Wallabies vs Ireland - 3rd test - Saturday 23rd June 2018 - Sydney Football Stadium

[Zero_Cool]

@ Braveheart81

Oh, I don't know some of the easier games, like Japan, Fiji, Argentina, even potentially against Wales. The good coaches in World Rugby find ways to get young guys game time. As to Powell or Gordon being inferior players, I'd wager both have more Super Rugby minuets than Phipps in the past two years. And I would genuinely question if Phipps is better than either Powell or Gordon.
I know that Cheika brought Powell into the Wallabies Squad when he was still a Tradie, but he didn't get him game time, and while being a part of the squad is a good first step you've gotta get them use to playing at test level, getting them time off the bench is key to doing that, he should be striving to have a few of guys for the future, just don't play them for 80 minuets a game for 12 games when they are clearly not up to playing test rugby (Hanigan).

 

[KOB1987]

That's quite a step down when Phipps/Foley combine (if I'm reading it correctly). Would be interesting to see the makeup of the opposition in each of those situations - I assume most of the ABs tests would have used the Genia/Foley combo.

I don't have the time to delve through the teamsheets for each combination but at a glance it looks like a pretty rubbish stat. These are the games that Phipps has started since RWC2015
- the 3 test series v England in 2016 (3L)
- v NZ at Eden Park that year (L)
- v Wales on the EOYT (W)
- v England on that tour (L)
- v Japan on last year's tour (W)

I'd much rather have Genia there but I don't think those stats tell us anything. His actual overall win percentage when he's in the 23 since his debut in 2011 is 57.14% which would be higher than all coaches and most players over that same period.

 

[KOB1987]

@ Braveheart81

Oh, I don't know some of the easier games, like Japan, Fiji, Argentina, even potentially against Wales. The good coaches in World Rugby find ways to get young guys game time. As to Powell or Gordon being inferior players, I'd wager both have more Super Rugby minuets than Phipps in the past two years. And I would genuinely question if Phipps is better than either Powell or Gordon.
I know that Cheika brought Powell into the Wallabies Squad when he was still a Tradie, but he didn't get him game time, and while being a part of the squad is a good first step you've gotta get them use to playing at test level, getting them time off the bench is key to doing that, he should be striving to have a few of guys for the future, just don't play them for 80 minuets a game for 12 games when they are clearly not up to playing test rugby (Hanigan).

Since I was on the stats site I looked up Joe Powell and he's played in 3 tests for 3 wins. v. wait for it . Japan, Fiji & Italy. Hmmm...

 

[Brumby Runner]

For mine, I would start Tupou, particularly if Coleman is out, desperately need some big, hard hitting hard running guys. While I think Latu has been better than BPA both tests, with TT at LHP and his familiarity with BPA, for mine I don't change hooker. Assuming Coleman is out Arnold to come straight in for him. I would leave Timu out (no, not forever, but for this test), start Tui at 6, move Pocock to 8, have Samu on the bench and go back to 5/3. The only change for the backs is Phipps in to 9, I would have Gordon on the bench but it will probably be Powell, and my extra back to come in would be TK.

Yes BR, I'm leaving Phipps, Foley and Beale there, who of course single handedly lost the second test for us. Happily, the penalties and turnovers weren't a problem

Froggy, just one point to make - I am very confident that we gave more possession to the Irish through poor kicking, by both Foley and Beale, than they won through turnovers at the breakdown. I asked the question in an earlier post, that no-one has yet responded to, but how much of the Irish dominance at the breakdown was due to us again playing the Pooper. I think it probably had a large bearing. A combination of Pocock/Samu/Tui starting with Timu/Hooper off the bench I feel would better counteract the Irish back row, which is where they really generated their breakdown dominance.

On the backline selections, Foley and Beale were very poor in test 2, but there is nobody else, unfortunately. Certainly, at 10 Foley is the only option and can produce a good game as in test 1 but can equally produce a bit of a horror as in test 2, and while Kerevi or Hodge might start at 12, they don't provide the attacking spark that Beale does. I am fearful that if Beale continues to go high in tackles as he did on a few occasions in test 2, he will see a card and it could be good night nurse for the Wallabies.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Coaches are allowed to pick whoever they want to. Is there a coach anywhere in the world who does not choose the best team that he can?



Why oh why would Cheika deliberately ignore certain players? Why? Why? Why?

Well, Joe Schmidt is canvassing the idea of leaving a couple of his stars out of Test 3 to give the next rung a bit more experience in top class rugby. I don't think it will happen, but if it does, it will be because he sees that as the best way to develop depth in all positions leading into the RWC. And I am sure that it is the same notion that leads posters to suggest similar actions with the Wallabies.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I don't have the time to delve through the teamsheets for each combination but at a glance it looks like a pretty rubbish stat. These are the games that Phipps has started since RWC2015
- the 3 test series v England in 2016 (3L)
- v NZ at Eden Park that year (L)
- v Wales on the EOYT (W)
- v England on that tour (L)
- v Japan on last year's tour (W)

I'd much rather have Genia there but I don't think those stats tell us anything. His actual overall win percentage when he's in the 23 since his debut in 2011 is 57.14% which would be higher than all coaches and most players over that same period.

