Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC

[KOB1987]

Yeah we do this every year, around this time. All of our rent-a-quotes chip in their opinions on how to fix the Wallabies for the coming season.

We've had Alan Jones, so Bob Dwyer is due in about a weeks' time. Then Campo will have his 2c, which only leaves Eddie Jones and maybe Mark Ella to finish the whole thing off.
.

I saw Poido came out too yesterday. He was saying that Dave Dennis has justified Wallaby selection with his comeback, but as a lock not a loosie.

I'm not for or against that one, if he gets picked, good on him I reckon.

 

[KOB1987]

He's also much better under the high ball than he used to be.

I don't think he's any weaker under the high ball than anyone else barring Folau. If anyone has the time to try and prove me wrong over the last, say, 15 tests then go for it.

His clear weaknesses are his defence and his higher than average turnover rate. A lot of that is because of his size, not all of it, but a fair bit. Not uncommon for other smaller backs this day and age.

 

[Train Without a Station]

He is absolutely hopeless in defence, I'll give you that, but the rest of his game is very good. Erratic, but very good.

And that sums up people's problems. A consistently poor defender who is erratic in attack.

At his best he can still be as much of a liability in defence as an asset it attack. And at his worst he is poor in attack and a liability in defence.

 

[Braveheart81]

And that sums up people's problems. A consistently poor defender who is erratic in attack.

The same has been said about Quade Cooper since day one.

Those opinions have fluctuated based partly on his off field behaviour and fans attitudes towards him and partly based on fact.

The same could be said for Beale although the attitude of fans towards him has been at a nadir since the dramas last year.

My guess is that the criticism would be far less now if it wasn't for the off field issues last year.

The opinions of so many fans in relation to the form and ability of players is shaped to a reasonable degree by the personalities and behaviour of players.

 

[Viking]

The Beale hate never ceases to confuse me. The pettiness of it also never ceases to amaze me.

People talk as if he's constantly having terrible games for the Tahs. He's not. He is absolutely hopeless in defence, I'll give you that, but the rest of his game is very good. Erratic, but very good. I'd also say that in attack he has less bad games than good, and his bad games often coincide with when the rest of the team is going poorly as well.

He is instrumental to the way the Tahs play the game, he creates countless opportunities, and does a lot of work on and off the ball.

Thats certainly a lot more than JOC (James O'Connor) has done this season, at least in response to Braveheart above.

I don't believe that he will be, or should be, in the starting XV, but to infer that he is not in the top ~35 players in Australia is silly and ignores the way he is currently playing, but more importantly, the way he has performed in the past.

In regard to him playing wing - he has never had experience there. But I also think we get caught up too much with stereotypical positions, and that we should instead focus upon roles in the team.

Beale plays with a 12 on his back at the Tahs. He is not their inside centre however, at least in the typical way inside centres play. He just happens to wear that jersey.

If he were to do something similar at 14, I'd be fine with that. In attack, he could rove similar to the way Digby Ioane did, whilst also providing another playmaker in attack. He would justify playing someone like Horne or Speight on the other wing, and would provide a boot at the back, alongside a great counterattacking weapon. He links incredibly well with Izzy and Foley and we could use that.

That being said, I'd be more inclined to use him off the bench as I don't think he has done enough to pip anyone at 10/12/14/15. I believe he is our second best fullback option, and that if we play him there or at wing we reduce the problems with kicking at the back, but that can be resolved in other ways (e.g. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) / JOC (James O'Connor) on one wing).

To sum up, he's a good player. He may or may not be there. Don't let your dislike for the guys off field antics mar your view of him as a player.

I think you misunderstood my post. My argument isn't that Beale is a bad player - it's that there is MUCH better choices for the wing. In no point did I ever bring up off-field antics. Maybe you can accuse me of being overly critical of Beale as a player but surely you can't accuse me of being overly critical of Beale as a winger!

Your bring up some solid points supporting Beale for a wing position. One of those points being that he is another playmaking option, or as roving type winger. But I re-instate my earlier post. JOC (James O'Connor) can also be used the same way and he actually has international experience in the position - and history at being successful at this exact role your described.

