The Rugby Championship 2016

[Scrubber2050]

Of course you do Seb

They are both Brumbies !

 

[Viking]

Of course you do Seb

They are both Brumbies !

Can't say the Reds halves have inspired me much this year... sorry Scrubber.

 

[tragic]

There was some nice glimpses of form from Arnold and Coleman, they just need to work up some consistency. I wouldn't mind seeing them start.

Douglas is too fresh from injury IMO. I'd rather he is eased back from the bench. I'd like to see during the EOYT but I think the RC is way too soon.

Simmons is injured too isn't he? I like what I saw in game 3 too but to be fair it was a very short stint before coming off the field injured. He will need to prove fitness is 110% because if he is injured in the first halve again it can really hurt us in set-piece especially if Skelton is on the bench.

Grade 1 AC joint
Should be fully fit in a couple of weeks.
I doubt we'll see Skelton again - that was a fail.
Will be interesting to see Douglas form in the next couple of weeks.

 

[Viking]

Grade 1 AC joint
Should be fully fit in a couple of weeks.
I doubt we'll see Skelton again - that was a fail.
Will be interesting to see Douglas form in the next couple of weeks.

Douglas actually looked pretty good in his cameo, I was doubtful he would be a strong contender for the RC, i think he will at least make the bench now.

I hope your right about Skelton, although I think we may see him on the bench for a few games.

 

[Scoey]

Chieka bought Douglas straight into the RWC from a reasonable injury lay off for a back injury I think. No reason why he won't bring him straight back into the wallabies now.

 

[Groucho]

A lot of strong negativity on this thread. Sure, we lost three to a good England team. But two of those games could've gone the other way. The Boks won 2-1 in three very close games to Ireland, who had previously finished two places below England in the Six Nations. There's no reason to think they're in better shape than we are. People predicting we'll lose all our games need to take their hand off it, in case it goes off.

 

[Groucho]

For my selection wish list, I'd like to see Arnold and Coleman played together as an investment in a better second row in the long run. All the other contenders aren't good enough. Arnold and Coleman have the potential to be.

 

[Brumby Jack]

The 2 games vs New Zealand, the refs are Jaco Peyper and Romain Poite...

 

[Brumby Runner]

We were only a miniscule chance against the ABs anyway, but that just about drains all hope away.

 

[Sully]

I don't believe one should pick a test team on how good players may or may not potentially be.
You pick your best players, then you pick players to complement them. Very little room for potential.
If they are good enough they can put their hand up in super rugby.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

I don't believe one should pick a test team on how good players may or may not potentially be.
You pick your best players, then you pick players to complement them. Very little room for potential.
If they are good enough they can put their hand up in super rugby.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

Agreed, potential is the capacity to develop into something in the future, what Test Rugby and the Wallabies need is the best players today. Super Rugby is the training ground for 'potential' not Test Rugby and certainly not a Bledisloe, let's pick the players who are either the best in their positions and/or compliment others who are the best in their positions.

 

[Viking]

A lot of strong negativity on this thread. Sure, we lost three to a good England team. But two of those games could've gone the other way. The Boks won 2-1 in three very close games to Ireland, who had previously finished two places below England in the Six Nations. There's no reason to think they're in better shape than we are. People predicting we'll lose all our games need to take their hand off it, in case it goes off.

I'm sick of hearing this. 3 - NIL does not indicate "close games". 3 - NIL indicates they can beat us CONSISTENTLY.

I don't think the "close score" really reflects how effective they are at beating us. I don't expect huge blow-out scoreline with most teams in the top 5, their strategies are based on winning close contests - not demolishing the opposition.

Plus Let's look at the scores:
Game 1: 28-39 - I agree, close game
Game 2: 7-23 - never looked like winning, that scoreline doesn't look close either.
Game 3: 40-44 Remember we scored a pointless consolation try here, England had the game wrapped up with 10mins to go. When you win the game in 70mins I wouldn't call it close.

The Boks found a way to win 2 games and won the series - how is that even comparable to a 3 - 0 whitewash.

Plus we are playing at HOME. This is a major fail since... well I can't even remember when we have lost a series at home to a NH team 3-0. We even managed a win against the B & L Lions.

We are on our way of losing 6 games in a row - most like 7 when we meet the Boks.

I applaud your positivity, but I don't understand how people can not see this series at what it is - a complete fail from the coaches and the players. A step backwards.

There are positives, but we need to acknowledge the negatives if we are going to improve.

 

[I like to watch]

I couldn't disagree more about the 3rd test.
Midway through the 2nd half,i was sure we were going to win.
We just ran out of legs.

Cheika's success or failure will be judged on facts not vibes, long after we have forgotten about how this series was played.
And 0-3 is a fact.

 

[Braveheart81]

Who isn't acknowledging the negative?

No one is declaring that the England series was a complete aberration and we go into the Rugby Championship as favourites.

The reality is somewhere in the middle. We didn't play well in the series against England and have plenty to work on. We scored plenty of tries but our defence was far leakier than it should be. We were able to dominate possession and territory but were unable to consistently turn possession in the red zone into points.

Given we have lost four tests in a row now and our next two are against New Zealand, there is a strong chance we will lose six tests in a row. If we lose to the All Blacks in Sydney to make it five in a row it will almost certainly be six a week later.

We'll start favourites against the Springboks in Brisbane and deservedly so. If we lose the first two tests against the All Blacks and then lose in Brisbane to make it seven straight losses, it will likely be reasonable to be more negative about the Wallabies.

Saying at this point we'll probably lose 7 matches in a row is stupid though.

 

[Viking]

Who isn't acknowledging the negative?

No one is declaring that the England series was a complete aberration and we go into the Rugby Championship as favourites.

The reality is somewhere in the middle. We didn't play well in the series against England and have plenty to work on. We scored plenty of tries but our defence was far leakier than it should be. We were able to dominate possession and territory but were unable to consistently turn possession in the red zone into points.

Given we have lost four tests in a row now and our next two are against New Zealand, there is a strong chance we will lose six tests in a row. If we lose to the All Blacks in Sydney to make it five in a row it will almost certainly be six a week later.

We'll start favourites against the Springboks in Brisbane and deservedly so. If we lose the first two tests against the All Blacks and then lose in Brisbane to make it seven straight losses, it will likely be reasonable to be more negative about the Wallabies.

Saying at this point we'll probably lose 7 matches in a row is stupid though.

I agree with this Braveheart. I think their are posters on both sides of the negative and positive and in reality it's more like somewhere in the middle.

Although I'm not sure why we would go in as favourites against the Boks. I'd call it pretty damn close. But after losing 6 in a row, it doesn't give us a lot of momentum going into the match, and I'd expect the Boks to have 2 wins against a solid Argentina team, so their confidence will be higher.

Too soon to tell, but 6 losses is very likely given the distance the All Blacks are ahead of the game. That is a worry in my books.

 

[Braveheart81]

If you don't think we should be favourites against the Boks in Brisbane you should get ready to load up on the Boks. We will start comfortable favourites with the bookies there I suspect.

 

[Viking]

The Boks are always dangerous, with their line-up on their day they can beat anyone. Much like us. Obviously they are having some issues right now.

I'll wait and see how their performances against Argentina go.

 

[Brumby Runner]

The bookies' favourite surely reflects the money placed on that team to win, not necessarily a rational or objective opinion of which team is more likely to win based on form. Depends what meaning Seb is giving to the term 'favourite' I think.

 

[Braveheart81]

The bookies' favourite surely reflects the money placed on that team to win, not necessarily a rational or objective opinion of which team is more likely to win based on form. Depends what meaning Seb is giving to the term 'favourite' I think.

The bookies set the opening price and line though and then the market moves based on how punters bet after that (and any news that changes the situation such as selections and injuries).

It's not like it starts as an even money thing and the amounts bet then decide who is favourite.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Sure, but would the bookies set the opening price on who they might rationally think will win, or on which side they think will attract the most money. The latter I think. Wallabies at Suncorp is always likely to attract the most money from loyal punters regardless of the form of both teams leading into the match.

I guess I'm saying that the Wallabies will probably be the favourite, but the Boks would be more favoured to win if we are facing 7 test losses on the trot and they have two wins over the Argies.