Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC

[qwerty51]

McCalman has fractured his cheekbone, how long does that take to heal?

 

[Dumbledore]

McCalman has fractured his cheekbone, how long does that take to heal?

Totally depends how badly he's done it but probably 6 weeks minimum I'd think.

 

[cyclopath]

4-6 weeks, depends upon where and how unstable it is.

 

[Brumby Runner]

You're kidding right? Go back a few pages and there is stat breakdown which has underwhelming figures for Fardy. Feel free to go through those stats and highlight what sets him up as Australia's best no 6.

Your suggestion that playing in a strong forward pack is 'evidence' of a players ability had some obvious flaws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I said above @TOCC, I put little store in stats, whether officilaay published or just plain made up, as they give no indication at all about the quality of involvements. Scott Fardy is a proven, quality test No 6 and his selection in the Wallabies is entirely justified. Despite his better stats on paper (I think) someone like Sean McMahon will not challenge Fardy for that spot. I very seriously doubt he will make the Wallabies squad for the RWC and imo his best chance long term is as a 7 rather than a 6. Ben McCalman is not in the same league as Fardy (or Dennis or Jones or probably Timani or even Cottrell) as a test 6 because he just doesn't play with the necessary aggression, strength (mongrel if you like) to dominate at test level, after many attempts. Higgers could be an excellent option at 6 if a wide running attacking player is needed to balance with the other members of the back row.

You have apparently missed the sarcasm intended in the comment re the strength of the forward pack.

 

[Brumby Runner]

So wait a second. The people questioning Fardy's form need to provide evidence (as TOCC points out, they have), and yet to prove he's in good form you cite 'his contribution to one of the stronger teams with one of the stronger forward packs in the competition'.

That's not evidence at all, just a vague statement. And by that statement you could make strong Wallaby cases for Dave Dennis and Benn Robinson.

To my eye he is not having the impact with ball in hand that he used to. He's not making big hits or displaying the level of physicality being shown by guys like McCalman and McMahon.
.

I would quite happily make a case for Dave Dennis the way he's playing atm. Robbo, no, given the better players available in the LH Prop spot.

I have addressed my thoughts on McCalman and McMahon in an answer to @TOCC. You and others will know my long term opinion of Ben McCalman, and despite a good (not very good) year with the Force I haven't changed my opinion that he offers very little at test match level. Sean McMahon is a different kettle of fish altogether. He is a very talented footballer who atm is a little too small for 6 and behind a couple of other very good 7s at the Rebels. He has future Wallaby written all over him (indeed has caps already) but I think he is more a 7 than a 6. Many have described him as a Notta, maybe even yourself at some time.

 

[BDA]

I don't think we need McMahon in the squad. Great Player, but he's very similar to Hooper. If Hooper's unavailable I think he'd be the perfect guy to fill his spot, because he can play that same explosive no.7 role. But I just don't see him playing 1 minute of rugby if we have both Hooper and Pocock available.

 

[BDA]

The Wallabies continue to be very lucky on the injury front. A few injuries here and there, but no big names with any long term injuries. McCalman will really only miss 2 games.

Even Sam Carter might be available (although probably wont get selected)

 

[cyclopath]

The Wallabies continue to be very lucky on the injury front. A few injuries here and there, but no big names with any long term injuries. McCalman will really only miss 2 games.

Even Sam Carter might be available (although probably wont get selected)

At least McCalman can stay fit while recuperating. Bit harder for Sam. I think his road will be tough, but good luck to him.

 

[TOCC]

As I said above @TOCC, I put little store in stats, whether officilaay published or just plain made up, as they give no indication at all about the quality of involvements. Scott Fardy is a proven, quality test No 6 and his selection in the Wallabies is entirely justified. .

So firstly you complain that other posters make comments about a players performance without evidence, and when said evidence is provided out you dismiss it because it doesn't measure the 'quality of involvement'. Has 'quality of involvement' emerged as the new 'X-Factor', the intangible product that a player possess and is used to justify selection.


Yes he is a proven test player, but that doesn't mean we completely ignore his current super rugby form, and based on his 2015 form and measuring his 'quality of involvement' he will be in the Wallaby squad, but his position as starting blindside Isn't a certainty IMO.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brumby Runner]

So firstly you complain that other posters make comments about a players performance without evidence, and when said evidence is provided out you dismiss it because it doesn't measure the 'quality of involvement'. Has 'quality of involvement' emerged as the new 'X-Factor', the intangible product that a player possess and is used to justify selection.


Yes he is a proven test player, but that doesn't mean we completely ignore his current super rugby form, and based on his 2015 form and measuring his 'quality of involvement' he will be in the Wallaby squad, but his position as starting blindside Isn't a certainty IMO.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My invitation to anyone advocating selections based on stats, is to publish the team that has every player with the best stats in each position to see how it might stand up against the likely side to be selected by Michael Cheika. I seriously doubt it will have more than a handful of common players.

