Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC

[baz]

Agreed on all your points. Is not a SBW with ball in hand
And becoz the game is now being refereed to favour the attacking players retaining the ball at ruck time, his roving looking for opportunities doesn't expose us at the back on turnover ball as much as it once did

 

[Viking]

Cooper > Foley. I don't know about you but I cream my pants at the thought of Coopers skill with Larkham's guidance.

 

[Braveheart81]

Cooper > Foley. I don't know about you but I cream my pants at the thought of Coopers skill with Larkham's guidance.

Cooper last played very good rugby for a few games on the 2013 EOYT.

He needs to find similar form again otherwise he's not going to be starting at 10 for the Wallabies.

 

[Viking]

Cooper last played very good rugby for a few games on the 2013 EOYT.

He needs to find similar form again otherwise he's not going to be starting at 10 for the Wallabies.

I agree. It's still a nice thought though isn't it? A player of Coopers skill with Larkham's vision and mentality. The ultimate 10. Although obviously just a thought.

I was pretty happy with Coopers performance last game. I think he is on the right track and definitely has a good chance to challenge Foley.

 

[baz]

So what is form? QC (Quade Cooper) has probably the best passing game in world rugby IMHO

but he blows hot and cold BECOZ he plays a high risk game. Beale is similar

They are both superb in dominant teams but....Not so hot when up against the best

So is 3 good games form

1 good season?

Old adage: Form is temporary. Class is permanent

IMHO To'omua is class. Beale and Cooper type players can be 'in form' and "out of form" depending on how many of their high risk plays came off in recent games

On HQ Beale is always in form becoz you see highlight reels of the rabbits he plucks out of hat. Only a few special players can do that BUT also remember, only a few "special" players ever attempt it. Hence HOT or COLD
High risk can equal high reward, or not. The stats suggest more often not....

but with our current forwards, can we win a RWC without taking risks ...

The scrum alone could kill us

 

[Viking]

Form is used loosely in these forums. I think I need to remind everyone, that whilst Super Rugby form is a great indicator, it does not equal Test level form.

This is why players who have proven themselves at Test level should be preferred over those that haven't.

Cooper last played very good rugby for a few games on the 2013 EOYT.
.

Cooper HAS played very good rugby. We know he is capable of doing so. This should work in his favour.

Foley has not played VERY GOOD RUGBY at Test level. He has played arguably poor/average/good/solid - (take your pick, but it certainly hasn't been very good).

I think players like JOC (James O'Connor), Cooper, Fardy, Slipper, Pocock, Moore, Hooper are in this category. They have all played more then a handleful of world-class games at Test level. Unless they are playing very poorly, then they don't need to set the world alight in super xv to be considered.

 

[Braveheart81]

Cooper HAS played very good rugby. We know he is capable of doing so. This should work in his favour.

Cooper has also played some absolutely terrible test rugby so you can't just use the fact that he's played some excellent tests as the rule that makes him a must to select regardless of form.

Form is very important, particularly when it is a close run race. I think there are only one or two players who would still be in the starting XV if there form at Super Rugby level was pretty poor. Mostly, we have competition for places and generally the competition is between players who also have significant test experience.

I think it's a long bow to draw to suggest that all Cooper should have to do is be playing reasonably and he will or should be starting for the Wallabies. He was not the Wallabies starting 10 last year and he's missed the first half a dozen games of this season through injury. I think the ball is well and truly in his court to force himself ahead of Foley.

I tend to think Israel Folau and Sekope Kepu are close to the only players in the side who will still be in the starting XV even if their form at Super Rugby level is struggling at the end of the season.

 

[Floggn']

If we're moving one of our flyhalves to fullback Foley makes more sense.

Foley is a far worse tackler than Cooper and yes that is saying something.

 

[Viking]

Cooper has also played some absolutely terrible test rugby so you can't just use the fact that he's played some excellent tests as the rule that makes him a must to select regardless of form.

Form is very important, particularly when it is a close run race. I think there are only one or two players who would still be in the starting XV if there form at Super Rugby level was pretty poor. Mostly, we have competition for places and generally the competition is between players who also have significant test experience.

I think it's a long bow to draw to suggest that all Cooper should have to do is be playing reasonably and he will or should be starting for the Wallabies. He was not the Wallabies starting 10 last year and he's missed the first half a dozen games of this season through injury. I think the ball is well and truly in his court to force himself ahead of Foley.

