Ireland v Australia, Saturday 26 November

[Slim 293]

I don't think Fardy will come straight in next year. Maybe Timani goes to 6 and we bring in a wider running 8 like Higginbotham or Holloway.
That will be a balanced back row with McMahon on the bench.

We'll get murdered at the breakdown..........

Fardy/Hooper/Timani, with Arnold and Coleman in the second row would cover all bases.........

But that's for 2017, and another thread.

 

[Brumby Runner]

How is it obscure? They have explained their decision, it isn't an unreasonable premise.

And Pocock is a better 8 than Timani, Timani has been solid, but he hasn't been running bigger meters or making more tackles than Pocock will @ 8

It was obscure to me FP at the time as I hadn't seen the Cheika comments on the front page. Otherwise, I will disagree with you to some extent re the No 8 spot. Pocock may be better at some of the No 8 tasks than Timani, but LT is better than Poey at taking the line on with ball in hand.

IMO the strongest and most combative backrow we could put together would be Fardy, Pocock, Timani, and the balance of skills in that format would (again imo) offer the best combination we could put out against Ireland in those spots. Hard at the breakdown to combat O'Brien et al, and still offer as many or more options at the lineout. Really only a split hair between Mumm and Fardy at lineout, while Timani is a stronger lineout option than Hooper.

 

[PeterK]

PK, Timani and Hooper perform completely different roles so comparing them is a litte apples and oranges, plus Timani has in no way impressed more than Hooper has in the tour. You just want Hooper benched for Pocock, which is fine. Don't think it'll happen if the upside is merely having Timani starting.

So who performs Timani's role then? Pocock surely doesn't, he performs the 7's role.

Hooper performs a linking role and playing wide and loose.

The issue is without Timani no one performs his vital role whilst Hoopers role is not as vital with Pocock starting.

 

[dru]

PK

From what I see the role is not an individual. You look to the inner pod which tends to be the locks plus whoever is loose that is not Hooper or Pocock.

Works better with Coleman than Simmons for sure.

But if you are looking for forward bustle in attack that is the 2 pods. the 1 and 1 in the 1-3-3-1 have a different sort of role, includes making the gain line, but not in the middle of the pigs.

 

[PeterK]

PK

From what I see the role is not an individual. You look to the inner pod which tends to be the locks plus whoever is loose that is not Hooper or Pocock.

Works better with Coleman than Simmons for sure.

But if you are looking for forward bustle in attack that is the 2 pods. the 1 and 1 in the 1-3-3-1 have a different sort of role, includes making the gain line, but not in the middle of the pigs.

Timani is really needed for that with Coleman out.

Also in defense to drive backwards the big irish ball carriers. No one there to do that now so they get a roll on and get over easily time and again.

 

[tragic]

The pooper is a liability against sides with a strong line out. It also means we lose the impact and go forward of a traditional 8 and have to pick a 6 based on lineout skill rather than impact in general play.
The back row balance of this side is all wrong again.
Unfortunately there is a high risk of this going the same way as the games against the ABs and England, for exactly the same reasons.

 

[Zero_Cool]

The pooper is a liability against sides with a strong line out. It also means we lose the impact and go forward of a traditional 8 and have to pick a 6 based on lineout skill rather than impact in general play.
The back row balance of this side is all wrong again.
Unfortunately there is a high risk of this going the same way as the games against the ABs and England, for exactly the same reasons.

I don't think Pocok / Hooper is a liability in the lineout if we have two second rowers who are actually good in the lineout, while it does force the selection of the 6 to have the lineout as a strong consideration for the spot.

While it isn't ideal if we were to be smart and short change our lineout you can ameliorate that weakness in a similar way to how Argentina do. I agree it isn't an ideal solution, and deprives you of the lineout or tactical kicking as a weapon.

I think all selections are a compromise, and can see the logic behind moving Hooper to the bench (or Pococok but I do think Hooper would be the a slightly better selection to start).
But what we really need is someone who is proficient in the lineout and not awful around the park.

