The Wallabies Thread

[mst]

You can't really say that the only reason 10 players have made their test debuts this year is because the coach had no other option due to injuries etc.

The only reality we have is that 10 players debuted this year. If an adequate number of opportunities hadn't presented themselves for new players to have a crack then decisions may have been made to ensure they did happen.

As it stands, there have been plenty of capped players who have been left out when available and new players selected.

How can you say if an adequate number of injuries hadn't of presented themselves for new players to have a crack then decisions may have been made to ensure they did happen?

What, Cheika would have dropped players from a winning team and lose the RC to the AB's?

Really? Wow!

No chance; he would have waited until the EOYT or named them earlier on. Winning the RC would have been the priority.

Also remarkable coincidence that the 10 players were brought in as the injuries occurred. Great advanced planning by Cheika?

 

[amirite]

How can you say if an adequate number of injuries hadn't of presented themselves for new players to have a crack then decisions may have been made to ensure they did happen?

What, Cheika would have dropped players from a winning team and lose the RC to the AB's?

Really? Wow!

No chance; he would have waited until the EOYT or named them earlier on. Winning the RC would have been the priority.

Also remarkable coincidence that the 10 players were brought in as the injuries occurred. Great advanced planning by Cheika?

Mate, I named a number of guys who were uninjured incumbents and weren't picked. You can also add Fardy to my list in the last post (yes, no 'new' bloke picked in his place but he showed a willingness to mix up old formulas).

I think you're looking at this situation with a lot of confirmation bias.

 

[Braveheart81]

How can you say if an adequate number of injuries hadn't of presented themselves for new players to have a crack then decisions may have been made to ensure they did happen?

What Cheika would have dropped players from a winning team and lose the RC to the AB's?

Really? Wow!

No chance; he would have waited until the EOYT or named them earlier on. Winning the RC would have been the priority.

Also remarkable coincidence that the 10 players were brought in as the injuries occurred. Great advanced planning by Cheika?

Your post is pure speculation.

The only evidence that there is to work with this year is that 10 new players have debuted for the Wallabies.

The suggestion I made that you dismissed is a complete unknown, just like suggesting that the only reason players debuted this year was because of injuries.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I am more with MST on this matter.

Ala'alatoa and Robertson were brought in to cover the loss of Holmes and to cover injury I think to Slipper early on. Arnold and Coleman got opportunities when Simmons was injured (and lost form) and Horwill went back north, Timani only came in for Poey when he was injured, Hodge got a spot because To'omua and Lealiifano were out, DHP got his chance when Horne went down and Naivalu is in the squad probably because Tomane isn't available.

If Holmes, Pocock, To'omua, Horne and Tomane were still available, I doubt we would have seen their replacements now in the side. If Simmons hadn't been injured early on, then one of Arnold or Coleman probably wouldn't have got their chance. Same with Slipper giving a chance to one of Ala'alatoa or Robertson.

I don't see a plan at all on the part of the coaching staff to bring on new players in a rebuilding year. I think most of the changes have been forced upon them.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Mate, I named a number of guys who were uninjured incumbents and weren't picked. You can also add Fardy to my list in the last post (yes, no 'new' bloke picked in his place but he showed a willingness to mix up old formulas).

I think you're looking at this situation with a lot of confirmation bias.

And Fardy's absences have led to a debutant getting a chance? Mumm, for pity's sake. And there is no way Mitchell should be on the list. He was still injured and recovering the whole time he was back in the country. He was not a fit option who was overlooked for a planned opportunity to another new player. The new wingers DHP, Hodge and Naivalu were brought in because of injury to Horne and the loss of Tomane overseas.

 

[Braveheart81]

Cheika could have selected Toby Smith each time. If he really wanted to avoid blooding new props he could have.

He could have kept Horwill here and selected him. He could have kept selecting Simmons. He selected Arnold to start and debut in the first test with a capped lock on the bench.

Speight could have been selected instead of one of the new wingers. Morahan could have also been selected.

DHP debuted as a starter in the first test of the season when Horne was still healthy.