The difference in determining the quality of a players involvements is precisely what the real selectors will take into consideration when compiling the team, and we should be grateful for that. They will make mistakes or at least pick certain players some or most of us won't like, but I have no doubt at all it will be a better product than the team picked simply and entirely on the basis of stats.

 

[cyclopath]

^^^^^^^
Indeed - Stats Are Good!!
But.........all sorts of stats are collated on a great many things that happen in games, some of which might not really be on a national rugby coach's mind. To be honest I don't even understand some of them.
Also, it really depends upon who else the coach wants in their team as to whether a particular set of metrics for a player mean more or less.
For example, if your 6, the loose head prop and one or more backs get a few pilfers each game, does it matter if the 7 gets fewer?
If you have 3-4 other really good ball runners then does it matter if the 6 busts many tackles or not.
For this, I think proven experience in Tests counts a lot. A guy with lots of great numbers will have the best chance to maybe be the next guy, but I think experience has to count for a fair bit, if the "known" player is performing pretty well. Of course, if they're well out of form, that's another matter.

 

[Micheal]

Personally, I am anticipating Cheika to put Dennis somewhere inside his 23 at least once in the RC leading to the RWC to see if his Super form will translate. This is for a few reasons:

- He's physical. Countless times throughout the season he's put in huge hits and very solid ball carries. Whilst he's not the biggest lock going around, he plays well above his weight. That can't be said of many other Australian locks.
- He offers a very good option come line out time, despite not being the tallest lock. For anyone who says its not possible to function at such a weight / height, please google a certain Brad Thorn.
- He's experienced. He's got a level head and he's played test footy before.
- He's a work horse. A few pages back someone noted that he, Jones and Simmons have the best work rates of Aussie 2nd row options.

But most importantly, the edge he has over Jones / Simmons etc is that:

- He's got the mental edge that Cheika loves (and has instilled in him). My favourite attribute of Dennis over the last three seasons has been that, although he's not the most vocal captain, when the game is in the balance and someone needs to lift, he's often the guy to do so. He's really grown into a true competitor, and I feel that this mindset is something you can't win the World Cup without. He transitioned from 6 to 2nd row to have a better shot at the Wallabies, whilst coming back from a very serious injury, and played arguably the best footy of his career. He's been determined as all hell to make the RWC and I think it really shows.

I'll go as far to say that he'll be a member of the leadership group and be a very important part of the Wallabies RWC plan.

-----

Likewise, I think Quade is essential to our RWC charge, but I'm not sure if he's done enough to pip Foley as of yet. One thing that I don't think has been discussed enough is the possibility of him going the KB (Kurtley Beale)-route.

At the Tahs, as we all know, Cheika uses Kurtley not as an inside centre, but literally as another flyhalf. Yes he's got 12 on his back, but he performs almost none of the traditional roles of a 12. Instead, he comes into first receiver whenever possible, and utilises his wide pass and mercurial attacking abilities to let the Tahs play the expansive game that they do. Further, he allows Foley to play to his strengths as he allows him to straighten and take the ball to the line, finding holes in tighter as the defensive line naturally shifts outwards in anticipation of the Tahs coast-to-coast attacking style.

But KB (Kurtley Beale) is a bit of a dick and KB (Kurtley Beale) can't tackle and KB (Kurtley Beale) is soft in contact and KB (Kurtley Beale) has tons of handling errors (check the stats) and KB (Kurtley Beale) sends rude texts.

And so we go looking for replacements. To'omua is very solid. Not the biggest guy in the world, but he plays like it. Extremely powerful in contact, especially defence, and can act as a second playmaker when required. But he doesn't have the mercurial qualities of KB (Kurtley Beale).

Quade does. Not only that, Quade's a really good bloke now (check his captaincies) and Quade is an amazing defender (ask Rene Ranger or anyone on these forums. The blokes a brick wall with a six-pack) and Quade has got a long pass and Quade doesn't send rude texts.

Not only that, with Quade and Bernard dropping back, we don't even need wingers who can kick. All we need is two blokes who can defend in the front line and finish tries when required.

The result of this master plan?

9. Phipps.
10. Foley.
11. Horne.
12. Cooper.
13. Kuridrani.
14. Speight.
15. Folau.

Defensively strong. Mercurial in attack. Finishers left right and centre. What a back line.

Before the QLDers get up in arms, you can give Foley the 12 jersey if you want. It really means fuck all in terms of how they'll actually play.

------

This is a post that started serious and trailed off. I do actually believe that Dennis will be in the 23 in the RC, and following that, the RWC. And whilst I'm not suggesting we throw Quade into 12, I'm saying the idea has some merit.