 

[Braveheart81]

Sean O'Brien and Jared Payne both sat out the captain's run today and must be in some doubt.

Schmidt insists they are fine but clearly there is a chance they won't be. It was the same situation with Quade last week.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Spruce Moose]

Sean O'Brien and Jared Payne both sat out the captain's run today and must be in some doubt.

Schmidt insists they are fine but clearly there is a chance they won't be. It was the same situation with Quade last week.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

BBC saying they have brought O'Mahony and Scannell in as cover. Guess this could end up being a test of Irish depth.

 

[dru]

I don't think Pocok / Hooper is a liability in the lineout if we have two second rowers who are actually good in the lineout, while it does force the selection of the 6 to have the lineout as a strong consideration for the spot.

This is the perenial problem. In this case Ireland normally have 4 recognised jumpers. Proper mobile giraffes with jumping credentials, not just short 7's adding variety. It says something about how they view the WB LO that they run only three for this test.

2 jumpers in the WB is almost never enough. So when we call up the Pooper a compromise in the third loosie is inevitable.

As selected: we should match them in the LO. We should match them at ruck turn overs.

On another note, in the backs we are better in the centres, maybe they have an edge wide. Countered a touch by Hooper Pocock in the tramway.

The teams play something of a possession game when they can. The attrition will be interesting. We really need that fast ball as a differentiator, and hope that our pods stand up, because on paper Ireland look better in the engine room.

 

[dru]

BBC saying they have brought O'Mahony and Scannell in as cover. Guess this could end up being a test of Irish depth.

O'Mahoney is the 4th jumper. LO gain, though this puts more pressure on Jackson's tactical kicking game.

Scannell has been squad cover all week. At 94kg he's one of their larger centres. No loss one way or the other to Ireland.

 

[TOCC]

I don't think Pocok / Hooper is a liability in the lineout if we have two second rowers who are actually good in the lineout, while it does force the selection of the 6 to have the lineout as a strong consideration for the spot.

While it isn't ideal if we were to be smart and short change our lineout you can ameliorate that weakness in a similar way to how Argentina do. I agree it isn't an ideal solution, and deprives you of the lineout or tactical kicking as a weapon..

Pooper is certainly a lineout liability

You can be creative and smart all you like, but the simple issue is that 3 jumpers is better then 2... watch the Wallabies lineouts from earlier in the year when there were only 2 jumpers, They tried to be smart by having players moving all throughout the line out and it only made things worse..

 

[Heavyd]

This is the weakest Wallaby team in two decades. I will suggest that the Wallabies are in for a wake up call of where they sit in global rugbys pecking Order over the next two weeks. Any side Dean Mumm is in can only be described as weak. Cheika needs to pick on form and not legacy favourites. Dropping Timani for that cream puff is a disgrace.

 

[Zero_Cool]

This is the weakest Wallaby team in two decades. I will suggest that the Wallabies are in for a wake up call of where they sit in global rugbys pecking Order over the next two weeks.

Well it's a good thing for the Wallabies they can't fall below their current ranking of third regardless of their performances over the next two weeks.

 

[Scrubber2050]

This is the weakest Wallaby team in two decades. I will suggest that the Wallabies are in for a wake up call of where they sit in global rugbys pecking Order over the next two weeks. Any side Dean Mumm is in can only be described as weak. Cheika needs to pick on form and not legacy favourites. Dropping Timani for that cream puff is a disgrace.

Whilst I would choose a few others as well as a couple of positional changes I think your statement is well off the mark.

However the one thing I do agree with in your post is the Timani dropping is just crazy.

 

[KevinO]

Well it's a good thing for the Wallabies they can't fall below their current ranking of third regardless of their performances over the next two weeks.

They lose to Ireland and England with one being by more than 10 points they will drop to 4th.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[Micheal]

This is the weakest Wallaby team in two decades. I will suggest that the Wallabies are in for a wake up call of where they sit in global rugbys pecking Order over the next two weeks. Any side Dean Mumm is in can only be described as weak. Cheika needs to pick on form and not legacy favourites. Dropping Timani for that cream puff is a disgrace.

