Wallabies v Wales, Principality Stadium, Sun 27th November, 2.15am AEST

[Viking]

Valetini is our primary ball runner, especially off the lineout on first phase- when has Hooper ever filled that role?

Back in the Pooper days. Who's gunna run it up, Fardy, Pocock, or Hooper. Was Hooper every time.

 

[Viking]

We're trying to replace the role Valetini has predominantly had for the last couple of years.

I don't think Hooper does this at all. He's not a big body seeking contact with his ball carrying.

Well I see this as the issue with Australian rugby. It's that Cheika-ball mentality. Trying to fit players we don't have into a certain structure.

Valetini is out. We shouldn't be looking for a like-for-like player we don't have.

How about putting in the next best player and changing our tactics to suit the players we have.

It seems there is no flexibility or adaptability in the wallabies anymore.

 

[Tomthumb]

Well I see this as the issue with Australian rugby. It's that Cheika-ball mentality. Trying to fit players we don't have into a certain structure.

Valetini is out. We shouldn't be looking for a like-for-like player we don't have.

How about putting in the next best player and changing our tactics to suit the players we have.

It seems there is no flexibility or adaptability in the wallabies anymore.

Exactly

With a 30% win record, maybe we shouldn't be so convinced these current roles players have are the correct ones for them or the team

 

[Viking]

My take on that is we haven't developed Wilson into the player he could be at this stage. Could say the same about Noah.

Might be harsh on Noah, but you could say he's currently over-achieving.

Wilson certainly has a lot more potential. You see glimpses of it at super rugby.

Not sure I feel the same about Noah. His young age is really the main thing saying he has time to improve rather then glimpses of brilliance on the field. I hope am I wrong as I do like him.

 

[Viking]

The context of these discussions though was triggered by players debuting when a test match was in the balance. Totally see the logic in a different scenario when a game is already all but decided.

Unless it's Quade Cooper (also verse Italy) and you win the game.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

I agree @Viking . I'm not saying Noah hasn't developed into what he could be. I mean he hasn't been developed as he should have been by the national set up. Sure, a lot of it falls on him but it's hard to succeed when you are out into the middle of a shit show. His performances at Super Rugby show it. It must be hard to be seemingly looked past at times when the next option is not showing signs of being any better than him at this point in time.

 

[Sword of Justice]

Unless it's Quade Cooper (also verse Italy) and you win the game.

But he came on with almost 20 minutes to go and was also a prodigious talent.

 

[Braveheart81]

Back in the Pooper days. Who's gunna run it up, Fardy, Pocock, or Hooper. Was Hooper every time.

Well I see this as the issue with Australian rugby. It's that Cheika-ball mentality. Trying to fit players we don't have into a certain structure.

Valetini is out. We shouldn't be looking for a like-for-like player we don't have.

There's a big difference between creating a structure and game plan to suit your first choice team that you are trying to pick every week and then coming up with entirely different structures because you can't select a remotely like for like player to fill a gap in a single week.

Who knows what we will do in terms of team selection. I certainly think we won't be changing our structures substantially and if picked to start at 8 Samu will be the operating in the middle of the field in attack.

It feels to me that our ball running and ability to get over the advantage line this week is going to be a huge risk area because of all the players we have missing. That is the only reason I am suggesting to select Gleeson to start.

 

[Viking]

I agree @Viking . I'm not saying Noah hasn't developed into what he could be. I mean he hasn't been developed as he should have been by the national set up. Sure, a lot of it falls on him but it's hard to succeed when you are out into the middle of a shit show. His performances at Super Rugby show it. It must be hard to be seemingly looked past at times when the next option is not showing signs of being any better than him at this point in time.

I see what your saying. But I think I am one of the few that disagree. I think dropping Noah multiple times have been justified. Play brilliantly so your the clear first choice or risk getting drooped. That's the way it should be.

Only players like Hooper with proven experience can afford to retain there spots after a few mediocre games, and even then too many and you risk getting dropped too.

I think there is probably only 1 or two games he should have started over Foley, but even then, I see why Rennie opted for experience over Noah.

This is Test rugby, you pick the best player, you can't keep a player in the team because you might hurt there feelings. Players should understand how ruthless the game is, and use getting dropped as motivation to improve not the other way around.

 

[Viking]

There's a big difference between creating a structure and game plan to suit your first choice team that you are trying to pick every week and then coming up with entirely different structures because you can't select a remotely like for like player to fill a gap in a single week.