To'omua would be fuming though. He's been one of our best performers over the last 18 months.

Just think about it.


------

Edit: also, in regards to McCalmans injury, I did the same thing in Rd 1 of Subbies here in Sydney. I had to have surgery, and the surgeon said "2.5 months until you can play again. 3 if you want it to fully heal" but that "if it were a grand-final, you could play tomorrow and risk it". Apparently all that would happen is that it would break inwards again and I'd have to have the surgery a second time.

He'll be right.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Brad Thorn's biggest weakness was probably his line out work.

 

[USARugger]

So firstly you complain that other posters make comments about a players performance without evidence, and when said evidence is provided out you dismiss it because it doesn't measure the 'quality of involvement'. Has 'quality of involvement' emerged as the new 'X-Factor', the intangible product that a player possess and is used to justify selection.


Yes he is a proven test player, but that doesn't mean we completely ignore his current super rugby form, and based on his 2015 form and measuring his 'quality of involvement' he will be in the Wallaby squad, but his position as starting blindside Isn't a certainty IMO.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quality of Involvement is an absolutely quantifiable statistic (there's been a more than a few 'QOI' at the ruck studies/posts made on here in the past year) - it's just also an absolute pain in the ass to record unless you've got heaps of free time on your hands.

 

[Joe Blow]

I'm not a huge fan of Dennis at test level because previously he was unable to transfer his Super form to test footy where the opposition are bigger, stronger and faster. That's not to say that he has not improved in these areas, but the more intense physicality was his problem in the past.
A test run for him in the RC will show us where he is at. I think he will be vying with Jones for the 5/6 slot in the squad. I have to say that Jones also had problems with the step up in physicality in test footy but was young, inexperienced and only had one brief opportunity. He has obviously been on the improve since then and it will be interesting to see if he is now able to make the transition more successfully.
Fardys stats are surprisingly bad and may well open the door for Jones, Higgers or someone else at 6. I think Cheika will feel he can get more out of him in a Wallaby jersey though.

 

[Mr Wobbly]

My invitation to anyone advocating selections based on stats, is to publish the team that has every player with the best stats in each position to see how it might stand up against the likely side to be selected by Michael Cheika. I seriously doubt it will have more than a handful of common players.

The difference in determining the quality of a players involvements is precisely what the real selectors will take into consideration when compiling the team, and we should be grateful for that. They will make mistakes or at least pick certain players some or most of us won't like, but I have no doubt at all it will be a better product than the team picked simply and entirely on the basis of stats.

I'm certainly not advocating picking a team on stats but, the other day I posted a team made up of the players in each position leading the Fox Fantasy points. It's not a bad team actually although I'd expect that at least a third of them won't be in the squad for the RWC.

Post #3533 if you're interested.

 

[Viking]

I'm assuming both Higgers and Palu will at least get a crack this Rugby Championship since McCalman is out.

If both perform well then their may be no need for McCalman to return - unlucky as it may be. Although I'd say he'd come in and replace the lesser performer of Higgers or Palu - can't see them taking all 3.

Might be a blessing in disguise if Higgers steps it up at international level.

 

[Braveheart81]

Ha ha ha. Equating Fardy to Beale is just so far off the mark, it is laughable.

It's an entirely different comparison though.

No one is arguing that Beale should be anywhere close to the starting XV. Most of the discussions around him relate to his chances of being the last back picked in the 13 that go to the RWC as a utility option.

The discussion around Fardy is whether or not he should be the starting 6. The expectation is therefore much higher as is the form of the players also competing for that role.

No one is questioning whether Fardy should be in the squad. Everyone accepts that his form is good enough for that.

Fardy's form in 2015 is not compelling that he should retain the starting 6 jersey without considering other options. The other options worth strong consideration are playing a test with Pocock and Hooper starting in the backrow and also to play Higginbotham or McCalman at 6 if Palu is the starting number 8.

 

[nick_]

The discussion around Fardy is whether or not he should be the starting 6. The expectation is therefore much higher as is the form of the players also competing for that role.

No one is questioning whether Fardy should be in the squad. Everyone accepts that his form is good enough for that.

Fardy starting will come more down to Chieka's game plan than his form. If he finds a way to work Pocock and Hooper in, while having enough tall jumping timber then it might leave him on the bench - though if Skelton is starting, they will have to have Fardy and or another tall jumping back rower to cover...

I'd bet that we see Hooper and Pocock on the field at the same time in the Rugby Championship.

 

[ACT Crusader]

On the Beale discussion, I would be very surprised if he didn't make the WC squad. Here is a player that can seemingly can make a Wallaby squad when it is inconceivable that he shouldn't. Resilience counts for something here