So, he has a 28% win rate when he starts and 57% when he's in the 23. That is a hell of a success rate when he's on the bench! Talk about a rubbish stat, KOB. I think you're just making things up.

 

[Zero_Cool]

Since I was on the stats site I looked up Joe Powell and he's played in 3 tests for 3 wins. v. wait for it . Japan, Fiji & Italy. Hmmm.

Yeah, let's look at those minuets -- Fiji 14, Japan 13, Italy 2... so a grand total of 30 minuets, less than a half. And what about against Argentina ZERO. I'm sorry if we can't play a few of our young guys against Japan or Italy then Australian rugby is really truly fucked! There are 6 games (Japan, Fiji, Italy and Argentina x 2) we should have gotten far more than a half of rugby for our third option halfback, especially when Nick Phipps is the very ordinary second option.

 

[Braveheart81]

He didn't do well in his first test against Fiji so perhaps Cheika decided he wasn't ready and needed more time with the squad an back in Super Rugby to improve his game.

Phipps didn't play in that June series at all. He was injured.

Powell has been better this season and I think he'll be far more ready for test rugby when he gets his next opportunity this weekend.

I don't necessarily think he would be in a much better position going into the test this weekend if he'd played some more minutes against weaker opposition. It's not really how it works.

 

[KOB1987]

So, he has a 28% win rate when he starts and 57% when he's in the 23. That is a hell of a success rate when he's on the bench! Talk about a rubbish stat, KOB. I think you're just making things up.

You're missing the point BR. Genia's success rate when starting v NZ, England and Wales over the same period is also 28%. You were the one who suggested we needed to look at the opposition they had played (suggesting that Phipps would have played all the inferior teams) so that's what i did. Not in complete detail granted.

 

[cyclopath]

Yeah, let's look at those minuets -- Fiji 14, Japan 13, Italy 2. so a grand total of 30 minuets, less than a half. And what about against Argentina ZERO. I'm sorry if we can't play a few of our young guys against Japan or Italy then Australian rugby is really truly fucked! There are 6 games (Japan, Fiji, Italy and Argentina x 2) we should have gotten far more than a half of rugby for our third option halfback, especially when Nick Phipps is the very ordinary second option.

While we're at it, let's check out how many waltzes, tangos and foxtrots he played too.

 

[K974]

Well, Joe Schmidt is canvassing the idea of leaving a couple of his stars out of Test 3 to give the next rung a bit more experience in top class rugby. I don't think it will happen, but if it does, it will be because he sees that as the best way to develop depth in all positions leading into the RWC. And I am sure that it is the same notion that leads posters to suggest similar actions with the Wallabies.

He's going to do it because what happened in rwc15
In rwc 15 ireland lost sean o brien paul o connell sexton Peter o Mahoney and Tommy Bowe against France in the last pool game , the lack of depth was badly exposed against Argentina in the quarter
Since then it's been publicly stated by the IRFU that there was a plan to build depth in this cycle
Because of his recent success He has the support of Most of the Irish rugby public and media to roll the dice with a 2nd xv for this test to build depth
This along with player fatigue at this time of the year for the front liners
Conor murray has played non stop since sept 16
There is a huge amount of more club game time in Europe compared to here
Person tom I'd like to see him go after the series but I think he has to roll the dice
Hence I think australia by 15+

 

[TSR]

They were playing a very much better Irish side in the second game. We can win with the right side, playing the right game, with a lot of intensity, patience, and composure.

I agree. Do you mean by your comment that we need to change the team to pick the right team? If so, I don’t agree with that. I felt the selectors got it pretty much right. A couple of positions are certainly debatable, but I was happy with the side and I still think the should persist with the side picked as much as possible.

The rest I agree with 100%. We need to do is get our tactics right. Get our line speed back. More dominant tackles. Our kicking accuracy and the chase has to improve and our discipline needs to be spot on. And we need to retain more ball.

 

[dru]

I agree. Do you mean by your comment that we need to change the team to pick the right team? If so, I don’t agree with that. I felt the selectors got it pretty much right. A couple of positions are certainly debatable, but I was happy with the side and I still think the should persist with the side picked as much as possible.

The rest I agree with 100%. We need to do is get our tactics right. Get our line speed back. More dominant tackles. Our kicking accuracy and the chase has to improve and our discipline needs to be spot on. And we need to retain more ball.

Bold bit in particular. And that is not the bodies chosen but how the coach decides to use them.

