Wallabies squad for Ireland series

[Ruggo]

Wallabies won't have a decent back row until this pooper nonsense is done with. Making Hooper captain was a terribly short sighted. Coleman should be the Wallaby captain. Pocock is truly world class and we have this nonsense where we have to retain the captain who shouldn't be in the starting 15. Hooper would be a fantastic impact player of the bench but Pocock should start and cramping both in just screws the back row dynamic.

 

[barbarian]

Who's the alternative Ruggo? We've been over this ground 100 times before, and while Pooper isn't perfect I still think it's the best we've got at the moment. We don't have Totai Kefu waiting in the wings, sadly, or Matt Cockbain or Rocky Elsom.

And given we got to a World Cup Final playing Hooper and Pocock I believe we can easily cope with any limitations playing them may present.
.

 

[Braveheart81]

Wallabies won't have a decent back row until this pooper nonsense is done with. Making Hooper captain was a terribly short sighted. Coleman should be the Wallaby captain. Pocock is truly world class and we have this nonsense where we have to retain the captain who shouldn't be in the starting 15. Hooper would be a fantastic impact player of the bench but Pocock should start and cramping both in just screws the back row dynamic.

Who is this better backrow we can name otherwise?

Hooper and Pocock are two of the best players we have full stop and pretty much all of our best tests in the last 3 years have involved an unconventional backrow combination involving either Hooper and Pocock or Hooper and McMahon. In many of those games both of them have been in our top few players.

People have been raving about how good a captain Coleman would be but it hasn't been a seemless start in the role at the Rebels. I don't think he's close to being ready to be test captain at all.

Our best test last year featured a backrow involving 3 guys who have all played a fair amount of 7 (Hooper, McMahon and Dempsey).

Everyone who wants Hooper on the bench isn't suggesting he comes on to replace Pocock so they're perfectly happy to run with that backrow for half an hour or so but somehow it is a ridiculous situation to start the match with it.

 

[Derpus]

Wallabies won't have a decent back row until this pooper nonsense is done with. Making Hooper captain was a terribly short sighted. Coleman should be the Wallaby captain. Pocock is truly world class and we have this nonsense where we have to retain the captain who shouldn't be in the starting 15. Hooper would be a fantastic impact player of the bench but Pocock should start and cramping both in just screws the back row dynamic.

It's such a moot point, while we are struggling to find a third back-rower at all let alone one who creates 'perfect balance'.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Individual lineout stats are junk stats, by and large.

As the lineout caller, Simmons goal is for the Tahs to win the lineout - it doesn't matter which player. So if he is marked by the opposition, he will call another player/move.

Citing that stat as evidence that he's less effective at the lineout is rubbish. Same with the 'pilfered' stat - you're more likely to pilfer a lineout jumping at 2, and that role at the Tahs is generally filled by Wells or Hanigan.

I'm no massive Simmons fan, and I agree he has his limitations. But suggesting he's an inneffective lineout operator using those stats is a flawed conclusion IMO.

The overall team performance is the far better metric, and that is where the Tahs are clearly a standout.
.

I hear what you say Barbarian, but why do those comments not apply equally to any or all of the other locks shown in the list? On the matter of team stats, do you have the comparative figures for each of the Aussie franchises to support the argument that the Tahs are clearly a standout?

 

[fatprop]

Yeah they are daylights ahead of the other backrow options, they are must picks; and the other two backrowers (starter & bench) can then be selected to compliment their skills.

Now if we had a number of world class 6s & 8s the decision maybe different, but we don't, we don't have any world class 6s & 8s so we go with what we do have (two great 7s who play very different styles of games) and work it out

 

[Brumby Runner]

Did he post stats for defence as well? I would be interested to see where Simmons rates defensively before I say he is lazy around the park.

No, but I know that after 10 games Simmons had made 65 tackles and missed 11 for a 73% success rate. Carter on the other hand had made something like 77 tackles, missed 12, at a success rate of 83%.

In general play, Simmons is ineffective and arguably lazy and if the engine room is missing that many tackles, then time for a new motor I say.

 

[Braveheart81]

I hear what you say Barbarian, but why do those comments not apply equally to any or all of the other locks shown in the list? On the matter of team stats, do you have the comparative figures for each of the Aussie franchises to support the argument that the Tahs are clearly a standout?

The Tahs lineout is ranked second in Super Rugby this year according to SANZAAR. Rebels 5th, Brumbies 9th and Reds 11th.