Beale might shade JOC (James O'Connor) for form this season - but like you mentioned that form is erratic at best.

Can you really justify Beale as a wing option over JOC (James O'Connor)? Maybe your assumptions of JOC (James O'Connor) are similar to how you accused me to being overly critical of Beale - as JOC (James O'Connor) HAS shown glimpses of good form this season too.

Anyway it's an empty argument, as Beale will most like be a utility option - I'd be amazed if he is on the wing.

 

[Train Without a Station]

The same has been said about Quade Cooper since day one.

Those opinions have fluctuated based partly on his off field behaviour and fans attitudes towards him and partly based on fact.

The same could be said for Beale although the attitude of fans towards him has been at a nadir since the dramas last year.

My guess is that the criticism would be far less now if it wasn't for the off field issues last year.

The opinions of so many fans in relation to the form and ability of players is shaped to a reasonable degree by the personalities and behaviour of players.

They've also fluctuated due to his error rate dropping and his tackle completion rate rising. Views have changed because his flaws have. The same cannot be said for Beale.

 

[Micheal]

Sorry maybe I should have clarified - Beale is erratic, but less so than people make him out to be. As i said, his good games are more frequent then his bad. Little mistakes are over exaggerated and what could be said to be a good performance is often written off for one or two things. People don't seem to be looking at the big picture.

Quade, as Braveheart pointed out, is scarily similar foil to Beale. People laud him as this marvellous attacking weapon, who shines for the Wallabies and who has developed his game to refine his problems.

His defence has gotten better. It's not Beale-esque but its still terrible. His mistakes have fallen off, but not incredibly so. On his day he is incredible, but his day doesn't come around often, especially considering he's seemingly made out of glass. Of his 54 tests for the Wallabies, what percentage can be objectively said to be good to great performances? What percentage can be objectively said to be poor to terrible?

He's just far more likeable of a character. They're both great players, both have their faults. Let's not let our judgement get blurred.

The Australian Rugby is are, by large, fickle and poorly informed. Opinions travel in herds. To me, this is especially evident within this forum. The only problem is, the shepherds are the people who speak the loudest and with most confidence, not those who are correct in their judgements.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Michael,

I just want to stop you there. No statistics support the view that Quade's defense is still not good enough or he makes a number of mistakes. They support he has safer hands and is safer in defense than Beale, Foley, Carter and just about every other play maker you want to compare him to.

I will admit, we only have 5 games of his to compare this year, but if "his day doesn't come around very often" it would show that.

Statistics do not.

The same statistics show that Beale misses 1 in 3 tackles and makes close to 2 handling errors per game.

 

[Micheal]

Michael,

I just want to stop you there. No statistics support the view that Quade's defense is still not good enough or he makes a number of mistakes. They support he has safer hands and is safer in defense than Beale, Foley, Carter and just about every other play maker you want to compare him to.

I will admit, we only have 5 games of his to compare this year, but if "his day doesn't come around very often" it would show that.

Statistics do not.

The same statistics show that Beale misses 1 in 3 tackles and makes close to 2 handling errors per game.

You may want to but succeed you will not.

I've always found tackle stats interesting. Cooper seems far less sure in tackles than say Foley or Carter or whatever play maker you want to compare him to. He stands upright in contact and often attempts a grapple until someone else comes in and cleans it up.

This is all qualitative, so it holds very little weight.

From my observations, Quade seems to be the weakest of the lot (apart from Beale). I'm yet to meet someone in real life that disagrees, and I'm quite close with a lot of very good rugby players and minds.

This makes me question how they gather such stats. Is it one on one tackles? Is it a tackle you are part of in which the player goes to ground?

One day I'll put my own together. Until then, I can't say your reading of the stats is incorrect. I can question them, and their usefulness, however.

So I guess that deals with your comment that Quade is a superior defender. As for safer hands, you're right. I don't note many handling errors. Its more what he does with the ball in hand that I am concerned about.

Also, before this goes too far. I reckon Quade is a very good chance for at least a bench spot and deservedly so. I don't dislike the guy or think he's a bad player. Quite the opposite.

I just rather enjoy playing devils advocate. Someone has to otherwise we'll all end up thinking Rob Simmons is God's gift to 2nd rowers, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) can't pass, Bill Pulvers a fluffybunny and line outs are the sole factor in winning test matches.

