England v Australia

[qwerty51]

hardly. He's sat on the bench for the majority of the tour. He's still yet to be given the reigns.

That's what bench players do, they sit on the bench. He's firmly apart of the 23 and is getting on the field not because of injury so is a "substitution" rather than a "replacement". He's part of the game plan. To say he's not apart of Cheika's plans is a strange comment when he clearly is.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

hardly. He's sat on the bench for the majority of the tour. He's still yet to be given the reigns.

Both Cooper and Genia made this EOYT on the basis of reputation not form.
In the time they have each had neither has shown the form to warrant displacing the incumbent - the incumbent selected by Link.
So unless you take the view that it would be OK to just pick a team for this weekend to have a look at players and not worry about the result how can you justify picking either to start?

 

[BDA]

Funny there was so much less angst from some when Link picked essentially the same side

Not really the same is it. Was Cooper available? no.. Pretty sure Horne was only chosen because we had literally 0 genuine wingers available.

 

[BDA]

That's what bench players do, they sit on the bench. He's firmly apart of the 23 and is getting on the field not because of injury so is a "substitution" rather than a "replacement". He's part of the game plan. To say he's not apart of Cheika's plans is a strange comment when he clearly is.

Yeah I agree he is a part of the plan. I think some people are just complaining because they would have liked to have seen Cooper given at least 1 test this year to show what he offers instead of Foley. I'm one of those people, which is in no way a slight on Foley, who I think has been generally quality.

With 0 tests at 10 under the Cheika reign and only 4 tests next year, it is pretty hard to see Cooper proving to Cheika that he is a better starting option for the RWC

 

[Train Without a Station]

Both Cooper and Genia made this EOYT on the basis of reputation not form.
In the time they have each had neither has shown the form to warrant displacing the incumbent - the incumbent selected by Link.
So unless you take the view that it would be OK to just pick a team for this weekend to have a look at players and not worry about the result how can you justify picking either to start?

A reputation of good form.

You use the term incumbent as if Foley was a first choice player. He was not. He was selected due to injury to the incumbent. Therefore giving himself the opportunity to put in better performance's than the injured player and become first choice. He's become first choice but he certainly hasn't put in better performances.

In something like 11 starts he has hardly put in a single complete performance as a 10. He has performed well at times, but still shown to be lacking as a test flyhalf. Lucky for Foley he's only been a Super Rugby starter for 3 seasons and is only 25, so there's a good chance he will improve those areas.

If people want to still talk about Beale's 2010 form than Cooper's 2013 is certainly relevant.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Take your pick.

1

2

or 3

Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

 

[cyclopath]

Yeah I agree he is a part of the plan. I think some people are just complaining because they would have liked to have seen Cooper given at least 1 test this year to show what he offers instead of Foley. I'm one of those people, which is in no way a slight on Foley, who I think has been generally quality.

With 0 tests at 10 under the Cheika reign and only 4 tests next year, it is pretty hard to see Cooper proving to Cheika that he is a better starting option for the RWC

Not at all. There is a whole Super Rugby season. As we've seen, anything can happen. If Cooper has a stellar season, and Foley not so much, I'd be surprised if he is not right in the mix, if not first pick. I don't think anything is cut and dried.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Well I calculate it differently

It is all S15 games, nearly all tests, French rugby, NPC, ARC, Currie Cup and some Heineken Cup

but I have no kids to get in the way and record everything, then pick what I want as my whims decide

On top of all that, there is all the cycling throughout Europe, the MotorGP series, Dakar, overseas cricket tests involving Australia, and any amount of tennis, swimming, basketball, baseball, darts etc for whatever your other sporting interests might be.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

A reputation of good form.

You use the term incumbent as if Foley was a first choice player. He was not. He was selected due to injury to the incumbent. Therefore giving himself the opportunity to put in better performance's than the injured player and become first choice. He's become first choice but he certainly hasn't put in better performances.

In something like 11 starts he has hardly put in a single complete performance as a 10. He has performed well at times, but still shown to be lacking as a test flyhalf. Lucky for Foley he's only been a Super Rugby starter for 3 seasons and is only 25, so there's a good chance he will improve those areas.

If people want to still talk about Beale's 2010 form than Cooper's 2013 is certainly relevant.

Thats not how it works.
You get injured, someone replaces you, you recover and then you have to win your spot back absent at least one bad game from the incumbent.
Usually works that way.
BTW - I do not rate Foley as a long/medium term test 10, but that's not the point.

 

[BDA]

Both Cooper and Genia made this EOYT on the basis of reputation not form.
In the time they have each had neither has shown the form to warrant displacing the incumbent - the incumbent selected by Link.
So unless you take the view that it would be OK to just pick a team for this weekend to have a look at players and not worry about the result how can you justify picking either to start?

