

Ioane and Davies have really been the only consistent performers in the Reds backline in the last month. Genia hasn't been playing well and Cooper isn't getting the backline humming. That is clearly not going to be helping his selection chances.

Under any sort of objective analysis, I don't know how you can look at Cooper's play in the last month and say his form has been excellent.

Hahaha come on mate, he's done it in the past and he'd do it again. Giteau could have played 9,10,12 at the 2011 WC and regardless of his questionable form, he was an experienced back and utility player that would have been perfect for the campaign. Him and Deans have a niggle so its game over.

There was plenty of information going around at the time that Giteau was considered disruptive to the squad if he wasn't in the starting XV. I think that is the main reason why Giteau wasn't selected. Once he'd fallen out of the starting lineup he was viewed as being a negative towards the overall squad and was left out.

He is clearly a bloke that has established views of players (i.e. PAT MCCABE) and this has a very strong influence on his selections.

All coaches have favourite players and McCabe is obviously one that Deans likes. Likewise, Cooepr has clearly fallen out of favour with Deans and Deans has lost confidence in him being able to do the job. I absolutely think that if Deans thought Cooper would help him win the Lions series he would have selected him. His only thought will be to pick the squad he most thinks will win him the series.
 

Ignoto

Peter Sullivan (51)
He is following the rules. These have been in place for several years and haven't been changed in this regard. It is the same for everyone.


This isn't a contract issue though. The criteria of selection is based on form in Australian rugby. Not when and whether you have a contract. Right now, of this very second, Burgo hasn't played in Australia.

If we were to have a match on Saturday, you'd be picking a back up half back in the 23, so not to include one in the 25 is baffling.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
This isn't a contract issue though. The criteria of selection is based on form in Australian rugby. Not when and whether you have a contract. Right now, of this very second, Burgo hasn't played in Australia.

If we were to have a match on Saturday, you'd be picking a back up half back in the 23, so not to include one in the 25 is baffling.

We don't have a match this Saturday though. Clearly the initial 25 member squad would have been different if we had to pick a matchday side out of that 25.

"The criteria of selection is based on form in Australian rugby." - I don't think this has been said anywhere. Whilst it would obviously be the norm, there is no rule regarding what rugby games form the basis for which our team is selected. Meeting the contractual requirements is the only thing that is required.

Again, I don't think I would have picked Burgess, but if he is selected, it is following the ARU rules and it has been done before.
 

Richo

John Thornett (49)
Again, I don't think I would have picked Burgess, but if he is selected, it is following the ARU rules and it has been done before.

Like with Elsom and Vickerman, though, this is more to the letter of the rule rather than its spirit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top