Wallabies v Pumas - Saturday 17 September, nib Stadium Perth

[Groucho]

Is Naivalu actually good enough to replace DHP? Not seen much of him.

Not since his injury. He had the advantage of lightning pace, and would have been close to the fastest man in Supe before his broken leg. Hopefully it's just a training defecit and it will come back.

 

[Groucho]

10. McMahon, why is anyone even discussing who should start with the back row with Pocock out? McMahon is in. Move on, nothing to see here.

Reckon so. He certainly does the hard yards of a world class 8. And having two shorties doesn't seem to affect our lineout.

 

[dru]

Reckon so. He certainly does the hard yards of a world class 8. And having two shorties doesn't seem to affect our lineout.

I think the LO is of huge importance and that Simmo is key. Hell we actually jumped in defensive LO's. Cant remember how long ago that we have seen that as a common thing. We are kicking, possibly too much, but mostly reasonable kicking. So you need a Line Out.

Simmons and Coleman will not dominate the LO on their own against the better teams. But so far (not long one game) so good.

Suggest McMahon to 8. And then we need a reasonable jumping 6. Someone to match Fardy at his height.

But McMahon just excelled. He's in.

 

[Gnostic]

Such a valid point with much applicability.



The greatest single recent example of which was how many otherwise sound Reds' players badly deteriorated under R Graham and how many flourished (in terms of personal player confidence and skill development) under both Link at the Reds and Cheika at the Tahs.



One of the many reasons that NZ presents so many good candidates to be ABs is the broad and deep calibre of both skills and general coaching within and lower down the NZ rugby system.



One day, one fine day, the penny will drop for our RUs that radically improving the calibre of system-wide coaching is vastly more important than increasing just the base quantity of rugby played.

Part of that has to be mentoring the coaches. Far too many coaches with very good potential have been discarded in Australia because they have stumbled at key aspects, and others despite extended time at the top haven't developed at all. Some will have personal limitations but I find it hard to believe that people talented enough to rise and achieve results at lower levels cannot learn if given proper critique and mentoring. Two examples spring to mind immediately Foley and Mooney.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Seany was bloody good on the weekend wasn't he. He's the obvious choice to start at eight against the Saffers.

 

[Groucho]

Some will have personal limitations but I find it hard to believe that people talented enough to rise and achieve results at lower levels cannot learn if given proper critique and mentoring.

Talent isn't linear though, it's a normal distribution. There will always be people in any competitive pursuit who have the talent to succeed at some level but not to succeed at the next level. International sport is an extreme filter for talent. It's when people are promoted past their talent level that that they start to fail. Mentoring won't make them succeed, although it might help then reach their potential. Who can coach world-class coaches? (Except the Internet of course)

 

[Viking]

Reckon so. He certainly does the hard yards of a world class 8. And having two shorties doesn't seem to affect our lineout.

McMahon is actually a decent line-out option too. Probably on par with McCalman or even better.

 

[Viking]

I think the LO is of huge importance and that Simmo is key. Hell we actually jumped in defensive LO's. Cant remember how long ago that we have seen that as a common thing. We are kicking, possibly too much, but mostly reasonable kicking. So you need a Line Out.

Simmons and Coleman will not dominate the LO on their own against the better teams. But so far (not long one game) so good.

Suggest McMahon to 8. And then we need a reasonable jumping 6. Someone to match Fardy at his height.

But McMahon just excelled. He's in.

The England series proved Simmo isn't key. In fact the line-out was miles better in game 2 with Carter when Simmo was dropped.

Simmo is good at the line-out, I'm not disputing that, but he is not essential, at least when he is replaced by Carter.

Although, I think the locks are set going into the next game, Simmo/Coleman is a good balance until Douglas or Arnold can improve fitness and work-rate and line-out skills.

 

[dru]

The England series proved Simmo isn't key. In fact the line-out was miles better in game 2 with Carter when Simmo was dropped.

Simmo is good at the line-out, I'm not disputing that, but he is not essential, at least when he is replaced by Carter.

Although, I think the locks are set going into the next game, Simmo/Coleman is a good balance until Douglas or Arnold can improve fitness and work-rate and line-out skills.

Seb youre talking a little "old history" but to be fair I'm talking one game. I'd be dissappointed by Douglas/Arnold. Simmo really does change the LO.

But yep, it's one game. And there are certainly better locks around the field. Though he wasnt too shabby there either.

Agree he's not essential. I do though think the nature of the game changes with him, especially with the quantity of kicking we go through at the moment.

 

[Joe Blow]

The back row will have some bearing on which locks are starting and visa versa. With Pocock not available I would imagine the 4,5,6 requirements may be a little different.
It will be interesting to see what Cheika goes with.
Pococks ruck involvements and defense are huge and Douglas may get back in because of this. Ditto for Fardy.