People seem to be suggesting that Cheika has been reluctant to blood new players where the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

 

[Strewthcobber]

He's obvious pegged this as a development year behind closed doors. We're not the ABs, like most teams we genuinely need years like this to reset and get a lot of new blood in at one time.

This isn't a particularly unusual year through - last year was the strange one.

Since 2005 there's been 7 years with more than 10 debutants

Or to put it another way - we've had 127 Wallabies in the last 10 years. There's going to be 10+ new players just about every year

Edit - worth adding that NZ have had 128 players at the same time. They go through just as many as we do

 

[amirite]

And Fardy's absences have led to a debutant getting a chance? Mumm, for pity's sake. And there is no way Mitchell should be on the list. He was still injured and recovering the whole time he was back in the country. He was not a fit option who was overlooked for a planned opportunity to another new player. The new wingers DHP, Hodge and Naivalu were brought in because of injury to Horne and the loss of Tomane overseas.

BR - the above post referenced a previous post quoting MST and it referenced the very point you're making. It was mostly proving the point that Chieka will make different selections, injury is not the only driver.

This post (for reference) said:

He could've easily stuck with Douglas, Mitchell, and Kuridrani if he was 100% a loyalist to his boys.

The fact is, all these blokes are uninjured WC incumbents who he could have selected and he opted for new blood.

This isn't a particularly unusual year through - last year was the strange one.

Interesting Strewthcobber, great stats. I'd be interested to dig a little deeper on the data though and look at how many minutes year-to-year those 10+ debutantes are playing and were they starters.

Seems like we're starting an awful lot of them, but that's a feeling and numbers are always key.

---

Lost story short - no injury is not the only driver, Chieka's opinions around form and development are also a driver. You mightn't agree with his selections, but it's incorrect to say injury was the only driver for debutants.

 

[Viking]

Cheika could have selected Toby Smith each time. If he really wanted to avoid blooding new props he could have.

He could have kept Horwill here and selected him. He could have kept selecting Simmons. He selected Arnold to start and debut in the first test with a capped lock on the bench.

Speight could have been selected instead of one of the new wingers. Morahan could have also been selected.

DHP debuted as a starter in the first test of the season when Horne was still healthy.

People seem to be suggesting that Cheika has been reluctant to blood new players where the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

He's been reluctant to blood certain new blood. Timani the example.

I think it's worked a bit of both ways, but Brumby Runner brought up some good points.

Toby Smith, Horwill, Speight, Morahan? Really? These guys were hardly on Cheika's radar previously. Smith, Speight and Morahan could arguable still be considered "new blood". Poor examples.

 

[Viking]

The fact is, all these blokes are uninjured WC incumbents who he could have selected and he opted for new blood.

.

No. Mitchell was injured and Douglas was returning from a long-term injury, played only 1 super xv game and he still gave him a lot of game-time.

He did stick with Kuridrani for the England tests and dropped him probably later then he should have. So he didn't "Opt for new blood". He played some-one who was out of form, then he played him again, and again, then decided to drop him for "new blood".

 

[amirite]

No. Mitchell was injured and Douglas was returning from a long-term injury, played only 1 super xv game and he still gave him a lot of game-time.

He did stick with Kuridrani for the England tests and dropped him probably later then he should have. So he didn't "Opt for new blood". He played some-one who was out of form, then he played him again, and again, then decided to drop him for "new blood".

Mate, Mitchell played off the bench and Douglas was even given a crack starting, they were clearly options and like I said - new blood was picked over them.

And I don't get the point you're making with Kuridrani, like you said new blood was eventually picked over him.

I'm making a point and moving the goalposts doesn't really go against what I'm saying, it just makes it a different discussion.

 

[Viking]

Mate, Mitchell played off the bench and Douglas was even given a crack starting, they were clearly options and like I said - new blood was picked over them.

And I don't get the point you're making with Kuridrani, like you said new blood was eventually picked over him.

I'm making a point and moving the goalposts doesn't really go against what I'm saying, it just makes it a different discussion.

My point wasn't that he was not blooding "new blood". He has. The stats say 10.

Mypoint was, he should have done it sooner with certain players, For example Timani. And certain incumbents should have been dropped earlier.

I don't think he got the balance right with new blood and experience. Plus the timing was poor.

