Wallabies v Pumas - Saturday 17 September, nib Stadium Perth

[No4918]

I can not see Cheika changing the first winning team for ages unless required to by injury.

It doesn't make sense

Yep. Side is 1/7 this season and a loss this week and the win may as well have not happened. Resting players would be crazy. Some may argue for a new 12 or replacing one of Pooper but suggesting they be rested is silly.

I would only expect forced changes this week.

 

[GoMelbRebels]

Yep. Side is 1/7 this season and a loss this week and the win may as well have not happened. Resting players would be crazy. Some may argue for a new 12 or replacing one of Pooper but suggesting they be rested is silly.

I would only expect forced changes this week.

Aren't they 1/6?

 

[No4918]

Aren't they 1/6?

Nope, pretty sure they lost to the Nudgee U15s in a training run before the first test of the Engllish series in Brisbane.

 

[Scrubber2050]

I can not see Cheika changing the first winning team for ages unless required to by injury.

It doesn't make sense

But they were not real convincing to me, so it makes sense to me to tweak a few spots

I would seriously rest either Hooper or Pocock, as well as Moore and Sio. Blood Robertson and have Toby on the pine.

Would like to see the 8 spot shared between Timani and McMahon.

Locks the same and give Mummy another go at 6.

Chek seems convinced on the Genia/Cooper and Foley combo.

Also reckon this match would be a beauty to give Folau a chance at the position he seems to want to play - 13. DHP to gain some test experience at 15.

 

[Braveheart81]

5 or 6 changes to the starting XV would be a pretty massive change rather than a tweak.

I think we're more likely to see the same starting XV and two bench changes than a whole bunch of changes to the XV.

 

[Scrubber2050]

5 or 6 changes to the starting XV would be a pretty massive change rather than a tweak.

I think we're more likely to see the same starting XV and two bench changes than a whole bunch of changes to the XV.

Slipper and TPN would slot in and be at home - probably similar with McMahon

Timani is the biggest call and he's going to get a shot sooner than later.

Folau and DHP IMO would slot in nicely. Same players but different positions.

Changing a couple of benchies only would be ludicrous. Chek has the opportunity this week

He probably won't take it

 

[Brumby Runner]

I hope to see over coming test matches more willingness by the coaches to mix the side up a bit and to give some of the fringe players a chance (or even a couple of chances) to show they offer a bit to the team.

But for this week, I can only see Sio perhaps making way for Slipper to start, and Tom Robertson and Lopeti Timani on the bench. I think Cheika will persist with Moore as hooker/captain, Hooper/Pocock at 7/8 and Quade/Foley at 10/12.

The other changes I'd like to see given a go at least on the EOYT are Ready at hooker, Timani to start at 8 along with one of Hooper or Pocock at 7, one or two of Frisby, Stirzaker or Powell have time at 9, Quade to combine with either Kerevi or Hodge at 12, Naivalu and Speight to run on the wings and DHP tried at 15 with Izzy at 13 or wing.

I think we now have the makings of our longer term squad, but still need to sort out the best positions for certain players and combinations in crucial playmaking spots.

 

[Braveheart81]

Changing a couple of benchies only would be ludicrous. Chek has the opportunity this week

He probably won't take it

Is it an opportunity to upset the improvement we've had since the first Bledisloe debacle and unsettle the team substantially.

Why would you make more changes to the side after your first win of the season than at any other time?

Trying to win consecutive matches seems like a pretty big goal for this weekend.

Making mass changes seems like something you do when you're forced to, not just because you can.

 

[Viking]

I can not see Cheika changing the first winning team for ages unless required to by injury.

It doesn't make sense

He does a lot of things that don't make sense. Remember only last year he benched our best player ,Pocock, and started Palu instead for the second NZ Test - despite winning the first test.

I can see Cheika starting Timani at 6 infront of Mumm and Fardy given both have been average.

Although a bit hypocritical given Foley and DHP remain, but that's Cheika.

 

[KOB1987]

He does a lot of things that don't make sense. Remember only last year he benched our best player ,Pocock, and started Palu instead for the second NZ Test - despite winning the first test.

I can see Cheika starting Timani at 6 infront of Mumm and Fardy given both have been average.

Although a bit hypocritical given Foley and DHP remain, but that's Cheika.

That wasn't quite how it panned out, there were several other changes as well. He selected two teams with different balances in the interest of determining which one was the best one to move forward with for the RWC. The team for the Auckland test had already been selected on paper and was going to run out regardless of the Sydney result. In the event that you think the first team would have won the second test then last year's Bledisloe was collateral damage for the RWC campaign.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Is it an opportunity to upset the improvement we've had since the first Bledisloe debacle and unsettle the team substantially.