I tend to think Israel Folau and Sekope Kepu are close to the only players in the side who will still be in the starting XV even if their form at Super Rugby level is struggling at the end of the season.

I never said he should be a must. I said it should be considered, Meaning current form as well as past Test performances should be taken into account. Personally I think a good/solid super xv + great international Test history > superb xv form with poor or no intentional history. In the Foley and Cooper case, if they had equally good seasons, Cooper should get the nod for his better display at international level.

I agree with you on Falou and Kepu. Although I think Moore/TPN, Slipper, Fardy, Hooper/Pocock, JOC (James O'Connor) (as a winger) are in this category. Unless some-one else has an absolute blinder of a season then I think they only need solid super xv season to be a starter.

A poor super season can see anyone dropped but a solid season is good enough for these guys.

Cooper is probably a bit of stretch for this category, personally I would put him in there.

 

[Dave Beat]

I agree with you on Falou and Kepu. Although I think Moore/TPN, Slipper, Fardy, Hooper/Pocock, JOC (James O'Connor) (as a winger) are in this category. Unless some-one else has an absolute blinder of a season then I think they only need solid super xv season to be a starter.

A poor super season can see anyone dropped but a solid season is good enough for these guys.

Cooper is probably a bit of stretch for this category, personally I would put him in there.

Yeah with you
On form
Cooper
Hooper / Poey selection.
Just hope we have no injuries this year.

 

[Viking]

If I was a selector:

Proven Test players. (These guys are proven starters. Super form is taken lightly. Only way they will be dropped is if they have a very poor season, or if the challenger has a player-of-the-season effort).
Slipper
Moore/TPN - form decides these 2, but the next guy in line needs exceptional season to prove himself.
Hooper/Pocock - Same as above
Falou
Kepu
Fardy
JOC (James O'Connor) (as a winger)

Test Players (some good games, some bad, or still questions marks on certain weaknesses etc. Super form is taken significantly).
To'omua
McCalman
Horne
Foley
Lilo
Carter
Higgers
Tomane
Palu
White
Phipps
Genia

Non-proven Test Players (might be capped already but more bad games then good, and still need to prove themselves. They need to be the best in their position at super xv level to be considered).
Beale
Alexander
Pretty much all other players.

I think Cooper is inbetween "Proven" and "Test". There probably also some out-liners like Speight who fit into another category. Maybe called "bolters" where they are selected on potential and form.

That's my personal opinion. I would be interested in comparing with the rest of the forum.

 

[Braveheart81]

Beale has been part of every big Australian win in the last 5 years (things such as RWC quarter final, Australia winning at altitude in South Africa, beating NZ in Hong Kong to end a streak, beating NZ in Brisbane in 2011 etc.)

He's certainly been inconsistent and had some shocking games. I'd argue that he's no less inconsistent than Cooper. Likewise, Cooper has been part of all those important wins too. He's also been at the centre of some of our worst performances. In many ways, Cooper and Beale's test careers are remarkably similar.

 

[Train Without a Station]

And those "big Australian wins" in the last 5 years all occurred 4 years ago didn't they?

 

[Braveheart81]

And those "big Australian wins" in the last 5 years all occurred 4 years ago didn't they?

That is correct. That would be part of the reason why we're sitting 6th on the rankings now.

We haven't beaten NZ since 2011. We've only had two draws since then.

 

[Train Without a Station]

But your logic that Beale was not a "not-proven test player" (probably a poor choice of words by Seb) was due to him being part of our biggest wins in the last 5 years. But considering they were 4 years ago, what has he done since?

Has he improved his shortcomings? Many would argue they are more prevalent than ever.

Has he grown and developed his game? Many would argue that much like 2011, he's a non-entity when the pack isn't competing strongly.

When since then has he put in great test performances?

I'd argue that 2010/2011 has been the anomaly in his international career and that 2014 is actually closer to what to expect from him.

Compare that to Cooper who was very similar in 2010 and 2011. Hey, when you're hot, you're hot. Right? Come 2012 his weaknesses were well exposed. Difference was he worked on them and eradicated them to come back in 2013 better. He developed his kicking game and game management, he improved his defense and willingness in contact.