He drops Kerevi and keeps Kuridrani despite Kerevi being the better performer? When he finally decides to go back to Kerevi it's too late. Think about it, Kerevi could have been breaking tackles and making runs 3-4 games earlier.

Mitchell and Douglas were not 100%. I disagree there. I believe Cheika had them in the squad and gave them limited game-time in order to bring them back to full fitness. It failed.

I really don't get the arguement "well he didn't pick Mitchell, Speight, Douglas" therefore he doesn't prefer new blood. It's not like they were good options at the time.

 

[Scrubber2050]

It's good and healthy for the topic to be focused somewhat on Cheika.

Personally I still think he is the best Australian for the job, and by a long way.

He has "blooded" mew players. Great, every coach does that.

My criticism is essentially about the selection of certain players that are obviously favourites of the bloke. He cannot see that some players need to be playing at different positions and those with terrible form should be dropped, whoever they are.Coaches are evaluated on the success of their teams. His report card is marked "poor and needs improvement" ATM

His lock combos are baffling - so many !

I really haven't seen any improvement since RWC, probably we have regressed. Is the team 100% behind him. I don't think so.

If we do not have a very successful EOYT the ARU need to make some tough decisions.

 

[Brumby Runner]

To be clear, I am not solely criticising Cheika. I think the whole selection team is probably equally responsible for any of the poor selection decisions.

My opinion is that they do give a lot of preference to incumbents from the RWC, and have delayed the timely introduction of new blood mainly until they have been forced to do so by injury or unavailability. The proof to me is the perseverance with Horne, Foley at 12, the Pooper, Simmons at lock and all of the overseas contingent except Genia. Folau at 15 might also now fit into that group as well.

 

[Scrubber2050]

BR
I think you are being overly generous when you use the phrase "the whole selection team"

Team of one, methinks

 

[KOB1987]

This last page is full of Harry Hindsighters. When someone says 'he waited too long to blood him' that's just your opinion right? Or when someone says 'they were poor selection decisions' they are just your opinion too right? Plus you have the benefit of hindsight. Then there's the people who are getting upset because he's picking his favorite players ( instead of yours eh?) - of course he does, he's entitled to!

 

[Viking]

This last page is full of Harry Hindsighters. When someone says 'he waited too long to blood him' that's just your opinion right? Or when someone says 'they were poor selection decisions' they are just your opinion too right? Plus you have the benefit of hindsight. Then there's the people who are getting upset because he's picking his favorite players ( instead of yours eh?) - of course he does, he's entitled to!

Of coarse it is just our opinion. This is an internet forum, the whole point is to express your opinion. It would be a little boring if we just stated obvious facts and statistics.

 

[fatprop]

Can you imagine the whinge if Douglas was still a Tah

 

[KOB1987]

Of coarse it is just our opinion. This is an internet forum, the whole point is to express your opinion. It would be a little boring if we just stated obvious facts and statistics.

Sure, and I completely agree with that. But if they are just opinions then people should respect the opinions of others, including those of the national coach who is with the players 24/7 rather than just brushing his decisions off as though he is either incompetent or biased.

I have opinions too, for example I think we should try another option or two at 12. Because that isn't happening I assume there are reasons for that, I don't just conclude that cheika is a halfwit who couldn't coach the U15s.

He's made some wrong calls (with the benefit of hindsight) and he will make some more, as would other coaches, but that doesn't make him a systemic failure.

 

[Viking]

Sure, and I completely agree with that. But if they are just opinions then people should respect the opinions of others, including those of the national coach who is with the players 24/7 rather than just brushing his decisions off as though he is either incompetent or biased.

I have opinions too, for example I think we should try another option or two at 12. Because that isn't happening I assume there are reasons for that, I don't just conclude that cheika is a halfwit who couldn't coach the U15s.

He's made some wrong calls (with the benefit of hindsight) and he will make some more, as would other coaches, but that doesn't make him a systemic failure.

Absolutely. I agree with all of this. Foley at 12 a good example. I think playing him at 12 was a fair call to begin with, although now that Hodge has really stepped up and is defending at 12 I really don't see the plus side in persisting with Foley there.