What a silly alarmist statement. Due to the Irish lineout, the choices were:

6. Lineout jumper
7. Pooper
8. Pooper

6. Lineout jumper.
7. Pocock / Hooper
8. Timani

Cheika simply believes that either Hooper or Pocock add more around the park than Timani and as they have consistently been our two best forwards for yonks I don't think thats an outrageous call. I don't agree with it but I don't have to in order to see the logic behind it.

That then leaves us with the question: who should this lineout operator be? Obviously, its either Fardy or Mumm and as I've said numerous times I really don't think theres much between them outside of popular opinion. I'd take Fardy over Mumm, but I'd take Dempsey or someone new over both of them. Doesn't mean I can't see the logic.

Further, I do think the balance of the pack is out as we have no heavy hitters but three relatively soft lock / six options (Arnold, Simmons, Mumm) and two eager dwarfs (Pocock, Hooper) but for me to convert my own subjective disappointment into a frighteningly hyperbolic objective statement such as "This is the weakest Wallaby team in two decades" would reflect all the maturity of a petulant child.

I do not mean to offend you by saying that, but as I've been saying for a while now I really do think people have to be held accountable on this forum for eroding the tone and quality of discourse by ridiculous statements such as that. Especially when you're utterly incorrect in your belief that the Wallabies will plummet in the rankings to historical lows to reflect how historically bad they are.

Fortunately, I know you're wrong about that but unfortunately others do not. They will read this, take it as true because of the authority with which you typed your message and then go splatter it elsewhere.

Every Monday at work I turn up after a Wallabies game and a couple of desks away from me sit a group of 50 something year olds who spew some of the most ill informed pessimistic bullshit that they seemingly pick up from somewhere within the Rugby media of this country (The Roar, SMH etc). They're the type of guys who don't have the time to trudge through the facts to form their own opinion, but they're interested enough in the sport to have one. As such, they just pluck their opinion from some arbitrary source.

We have the ability, as the rusted on supporters, to control the way in which this game is viewed within the country. If we sit here predicting the end because a player we don't like was picked at blindside fucking flanker then what are fringe fans supposed to think? How are we supposed to convert AFL fans and A League fans into new supporters?

Everything's been overwhelmingly negative recently and allowing that type of culture to exist within Australian Rugby will destroy the game faster than anything else can. Certainly faster than Bill Pulver, the ARU, the NRC, or Dean Mumm at 6 can.

Edit: hang on, the rants not over.

I've recently been getting more into my AFL and I've always been into my cricket but I suppose I definitely feel a lot dirtier about the first half of that sentence. I've also been anti-AFL most of my life, but why the sudden change?

Its because my mates have taken me along to games this season (they're all mad for it) and, quite frankly, its just such a good time when you go (at Waratahs games you simply have a choice of old, annoying, complaining git with a season pass to sit next to). Most games I went to I probably couldn't even have told you who won when I'd left - I still don't even know what half the teams are called. Its an overwhelmingly positive and social environment and even the negativity in both codes (AFL and Cricket) is bizarrely somehow positive. Atleast in a smart-arsey, sarcastic type of way that I feel reflects Australian humour quite well.

How'd cricket respond to Watson's seemingly perpetual form slump? The young cricketing fanbase actually split on that one - half of them fell in love with the bloke for how eternally and incredibly shit he was (compared to his potential) and the other half flooded the internet with memes suggesting that anything and everything (inanimate objects, animals, was going to "replace Watson at 3". It was hilarious.

Likewise, half my AFL fans absolutely adore the shittest players on their teams, despiting hating their performances. Why? Because in a weird, fucked up kind of way they think its funny to see them continually get selected when they can't fathom why. Their love for their team / code also outweighs any personal dislike for the bloke himself.

