Wallabies Watch

[Scotty]

He's short, Heavy and not quick. Fine would be the best he could be.

Ill give you the other two, but short?

 

[Train Without a Station]

We don't always lose the "big fucking matches". We keep losing the "small fucking matches". Our win ratio would be far more respectable if we did better against Samoa and Scotland.

I'm just assuming Bledisloe Cup encounters and World Cup Semi Finals, etc. are big matches. I'll give us Robbie's first win in England (08?) and South Africa with Beale's kick. Should probably throw in the small ones too. Can't seem to win them either. In addition I'd consider the Grand Slam tour we stumbled against Ireland than fell against England as big games we crumbled in too.

Also Qwerty, really not many players have stood up. Probably why we generally get pumped by the AB's. Personally I'd consider Moore, Genia, Pocock, Horwill and would accept people saying JOC (James O'Connor) as big match players who perform when our best opposition are at their best, despite the performance of those around them. Otherwise we've pretty much got a revolving door of players who stand up one week and put in a mediocre one the next, never really managing to do it more than a one off in the games that really count.

 

[BDA]

If Deans goes with Smith as his starting no.7 (which is looking more and more likely) I'd probably actually lean towards playing Hooper on the bench. I think Smith and Gill are similar players and Hooper probably adds a bit more explosiveness from the bench when the game starts to open up.

With that said the weather could play a part in selection. I'd prefer Gill to Hooper if its a wet slugfest.

 

[Braveheart81]

With that said the weather could play a part in selection. I'd prefer Gill to Hooper if its a wet slugfest.

I don't think is really a possibility these days. You've got to name your side several days before the game and whilst you could potentially swap a bench player for a starting player, you can't really change your 22/23 unless there is an injury.

Unless there is some sort of biblical flood in progress, teams are never going to be selected based on weather conditions several days before a game.

 

[mark_s]

As an alternate view, I'd go with Gill over Smith. Smith is great but Gill was on par with him last week in near test match conditions plus Gill finished the game strongly (fitness wise atleast). Also Gill has been with the team for most of the past 12 months and will already be more familiar with the current workings of the Wobbs plus I suspect he would have full support of Horwill and Genia which will matter given they are probably our two most important players.

Nice problem to have though, and I suspect all of Smith, Hooper and Gill will get game time against the Lions.

 

[Scott Allen]

I don't doubt that Smith will be in the 22 given his experience and he's in good form.

With so many matches still to play before the first team is chosen there's still plenty of time for Gill and Hooper to battle it out for the other spot but as Mark says, I reckon they'll all get time over the series.

If you had to pick a team today on form, Hooper would be the one to miss out in my opinion. Gill has been immense so far this season as has Smith. Hooper hasn't but that may be because of how the Tahs are playing. He had a good match against the Chiefs - if the rest of the Tahs backrow keep sharing the workload, Hooper may well be able to get back to the excellent form he demonstrated last year.

But as I say, if you had to pick a team today I'd go Gill and Smith with Gill starting because Smith is that much more versatile in the positions he can play off the bench. If you went with Smith and Hooper, I'd start Smith because you need an on-baller to start the match (in my opinion) and Hooper is not that.

 

[Lindommer]

I remarked to cyclo on Saturday night Hooper's a very good attacking flanker, but in my opinion, not as good as Smith and Gill when his side don't have the ball. It may be due to the fact he's done a proportionally large amount of the Tahs' pigs grunt work, or it may be because he's so bloody fast for a flanker he looks good with the ball in hand. However, it'd seem both Gill and Smith are better scavengers.

Nice selection problem to have.

 

[Braveheart81]

Hooper's game improved dramatically against the Chiefs when he did less of other people's work as Cheika phrased it.

Big changes from previous games is that Dennis, the locks and Kepu got through a lot of defensive work so Hooper didn't have to do it. That meant he and Robbo (who is realistically our second best pilferer) could be more involved trying to steal and disrupt opposition ball.

 

[Scotty]

If Deans goes with Smith as his starting no.7 (which is looking more and more likely) I'd probably actually lean towards playing Hooper on the bench. I think Smith and Gill are similar players and Hooper probably adds a bit more explosiveness from the bench when the game starts to open up.

With that said the weather could play a part in selection. I'd prefer Gill to Hooper if its a wet slugfest.

I disagree for a few reasons:

1. The game isn't going to open up
2. It will be a slugfest the whole time

I could see Palu starting, then Gill coming on for him. Gill could cause havoc at the breakdown, and Smith could then play a little wider to use his running and offload game.

 

[TOCC]

I really don't see Palu and Fotu been in the 22 together, It will be one or the other.. But having both severely limits the flexibility of the bench.

 

[barbarian]

I really don't see Palu and Fotu been in the 22 together, It will be one or the other.. But having both severely limits the flexibility of the bench.

I have gone off Fotu a bit after Saturday. He has been really quiet since those few games in SA, and I was disappointed he didn't stand up and take his chance against the Reds. I barely saw him- no crunching tackles, no barnstorming runs.

He is still there or thereabouts, and I am not writing him off by any means. But that was the closest game to test intensity he will play, and he didn't shine.
.

 

[Groucho]

No actually, it wouldn't. Speaking as someone who spent a good portion of yesterday afternoon going over Deans' coaching stats from 2008-2013 simply reversing those three (remember, we've lost to Scotland TWICE under Deans, consecutively) losses would only put us at a W/L of 63.38%. If you refer to my earlier post in the same thread (April 30th Wallabies Selection) a W/L of 60% was "unacceptable" in JON's own words, maybe Hawker has lower standards? On the flip side JON remarked he wanted somewhere in the 70s-80s for winning percentage, which he failed to mention has only been achieved by one Australian coach, ever.

Sorry, I was guilty of irony. When I said "Our win ratio would be far more respectable if we did better against Samoa and Scotland", what I meant was losing to lesser teams.

Anyone who imagines a golden past in which we consistently beat the All Blacks, which Deans has thrown away by his bad coaching, is living in a dream.

Our best chance to beat New Zealand is by intelligent choices, not by going the full retard and dropping all the incumbent players.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I have only started with the professional era here, but the record is:

96 - NZ 3-0 (Greg Smith)
97 - NZ 3-0 (Greg Smith)
98 - Aus 3-0 (R Macqueen)
99 - NZ 2-1 (R Macqueen)
00 - Aus 2-1 (R Macqueen)
01 - Aus 2-1 (R Macqueen)
02 - NZ 2-1 (E Jones)
03 - NZ - 3-1 (E Jones)
04 - NZ 2-1 (E Jones)
05 - NZ - 3-0 (E Jones)
06 - NZ 3-0 (J Conolly)
07 - 1-1 (J Conolly)
08 - NZ 3-1 (R Deans)
09 - NZ 3-0 (R Deans)
10 - NZ 3-1 (R Deans)
11 - 2-1 (R Deans)
12 - NZ 2-0 (R Deans)

In 53 total encounters we have managed 15 Total wins which rounds down to 28%. Pre Deans we were 12 from 36 which is 33%. Under Deans our record is 3 from 17 which rounds up to 18%. Barring 98-02 we haven't really managed consistent wins, but they fewer and further in between now.

I have only based this on Bledisloe encounters and then added in the '03 and '11 RWC meetings. As far as I'm aware this includes all encounters.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Our best chance to beat New Zealand is by intelligent choices, not by going the full retard and dropping all the incumbent players.

Dean Mumm was once a incumbent. Doesn't mean he represented the best option for beating the All Blacks.

 

[RoffsChoice]

I still think this is the year to win the Bledisloe. I've been under no illusions since 2010, but this year is right. We have the "dominant" conference, a Lions Tour to get up for, no McCaw to go up against and one of the two games in New Zealand is in Wellington, our best stadium in New Zealand. Hopefully we'll still be riding the Lions hype and will get 80k+ to Sydney. 2 - 1 to Aus is on the cards here. I'm really pumped. It can happen. We can beat them in New Zealand for the first time since Eales kicked the penalty.

 

[Groucho]

Dean Mumm was once a incumbent. Doesn't mean he represented the best option for beating the All Blacks.

Obviously I don't mean picking all the incumbents, any more than dropping all the incumbents. That would be equally daft.

I'm saying pick the best team. Experience is important, even if past teams lost. Anyone who doesn't see that has rocks in their heads.

Hands up everyone who says we should pick a team of players with zero tests?

 

[Scoey]

..... and one of the two games in New Zealand is in Wellington, our best stadium in New Zealand.

Let's not forget that Forsyth-Barr is certainly no 'House of Pain' either like Carrisbrook was.

 

[Dave Beat]

I remarked to cyclo on Saturday night Hooper's a very good attacking flanker, but in my opinion, not as good as Smith and Gill when his side don't have the ball. It may be due to the fact he's done a proportionally large amount of the Tahs' pigs grunt work, or it may be because he's so bloody fast for a flanker he looks good with the ball in hand. However, it'd seem both Gill and Smith are better scavengers.

Nice selection problem to have.

Will let's hope we keep the ball, and don't kick it away

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I have only started with the professional era here, but the record is:

./...snip.../.

In 53 total encounters we have managed 15 Total wins which rounds down to 28%. Pre Deans we were 12 from 36 which is 33%. Under Deans our record is 3 from 17 which rounds up to 18%. Barring 98-02 we haven't really managed consistent wins, but they fewer and further in between now.

I have only based this on Bledisloe encounters and then added in the '03 and '11 RWC meetings. As far as I'm aware this includes all encounters.

That is not pleasant reading.

The Bledisloe Cup resident in the St Leonards Trophy Cabinet is becoming like the B&I Lions: once in 12 years. This is our time!

 

[Train Without a Station]

Hands up everyone who says we should pick a team of players with zero tests?

And I don't think anybody is advocating that. However there are a handful of uncapped options who clearly represent the best option. Players like Mogg and Mowen. Is it really ridiculous to have up to 5 debutants, when we really have maximum of 5 quality, proven big game players, at the expense of 5 of the remaining 10 who have really just been there, without offering too much for the period of 58% wins and 18% wins against the All Blacks?