Wallabies v All Blacks Sydney

[Richo]

I don't see what realistic alternative there was to Huia or Ma'afu. From memory, no other top line hookers are match fit and the same goes for props. If Dingo was going to ditch Ma'afu in this 3N, it would have happened weeks ago. Otherwise, I'm very pleased to see Turner go in for Mitchell. Wouldn't have surprised me if AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) got slid to the wing and A. Finger brought in at 13. Smart to keep the same unit together.

I really think that this game was always (well, this week) going to be about mentality and fatigue, not cattle. This is the team Deans has built for the 3N so changes were always going to be minimal / forced for the last game, especially after the veld victory. I don't know what Deans and Rocky can do about the mentality, but fatigue will require bold and decisive use of the bench. I hope we see Deans ringing changes as players get tired (or just before), rather than once they are buggered. 30 minutes of Burgo and Barnes would be great to see. Not really sure how A. Finger gets a run unless AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) goes off / gets moved, but hey.

 

[RugbyReg]

Just wondering how many backlines you can name where there are 'dominant' defenders across the park? Hardly any wings, fullbacks or flyhalfs are dominant defenders, and nor do they need to be - they need to be effective defenders.

Defensive wise I'd just be happy for Beale, JOC (James O'Connor) and Cooper to make their tackles, or in Cooper's case at least act as a speed bump when the opposition is attacking our line.

2001 v Lions:

13 Dan Herbert
12 Nathan Grey
10 Steve Larkham
9 George Gregan

Not bad.

 

[RugbyFuture]

i would have rather seen an up and comer who would fight harder in than turner (but that might just be my personal biases)

 

[ACT Crusader]

Yes but no. There are Canes players from 9 to 13 who know exactly how to aid Cruden in defence. Kafe on the rugby club last night was right in saying they should look wider when the All Blacks compress to cover Cruden.

One of the reasons why Henryay have opted for the quicker Vito. Plus he's another Canes player that has a combination with young Cruden

 

[ACT Crusader]

i would have rather seen an up and comer who would fight harder in than turner (but that might just be my personal biases)

I thought Turner was in the Comm Games 7s team?

 

[Scotty]

2001 v Lions:

13 Dan Herbert
12 Nathan Grey
10 Steve Larkham
9 George Gregan

Not bad.

I think you have partially proven my point. Larkham could not claim to be a 'dominant' defender. In fact when his elbow was dodgy he was quite a poor defender. Normally only the centres and half can possibly be considered 'dominant', and by and large a half back isn't a dominant defender (nor should he try to be, as he has to work a lot in cover and direction of the forwards) and it is only likely that one of the centres are dominant. You have found a team where the half back could be dominant if he wanted to be, and where both centres are dominant. The current crop have a similar defending half back, but only one of the centres being dominant.

Maybe this is closer?:

9 Dawson
10 Wilkinson
12 Tindall
13 Greenwood

 

[Groucho]

Yes but no. There are Canes players from 9 to 13 who know exactly how to aid Cruden in defence. Kafe on the rugby club last night was right in saying they should look wider when the All Blacks compress to cover Cruden.

That raises an interesting point. These may be the Bluckness, and test match rugby may be 'different', but this is essentially the Hurricanes backline.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

An area the Canes have never been deficient in has been in the backs. They've lacked the go forward and mogrel that the Cru had, but their backs have always been quick and skillful. With that said, I'm not hugely wrapped up in Cruden at 10.

 

[cyclopath]

I think you have partially proven my point. Larkham could not claim to be a 'dominant' defender. In fact when his elbow was dodgy he was quite a poor defender. Normally only the centres and half can possibly be considered 'dominant', and by and large a half back isn't a dominant defender (nor should he try to be, as he has to work a lot in cover and direction of the forwards) and it is only likely that one of the centres are dominant. You have found a team where the half back could be dominant if he wanted to be, and where both centres are dominant. The current crop have a similar defending half back, but only one of the centres being dominant.

