Wobblies v pumas - is Salta at altitude edition

[KOB1987]

Just out of interest I've been looking at the 10/12 combinations since the RWC. Key points:
- Foley/Kerevi for the first 2 tests v England. Both lost
- Foley/To'omua for the 3rd, which we lost.
- we then had the Cooper/Foley experiment for 5 tests, which was longer than I remembered it
- For the remainder of 2016 Foley/Hodge was the combination, indifferent results
- 2017 started with Foley/Khunt for the mid year tests
- the RC in 2017 plus the 3rd Bled with Foley/Beale was probably the most successful period for the Wallabies since the RWC, with 2 draws v Boks, 2 wins v Arg, a win over the AB's, a flogging and another we should have won. 7: 3-2-2
- the EOYT had Folau out so we had Foley/Kerevi with Beale up back, which didn't go so well.
- Foley/Beale reappeared in 2018 for the Ireland tests and the first 2 Bledisloes
- you know the rest

I agree that Foley/To'omua warrants further testing.

 

[Derpus]

^^^^
The turning point in the last England match of the series was when Cheika pulled To'omua off the pitch.

Beale certainly deserves to be dropped. DHP is a better fullback and his form, even at 12, has been pants.

None of this will do anything to improve our performances though. Not for shit. Because the 10/12 axis isnt the main problem.

 

[Joe Blow]

Back to the lineout. Who coaches it?
I thought it was pretty solid against Ireland who are not too shabby.

I have to say our forward play in general has regressed considerably. The scrum looked better on the weekend but our breakdown and lineout has been poor this RC, not to mention defence and ball carrying from the pack.
Cheika needs to get this sorted out very quickly........like before Saturday.

 

[Slim 293]

Our forwards coach, Simon Raiwalui for those who forgot that we had one, has managed to keep quiet and escape any scrutiny since taking on the role this year.........

 

[Brumby Runner]

I'm not going to accuse you of bias, BR, I'm just going to accuse you of being wrong.



This is bizarre logic. Hooper and Pocock were our best two forwards on the field on Saturday, by miles. To point to them as the problem? My god.

Hooper wins collisions just as well, if not better, than any other forward. Not to mention he actually has become a lineout option in his own right (which I will address below).

To look at Saturday's game and come away with an opinion that the problem was not in fact our tight 5 (plus our 6) is just flat out wrong.



I am trying to find a stat I saw during the coverage that Hanigan actually led us in lineout takes, but I'll put a pin in that until I find it.

What makes you believe that Hooper is 'an embarrassment at lineout time'? He has proven a handy option at 2, and won a few for us there on the weekend. When you jump at 2 it's about speed rather than height, and he gets up quickly. Obviously getting the ball at 2 really limits your attack, but that's not his fault.

Hooper is only used because of our shambolic lineout's inability to get Coleman or Rodda or Hanigan in any space at the back. We were being tightly marked, we had no movement on the ground, so were forced into Plan B, which was Hooper.

That's the fault of coaches and callers in the eyes of any sane rugby viewer. But you? Nah, it's all on Hooper.




So our problems are: our captain who was one of our best on Saturday, our reserve 6 who started his first game on Saturday, our reserve halfback who plays 10 minutes a game, plus our two backs who had great Super seasons.

It's such a bizarre way of looking at it. We were beaten right across the park on Saturday, except maybe in the scrums.

Our problems are so deep, so systemic that it's so odd to pin it on this random assortment of players.

I'm not trying to say Hanigan is a world beater, or that Beale and Folau aren't playing below their best. That's all true, but it's just one part of the whole problem here. It goes right down from the top and nobody is spared.

Nobody is really playing well. The coaches are faultering every week. The whole system is broken.

But nah, it's all Hooper hey.
.

Thanks Barb, especially for not calling me out for regional bias as many with waratahs in the corner of their posts do. In fact, I have been consistent all year, and before that, in looking at and suggesting better options from other Super teams rather than just picking the Brumbies' alternative.

