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

[TSR]

Hooper is no where near an 8! And no I don't assign traditional roles or Hooper wouldn't be in my side. I would pick my best players and then match, in this case, the third position to them.
What was missing in our backrow last game? Certainly not McMahon's style of play.

Sorry Sully - it is very presumptious of me to tell you what you were thinking. My apologies.

My comment on Hooper was more to contrast how he is playing compared to the traditional role of an open side. But you are right, his current role doesn't match a traditional number 8s role either.

 

[Viking]

Tangental and not entirely irrelevant but I am so sick of people using that quote.

That is NOT even close to the definition of insanity and people are essentially using an argument from authority logical fallacy in thinking it must be true / insightful because Albert Einstein "said" it.

Well theres absolutely no evidence of that happening either. Its just a silly phrase plucked from somewhere in history and everyones decided to run with it despite an absence of any reason to continually use it over and over again.

I fucking hate that phrase.

But I digress. Where were we?

Haha I do apologise, It's a famous quote that supports my point and enables other posters to better understand the point i am trying to make.

Now is the time for change. Whether it be strategy or personal or both. Agree or disagree?

 

[bigmac]

Tangental and not entirely irrelevant but I am so sick of people using that quote.

That is NOT even close to the definition of insanity and people are essentially using an argument from authority logical fallacy in thinking it must be true / insightful because Albert Einstein "said" it.

Well theres absolutely no evidence of that happening either. Its just a silly phrase plucked from somewhere in history and everyones decided to run with it despite an absence of any reason to continually use it over and over again.

I fucking hate that phrase.

But I digress. Where were we?

Absolute truth here. Its a cheap easy and meaningless quote from back of the envelope selectors.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[KOB1987]

I think the phrase is wrong purely because if we went out with the exact team and game plan and made 5 handling errors instead of 24 and threw one of 2 crucial passes when we had an overlap, more than likely we would have won. Hence we would have tried the same thing and got a different result.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I really can't see both Simmons and Carter starting in the second row together. Simmons out for Horwill imo.

Simmons was dropped for form reasons, and hasn't had any game time in the meantime to show he has improved. Carter, otoh, had the high workload game I'm sure Cheika put him in there for, and ran a highly efficient lineout, which reputably is a strength that Rob Simmons alone holds in Aus rugby.

In fact, I have to say that I am completely over Rob Simmons as a test player. His lineout generalship has been over-hyped now for a couple of years at least. Beyond that, he has so little impact in a game that you could often be forgiven for thinking he wasn't even on the ground, but then he goes and gives away some silly penalty to remind you of his presence.

I know I am exaggerating his deficiencies but he is fast dropping down the order of locks in my opinion. I wouldn't even have him on the bench for Test No 3.

Don't disagree with any of that but I would love to see some stats on scrums with Simmons in and out of the team. Underated part of his play I reckon.

I wonder also if he was carrying that back injury into the first test, assured Cheika that he was fit and then went down after 20 minutes.

Dropped to teach him a bit of a leason

 

[wamberal]

You might hate it, but it contains an inescapable truth.


Did you watch the Second Test? Insanity ruled.

 

[KOB1987]

Regardless of the level of perceived insanity last Saturday, the award for ACTUAL insanity goes to Ben McCalman for playing 30 minutes with a fractured shoulder blade. That had to hurt hitting rucks..

 

[Viking]

Don't disagree with any of that but I would love to see some stats on scrums with Simmons in and out of the team. Underated part of his play I reckon.

I wonder also if he was carrying that back injury into the first test, assured Cheika that he was fit and then went down after 20 minutes.

Dropped to teach him a bit of a leason

I think scrums is also an under-rated part of Carter's game.

 

[ACT Crusader]

The only selection I'm going to be annoyed with this Test is if McMahon is picked again.

The rest have fair pro's and con's. Even re-calling Phipps & Foley. But McMahon has no previous evidence that he is capable of stepping up.

And yet I am hoping he gets selected just to see what your (OTT) reaction will be

 

[ACT Crusader]

I think the phrase is wrong purely because if we went out with the exact team and game plan and made 5 handling errors instead of 24 and threw one of 2 crucial passes when we had an overlap, more than likely we would have won. Hence we would have tried the same thing and got a different result.

And the "quote" fails to take into consideration what England will do. The probability of them reacting and defending the same as last week IMO is highly unlikely

 

[Viking]

I think the phrase is wrong purely because if we went out with the exact team and game plan and made 5 handling errors instead of 24 and threw one of 2 crucial passes when we had an overlap, more than likely we would have won. Hence we would have tried the same thing and got a different result.