Maybe this is closer?:

9 Dawson
10 Wilkinson
12 Tindall
13 Greenwood

See I think Tindall was not that outstanding a defender - sure he was a big lump, but did he really towel up attackers? Larkham's perceived weakness aside, that Wallaby combo hits pretty hard, esp 9 and 12. Easily the match of the Pommy one. I will concede Wilinson was a great defensive 10.

 

[Lee Grant]

That Sydney team is good enough to beat the All Blacks. The team in Christchurch was good enough to win - and so was the one at Loftus for that matter. In those two games the Blacks and the Greens were there for the taking, and we didn't take.

I'm glad we got the result in Bloem but one kick that goes over instead of missing doesn't change much for us. Our fellows have to play with more belief, poise and patience and somehow learn to execute under pressure as contrasted to executing in the happy times of games. It's all very well when the Wallabies have a few breakouts and score a few tries but they have to learn how to grind things out to the bitter end.

We don't have enough grinders and because the barrel is being scraped our present players have to learn to do it. That's not easy for the many young players we have but talent is not enough and they should start showing us, as a group, signs that they can stick it to opponents in the second halves of games instead of wimping out.

We are at the crossroads; will our players grind?

 

[Gnostic]

T

We don't have enough grinders and because the barrel is being scraped our present players have to learn to do it. That's not easy for the many young players we have but talent is not enough and they should start showing us, as a group, signs that they can stick it to opponents in the second halves of games instead of wimping out.

We are at the crossroads; will our players grind?

I wish people would stop the sob story that we have sooo many injuries and we don't have the depth. It is a fallacy. McCalman was there all the time and as last week showed he is at least as good as the incumbent (Brown) in his first test. There are similar options in many other spots the just haven't been given any time in the squad.

Case in point I don't think many would argue that they'd rather have Ma'afu than Laurie Weeks at THP. I still cannot understand why Weeks got dropped on the basis of a poor match out of position at LHP against top/near top opposition (scrum wise anyway).

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Right. Time to stop the BS. Both teams have now been announced.

The Old boys choir is tuning up for the Anthem.

Lets have the pick the score predictions. Put your thingamees on the line.

Unfortunately I think it is still the AB's by 12. Provided the weather is clear and the ground surface is OK.
Wet weather is AB's by 5.

 

[tranquility]

I think their is a possibility that Lawrie Weeks has not been selected at all in this campaign because of the way he dealt with his contract in QLD. Perhaps Robbie went back to the ol Wayne Bennett approach and thought that he wasn't the right 'man' even though he was the better footballer. Just a thought, because all and sundry would suggest that he is a better player and TH than Salesi.

 

[cyclopath]

I wish people would stop the sob story that we have sooo many injuries and we don't have the depth. It is a fallacy. McCalman was there all the time and as last week showed he is at least as good as the incumbent (Brown) in his first test. There are similar options in many other spots the just haven't been given any time in the squad.

At the risk of getting sucked into this debate again, I disagree that the injury issue is a fallacy.
Afetr Robbo, who is even close at LHP? Is Edmonds really close to Moore? Take out Ma'afu and we get Slipper (OK, not bad) and then Weekes I guess from your post. Who are the locks that slot in almost seamlessly if Sharpe and Chisolm were gone, given that most seem underwhelmed by Mumm? Big step down from Pocock at 7, some options at 6, not many after McCalman at 8. Burgess at 9 is good enough, after that a bit of a drop off. BIG drop off after Cooper at 10, unless you play Barnes there, but then the issue of Giteau / Barnes which has not really worked in the past. 12 - well we have Fainga'a / Barnes. 13 - Cross has not been too flash lately. Wing - we're looking at newbies, who might go OK I accept - Morahan, Cummins (???). 15 - seriously, who is there?
It looks a bit thin to me, but maybe I am being a bit obtuse?

