I think both Duncan Paia'aua and one of Quade Cooper, Mack Mason or Hamish Stewart will go on the EOYT with the Wallabies to build depth at flyhalf, and I'd love to see one of them start against both Japan and Wales (with Foley on the bench to steady the ship if all goes to shit).
Having not seen a huge amount of Mason or Stewart, I think I understand why Cheika *seemingly* prefers Paia'aua to Cooper at this stage, and I think the reason lies within the new Australian game plan, which I believe is heavily modelled off the All Blacks and the wider concept of 'Ultimate Rugby'.
A lot of Foley-bashers like to compare him to Quade Cooper and shriek to the heavens "he's not a playmaker!" and, to be honest, I, a massive Foley fan, tend to agree with you. He's not a playmaker, *atleast* in the way that a playmaker is commonly defined but I'm ok with that. Why? Because I think that definition is changing.
If you look at Barrett, I don't think he's a traditional playmaker either, certainly not in the Quade Cooper / Carlos Spencer triple-cut-out, fancy-pants-footwork, around-the-back-flick-pass mould. Instead, I think Foley's a pretty similar player to Barrett in his profile, although he obviously lacks much of the ability that Beudan possesses.
I think that the game has largely moved past the Quade Cooper / Carlos Spencer style of flyhalf, and this transition occurred as the All Blacks adopted 'Ultimate Rugby'. When they did that, 'play making' went from the responsibility of the flyhalf to the responsibility of the entire team. These days, both the Wallabies and the All Blacks rely on their forwards, just as much as their backs, for deft inside passes and to move the ball into space. In hindsight, such a reliance on a single player is mind blowing. If they have a bad game, the team has a bad game, and we've seen that regularly at the Reds / Wallabies during Cooper's tenure.
Instead, we can now have our two generals, Kurtley and Foley, have a pretty awful game and still beat the best team in the world reasonably convincingly, as we did last night. Their role is now to oversee the shape of the team, instead of define it, and to exploit opportunities as they see them, instead of create them.
So why Paia'aua?
Like Foley and Barrett, his default option is to run the ball, and like Foley and Barrett, he's pretty good at it. In fact, according to the very basics of the game, a player should only pass the ball if the player they are passing to is better positioned to take it into contact, and I think both Hanson / Cheika want every single player on the field to be a legitimate running threat.
Aside from that, I think we've seen pretty strong match awareness from Paia'aua and a real ability to identify opportunity. Finally, to top it all of, he has all the skills required to capitalise on these opportunities with a firm grasp of both long and short balls, as well as the ability to kick reasonably well out of hand.
I think if we understand that Cheika is looking for such players to lead the team at 10/12, Paia'aua certainly makes more sense than Cooper or Lance.
Just me two cents, innit.