You think it was just a few handling errors and failed opportunities that led to the result then you are insane. You could use that argument against every loss in history - "if only we didn't drop that ball that time we would have won the world cup".

The number of those handling errors and blown opportunities is not only a reflection of our poor execution but ALSO England's ability to predict our play and increase the pressure they put on us - a direct result from playing the same predictable strategy.

You think England magically rush out of line and/or fan out across the line at just the right time because of coincidence - maybe they did their homework and know Foley will more then likely run and players like Folau, and the KK will rarely throw a a quick accurate wide ball to exploit an overlap.

England will continue to predict our play and shut down overlaps if we continue to do the same thing.

Now you want to go out with the exact same game plan and expect we don't make as many handling errors - we will probably make more given the increased pressure England will be able to put on us.

 

[Viking]

And the "quote" fails to take into consideration what England will do. The probability of them reacting and defending the same as last week IMO is highly unlikely

Your right. They are likely to defend even better given they know what is coming now.

 

[KOB1987]

Seb the result in both games came down to the fact that they executed their game plan well and we executed ours poorly. I'm not saying that we should have won, I'm saying we could have. Both games.

I'm also not saying we will come out with exactly the same game plan and personnel, I expect tinkering in both regards. But the essential elements will be the same, we'll attack and they'll defend. If we execute our game plan better than they do we'll win.

 

[A mutterer]

You know the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

We tried the same thing twice and failed twice.

Yes we are facing a white-wash, so now is exactly the time to try something different because its pretty bloody clear that what we are currently doing is not working.

Understand?

no.



i do understand that a number of posters are coming from an entirely parochial viewpoint with their suggestions, most of which are are completely unlikely to happen despite the level of fervour behind these fanciful hopes.

should i also insert a pointless question to finish off my post as well?

 

[Hawko]

Far too few contributors to this thread are asking the question "Why, given the possession and territory stats, did we lose the last two tests?" The answer to that question lies in the performance of our attacking methods and skills.

Foley has copped huge criticism for his performance, but watching the game I felt only he and Folau were any chance of breaking the England defensive line. Can anyone remember the last time Kuridrani made a clean line break in a test? I certainly can't.

Our forwards tried hard, but we lacked genuine line-benders and off-loaders, particularly once we got into the 22.That has to be addressed.

Criticism of Fardy has been similarly misplaced, he was absolutely exhausted when he made the majority of his mistakes in the last 15 minutes. Given the workload we require of him, he has to be replaced before the end; or we have to rethink his workload. That means either a 6:2 bench split or we require more from our front five.

The desire to drop Hooper is similarly misplaced. The backrow non-performer was McMahon. Against the skillset that England brings McMahon was never going to be able to to make the breaks and half-breaks that had to be made to win. We didn't need energy at 8, we needed power.

Our best chance to beat England (not NZ, that's a whole different question) is a team that looks like this:

Slipper, Polota-Nau, Kepu
Horwill, Carter
Fardy, Palu, Hooper
Phipps, Foley
Horne, Kerevi, Folau, Nayaravoro
Haylett-Petty

Moore, Sio, Holmes
Skelton, Mumm, Houston
Pickle, Morahan

Skelton on for Horwill, Houston on for Palu. Both to happen at the same time between 50 and 60 minutes, depending on fatigue. Mumm to replace Carter or Fardy, depending on their condition. Moore to replace Polota-Nau at 45-50, Polota-Nau having been told to empty the tank early doing pick-and-go and running close to the ruck.

Continue to play Cheika-ball, but this time with the troops on the ground who can do it. Polota-Nau, Palu, Kerevi and Naiyaravoro as battering rams; Kepu, Hooper, Foley, Folau and Haylett-Petty for the finesse. Horne to replace Folau in the defensive line to give us two kick-receivers at the back. Phipps in cover for Naiyaravoro's defensive lapses - Pickle and Morahan to come on at 60, no later. Mumm is the replacement held back till 70, if someone goes down after that we take the risk.

 

[Twoilms]

Far too few contributors to this thread are asking the question "Why, given the possession and territory stats, did we lose the last two tests?" The answer to that question lies in the performance of our attacking methods and skills.

Foley has copped huge criticism for his performance, but watching the game I felt only he and Folau were any chance of breaking the England defensive line. Can anyone remember the last time Kuridrani made a clean line break in a test? I certainly can't.

Our forwards tried hard, but we lacked genuine line-benders and off-loaders, particularly once we got into the 22.That has to be addressed.

Criticism of Fardy has been similarly misplaced, he was absolutely exhausted when he made the majority of his mistakes in the last 15 minutes. Given the workload we require of him, he has to be replaced before the end; or we have to rethink his workload. That means either a 6:2 bench split or we require more from our front five.

