Wallabies vs England, Sydney, 3rd Test, 25 June @ 8:00pm

[Brumby Runner]

I've got a prediction for everyone, so listen closely:

Even if Skelton rips shit out of it, there will be a metric fuck-ton of people on here saying "Aw yeah but England weren't trying because it was a dead rubber. <Insert preferred option> from <my franchise> would have done heaps better!"

See, this is where you are wrong. Horwill would be better and should be in the side.

EDIT : If Skelton has earned his spot though his line busting ability (which I don't think he has), then we need a different backrow to compensate for his lineout deficiencies. It has always intrigued me why he isn't more effective at two in the lineout on opposition throw in.

 

[swingpass]

i would have stuck with Arnold and Carter, near enough to our best now and for the future. You can argue that Simmons is needed as well (for experience !) and then Coleman, given Douglas is unavailable. Horwill at his peak was great and i thought played pretty well in the first test but he is not a longterm prospect. if one decided to play Skelton then i think either off the bench or the opening 30 (to 40) mins, but thats a bigger (BIG) gamble. The balance between playing a team thats good enough to win Test matches now and one with enough experience and talent to win the RWC in 2019 is very hard and quite possibly near impossible. Cheiks the coach and so we have to trust him (at this stage anyway )

 

[barbarian]

It will be interesting during the match and afterwards to keep an eye on how the lineouts go. I agree that it is umlikely we will win any England throws (at least until the replacements come on), and will be surprised if we manage to win all of our own.

Weirdly, our lineout has been a real success this series so far, and I reckon we've been better than the Poms in this facet. Don't think anyone predicted that!

Hope that continues, but we certainly aren't flush with options this week. Might be a few 5-man lineouts.
.

 

[TOCC]

I don't think our lineouts have been very good at all, yes success rate of lineouts is quite high butt the pressure from England has prevented the Wallabies from been able to use it as an attacking threat.

Many of the throws are quick 2 balls, which is fine for ball retention but in terms of providing an attacking platform for the backline it's the least preferred option, it gives the defenders a second longer to move up, it means the halfback is standing closer to the sideline which means the fly-half has to push In closer or the half throws a longer pass which again gives the defence more time to move up.

In terms of an attacking platform you want to throw longer, but the Wallabies only managed to do that once or twice last week, and this week it's only going to be worse with only 2 genuine line out options.

 

[Braveheart81]

Does it to that extent though?

If we run an attacking 7 man lineout surely you put Skelton at 2 and if that's your decision he can generally win that ball at 2 because he does have good reach.

Simmons is then your option in the middle and Fardy and/or Hooper further back.

If we end up under immense pressure we might need shorter lineouts with Simmons jumping at the front but that is a last resort.

If the opposition's main concern is stopping you getting that great attacking ball at the back of the lineout then they will have their best jumpers trying to limit that.

 

[Sully]

We won't win with that backrow.

 

[ACT Crusader]

I don't get why people don't have McMahon as a lineout option when he clearly is. I've thought he's gone alright at the Rebels as an option. He takes more than one a game, certainly more than what Pocock offers in that regard.

Combined with the two main options of Simmons and Fardy and the odd one to Skelton or Hooper, and I think it's okay.

If you are being forced to do something at lineout time, ie throwing short, then mix up the attacking off it - maul, short side wrap around etc.

 

[ACT Crusader]

We won't win with that backrow.

And I'm sure the "told you so" brigade will be out in force if that eventuates.....

 

[Scotty]

Have heard that one before. I'd say it's because of the pre-existing Brumbies combination more than anything. And we need a Lilo on the bench to cover more than one position, I'm sure that would have been explained and understood by him. He'll be back, if TK doesn't put in a bottler this game we will likely see a swap for the RC.

Why is Lilo required on the bench? We have To'omua who can play 10 if Foley goes off.

 

[Slim 293]

Why is Lilo required on the bench? We have To'omua who can play 10 if Foley goes off.

We also need a backup goal kicker..........

 

[Scotty]

I disagree.

If Beale or To'omua had been healthy, or Leali'ifano hadn't missed the lead up to the first test because of the birth of his child, chances are Kerevi never would have been picked.

It's not like the centre pairing of Kerevi and Kuridrani was particularly threatening in either test. They were fairly easily contained by England.

But of course, it must be Foley's fault that someone else got replaced by an experienced Wallaby who is now available after being out with an injury.

The whole backline was contained. Out of the two most threatening one has been dropped.

By your rationale the whole backline except for Folau should go!

 

[KOB1987]

Why is Lilo required on the bench? We have To'omua who can play 10 if Foley goes off.

More as coverage for To'omua than Foley. MT last played about 2 months ago. Also, who kicks for goal if Foley goes off?