We have now lost 2 games on the trot with Foley at 5/8. Actually we've lost 5 of our last 6 tests with Foley at 5/8. Clearly he has not been killing it. Cooper looked quality off the bench against both France and Ireland. not sure I'd agree that he hasn't "shown the form to warrant displacing the incumbent". rather I'd say Foley hasn't shown the form to warrant not giving our other world class no.10 a shot.

 

[KOB1987]

Some of you blokes need to breathe..

 

[chasmac]

Hey QLDers.
What was the last game that QC (Quade Cooper) really dominated in?
Then have a look at Foley through the finals of the S15.
QC (Quade Cooper) was excellent on the last EOYT.
Since then he has not done enough to displace a player who is in top form ATM.
Is it because he was in a team that didn't make the S15 finals?
Is it because he is returning from injury?
The reasons don't really matter. In a team situation if it aint broke don't fix it.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Thats not how it works.
You get injured, someone replaces you, you recover and then you have to win your spot back absent at least one bad game from the incumbent.
Usually works that way.
BTW - I do not rate Foley as a long/medium term test 10, but that's not the point.

Really? Do you watch professional sport. That's generally exactly how it works.

So you just Stephen Bradbury into a position and coaches hold the better player to a higher standard?

Players should obviously not keep a position on reputation but if the options are let the more talented players work his way back in and settle back into the position because his ceiling is the highest, or let the "incumbent" continue to work his way into the position even though his ceiling is lower and he hasn't shown to be a better player?

Obviously that's hypothetical based on all else being equal (which it isn't) and there may be completely valid reasons to it. But you don't know them any more than I.

a week ago the Foley supporters we admitting he was a lesser option to Cooper but his goal kicking was critical. Now after one game he apparently is better.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Since then he has not done enough to displace a player who is in top form ATM.

Who's that? Because it isn't the Bernard Foley I've seen at international level in 2014. Which is my point.

 

[BDA]

Not at all. There is a whole Super Rugby season. As we've seen, anything can happen. If Cooper has a stellar season, and Foley not so much, I'd be surprised if he is not right in the mix, if not first pick. I don't think anything is cut and dried.

Not impossible but ridiculously unlikely. Foley will start next year's test season at 10. I'd almost bet my house on it. Foley's form would have to be woeful for Cooper to become Cheika's first choice.

Foley's recent form has been average and that apparently is not enough to get Cooper a look in.

 

[qwerty51]

Yeah I agree he is a part of the plan. I think some people are just complaining because they would have liked to have seen Cooper given at least 1 test this year to show what he offers instead of Foley. I'm one of those people, which is in no way a slight on Foley, who I think has been generally quality.

With 0 tests at 10 under the Cheika reign and only 4 tests next year, it is pretty hard to see Cooper proving to Cheika that he is a better starting option for the RWC

There's the whole coming off the bench thing.. coming on and winning a game certainly helps his cause.

 

[cyclopath]

Not impossible but ridiculously unlikely. Foley will start next year's test season at 10. I'd almost bet my house on it. Foley's form would have to be woeful for Cooper to become Cheika's first choice.

I've seen too many ups and downs on Oz rugby in recent years to make such black and white predictions. I don't think the difference is vast, so big changes one way or the other are all that are required. We'll see.

 

[Scotty]

Hey QLDers.
What was the last game that QC (Quade Cooper) really dominated in?
Then have a look at Foley through the finals of the S15.
QC (Quade Cooper) was excellent on the last EOYT.
Since then he has not done enough to displace a player who is in top form ATM.
Is it because he was in a team that didn't make the S15 finals?
Is it because he is returning from injury?
The reasons don't really matter. In a team situation if it aint broke don't fix it.

You do realise that we lost the last two matches?

 

[chasmac]

Really? Do you watch professional sport. That's generally exactly how it works.

So you just Stephen Bradbury into a position and coaches hold the better player to a higher standard?

Players should keep a position on reputation but if the options are let the more talented players work his way back in and settle back into the position because his ceiling is the highest, or let the "incumbent" continue to work his way into the position even though his ceiling is lower and he hasn't shown to be a better player?

Obviously that's hypothetical based on all else being equal (which it isn't) and there may be completely valid reasons to it. But you don't know them any more than I.

a week ago the Foley supporters we admitting he was a lesser option to Cooper but his goal kicking was critical. Now after one game he apparently is better.

If Cooper returns to the form shown on last EOYT then he's in with a shake. I hope he does.
I also hope we see Pocock and Moore regain their former glory. Injuries change players abilities.
I did like Cooper's grubber and chase that ended up with the Irish #9 in Disneyland.

 

[BDA]

I've seen too many ups and downs on Oz rugby in recent years to make such black and white predictions. I don't think the difference is vast, so big changes one way or the other are all that are required. We'll see.

I'm not saying its out of the question, I'm simply saying that the fact that Cooper didn't get 1 chance to start this tour suggests Cheika has made his mind up that he currently prefers Foley. Given that we've lost 5 from our last 6 I would have thought Cooper should at least get a look in.