 

[Brumby Runner]

^^^^^^^ Yeah, rewatched the game yesterday. Pocock's involvements were massive. His speed to the tackle, to regain his feet and take part in the ruck, and then to get to the next breakdown is unique imo. Had I seen the replay before voting on MOTM, I'd have given him a 2 at worst.

McMahon is looking better each game I think and will fill the 8 spot more than ok. Also, he provides a better lineout option than any of the other 7/8s at present. I would like to see Fardy back at 6 just to compensate a bit for the loss of Pocock at ruck and tackle time.

 

[Scrubber2050]

^^^^^^^ Yeah, rewatched the game yesterday. Pocock's involvements were massive. His speed to the tackle, to regain his feet and take part in the ruck, and then to get to the next breakdown is unique imo. Had I seen the replay before voting on MOTM, I'd have given him a 2 at worst.

McMahon is looking better each game I think and will fill the 8 spot more than ok. Also, he provides a better lineout option than any of the other 7/8s at present. I would like to see Fardy back at 6 just to compensate a bit for the loss of Pocock at ruck and tackle time.

Poey was great.

He looked like he was playing 7.

Having said that I think he is a very average 8.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I would have to agree - Poey was definitely playing as a 7.

 

[Hawko]

I would have to agree - Poey was definitely playing as a 7.

Given that he is playing the tight fetcher role so well, and Hooper is playing the wide attacker/defender so well, why is everybody so utterly obsessed with what number he is wearing on his shirt?

If you can find a big-bopper runner who is also fast to the breakdown and is a quality jumper, put him in the six jersey. That is if you can find one.

 

[ACT Crusader]

^^^^^^^ Yeah, rewatched the game yesterday. Pocock's involvements were massive. His speed to the tackle, to regain his feet and take part in the ruck, and then to get to the next breakdown is unique imo. Had I seen the replay before voting on MOTM, I'd have given him a 2 at worst.

McMahon is looking better each game I think and will fill the 8 spot more than ok. Also, he provides a better lineout option than any of the other 7/8s at present. I would like to see Fardy back at 6 just to compensate a bit for the loss of Pocock at ruck and tackle time.

If the strategy without Pocock is to continue to be hard at the ball, then someone like Fardy, who also plays hard at the ball would be a natural fit. But I think there are genuine concerns with Fardy's form that they may not be too crash hot on him playing until rectified.

I think there might be an opportunity to look at something a bit different in the game plan given the injury and the impending departure of Pocock. He's an excellent player and you're not going to replicate that level of performance from someone else player for player. But there will be opportunities to use other players in different ways.

McMahon isn't going to be as hard to the ball, but he is going to provide some other things that Pocock necessarily doesn't do. Hooper could be more active on the ball and that gives others opportunities to be wide and run - Mumm, Timani etc.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Given that he is playing the tight fetcher role so well, and Hooper is playing the wide attacker/defender so well, why is everybody so utterly obsessed with what number he is wearing on his shirt?

If you can find a big-bopper runner who is also fast to the breakdown and is a quality jumper, put him in the six jersey. That is if you can find one.

Yep I don'y know what is the big deal either.

Put the right number on the right bloke and then I cannot see any justified criticism.

In other words Poey to 7 and do a 7's job and very well and Hooper to 8 where is can be justifiably looser

Problem solved.

 

[Braveheart81]

But Pocock is playing at the back of the scrum which is where the 8 goes.

If they swapped numbers and still didn't swap scrum positions then people would complain for that reason.

 

[Scrubber2050]

But Pocock is playing at the back of the scrum which is where the 8 goes.

If they swapped numbers and still didn't swap scrum positions then people would complain for that reason.

Oh Braveheart...

Hopefully you are just taking the piss but in case you are not and genuinely believe that rubbish (which is possible) move Poecock to 7, put that number on his back and pack him onto the side of the scrum (where he will probably also keep his head down and not be a seagull), put the number 8 jersey on the back of Michael, pack him as the last man in the scrum (right at the back) and he can play loose.

Hope this clarifies the matter for you.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm not taking the piss. Believe what rubbish?

Pocock has been wearing the 8 jersey and packing at the back of the scrum; the only aspect of play where the jersey number specifies where a player should be.

What if Cheika wants Pocock at the back of the scrum because he is the best person in the starting XV (and probably the whole squad) at doing that job?

If Cheika wanted Hooper to pack at 8 in the scrum, presumably he'd select him in that jersey.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Hahahahahaha

I find it amusing that you cannot follow simple logic.

Pocock is the best 7 (by far) and should therefore play there and do what great 7's do.

Put Hooper at 8. No problem, the bloke is a great footy player and plays quite wide like most 8's do.

It's an amusing point of view