But that aside, the side on the weekend contained three established jumpers in Coleman, Rodda and Hanigan. Still, they elected on multiple occasions to throw to Hooper at 2 when he was directly opposed to Etsebeth in the lineout. What utter craziness. First of all, why was a very marginal jumper (Hooper) used at No 2 in the first place. Why not Hanigan? It seems to me that probably every test team bar the Wallabies will have a prime target at 2 if they are starting with three jumpers in the side. And contrary to your glorification of Hooper's efforts, he actually lost at least two throws aimed to him by being out-jumped by Etsebeth. And that raises the question of why anyone would call for a throw at the spot where the competition is one of the best lineout operators in the world? I stand by my rating of Hooper being an embarrassment in the lineout.

As far as his general play goes, Hooper had more touches on the right wing than in the tight exchanges in the forwards. He didn't make linebreaks even out there but mostly went to ground in the first tackle. As a forward he is missing in action, so yes, a lot of the trouble the Wallabies are in at the moment can be put down to the role Hooper is playing. It doesn't necessarily mean he has poor skills, but he is hardly contributing to a solid performance by the Wallabies at all. Call that the fault of the coach and the game plan, and I'll agree with you. But Hooper's skills should be seen as being competition for the No 7 spot with Pocock, not as complementary to Pocock.

On the other hand, Pocock was the best player on the ground, in both teams. It is a pity he doesn't have more support in the backrow

 

[Up the Guts]

Just out of interest I've been looking at the 10/12 combinations since the RWC. Key points:
- Foley/Kerevi for the first 2 tests v England. Both lost
- Foley/To'omua for the 3rd, which we lost.
- we then had the Cooper/Foley experiment for 5 tests, which was longer than I remembered it
- For the remainder of 2016 Foley/Hodge was the combination, indifferent results
- 2017 started with Foley/Khunt for the mid year tests
- the RC in 2017 plus the 3rd Bled with Foley/Beale was probably the most successful period for the Wallabies since the RWC, with 2 draws v Boks, 2 wins v Arg, a win over the AB's, a flogging and another we should have won. 7: 3-2-2
- the EOYT had Folau out so we had Foley/Kerevi with Beale up back, which didn't go so well.
- Foley/Beale reappeared in 2018 for the Ireland tests and the first 2 Bledisloes
- you know the rest

I agree that Foley/To'omua warrants further testing.

I think some of our problems in the backs have come from the absence of Kurindrani or Kerevi at outside to crash it up. It's a lot easier for Foley and Beale to play wide when one of the Ks has made the gain line on the hard unders line. Without them, our only option really is to go out wide and it's very predictable.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Opta sports gave Hooper 9 tackles, 11 carries, 63m gained, 3 clean breaks and 2 defenders beaten.

Of course stats can tell you whatever you want but pretty amazing numbers for a player most agree had a quiet ineffectual game.

 

[Forcefield]

I am in the fortunate position of not having a provincial bias by and large of the fact that there are no Western Force players in the Wallaby set-up.

Don't want to get into the Pocock or Hooper vs Pocock and Hooper. It's been hashed out and I think it is redundant if you have the right person playing 6. Hanigan is not that person. I have never seen anything from Hanigan that tells me he is ready for International rugby. Rather than persisting, Michael Cheika would be well served to send him back to work on his physicality. It hasn't improved in the past year while he has been in camp. We don't need another toiler in that backrow. Why not stick Gus Cottrell in to see if he has what it takes. Cottrell has a reputation as a dogged hard-man at Super Rugby level. Hanigan doesn't have that reputation. I don't see how Cottrell could be worse. Or give Timu another crack. If Luke Jones is now signed with the Rebels, why not bring him back in. I have long thought that if you are going to play Pooper, you need a guy like Luke Jones at 6. Unfortunately, Cheika never gave Jones a proper shot (or at least never game him the latitude he has given others) and he ducked off overseas. Try Matt Philip at 6? Bring back Fardy! Anything instead of persisting with a player who does not justify his selection.

Also, not a Phipps fan. I feel like Phipps is the kind of mercurial player you don't want coming off the bench. He might make initiate great plays with his speed to the breakdown and ability to increase the tempo, but he is equally likely to make a hair tearing error. Phipps is another guy I feel like hasn't gotten any better and his on-going selection may result in losing a younger guy with more potential (Powell, Gordon). Would much rather Gordon or Powell on the bench to Phipps. Not that it really matters that much since Genia is typically playing 70 minutes or more.