The desire to drop Hooper is similarly misplaced. The backrow non-performer was McMahon. Against the skillset that England brings McMahon was never going to be able to to make the breaks and half-breaks that had to be made to win. We didn't need energy at 8, we needed power.

Our best chance to beat England (not NZ, that's a whole different question) is a team that looks like this:

Slipper, Polota-Nau, Kepu
Horwill, Carter
Fardy, Palu, Hooper
Phipps, Foley
Horne, Kerevi, Folau, Nayaravoro
Haylett-Petty

Moore, Sio, Holmes
Skelton, Mumm, Houston
Pickle, Morahan

Skelton on for Horwill, Houston on for Palu. Both to happen at the same time between 50 and 60 minutes, depending on fatigue. Mumm to replace Carter or Fardy, depending on their condition. Moore to replace Polota-Nau at 45-50, Polota-Nau having been told to empty the tank early doing pick-and-go and running close to the ruck.

Continue to play Cheika-ball, but this time with the troops on the ground who can do it. Polota-Nau, Palu, Kerevi and Naiyaravoro as battering rams; Kepu, Hooper, Foley, Folau and Haylett-Petty for the finesse. Horne to replace Folau in the defensive line to give us two kick-receivers at the back. Phipps in cover for Naiyaravoro's defensive lapses - Pickle and Morahan to come on at 60, no later. Mumm is the replacement held back till 70, if someone goes down after that we take the risk.

Only issues with this line-up is that Palu simply won't last 50 minutes and Naiyaravoro would be better used as impact from the bench. If impact in a tight game is what you want, the big fella is far more likely to bring it than Morahan.

 

[RugbyReg]

I'm coming around to the idea of picking Naiyaravoro on the wing, as long as we get his hands on the ball early and he can do some runs at the likes of Force and Nowell. Could do some real mental damage early

 

[JJJ]

Just spitballing, but is it possible we're disadvantaged by the fact that our attack coach is also a current, active head coach? It would've given Eddie a pretty up-to-date idea of how Larkham likes to attack leading into this series. A lot of extra data points no other international side offers.

 

[pissedoffihavetoregister]

Far too few contributors to this thread are asking the question "Why, given the possession and territory stats, did we lose the last two tests?" The answer to that question lies in the performance of our attacking methods and skills.

Foley has copped huge criticism for his performance, but watching the game I felt only he and Folau were any chance of breaking the England defensive line. Can anyone remember the last time Kuridrani made a clean line break in a test? I certainly can't.

Our forwards tried hard, but we lacked genuine line-benders and off-loaders, particularly once we got into the 22.That has to be addressed.

Criticism of Fardy has been similarly misplaced, he was absolutely exhausted when he made the majority of his mistakes in the last 15 minutes. Given the workload we require of him, he has to be replaced before the end; or we have to rethink his workload. That means either a 6:2 bench split or we require more from our front five.

The desire to drop Hooper is similarly misplaced. The backrow non-performer was McMahon. Against the skillset that England brings McMahon was never going to be able to to make the breaks and half-breaks that had to be made to win. We didn't need energy at 8, we needed power.

Our best chance to beat England (not NZ, that's a whole different question) is a team that looks like this:

Slipper, Polota-Nau, Kepu
Horwill, Carter
Fardy, Palu, Hooper
Phipps, Foley
Horne, Kerevi, Folau, Nayaravoro
Haylett-Petty

Moore, Sio, Holmes
Skelton, Mumm, Houston
Pickle, Morahan

Skelton on for Horwill, Houston on for Palu. Both to happen at the same time between 50 and 60 minutes, depending on fatigue. Mumm to replace Carter or Fardy, depending on their condition. Moore to replace Polota-Nau at 45-50, Polota-Nau having been told to empty the tank early doing pick-and-go and running close to the ruck.

Continue to play Cheika-ball, but this time with the troops on the ground who can do it. Polota-Nau, Palu, Kerevi and Naiyaravoro as battering rams; Kepu, Hooper, Foley, Folau and Haylett-Petty for the finesse. Horne to replace Folau in the defensive line to give us two kick-receivers at the back. Phipps in cover for Naiyaravoro's defensive lapses - Pickle and Morahan to come on at 60, no later. Mumm is the replacement held back till 70, if someone goes down after that we take the risk.

Hi,
I totally agree. We have the same problem the tahs have in that the was few people in the backs that could make breaks other than folau. So they moved him to the outside center so he gets more ball and he was imo the best outside center in the comp. And DHP can cover for him.

 

[USARugger]

Can anyone remember the last time Kuridrani made a clean line break in a test? I certainly can't.

The first test when he scored his try? Lol