 

[barbarian]

I hear what you say Barbarian, but why do those comments not apply equally to any or all of the other locks shown in the list? On the matter of team stats, do you have the comparative figures for each of the Aussie franchises to support the argument that the Tahs are clearly a standout?

They apply to all lock options, I agree.

And the figures that I have from Foxsports:

Own ball win % - Waratahs 91% (2nd), Rebels 88% (7th), Brumbies 88% (8th), Reds 87% (10th)

So they are fairly close, but enough to indicate that as a lineout caller/operator, Simmons is pretty good.
.

 

[Zero_Cool]

He is much better than Hanigan

As a lock no doubt, but as a 6 it's close.

 

[Zero_Cool]

It's a bit rich to infer that reports from players regarding his scrummaging are false unless verified with names, yet carry on like "your eye" is an unbiased beacon of measurement with regards to the scrummaging ability of the THP or lock you're questioning. The thing regarding Simmons was reported by several posters close to players at the Reds and Wallabies, and not by posters who were championing Simmons at all in other regards. It's as likely to be true and any inference on these pages.

I was saying it while Simmons was at the Reds, and think it now that he's moved to the Waratahs too. But suffice it to say I'm very sure Simmons isn't out pushing Rodda in a scrum, and while it might be closer with Coleman I am doubtful on that one too.

I don't think anyone (maybe other than me) is saying Simmons doesn't push at all, just that he's not going to provide as much go-forward as the alternatives. I mean he's no Dean Mumm (maybe he's the new Dean Mumm -- and that's scary).

 

[RedsHappy]

They apply to all lock options, I agree.

And the figures that I have from Foxsports:

Own ball win % - Waratahs 91% (2nd), Rebels 88% (7th), Brumbies 88% (8th), Reds 87% (10th)

So they are fairly close, but enough to indicate that as a lineout caller/operator, Simmons is pretty good.
.

The other related point being of course that the Tahs have IIRC often very effectively scored 5/7 points right off well-executed and designed set plays from line out wins. Set plays of a type that befuddle opposition defence in their wake.

This of necessity requires not only line out control but equally very fast, clean ball down to the 9 or whomever off the line out.

The point being that a great line out caller/operator can be worth their weight in gold - way beyond what other 'weak' stats re their non-line out skills may show - if they consistently make crucial first move contributions to good set piece plays off the line out that result in fast tries or enhanced field position.

 

[cyclopath]

I was saying it while Simmons was at the Reds, and think it now that he's moved to the Waratahs too. But suffice it to say I'm very sure Simmons isn't out pushing Rodda in a scrum, and while it might be closer with Coleman I am doubtful on that one too.

I don't think anyone (maybe other than me) is saying Simmons doesn't push at all, just that he's not going to provide as much go-forward as the alternatives. I mean he's no Dean Mumm (maybe he's the new Dean Mumm -- and that's scary).

I wasn't saying he's better. I was saying he was not crap. They are different things. I'd go with Coleman and Rodda too.

 

[RedsHappy]

I wasn't saying he's better. I was saying he was not crap. They are different things. I'd go with Coleman and Rodda too.

Just relating to my post re Simmons above.....we seem to want to pick players that somehow must have compelling measured stats in many dimensions of play whereas not infrequently the truth is that it is one outstanding skill that may create very high yield gains for the team as a unit and that really matters the most in a 'total team yield of points or game control' sense.

The classic example was (maybe still is?) Pocock. Wonderful ruck controller, oppo ball-slower, pilferer. Poor-ish link to backs and ball-running player.

What can really matter most - and this is the fatal flaw in so many isolated, over-used rugby stats - is the yield for the team in exceptional player effectiveness in one crucial skill vs a particular opposition, or when that one key cog in the wheel enables set plays that work to gain points in combination with other skills and players and not necessarily the more visible 'gains in metres and 'time in possession'' and so on.

 

[Braveheart81]

No, but I know that after 10 games Simmons had made 65 tackles and missed 11 for a 73% success rate. Carter on the other hand had made something like 77 tackles, missed 12, at a success rate of 83%.

In general play, Simmons is ineffective and arguably lazy and if the engine room is missing that many tackles, then time for a new motor I say.

Alloutrugby lists the following as the current tackle stats:

Simmons 107/11 = 90.7%
Arnold 70/12 = 85.4%
Carter 79/14 = 84.9%
Rodda 106/20 = 84.1%
Coleman 97/8 = 92.4%
Douglas 115/10 = 92%

All the stats sites have a reasonable amount of variation but certainly Simmons seems to stand up there.