Who knows what we will do in terms of team selection. I certainly think we won't be changing our structures substantially and if picked to start at 8 Samu will be the operating in the middle of the field in attack.

It feels to me that our ball running and ability to get over the advantage line this week is going to be a huge risk area because of all the players we have missing. That is the only reason I am suggesting to select Gleeson to start.

If the goal is getting over the gainline in the middle of the park, then Samu can solve that problem. He takes a different direction with footwork compared to crash-balling but the result is similar.

So you're not really changing structures that much anyway.

Gleeson is so fresh, he might solve that problem but then create structure problems everywhere else. I think that is more likely then Samu not getting over the gain line.

 

[Derpus]

If the goal is getting over the gainline in the middle of the park, then Samu can solve that problem. He takes a different direction with footwork compared to crash-balling but the result is similar.

So you're not really changing structures that much anyway.

Gleeson is so fresh, he might solve that problem but then create structure problems everywhere else. I think that is more likely then Samu not getting over the gain line.

Nope.

He has brilliant footwork and is certainly capable of beating a defender but he almost never does this in tight.

 

[Viking]

Nope.

He has brilliant footwork and is certainly capable of beating a defender but he almost never does this in tight.

True. But Valetini is most effective off phase one ball. Like in the 'middle of the park' off line-outs. The tight can usually be handled by say the 'tight 5'.

 

[KOB1987]

Exactly

With a 30% win record, maybe we shouldn't be so convinced these current roles players have are the correct ones for them or the team

Also, every time we get a penalty can we not kick it to the corner and attempt to score off a driving maul off the lineout. It's kinda predictable now, not to mention boring.

 

[Viking]

Nope.

He has brilliant footwork and is certainly capable of beating a defender but he almost never does this in tight.

Also, if Fainga is starting, then there's your extra player who's effective in the tight since Porecki does nothing in that department. Fainga is probably better then Valetini in the tight too given his much better body height into contact.

So I don't think losing Valetini as a ball running option in the tight is a huge loss at all. The tight 5 players should cover that area anyway. It's the first phase ball that's the loss. Which as mentioned before Samu should do fine.

Unless Lonergan starts. Then different story. Probably even worse then Porecki in the tight.

 

[LeCheese]

Also, every time we get a penalty can we not kick it to the corner and attempt to score off a driving maul off the lineout. It's kinda predictable now, not to mention boring.

No chance of this going away while the team is primarily Brumbies and under the influence of McKellar. It's a shame that we rarely seem to be able to convert.

 

[Tomikin]

There's a big difference between creating a structure and game plan to suit your first choice team that you are trying to pick every week and then coming up with entirely different structures because you can't select a remotely like for like player to fill a gap in a single week.

Who knows what we will do in terms of team selection. I certainly think we won't be changing our structures substantially and if picked to start at 8 Samu will be the operating in the middle of the field in attack.

It feels to me that our ball running and ability to get over the advantage line this week is going to be a huge risk area because of all the players we have missing. That is the only reason I am suggesting to select Gleeson to start.

Alternatively, you run someone like Marky Mark (Nawaqanitawase) off the crash ball

 

[Tomikin]

No chance of this going away while the team is primarily Brumbies and under the influence of McKellar. It's a shame that we rarely seem to be able to convert.

Its pretty much the structure of every team out there to kick for the corner and maul it over, most teams just suck at it, but it's so common across all teams.

 

[LeCheese]

Its pretty much the structure of every team out there to kick for the corner and maul it over, most teams just suck at it, but it's so common across all teams.

Most teams have it in their arsenal, but often with variations or will clear it from the maul early. The Brumbies have mastered the maul in the <10m line out situation, so understandingly have become reliant on it; the Wallabies have not, and yet continue to persist with often little effect.

 

[fatprop]

Also, every time we get a penalty can we not kick it to the corner and attempt to score off a driving maul off the lineout. It's kinda predictable now, not to mention boring.

But effective, the ponies have been eminently boring for years, but incredibly effective

It works

 

[Silverado]

I would. Lolesio on the crash ball?

Why does 12 have to be crash ball? Lolesio was very effective at 12 in that under 20s team that made the JWC final playing outside Harrison/Donaldson a few years ago. Created space for the likes of Nawaquanitawase on the outside and was very effective and entertaining. Reminded me of the days of Horan and Lynagh as second playmakrrs on our glory days. I'd like to see someone feeding Kellaway, Petaia and Nawaquanitawase and creating opportunities