 

[Scotty]

I disagree, we had a million opportunities to win that last game and couldn't leverage a shit load of goal line moments.

I think To'omua is selected to try to unlock the defense through stopping the poms being able to concentrate solely on stopping Foley

Whilst I do think Kerevi was the better of the two centres, neither was making tries, if it wasn't To'omua, I think Lilo would have been starting 12.

Neither was Foley so let's drop him as well then?

In any case why aren't looking at a different structure - one that has been used to great success by the ABs

10 playmaker
12 big bopper who can offload
13 great defender who can set up his wings and full back


10 Foley
12 Kerevi or Kurindrani
13 To'omua

 

[Braveheart81]

The whole backline was contained. Out of the two most threatening one has been dropped.

By your rationale the whole backline except for Folau should go!

As I said in other posts I would have given Kerevi a crack at 13.

My rationale is that Cheika wanted to switch from essentially playing two 13s in the midfield to playing a second playmaker with our normal 13.

I agree it is harsh on Kerevi who has been one of our better backs but if the option is to bring in a second playmaker that is going to be at 12.

 

[TOCC]

Does it to that extent though?

If we run an attacking 7 man lineout surely you put Skelton at 2 and if that's your decision he can generally win that ball at 2 because he does have good reach.

Simmons is then your option in the middle and Fardy and/or Hooper further back.

If we end up under immense pressure we might need shorter lineouts with Simmons jumping at the front but that is a last resort.

If the opposition's main concern is stopping you getting that great attacking ball at the back of the lineout then they will have their best jumpers trying to limit that.

Skelton has a good reach but he isn't a dynamic jumper, he is slow to move and get off the ground. Scott Fardy and Rob Simmons are the two genuine line out jumpers, Skelton is a third jumper but can't seem them calling to him often, likewise with McMahon.

During the RWC Australia's lineout was an incredibly strong attacking platform and accounted for 68% of all Wallabies tries at the RWC, Eddie Jones obviously identified this and the England lineout placed Australia under enormous pressure, especially in the first test with messy ball coming off the top and Phipps been pressured constantly. Lineout wins are one thing, but the quality of the ball is a different issue altogether. It's no surprise that Australia's inability to get through England defence has coincided with the lineout coming under pressure and been removed as an attacking platform.

 

[tragic]

Is no-one going to mention the fact we only have 2 genuine jumpers in the line-out.
We can expect to win zero opposition ball with this set-up and have extra pressure put on ours.

And the only try we scored last week was from a rolling maul off the lineout - which is now a severely limited option.
If we're behind on the scoreboard and get an attacking penalty it's going to be a tough decision . Kick for touch and lose the lineout, or kick for goal and miss.

 

[Tip]

And I'm sure the "told you so" brigade will be out in force if that eventuates...

Re: Backrow balance. A fair few people (myself included) said the same thing last week.

There hasn't been much "told you so", just disappointment that a couch commentator can read it better than the bloke in the coaches chair.

 

[TSR]

Skelton has a good reach but he isn't a dynamic jumper, he is slow to move and get off the ground. Scott Fardy and Rob Simmons are the two genuine line out jumpers, Skelton is a third jumper but can't seem them calling to him often, likewise with McMahon.

During the RWC Australia's lineout was an incredibly strong attacking platform and accounted for 68% of all Wallabies tries at the RWC, Eddie Jones obviously identified this and the England lineout placed Australia under enormous pressure, especially in the first test with messy ball coming off the top and Phipps been pressured constantly. Lineout wins are one thing, but the quality of the ball is a different issue altogether. It's no surprise that Australia's inability to get through England defence has coincided with the lineout coming under pressure and been removed as an attacking platform.

Maybe (and I'm just playing devils advocate here) that since England have done quite well shutting down one of our strengths, Cheika has decided to try and really throw something different at them.

Certainly a few selections here surprise me. I'll be interested how it goes.

 

[I like to watch]

Re: Backrow balance. A fair few people (myself included) said the same thing last week.

There hasn't been much "told you so", just disappointment that a couch commentator can read it better than the bloke in the coaches chair.

We had plenty of ball,but no ideas of what to do with it.
So unless back row balance means less one out running,and less handling errors,I don't see that as the defining issue in our loss.

 

[Tip]

We had plenty of ball,but no ideas of what to do with it.
So unless back row balance means less one out running,and less handling errors,I don't see that as the defining issue in our loss.

Our backrow was stacked with small fast ball-runners. As you said, we had plenty of ball so they had plenty of chances to shine, be effective and play to their strengths - they weren't either, and didn't.
Now Chieka's realized a size deficiency and gone for Skelton. Thus fixing one problem only to create another (lineout).