 

[Joe Blow]

It makes no sense to just persist with the same 23 and hope for the best. We need to respond to the loss and adjust, as Ireland did last week
We have some other options in the squad that should be considered for this 3rd test.
Arnold will add grunt and go forward. The best second row performance last year was when he and Simmons packed down against the ABs. He should be paired with Coleman. Rodda had a good game on Saturday and it is a little rough on him but he should view it as a rotation.
Timu should be replaced in the starting side for this one as well. He has been OK but Tui has shown a lot more both times he has come in. Hanigan doesn’t need to be rushed in. Give him more time to recover. I would start Latu at 2 with BPA on the bench.
Against popular opinion here I feel Kerevi has been dissapointing. His first instinct is to run sideways or back when faced with a solid defensive line. We need someone in the backline to run forward and straighten the attack. Both TK and Hodge defend very strongly as well. Either would be fine but I would go with TK.
It would be good to revert to a 5/3 bench and include Maddocks or Banks to add some spark at the end. Korobietes position may be under threat as well. That rush of blood to the head basically cost us the test and wrapping up the series. If discipline is to be addressed I would start here.

 

[dru]

It makes no sense to just persist with the same 23 and hope for the best.

Joe, almost. However I would say it makes no sense to continue with the same strategy.

It's not a subtle difference.

 

[Joe Blow]

Joe, almost. However I would say it makes no sense to continue with the same strategy.

It's not a subtle difference.

I would say both. Some fresh enthusiasm and potentially your best combination.
We obviously did not get the attitude and execution right this week and that comes down to Cheika and Hooper.

 

[Derpus]

I agree. Do you mean by your comment that we need to change the team to pick the right team? If so, I don’t agree with that. I felt the selectors got it pretty much right. A couple of positions are certainly debatable, but I was happy with the side and I still think the should persist with the side picked as much as possible.

The rest I agree with 100%. We need to do is get our tactics right. Get our line speed back. More dominant tackles. Our kicking accuracy and the chase has to improve and our discipline needs to be spot on. And we need to retain more ball.

Maybe get Hooper to point out to the ref that they have half the team flopping on top of the ball at every breakdown.

 

[TSR]

It makes no sense to just persist with the same 23 and hope for the best. We need to respond to the loss and adjust, as Ireland did last week.

Look - we disagree on the merits of certain players, and that is fine. You have clearly felt Cheika hasn’t picked his best side from the start. If that is the case, then change makes sense. If a player is particularly fatigued, then some rotation makes sense also. I wouldn’t have picked the exact same 23 as Cheika, but largely I think he got it right so I am, no doubt, more inclined to favour the status quo.

However, I disagree with the statement it makes no sense to just persist with the same 23. Good teams do that all the time. In fact, I would suggest good teams rarely make changes for the sake of change when they are trying to win important games. Yes, Ireland made changes from Test 1 to 2 - but they are clearly pursuing a different agenda to us.

I’m not saying that the players don’t need to do better, or that they are locked in for the long term but Cheika clearly felt they were the best 23, regardless of what any of us did. With the series on the line if I would like to see him back the guys he thought were the best 23 to get the job done (injury or fatigue changes excluded).

I’m not saying there isn’t a time a place for squad rotation and bringing in new faces where a player has been found short - but I don’t think this is it, and I think historically more successful teams pick and stick as much as possible (but I will concede I haven’t compiled any statistical evidence to support this).

 

[Joe Blow]

I don’t disagree with Cheikas selections on the whole. However both Timu and BPA have been a little underwhelming and their replacements better. Arnold was not available for the first test but is fully fit.
I just don’t see what a Kerevi gives at 13. His superior strength and tackle breaking ability is nullified at test level. His defence has been ok but we have seen nothing in attack.
A couple of little tweaks wouldn’t hurt and of course we will need another half in the 23.

 

[Tomikin]

We can shuffle the squad as much as we like but if our work at the breakdown (ie do way better than a singular reliance on Popock especially as the Irish have worked out how to (mostly) effectively counter him), tactical kicking and from hand, and lowering Sexton's 3-point opportunities don't improve, we will likely lose again.

If that happens (a) a 1-2 loss on home soil will be a vast disappointment/turn-off for casual Wallaby fans coming after the England series humiliation and (b) the lingering impression post 2015 that we can only beat Tier 1 teams when they rarely have off days will be buttressed big time.

I was full of praise for the Wallabies Test 1 v Ireland, the coaches seemed to have learnt something in 2 years, but we reverted badly into many old loser habits in Test 2 the moment Ireland controlled possession, played their impressive low error rate long phases game, and won the gain line contest hands down.

As a rusted-on, hope springs eternal for me, but we have to assemble and be able to execute the critical skills against Tier 1 competition or our mutation into a 'promising' Tier 2 rugby nation will be affirmed both now and for the foreseeable future.

What do you call teir 2 losing to the second best team in the world..? We are teir 1 and will stay there. We are 1 - 1 with the best NH team..We beat all teir 2 teams with ease unless teir 2 means anyone but the black..

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk