I agree but we aren't selecting three quality jumpers.
Wallabies v Springboks - Suncorp, Brisbane, 10th September 2016
- Thread starter KOB1987
- Start date
- Status
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
I don't think that's quite right. Depends which 3 we are talking about of course, they haven't been the same in any 2 of the last 5 tests! And therein lies the problem. Using the 3 most recent as a case in point, they are all good jumpers but they all play for different super franchises, one is a long standing wallaby, one is back after a break, and the third is a newbie. They just didn't have their shit together, whoever they are to be they need to be chosen and persisted with.
Fair enough. Obviously Skelton shouldn't be near a side with a pooper in it. But what about Fardy? Is he quality or passable?
upthereds#!
Peter Johnson (47)
We lost our best loose forward lineout guy in higs. god i rated that guy haha
Joe Blow
John Hipwell (52)
Me too, he has all the skills we need in an 8 now. Problem is he couldn't come to the party with the grunt work. He was given a lot of chances, even one by Cheika.
Maybe they should have persisted with him and he would have improved. He was good as a test six in the early days. We are letting a lot of players go offshore in their prime.
Higgers, Beale, To'omua and many others. There should be some planning to try and keep some of these blokes around.
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
$$$
USARugger
John Thornett (49)
Work rate of our tight five at the ruck means we're not allowed to have nice things like a Kieran Reid-esque 8. Also doesn't help how often he was played out of position at 6 - his ball-in-play strengths were always in wide channel running, not playing around the breakdown.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Isn't the implication that if we have selected three quality jumpers, which we probably have, then the issue is not with the jumpers......
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
No it could also be the call, the throw, the lifters, or generally just not working well together. To me in the first half of Bled 2 it even looked like they knew our calls. It's easier just to assume it's the jumpers or a short back rower though
EDIT: sorry, I misread your post. So, yes, it's probably not the jumpers at fault.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Are you saying the ABs bugged the Wallabys!No it could also be the call, the throw, the lifters, or generally just not working well together. To me in the first half of Bled 2 it even looked like they knew our calls. It's easier just to assume it's the jumpers or a short back rower though
EDIT: sorry, I misread your post. So, yes, it's probably not the jumpers at fault.
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
Fardy at risk AGAIN
I reckon Chek has tied his wagon to Hooper(7) and Pocock (8) AGAIN and chuck Foley and Moore into the harness as well.
Chek needs to understand that things are NOT working with the dynamics of the team yet he fails (IMHO) to address some elementary changes.
I fear that we are heading for loss Number 7 in a row.
I reckon Chek has tied his wagon to Hooper(7) and Pocock (8) AGAIN and chuck Foley and Moore into the harness as well.
Chek needs to understand that things are NOT working with the dynamics of the team yet he fails (IMHO) to address some elementary changes.
I fear that we are heading for loss Number 7 in a row.
Iain Payten's article about lineouts was interesting on this.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/w...r/news-story/735a6fae0438eaf8b528f89bb70b28e9
Basically we are losing something in the lineout by playing the Pooper but gain elsewhere.
Also pretty clear that our lineout woes this year are far greater than just saying it is down to playing Hooper and Pocock together and could more easily be linked to certain locks or particularly lack of consistency in selections.
I agree that things haven't been working but what aspects in particular aren't working?
When Hooper and Pocock are both consistently amongst our best players it becomes difficult to say that they are the issue.
The problem might be that we don't actually have a solution to our specific issues and the low hanging fruit becomes the most obvious target (i.e. playing two 7s).
Picking and sticking with our locks seems like a crucial thing for me. Douglas, Coleman and Arnold to me seem like the three we should be working with. For all of Rob Simmons experience he hasn't become the dominant and consistent test player we need for someone with 60+ tests. We have to hope that Coleman, Douglas and Arnold have a higher peak than he does.
The elephant in the room is also that Stephen Moore has to sort out his game really fast otherwise Cheika has to move on. It's a crazy world where TPN is providing a more consistent lineout.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
According to Opta, Moore is 8/14 (57%) this RC, TPN is 10/12 (83%).
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
Hooper and Pocock fill the discreteness in each others play.
An 8 should be a line bending attack weapon offering cover defence, Pocock is a great defender, generally in tight, a great pilferer on the ball yet a shithouse ball carrier . He is just playing 7 with 8 on his back.
Hooper is Hooper - a lot wider and a great player (though IMO not a great 7). He can do that because Poey is in there covering him.
That must be a game plan of Chek. Fine but it's done and dusted now.
Agree re Moore and the locks. Simmo will find it very difficult to be considered at this level in the future
An 8 should be a line bending attack weapon offering cover defence, Pocock is a great defender, generally in tight, a great pilferer on the ball yet a shithouse ball carrier . He is just playing 7 with 8 on his back.
Hooper is Hooper - a lot wider and a great player (though IMO not a great 7). He can do that because Poey is in there covering him.
That must be a game plan of Chek. Fine but it's done and dusted now.
Agree re Moore and the locks. Simmo will find it very difficult to be considered at this level in the future
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
Any analysis has to look at the alternatives though and that is where the problems lie and why Pocock and Hooper keep getting selected together.
McCalman has had ample opportunities and provides a workhorse number 8 option that is an inferior ballrunner to both Hooper and Pocock and a less dominant defender. He's a better lineout option though.
Timani is completely untested, isn't a great lineout option and you'd worry whether his workrate would be sufficient at test level particularly at number 8.
Pocock and Hooper are consistently our best two forwards almost without fail and the hypothetical option people want to replace Hooper at 8 doesn't exist in Australian rugby right now.
Hooper playing in the right side channel when we have the ball is down to planning. If Pocock was playing 7 he would play there instead.
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
The problem Scrub is that we don't have that line bending 8 that you speak of. Due to their complementary aspects Hooper and Pocock are sharing the traditional responsibilities of the 7 & 8, which is kind of what you are getting at.
Pocock is out of here after the RC so we are going to need to come up with a new plan. In the absence of a genuine 8 appearing the next best option would be to groom one of the 'not quite big enough' locks into the role, and I suspect that is why Timani is in the squad. It would be an enormous risk to play him at the back right now, particularly with respect to controlling the ball at the back of the scrum. McMahon is another option but again that can wait until Pocock is gone. I suspect on the EOYT McCalman and McMahon will share the bulk of the role with Timani maybe given some time there at opportune times to learn the trade.
- Status