 

[Gnostic]

Just a few of the possibles that aren't/weren't injured agree or diasgree with them but the fact is they have provide good service to their respective provinces at least to the level that some of those selected in the squads have,

Prop:- Weeks, Palmer (not injured at the start), Baxter, Tilse, Ryan, Fairbrother
Hooker:- Fitzpatrick
Lock:- Hand, Wykes, Douglas
Backrow:- Hodgeson could have actually got used before injuring himself on the training paddock (probably just to stop the meaningless training)), Dennis, McCaffery, Houston
O/Centre :- Inman, Stanniforth, Mcabe
FB & Wings:- Turner & Cummins

Depth isn't the issue many would like to make out. It is just excuses. Some of the blokes have tried and not done too well or too bad to be honest like Turner. But a few haven't had a run at all despite showing some very good potential Inman, or dominating in their position for the S14 (from Oz teams - Baxter).

My point isn't to start the argument again, but just to cease the statements that it all comes down to injuries. It just isn't the fact and the Ma'afu case is just the best example you could give.

 

[Lee Grant]

No excuses - the players we have proved they are good enough to win the last 3 games and won only one. They have to step up and do what they do to be competitive in the first half for longer in a game.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Just a few of the possibles that aren't/weren't injured agree or diasgree with them but the fact is they have provide good service to their respective provinces at least to the level that some of those selected in the squads have,

Prop:- Weeks, Palmer (not injured at the start), Baxter, Tilse, Ryan, Fairbrother
Hooker:- Fitzpatrick
Lock:- Hand, Wykes, Douglas
Backrow:- Hodgeson could have actually got used before injuring himself on the training paddock (probably just to stop the meaningless training)), Dennis, McCaffery, Houston
O/Centre :- Inman, Stanniforth, Mcabe
FB & Wings:- Turner & Cummins

Depth isn't the issue many would like to make out. It is just excuses. Some of the blokes have tried and not done too well or too bad to be honest like Turner. But a few haven't had a run at all despite showing some very good potential Inman, or dominating in their position for the S14 (from Oz teams - Baxter).

My point isn't to start the argument again, but just to cease the statements that it all comes down to injuries. It just isn't the fact and the Ma'afu case is just the best example you could give.

Gnostic, with the greatest respect, a lot of those guys IMHO are well short of test standard. A few of them will most likely develop into excellent players, but would you seriously line up a Wallaby team with Tilse, Wykes, McCaffery, Inman and Cummins? They are all talented kids, but it's not like they played out of their skins at S14 level, thus demanding to be selected.

 

[Scarfman]

Add Cowan as a hooker, add Humphries as a lock, these guys are faaaaaar better options than Edmonds and Chisholm in my book.

I totally agree with Gnostic. Injury crisis made much worse by bizarre selections. C'mon people, you know it's true.

 

[RedsHappy]

That Sydney team is good enough to beat the All Blacks. The team in Christchurch was good enough to win - and so was the one at Loftus for that matter. In those two games the Blacks and the Greens were there for the taking, and we didn't take.

I'm glad we got the result in Bloem but one kick that goes over instead of missing doesn't change much for us. Our fellows have to play with more belief, poise and patience and somehow learn to execute under pressure as contrasted to executing in the happy times of games. It's all very well when the Wallabies have a few breakouts and score a few tries but they have to learn how to grind things out to the bitter end.

We don't have enough grinders and because the barrel is being scraped our present players have to learn to do it. That's not easy for the many young players we have but talent is not enough and they should start showing us, as a group, signs that they can stick it to opponents in the second halves of games instead of wimping out.

We are at the crossroads; will our players grind?

Excellent Lee - best 10 lines on this team I've read in a month (or more maybe). And, unquestionably, it's a mental and skills thing. This team, to date, has a soft mind, and is easily made fragile by the warpaths of others. Once this dark, chronic problem is conclusively fixed, then a justified glow can return to our green and gold patriotism, but not before.

 

[cyclopath]

Add Cowan as a hooker, add Humphries as a lock, these guys are faaaaaar better options than Edmonds and Chisholm in my book.

I totally agree with Gnostic. Injury crisis made much worse by bizarre selections. C'mon people, you know it's true.

Well, um, Gnostic doesn't actually believe there is an injury crisis, so your concurrence is not total. And Humphries is injured, no? As are a number of the alternatives mentioned earlier.
It isn't one or the other - a Scarfy says a combination of things. I don't disagree that selections have been pretty odd at times.