 

[Train Without a Station]

And I'm just noting that these aren't people's beliefs based on some perceived weakness from years ago. They are based on current statistical evidence.

How sure Cooper seems is absolutely irrelevant. Whether or not he effectively completes the tackle is what is. He can look as unsure and uncoordinated as he likes, as long as he makes the tackle without getting well driven back, he's done his job. If anybody watched the Christian Leali'ifano segment on Rugby HQ last week they would have seen that a number of his tackles or not extremely dominant anyway, and he is a noted solid defender. Perhaps you should occasionally question your own beliefs.

Personally I find it hard to tolerate the view that some have when trying to defend a position that statistics contradict, that they must be wrong or don't account for everything. They are taken over a large sample. It's hard to hide from them.

 

[TOCC]

The Australian Rugby is are, by large, fickle and poorly informed. Opinions travel in herds. To me, this is especially evident within this forum. The only problem is, the shepherds are the people who speak the loudest and with most confidence, not those who are correct in their judgements.

Don't be a sheep.

So you are the well informed quietly spoken one who is well informed and correct?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

I just rather enjoy playing devils advocate. Someone has to otherwise we'll all end up thinking Rob Simmons is God's gift to 2nd rowers, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) can't pass, Bill Pulvers a fluffybunny and line outs are the sole factor in winning test matches.

You're kidding right, you think your a crusader by playing devils advocate on those points?

Yeah mate... You are well informed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Micheal]

So you are the well informed quietly spoken one who is well informed and correct?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whether my views or opinions on players are correct or not has no weight on the meta-statement that people are easily mislead. In fact, I often catch myself falling into pro-NSW biases. This doesn't affect the fact that I notice others doing the same. I assume you are the one who asks leading and loaded questions?

We are playing the man now, so lets just leave it, otherwise I fear the mods will probably step in sooner rather than later.

How sure Cooper seems is absolutely irrelevant. Whether or not he effectively completes the tackle is what is. He can look as unsure and uncoordinated as he likes, as long as he makes the tackle without getting well driven back, he's done his job.

Sorry again I expressed that badly. I meant that it often seems that he isn't the one completing tackles, and is instead falling off of them or simply slowing a player before someone else completes it.

We won't reach consensus on this so its probably best we leave it.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I'll speak to the various independent parties who compile rugby statistics and let them know they are doing it incorrectly.

 

[Micheal]

I'll speak to the various independent parties who compile rugby statistics and let them know they are doing it incorrectly.

Again, I didn't say that. You are putting words in my mouth (keyboard?).

I simply questioned how they define a tackle and how that translates to actually performance on the field.

But thank you for offering and next time you bump into them, no need to ask them to change their process maybe just ask them for an explanation of it?

Thanks.

 

[TOCC]

Whether my views or opinions on players are correct or not has no weight on the meta-statement that people are easily mislead. In fact, I often catch myself falling into pro-NSW biases. This doesn't affect the fact that I notice others doing the same. I assume you are the one who asks leading and loaded questions?

We are playing the man now, so lets just leave it, otherwise I fear the mods will probably step in sooner rather than later.

Well it does when you call people easily mislead and sheep in the same argument that you are labelling people's opinions about Kurtley are wrong. Your passively suggesting that everyone who criticises Kurtley is a sheep and mislead, and why, because their views differ from yours? What a load of shit..

Not everyone hates Kurtley, some people unfairly criticise him and other place way too much praise on him, just like they do with Quade. So coming out and saying people who criticise him are wrong is rather outrageous. Likewise drawing a long bow like everyone praises Simmons, or everyone criticise AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) because he doesn't pass, both ridiculous stereotype that are vastly incorrect. I reckon there's more people who dislike Simmons on this forum then people who like him, and I'm also sure someone has made a video of AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) passing just to prove the point.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sword of Justice]

Quade made 28 tackles and missed three in his limited minutes this season, which is quite high compared to the tackles per minute of pretty much any other 10, as well as the overall success percentage (90%), Kurtley makes 60% and Bernard makes 70%. That's dominant for a ten no two ways about it, I would happily take someone who looked unsure of themselves and tackled that often and that well. Quade also makes more metres per carry than Beale (4m compared to 3.3m). Quade has worked hard on both his deficiencies on the park and in general conduct socially, whereas Beale hasn't, if anything Beale seems to be less of a player these days and the scandals just seem to get worse for him. I'm getting my stats from Sanzar.