But much like Seb's point, despite not being exceptional in 2013 Super Rugby, he was exceptional for many of his test performances that year.

 

[Viking]

Quality post @TWAS.

I agree with it all. Beale has way more shortcomings as a Test player then Cooper. The biggest indicator, like you mentioned, Cooper has improved his shortcomings significantly whereas Beale has not.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I think we're sometimes a bit guilty of focusing too much on individuals with potential star quality, rather than combinations, game plans and incremental team improvements that over time make a big difference. This is why we argue about who should play 10 or 12 when in fact our biggest issue is winning the battle in the set pieces and at the breakdown. You don't consistently win test matches without winning in those areas. It's easy to see why we focus on these guys though: identifying and fixing the problems in the forwards is much harder than inserting talented player X at five-eighth.

If we sort out our issues in the forwards I don't think the choice between Foley and Cooper (for example) will matter anywhere near as much. If either of those blokes get the ball going forward they and the guys outside them will create mayhem for the opposition.

 

[BDA]

I think it's a long bow to draw to suggest that all Cooper should have to do is be playing reasonably and he will or should be starting for the Wallabies. He was not the Wallabies starting 10 last year and he's missed the first half a dozen games of this season through injury. I think the ball is well and truly in his court to force himself ahead of Foley.

I don't disagree with this, but realistically what does Cooper have to do to prove he should be preferred ahead of Foley?

Although the Reds lost on the weekend, from my point of view the benefits of having Cooper on the field were immediately obvious. If he was able to show some decent place-kicking form (presumably our 10 will be the primary kicker) and have maybe one or two stand out games, it would perhaps be enough for me personally to choose him ahead of Foley.

But realistically these are the main factors working against Cooper:-
1. Cheika didn't even consider giving Cooper a start on tour despite consecutive losses.
2. Foley has an established partnership with Phipps (our starting 9) and is much more familiar with the style of rugby Cheika will implement.

In relation to item 2 above, I cant argue with that logic. Foley is comfortable in that role and the players are now getting use to what he provides in that role. In relation to item 1 above, I cant help but be critical of Cheika for missing an opportunity in November. The decision not to give Cooper a start in those last 4 test matches puts Cooper at a major disadvantage coming into the test season.

For the record, I like both of our 10s. Foley does like to run at the defence more than Cooper, so I like that attribute of his play. Plus I think he has generally good game management and makes minimal errors. With that said, I think our attack will be more threatening under Cooper due to his passing game. As a team the main area we have an advantage over the opposition is the attacking strength of our outside backs. Cooper can bring them into play better than any other 10. It would have been nice if Cheika had really given Cooper a crack on the EOYT to see what he could bring to the table.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't disagree with this, but realistically what does Cooper have to do to prove he should be preferred ahead of Foley?

Although the Reds lost on the weekend, from my point of view the benefits of having Cooper on the field were immediately obvious. If he was able to show some decent place-kicking form (presumably our 10 will be the primary kicker) and have maybe one or two stand out games, it would perhaps be enough for me personally to choose him ahead of Foley.

But realistically these are the main factors working against Cooper:-
1. Cheika didn't even consider giving Cooper a start on tour despite consecutive losses.
2. Foley has an established partnership with Phipps (our starting 9) and is much more familiar with the style of rugby Cheika will implement.

Cooper started against the Barbarians and wasn't particularly good. He was good off the bench later in the tour but it was hardly compelling in terms of selections when we lost tests due to scrum penalties and penalty tries.

I think the likelihood is that Cooper will need to look like an obvious choice for the 10 jersey to get first crack come July. Otherwise Foley will be wearing it.

 

[Godfrey]

Assuming the pack is going forward, the biggest benefit I see of Cooper over Foley is Cooper's ability to unlock the "finishing" move. There were many times the Wallabies were 5m out from the tryline with Foley and they just couldn't crack it. Cooper seems to get his hackles up and be so confident in that situation at organising the team and picking the opportunity to put someone over. When I see Foley do things like dummying to an open player 5m from the tryline and getting tackled I get really annoyed as the 5/8 should have better instincts. He did this twice last year, including almost costing the Argentina match. We already have an AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) to fulfil this role.

I thought the 2013 EOYT model of Cooper starting 5/8 with Foley coming on to tear up in the last 15 was great, I'd to see everything fall into place form-wise to get there again.