Anyway, he's going to be one of our three locks this weekend and I don't think Arnold will be an automatic selection for the second test unless one of the locks has a poor game.

I look forward to you still complaining about Rob Simmons when he plays his 100th test.

 

[Zero_Cool]

They apply to all lock options, I agree.

And the figures that I have from Foxsports:

Own ball win % - Waratahs 91% (2nd), Rebels 88% (7th), Brumbies 88% (8th), Reds 87% (10th)

So they are fairly close, but enough to indicate that as a lineout caller/operator, Simmons is pretty good.

See I thought this was interesting, until I dug into the numbers (Link). The Reds (10th) are still within 5% of the Waratahs (2nd). To give context are talking about around 10 throws (if my maths is correct, I don't trust it as far as I can throw it but I think it's correct). The Brumbies have the most throws at around 170, the Reds at 150, and then the Rebels on 145, and Waratahs on 140 (numbers aren't exact because I had to work backwards from the percentage and the number of own throws won).

So I think saying 'the Waratahs are most efficient' is kind of a non-starter, perhaps they are more efficient because they throw less, perhaps because they are better, perhaps it's a meaningless number because there are too many factors to say the difference of 5% (again around ten throws) is really significant or indicative of anything more than the line-outs from all the Aussie sides are all working well. (Also for some more context the 'worst' line-out side in Super Rugby is the Highlanders on 82% so were literally splitting 10% into 15 bit. So really it's everyone is winning their own ball.)

 

[Derpus]

See I thought this was interesting, until I dug into the numbers (Link). The Reds (10th) are still within 5% of the Waratahs (2nd). To give context are talking about around 10 throws (if my maths is correct, I don't trust it as far as I can throw it but I think it's correct). The Brumbies have the most throws at around 170, the Reds at 150, and then the Rebels on 145, and Waratahs on 140 (numbers aren't exact because I had to work backwards from the percentage and the number of own throws won).

So I think saying 'the Waratahs are most efficient' is kind of a non-starter, perhaps they are more efficient because they throw less, perhaps because they are better, perhaps it's a meaningless number because there are too many factors to say the difference of 5% (again around ten throws) is really significant or indicative of anything more than the line-outs from all the Aussie sides are all working well. (Also for some more context the 'worst' line-out side in Super Rugby is the Highlanders on 82% so were literally splitting 10% into 15 bit. So really it's everyone is winning their own ball.)

Yes, so if analyzing the statistical performance of a teams lineout as a unit is difficult, it follows that analyzing the statistical performance of a single component of that unit ought to be an order of magnitude harder.

Stats are shit. They are shit in simpler games like Soccer and League and they are even worse in Rugby because things are too difficult to quantify and too context dependent.

 

[Zero_Cool]

Yes, so if analyzing the statistical performance of a teams lineout as a unit is difficult, it follows that analyzing the statistical performance of a single component of that unit ought to be an order of magnitude harder.

Stats are shit. They are shit in simpler games like Soccer and League and they are even worse in Rugby because things are too difficult to quantify and too context dependent.

I'm not saying Stats are shit, I'm just saying we need to keep in mind what they are telling us, and what conclusions we are drawing from them. Where we have a 10% difference between the best and worst teams, and are working off less than 200 throws (I think like 205 for the Lions, and 135 for the Highlanders IIRC), we are dealing with at most a 20 throw difference.

Trying to say what line-outs are better or worse of these kinds of numbers is like looking at only tackle percentage or run meters and saying the team with the best in those is 'the best'.
Stats are good because they give you a fairly objective view of the world but don't try to take them too far.

 

[Derpus]

I'm not saying Stats are shit, I'm just saying we need to keep in mind what they are telling us, and what conclusions we are drawing from them. Where we have a 10% difference between the best and worst teams, and are working off less than 200 throws (I think like 205 for the Lions, and 135 for the Highlanders IIRC), we are dealing with at most a 20 throw difference.

Trying to say what line-outs are better or worse of these kinds of numbers is like looking at only tackle percentage or run meters and saying the team with the best in those is 'the best'.
Stats are good because they give you a fairly objective view of the world but don't try to take them too far.

No, but i am.

 

[Sully]

Different club same bullshit arguements about Simmons.

1. The Tahs loosehead side of there scrum is the weak side not the tighthead.
2. The Tahs have one of the lightest and shortest packs in super rugby and hold there own at both scrum and lineout.
3. The Tahs play a fast and wide game suited to there light forwards. not suited to Simmons at all.
4. Simmons carries like shit but most of the time the ball comes back for next phase fairly quickly.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk