Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC
- Thread starter emuarse
- Start date
- Status
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Scott's I think your view is skewed by the fact that this combo has not been tested against a fresh defence.
hammertimethere
Trevor Allan (34)
I'd kind of like our 10 to be running at the line, keeping the attack square and putting people through holes from minute 1 though
Tomikin
David Codey (61)
But we lose the change up.. I Agree if it worked from the first minute, I would too.
Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
To'omua would die with the ball repeatedly if he played starting 10 the way he does as a sub.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
Kicking was poor though. Nailed 1, and it was virtually straight in front.
Otherwise yes, strong defense, kept the tempo up, good passing range.
Otherwise yes, strong defense, kept the tempo up, good passing range.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
Maybe. But I don't think it will necessarily be an amazing attack that wins this World Cup. First comes defence, next comes field position, then set piece and lastly attack.
Giteau and To'omua combo should have a good advantage in the first three areas.
Anyway my point was more - why weren't they tried as the starting combo?
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
The ability to kick goals, peel a lot of metres off from a penalty punt, and accurate tactical kicking are as important as anything else. Unfortunately.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
I agree. That gear change is potentially a weapon. Most other teams will be changing down (or wearing down) at that point.
Giteau's sidewise (if it's Gits that starts at 12) is not such a problem in the sideline-to-sideline style we seem to have developed for the opening part of the game, with big men waiting in the wide channels. The purpose of all that is to make the Europiggies run like they've never run before. If they have to run after Giteau on their way to the opposite sideline then all the better.
To'omua then comes on and everyone runs straight at the 10-12 channel.
The SANZAR sides are used to this. England, Wales and Ireland aren't.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
The thing is, that if we play to those skills, we'll eventually lose to teams that are better at them than we are.
Because our attack is potentially a point of difference for us, we have to play to it, and thus aim to become the team for whom attack won a world cup. That's basic game theory.
We're simply not good enough to out-play teams who play the-style-that-wins-world-cups at their own game, all the way through a knockout tournament.
We have to be unconventional. We have to out-think them.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
What I find odd is that all the teams who have only minor chances don't think in game theory terms.
Instead they play conventionally, in the hope that this time, they'll suddenly be able to elevate their conventional performance to the level needed to win.
I don't mean that they should discard basic skills. Execution should always be excellent, and has to be excellent to win a World Cup, but they should have a strategy.
Perhaps they don't aim to win. Perhaps their ambition is a laudible third, or fifth, or tenth, in line with their ranking, or slightly above it.
Instead they play conventionally, in the hope that this time, they'll suddenly be able to elevate their conventional performance to the level needed to win.
I don't mean that they should discard basic skills. Execution should always be excellent, and has to be excellent to win a World Cup, but they should have a strategy.
Perhaps they don't aim to win. Perhaps their ambition is a laudible third, or fifth, or tenth, in line with their ranking, or slightly above it.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Had two out of three with Nic White, but barely one from either Phipps or Genia or consistently two from any of the 10s selected. (?)
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Think for a lot of teams (or coaches) the aim is to not have an embarrassing group stage exit which leads to a sacking.
Actually that's an interesting question, does Cheika get sacked if we don't make it to the quarters? I think he keeps his job which might mean he's free to be a little unconventional.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
I think he's as free to be as unconventional as he needs to be to give us a chance of winning, if our goal is to win, which I think it is.
If (as Fatprop suggests) we have a 10% chance of winning by playing conservatively (and that's generous, if you calculate the knockout odds realistically) but playing unconventionally increases that to 20%, while also increasing our odds of crashing out in the pool stage to 60%, do we take it?
Yes we do! Of course we do. It's the world cup. Death or glory. We should aim to win it.
There'll be carnage on the Internet if we crash out in the pool stage by taking risks against England and Wales, but so be it. No one is going to accept, with hindsight, that the risk was acceptable, if it fails. That's not how hindsight works.
But: there'll also be carnage on the Internet if we finish second. Probably the same carnage. There'll be an angry thread on here demanding his replacement. The Roar will explode. Cheika's only chance of public acceptance is to win.
And that's game theory.
T
TOCC
Guest
Rankings mean little, England is still Australia's biggest threat in the pool stages.. Australia should beat Wales and Fiji, but beating England is still 50/50.. England's strengths are Australia's weaknesses.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
I think calculated risks (and a bit of luck) are required to win a big tournament. Every week you're balanced on a knife edge and any small mistakes are magnified. In that basis I'm happy to see Cheika trying to build a game plan and a squad around a particular style of play and trust that it will bring success. Deans did that too of course and it didn't come off, but I think he made some bigger selection mistakes (no backup for Pocock) and had a far less mature squad.
- Status