 

[BDA]

The issue with Beale for mine is not that he's a bad player per se (he's clearly very talented), but more so whether he is a better option than the other players in contention.

I think most people would agree he is not a test 12. You only have to look at his stats this season (most turnovers in the competition, most missed tackles in the competition) that he has major flaws in his game that are not conducive to a test inside centre. Most of the backline collisions will take place in that challenge, and most test teams have big strong 12s to deal with that. Putting Beale at 12 would be like painting a big target on him. I could see him slotting in at 12 off the bench late in the game; the game will have lost a bit of its bite and the opposition team will not have trained to focus on exploiting his weaknesses.

The only position where you would start Beale at test level would be at 15. He's never started a test match at 11, 13 or 14. As long as Folau is fit Beale's value to the squad is on the bench or injury back-up. So you have to determine whether he has more utility value than the alternatives.

Unfortunately for all of the guys in the same boat, there is some stiff competition.
AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) - is an outstanding 11,13 and 14. Has experience as a test 15. strong under the highball. has generally excelled for the wallabies.
Horne - strong cover for 11,12,13,14. Arguably our best defensive and most physical option.
Lilo - genuine 12 option. Has started at 12 for the wallabies a number of times in the last 2 season. genuine 10 but no test experience in that position.
JOC (James O'Connor) - has test experience at 11,14 and 15. Also has test experience at 10 and 12, but not a genuine starting option in either position. Has good record of performing as a test 11 and 14.
Giteau - experienced 10 and 12 test option.
Mitchell - Specialist Winger. could slot in at fullback but not a genuine starting option.
Tomane - Specialist Winger. no utility value
Speight - Specialist Winger. no utility value. no test experience.
Beale - Genuine 15 option. has test experience at 10 and 12 but not a genuine starting option in either position. more experienced than others.

Cheika needs to look through this group and work out which group of players give him the best coverage. It's not an easy job

 

[Viking]

Solid Post @BDA.

 

[Micheal]

Well it does when you call people easily mislead and sheep in the same argument that you are labelling people's opinions about Kurtley are wrong. Your passively suggesting that everyone who criticises Kurtley is a sheep and mislead, and why, because their views differ from yours? What a load of shit..

There are many different ways you can argue a point without mocking someone's character. Ever thought that maybe your the shepherd preaching the loudest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This will be last post on this.

My shepherd / sheep analogy was more of a general dig at this forum for some of the groupthink that it produces. Perhaps I should have kept that to myself.

However, the analogy doesn't stipulate that all those that travel in the same direction do so for the same motive.

A sheep may follow its shepherd, and in doing so, walk alongside others that are not.

If you genuinely believe someone is a bad player, by all means think that. Back it up with whatever you can, as Train Without a Station accurately did above. He cornered me with that one.

But don't throw out sweeping statements such the "Kurtley Beale shouldn't be anywhere near the 31 man squad, let alone a 45 man squad" another poster produced a few days ago. This implies that he is a terrible player, yet this has little foundation in the truth, nor does it take into account his strengths and weaknesses.

I guess my problem with such opinions is that they are either based within others, or find their grounding within a dislike for the players character, and not their playing ability. There seems to be a strong correlation between those that dislike KB (Kurtley Beale) for off-field reasons and those that think he is rubbish as a player.

With that in mind, not everyone who criticises Kurtley is mislead. It depends upon how they do it. I am very sympathetic to Kurtley, I think he is a good player that has been mistreated by the wider rugby public. I do not think assessments of his character are as black and white as many make out.

Nor do I think my assessment of him is the be all and end all, I simply think that others are not honest with themselves in the way they view him, and are not constructive in the way they voice these opinions. In fact, I encourage people to disagree with me - it can be a very productive thing, but not when people play the man.

Just my two cents. Didn't expect an uproar.