With that in mind, I wouldn't pick Dean Mumm and I hope he's not picked next week as I think [Fardy, Hooper / Pocock, Timani] would be a stronger backrow but wouldn't it be fantastic if Mumm plays the most shocking game of his life, somehow scores a brilliant game winning try to make everyone confused about his performance and then gets picked again next week? The internet would implode and some members of this forum would probably have an aneurysm.

Lets not forget its just entertainment, and can be viewed as such if you really put your mind to it.

 

[Micheal]

Anywaaaaaaaaaaay - I've only just caught up on the French Barbarians game and the game against France before that due to being quite busy over the last little while.

I think Naivalu had a cracking first half against France and Morahan had a really solid game as well. I'd love to see one persisted with over Speight as I feel he hasn't delivered in his chances to date.

In terms of the bench, I'd like to see McMahon dropped as I think he's still not fully over his ankle injury and having Hooper / Pocock / McMahon in the same 23 is too much for me.

He's also doesn't have the profile that we need to complement the starting XV if everything goes to shit. If we're getting monstered in contact and at the breakdown we'll need some larger bodies to take the field. Douglas and Timani will do this far better.

I'd like to see Quade get 20 minutes and I'd like to see Naivalu get some serious game time as well. I also would love for Cheika to duct tape some huge sponges to the tops of Genia's boots so he physically can not box kick.

I'm fucking excited for this game. How goods Spring tour footy? France last week, some weird shitty sloppy game against a random bunch of French fuckwits yesterday and I hated but it was fantastic regardless and they really stuck it to us so credit to them but my god we should've won. To top it all off, Ireland tomorrow and England next week?! Variety is the spice of life and at the moment I'm a fucking chicken tikka masala.

It also helps we're not playing the All Blacks week in week out (or SA at altitude). Pumped as.

 

[PeterK]

Michael - I did like your last 2 posts.

However name what years the wallabies had weaker teams in the last 20 years because when I look at them man for man I am struggling to find weaker ones.

 

[Micheal]

Michael - I did like your last 2 posts.

However name what years the wallabies had weaker teams in the last 20 years because when I look at them man for man I am struggling to find weaker ones.

As I've previously mentioned, anything pre-2000 I think is a silly comparison. Apples and oranges.

Instead, lets look at recent history. The side who got us to the RWC 2015 Grand Final must've been pretty decent, right? Man for man I see this team as largely the same in strength as the team that got us there. Its the mental edge thats let us down recently.

15. Folau = Folau
14. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) > Speight [-1]
13. Kuridrani = Kuridrani
12. Giteau < Hodge (on form, not legacy or career-high form) [0]
11. Mitchell < DHP [1]
10. Foley = Foley
9. Genia = Genia
8. Pocock = Pocock
7. Hooper = Hooper
6. Fardy > Mumm [0]
5. Douglas = Douglas
4. Simmons = Simmons
3. Kepu = Kepu
2. Moore = Moore
1. Sio = Sio

16. TPN = Latu
17. Slipper = Slipper
18. Holmes < AAA [1]
19. Mumm < Douglas [2]
20. McCalman < Timani [3]
21. Phipps = Phipps
22. To'omua > Naivalu [2]
23. KB (Kurtley Beale) > Cooper [1]

Above a cumulative counter is shown for the inequalities (-1 for a worse player, 1 for a better) To compare, I used 2015 form vs. 2016 form for each player. Where the players were the same, they were assumed equal. My very rough and very shitty counter actually has the 2016 Wallabies as a superior team, but that should be disregarded as its a shit metric and says absolutely nothing. Instead, my intent was to show that a team that was considered very strong and clearly second best in the world is not that far from a team that is now being dubbed "the worst Wallabies team in 20 years". Even if this is the worst Wallabies team in 20 years, it shows that the difference between a strong team and a poor team is very marginal, and that alone should constrain any negativity on this forum as I'm sure we can, and I'm sure we will, recover very soon.

Some controversial decisions would be at 12, 16 and 18. But thats just my opinion.

I think everyone just needs to cool it a bit.