Coleman is in shitty form but I would still take him any day of the week over Simmons. I don't think too many would argue with me on that point.

Would like to see Latu back. He may be a bit out of form but I feel like his ceiling is higher than Fainga'a and BPA.

 

[tragic]

F@#k me I wish I had a dollar for every time a conversation about our back line deficiencies was followed up with a condescending post about our forwards being the real issue.
It’s as boring as it is predictable. Encouraged by guaranteed likes from the usual suspects.
Our midfield sucks just as much as our forwards and both are fair game.
It’s not mutually exclusive.

 

[Derpus]

F@#k me I wish I had a dollar for every time a conversation about our back line deficiencies was followed up with a condescending post about our forwards being the real issue.
It’s as boring as it is predictable. Encouraged by guaranteed likes from the usual suspects.
Our midfield sucks just as much as our forwards and both are fair game.
It’s not mutually exclusive.

And true.

As the adage goes: Forwards win matches, backs decide by how much.

But, i raised the point not because i think our backs should be shielded from blame. On the contrary, i was calling for Beale to be dropped games ago.

I was merely wondering why, after every single match this forum devolves into an anti-[insert whoever played 10] wankfest when they are very rarely the primary reason we lost a match.

It's not even really a phenomenon reserved for GAGR. Happens all the time. 'Oh we need x in at 10, that'll fix it' - despite losing 50 fucking lineouts and not once hitting the gain line in tight all match.

 

[Forcefield]

I don't disagree Tragic, but part of the issue: The midfield is not controversial. No Wallabies supporter in their right mind thinks Beale has been a good option at 10. The only question is where you align Foley, Beale and To'omua in 10/12/22 and I think last weekend's game was soooo bad that we'll take any option that isn't 10. Beale. The other part to the issue: Our scrum has been functioning well enough, but we are getting inconsistent to terrible line-out ball and rarely getting quality go-forward. So, yes, the midfield may suck, but they are working with the shitty ball they are receiving. That doesn't make things easy for them.

Changes will happen to the backline/midfield so people will revert to the frustrating thing that probably won't change much- the forward pack.

 

[KOB1987]

I think some of our problems in the backs have come from the absence of Kurindrani or Kerevi at outside to crash it up. It's a lot easier for Foley and Beale to play wide when one of the Ks has made the gain line on the hard unders line. Without them, our only option really is to go out wide and it's very predictable.

I think you're absolutely spot on there.

 

[Strewthcobber]

.

Coleman is in shitty form but I would still take him any day of the week over Simmons. I don't think too many would argue with me on that point.

I'd take Simmons over Rodda if it meant we win 100% of our lineouts

 

[tragic]

I do find it interesting that we have the best seagull in Australia who is also a genuine lineout option playing in Japan atm while we try to make our diminutive 7 into a seagull and lineout option. Go figure.

 

[Forcefield]

So would I, Strewth, especially when you consider that the other RC teams average ~85%. Simmons is great in the set piece, but not that great.

 

[Wilson]

I'd take Simmons over Rodda if it meant we win 100% of our lineouts

What about for 87.8% (our win percentage last year)?

 

[Up the Guts]

The Argentinian scrums were garbage last week and we should be looking to scrum them out of the game.

 

[Joe Blow]

Foley back at 10 but the forwards more or less unchanged.
No Angus Cotrell or Jake Gordon in the 23. Timu gets another run.

 

[dillyboy]

Saw that coming *sigh*

Wonder if To'omua will be another who Cheika entices back to Oz then casts aside after a hamstrung opportunity then phases out (same as Cooper having someone play out of position beside him)

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

I see TGC has gone back to naming a 24. Unless he's got two guys bracketed for injury reasons (in which case just say so) I really don't see the point, it's not like Argentina will prepare differently not knowing who's on the bench or whether it's a 6/2 or a 5/3 split. Just reeks of pointless mind games to me.