Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC

[BDA]

I like the idea of a 6/lock type no.6 packing down on the tighthead side of the scrum, to add extra support to the THP. For that reason I'd be looking at the likes of Fardy, Timani, Jones, Dennis, Mumm, etc for the no.6 jumper.

 

[Brumbieman]

Sorry Brumbieman i can't sacrifice our only genuine experienced lineout caller for someone who i believe has had no real impact in the contact zone since his first test.

His average ability at calling the lineout, doesn't compensate enough for his likely yellow card 8 mins into any game for a late speak tackle on the ref.

Fardy has been calling the Brumbies lineout this year and I think, before we lost a couple against the Blues, it was the best in the comp. I'd have him call them.

 

[Brumbieman]

Below is a hypothetical RWC2015 starting XV based on this thread. Spot the controversial selection:

1. Robinson
2. Hansen
3. Alexander
4. Douglas
5. Horwill
6. Mumm
7. Pocock
8. Butler
9. White
10. Beale
11. Tomane
12. Giteau
13. Folau
14. Cummins
15. O'Connor

I'd be happy to be picked in that team, not sure about the World Cup chances though.

That team would get absolutely skull fucked.


Thank god we aren't the selectors

 

[Brumbieman]

I think our best 4 locks are Skelton, Coleman, Carter and Arnold.

I do rate Carter, despite his average carrying ability. He's a workhorse, with good technique.

The bread and butter for a lock, is the ability to win lineouts, then scrummage, then clean out rucks, then tackle, THEN carry the ball. He's very good at the first four and average (IE not better or worse than any of our other locks) at the 5th.

It didn't work paired with Simmons, because they play the same way, but paired with Skelton it would work. Our maul defence would be much better as well, none of our other locks are as good at destroying a maul as them.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I think our best 4 locks are Skelton, Coleman, Carter and Arnold.

I do rate Carter, despite his average carrying ability. He's a workhorse, with good technique.

The bread and butter for a lock, is the ability to win lineouts, then scrummage, then clean out rucks, then tackle, THEN carry the ball. He's very good at the first four and average (IE not better or worse than any of our other locks) at the 5th.

It didn't work paired with Simmons, because they play the same way, but paired with Skelton it would work. Our maul defence would be much better as well, none of our other locks are as good at destroying a maul as them.

Arnold is very close in the maul destruction area.

 

[Brumbieman]

True, but he's a rookie at this stage. Needs a couple of seasons under his belt IMO, unless he comes back and plays so well he cant be ignored.

 

[barbarian]

The bread and butter for a lock, is the ability to win lineouts, then scrummage, then clean out rucks, then tackle, THEN carry the ball. He's very good at the first four and average (IE not better or worse than any of our other locks) at the 5th.

I dispute that ball carrying is somehow less important for a lock. It is incredibly important, it’s the foundation of our game regardless of position. Ball carrying scores points, it wins games. It’s important to win lineouts, do well in scrums, tackle. But to write off a players inadequacies as ‘well it’s a less important skill’ is a flawed argument IMO, especially for something so central as carrying the ball.

 

[Brumby Runner]

True, but he's a rookie at this stage. Needs a couple of seasons under his belt IMO, unless he comes back and plays so well he cant be ignored.

I mostly agree but he seems to have the size and skillset to be a potential LH lock backup to Will Skelton, as does Coleman as well. Best and most promising young locks I think we've had for many a year.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I dispute that ball carrying is somehow less important for a lock. It is incredibly important, it’s the foundation of our game regardless of position. Ball carrying scores points, it wins games. It’s important to win lineouts, do well in scrums, tackle. But to write off a players inadequacies as ‘well it’s a less important skill’ is a flawed argument IMO, especially for something so central as carrying the ball.

I think B'man might have been equating a lock's requirement to run with the ball as something equivalent to a No 10's requirement to jump in the lineout. If that's what he meant, then I tend to agree with him. The core duties of a lock (TH in particular) is to win the lineout, push in the scrum and tackle and hit rucks.

 

[BDA]

I think our best 4 locks are Skelton, Coleman, Carter and Arnold.

How could you possibly rate Coleman and Arnold ahead of Simo?? lock is an area we have fuck all experience and you want to discard our most experienced, and over the last 2 years, our most consistent test lock?

 

[Tomikin]

Simmions will be one of the WC locks if he has any type of Form coming back from injury. Too much experience and I think his at the stage where he can go to another level.. We have invested too much in him to toss him asside for Rookies straight away, Horwill on the other hand can pay for his own ticket to England..

 

[Wilson]

Horwill on the other hand can pay for his own ticket to England..

I think Harlequins have picked up the tab there.

 

[Brumbieman]

How could you possibly rate Coleman and Arnold ahead of Simo?? lock is an area we have fuck all experience and you want to discard our most experienced, and over the last 2 years, our most consistent test lock?

I don't rate him any more. I used to, I thought he was a very promising prospect, if he could find a second brain cell and stop giving away idiotic penalties, and generally harden up and have more impact.

After 50 tests, i'm still waiting, and I wouldn't want him on the field in a WC pressure game, where one stupid penalty is often the difference.

He's not such a magician at the lineout that i'm prepared to overlook the areas of his game not up to scratch.

 

[cyclopath]

I think B'man might have been equating a lock's requirement to run with the ball as something equivalent to a No 10's requirement to jump in the lineout. If that's what he meant, then I tend to agree with him. The core duties of a lock (TH in particular) is to win the lineout, push in the scrum and tackle and hit rucks.

I'd rate scrumming and general work (including running it and maul defence) easily as much as lineout. Hear me out. If you have a couple of 200cm + units, and good lifters, the winning of lineout will be as much about the quality of throwing and calling as anything. If you have a good 6 and 8 jumper as well, you have options that can adapt for an average jumper at lock. If the locks are big enough and don't have 2 left hands, you'll be OK if the other factors are in place - their size is more important here. If you have 200cm + locks that have shit scrum technique, they're a limited commodity, I reckon. Same too if they can't carry and their defence is mediocre. Look at Skelton - last year he was a poor scrum technician, and was used very rarely in lineouts and had only his ball running and maul defence, yet was a key player for the Tahs. This year his scrummaging has improved, he takes only a few more lineouts now, but he is now being mentioned as more likely to start for the Wallabies. Lose a couple of lineouts, and it's a pain. Lose scrums all night, and you lose players to the bin. Lose the breakdown too, and you're fucked.
I'm not undervaluing a great lineout technician (look at Matfield - but we don't have a Matfield), but these days I think all the other stuff is easily as important, if not more so. Look at what Retallick and Whitelock do, and I rate them as the premier locking combo internationally currently.
Just a theory of mine.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I don't disagree with that but would just point out that way more points are scored from possessions starting with a lineout than any other restart.

Losing lineouts doesn't appear to cost as much, but it reduces your point scoring chances every time.

 

[cyclopath]

I don't disagree with that but would just point out that way more points are scored from possessions starting with a lineout than any other restart.

Losing lineouts doesn't appear to cost as much, but it reduces your point scoring chances every time.

Indeed. Of course they are still important. But I reckon we can get by with big guys (or guy) who aren't lineout freaks better than big guys who are crap in the scrum and / or the breakdown. If we had Retallick and Whitelock we wouldn't be wasting the bandwidth!!

 

[BDA]

Having a poor line-out wont, on its own, lose us the world cup. It could definitely be a contributing factor, but even if you only won 40% of your own line-out throws that doesn't mean you couldn't dominate in enough of the remaining facets of the game to win comfortably. Conversely shit work at the scrum or the breakdown can seal your fate.

 

[Brumbieman]

I'd rate scrumming and general work (including running it and maul defence) easily as much as lineout. Hear me out. If you have a couple of 200cm + units, and good lifters, the winning of lineout will be as much about the quality of throwing and calling as anything. If you have a good 6 and 8 jumper as well, you have options that can adapt for an average jumper at lock. If the locks are big enough and don't have 2 left hands, you'll be OK if the other factors are in place - their size is more important here. If you have 200cm + locks that have shit scrum technique, they're a limited commodity, I reckon. Same too if they can't carry and their defence is mediocre. Look at Skelton - last year he was a poor scrum technician, and was used very rarely in lineouts and had only his ball running and maul defence, yet was a key player for the Tahs. This year his scrummaging has improved, he takes only a few more lineouts now, but he is now being mentioned as more likely to start for the Wallabies. Lose a couple of lineouts, and it's a pain. Lose scrums all night, and you lose players to the bin. Lose the breakdown too, and you're fucked.
I'm not undervaluing a great lineout technician (look at Matfield - but we don't have a Matfield), but these days I think all the other stuff is easily as important, if not more so. Look at what Retallick and Whitelock do, and I rate them as the premier locking combo internationally currently.
Just a theory of mine.

This is why I rate Carter, his impact with ball in hand is really the last thing that gets ticked off on a locks list.

He ticks all the other boxes, and very well. Skelton and Carter would make an excellent combination, and our maul defence would be awesome.

 

[qwerty51]

Having a poor line-out wont, on its own, lose us the world cup. It could definitely be a contributing factor, but even if you only won 40% of your own line-out throws that doesn't mean you couldn't dominate in enough of the remaining facets of the game to win comfortably. Conversely shit work at the scrum or the breakdown can seal your fate.

Could not agree more, I've always said scrummaging so more important than lineouts. If you have a shit lineout you'll lose possession, have a shit scrum you concede penalties and potentially cards and tries.

 

[cyclopath]

This is why I rate Carter, his impact with ball in hand is really the last thing that gets ticked off on a locks list.

He ticks all the other boxes, and very well. Skelton and Carter would make an excellent combination, and our maul defence would be awesome.

I don't dislike Carter at all, but I admit I have not watched him specifically enough this year. He's a worker, no doubt. Like many players in this position, they don't "stand out" in the way a dynamic 7 or a bullocking 6 or 8 might, so often get labelled as doing nothing. Kane Douglas was the same - punters dismissed him but coaches like Cheika valued him. Skelton gets noticed in the loose more - nice to see he's getting noticed a little for other stuff too. Good locks aren't flashy necessarily.
In the same vein, I wouldn't dismiss Simmons' scrum work, which seemed to be pretty handy last year.
In a way, like with the openside debate, the right choice will depend a little bit on the balance given from the 6 and 8 chosen.