Why would you make more changes to the side after your first win of the season than at any other time?

Trying to win consecutive matches seems like a pretty big goal for this weekend.

Making mass changes seems like something you do when you're forced to, not just because you can.

No-one is talking about mass changes.

BH - if you think the team from last week is the best one available and they all performed very well then fine you are obviously happy with mediocrity.

I am not.

 

[Braveheart81]

No-one is talking about mass changes.

BH - if you think the team from last week is the best one available and they all performed very well then fine you are obviously happy with mediocrity.

I am not.

You've suggested making about 6 changes in the starting XV. That is mass changes.

Last week's team is not the team I would pick either but they had their first win and played better than they had in the previous two tests. I think that Cheika will very strongly opt for continuity so the team can continue to improve their combinations rather than going back and trying something substantially different.

Making unforced changes every week to unsettle combinations could very easily be described as the best recipe for ensuring ongoing mediocrity.

 

[Scrubber2050]

You've suggested making about 6 changes in the starting XV. That is mass changes.

Last week's team is not the team I would pick either but they had their first win and played better than they had in the previous two tests. I think that Cheika will very strongly opt for continuity so the team can continue to improve their combinations rather than going back and trying something substantially different.

Making unforced changes every week to unsettle combinations could very easily be described as the best recipe for ensuring ongoing mediocrity.

What
3 players from the bench into starting spots and shifting positions of 2 - both of which will handle it well does not amount to mass changes. Bringing Timani in is the only real uncertainty for me.

We'll just have to differ on our opinions of what constitutes mass change.

The Pooper combo is tired and as most seem to think should be gone anyway. One that I've changed my mind on for a while is the Genia /Cooper and Foley one.

I for one was not happy with our performances last week. You may be and you may also see that team beating the All Blacks in a few weeks (which will be nigh on impossible anyway)

 

[Groucho]

Betcha pounds to peanuts the "home" crowd will be supporting the Argies against us pesky colonials

As a Perthian, I'm perplexed by that!

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I'd certainly like to see Timani get a run at some point, but not at lock. He's not nearly big enough to play there at test level and would provide the same type of problem that Skelton does. Let's see if he's got the motor to play at 6 or 8.

I'm with others who say that we should be getting more from our front row in general play, so I'd be inclined to start Slipper. The second row is getting better week by week, so let's leave that in place. The back row should start as it did last week, with the aforementioned Timani to get a run off the bench. I'd leave the backs as they are at the moment, as I don't want to see the developing combinations disrupted just when they're starting to get better. With that said, I don't think Foley is a long term 12 and would like to see Hodge play there at some point.

 

[Groucho]

He does a lot of things that don't make sense. Remember only last year he benched our best player ,Pocock, and started Palu instead for the second NZ Test - despite winning the first test.

Isn't breaking up the Pooper in favour of playing a conventional eight something you've been recommending?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I'd like to see us playing a more conventional eight, but right now we don't seem to have one of those available.

 

[Viking]

Isn't breaking up the Pooper in favour of playing a conventional eight what you've been recommending?

Yes. Because it has been used to death now. I'm not advocating we drop it all together, we should just be more selective of when we use it.

I thought that was a prime time to use it, as it was new, caught NZ off guard in game 1, and more importantly it was a bloody good chance to win the first bledisloe in a decade!

 

[Viking]

That wasn't quite how it panned out, there were several other changes as well. He selected two teams with different balances in the interest of determining which one was the best one to move forward with for the RWC. The team for the Auckland test had already been selected on paper and was going to run out regardless of the Sydney result. In the event that you think the first team would have won the second test then last year's Bledisloe was collateral damage for the RWC campaign.

Yes i know how it panned out. Sacrifice the Bled so you can possible win the RWC. Very Dean-esque if you ask me.

I would have prefferred 2 wins in a row against the darkness - thought that alone would mentally be better preparation then sacrificing a win just to find out players like Palu, Mumm weren't as good as Fardy, Pocock - something most of us would have guessed anyway.

 

[KOB1987]

Yes i know how it panned out. Sacrifice the Bled so you can possible win the RWC. Very Dean-esque if you ask me.

I would have prefferred 2 wins in a row against the darkness - thought that alone would mentally be better preparation then sacrificing a win just to find out players like Palu, Mumm weren't as good as Fardy, Pocock - something most of us would have guessed anyway.

Actually Mumm played in the first one, not the second one. He was relegated and Douglas was a surprise inclusion, that was his first game back. Foley was 10 and he got benched for Quade in the second one. It wasn't seen as a sacrifice, he was trying out different combinations. If he was sure the combinations from the first Bledisloe were the right ones he would no doubt have run them out again. SBW was a major contributor for our win in the first game, he played atrociously and was subsequently dropped.