• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scrubber2050

Scrubber2050

Mark Ella (57)
Albert's take
1. Slipper
2 Moore
3 Kepu
4 Simmons
5 Skelton
6 Fardy
7 Pocock/ Hooper - cannot decide - the one not chosen not in 23
8 Palu
9 Phipps
10 Foley
11 Horne (until Henry returns)r
12 To'omua
13 Kurindraini
14 Tomane
15 Folau
16 Polotau Nau
17 Sio
18 Holmes
19 Carter
20 Higgers
21 White
22 Lealilifano
23 Horne
 
southsider

southsider

Arch Winning (36)
Micheal said:
Again, I didn't say that. You are putting words in my mouth (keyboard?).

I simply questioned how they define a tackle and how that translates to actually performance on the field.

But thank you for offering and next time you bump into them, no need to ask them to change their process maybe just ask them for an explanation of it?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Tackler is defined in statistics as anyone who makes a decent contribution to the attacking player going to ground eg when pockcock plays he is often second man in and doesn't really do anything besides pushes the attacker down with his hands because he is waiting for the pilfer so he is not considered a tackler

A missed tackle occurs obviously when a player gets run over/around but also when a player even gets a hand to the attacker or even when they are in a position where they should have got a hand to them eg a dummy or a player being extra lazy

Ineffective tackle is when a offload occurs
 
USARugger

USARugger

John Thornett (49)
fatprop said:
Quite an interesting article on Beale's defensive frailties

http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/06/26/is-kurtley-beale-a-bad-defender-a-statistical-analysis/

Basically he misses one tackle more per game than most; and what is truly bizarre, for the Tahs, when he doesn't miss tackles, they are more likely to lose :confused:
Click to expand...
​
Yeah it's definitely interesting what kind of tosh you can turn up when you use a few thousand words and a heap of statistical manipulation.​
​
TWAS covered the rest in the comments under the article. It's a lot of words and numbers that don't really say anything other than that the author was willing to go to ridiculous lengths to make their argument, rationale be damned.​
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Brendan Hume said:
I think this is a great opportunity to blood players in a squad environment. When you consider the players that won't be around next year, and the prospects/potential of some of the blokes who weren't selected, would it not be a great opportunity to get them in the same camp working their arses off? I think going into camp is a fantastic learning opportunity. I'm not sure how much it costs to add extra blokes in - I'm assuming they're already paid by their franchise/ARU top ups and it would only be a matter of stumping up for some kit, accommodation and food. That to me is a small price to pay to improve the experience of a player that might come into the squad next year.
Click to expand...


I agree with that part of it but I think that gets heavily outweighed by wanting to pick experienced players who you hope will have the requisite form to have in your final squad.

If a whole bunch of the players who were on the bubble were the guys going overseas next year then I'd agree that they should be left out to blood new players but that generally isn't the case. JOC (James O'Connor) is probably the only player in that situation right now although there's some doubt over where he'll be next year. You could argue that one of White and Genia could be and you could pick Stirzacker instead of one of them but I wouldn't have.

In a RWC year I don't think any consideration should be or would be given to trying to expose new players to the squad environment unless you absolutely think they're a realistic chance to figure in the final squad.
 
J

john mcgomery

Guest
Scrubber2050 said:
Albert's take
1. Slipper
2 Moore
3 Kepu
4 Simmons
5 Skelton
6 Fardy
7 Pocock/ Hooper - cannot decide - the one not chosen not in 23
8 Palu
9 Phipps
10 Foley
11 Horne (until Henry returns)r
12 To'omua
13 Kurindraini
14 Tomane
15 Folau
16 Polotau Nau
17 Sio
18 Holmes
19 Carter
20 Higgers
21 White
22 Lealilifano
23 Horne
Click to expand...


Not too dissimilar to mine. However, Palu has shown himself in test rugby that he is ineffective. Yes he has the size and defence but you lose two line out abilities with him and Skelton on the field. Hence play higginbotham or McCalman to add to line out options. Leave AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) out completely, as much as I think tomane is a great player , he is too inconsistent at test level, as AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) has proven himself time and time again. As for Cooper/ foley it will be interesting to see who cheika goes with!
 
ACT Crusader

ACT Crusader

Jim Lenehan (48)
It's not often the national selectors get to pick a massive training squad like this - happens every 4 years. It's not only an opportunity to see where guys are at for the WC but with an eye to the future. This is particularly relevant with the "4 year cycle" and player exodus after WC's.

A large squad with different faces can also create a different dynamic of competitiveness within, even if the selectors know weeks beforehand that it is highly unlikely that they will got to the WC.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
john mcgomery said:
Not too dissimilar to mine. However, Palu has shown himself in test rugby that he is ineffective. Yes he has the size and defence but you lose two line out abilities with him and Skelton on the field. Hence play higginbotham or McCalman to add to line out options.
Click to expand...


When exactly have Higginbotham and McCalman shown themselves to be more effective at test level against top class opposition? Both have had a couple of decent performances off the bench but never as a starter.

All our number 8 options have struggled to be consistently effective against the All Blacks or Springboks.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
ACT Crusader said:
It's not often the national selectors get to pick a massive training squad like this - happens every 4 years. It's not only an opportunity to see where guys are at for the WC but with an eye to the future. This is particularly relevant with the "4 year cycle" and player exodus after WC's.

A large squad with different faces can also create a different dynamic of competitiveness within, even if the selectors know weeks beforehand that it is highly unlikely that they will got to the WC.
Click to expand...


And it will be. Of the 22 names announced already, 5 are uncapped and 3 more have played 3 or less tests.
 
fatprop

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
john mcgomery said:
Not too dissimilar to mine. However, Palu has shown himself in test rugby that he is ineffective. Yes he has the size and defence but you lose two line out abilities with him and Skelton on the field. Hence play higginbotham or McCalman to add to line out options. Leave AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) out completely, as much as I think tomane is a great player , he is too inconsistent at test level, as AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) has proven himself time and time again. As for Cooper/ foley it will be interesting to see who cheika goes with!
Click to expand...


Funny how Palu is considered not up to it by everyone but the players who play next to him
 
J

john mcgomery

Guest
Braveheart81 said:
When exactly have Higginbotham and McCalman shown themselves to be more effective at test level against top class opposition? Both have had a couple of decent performances off the bench but never as a starter.

All our number 8 options have struggled to be consistently effective against the All Blacks or Springboks.
Click to expand...

Never said they were more effective, said there's not much difference between the three, you just lose a line out option with Palu. However, McCalman did have a good tour last spring. If you want a ball carrying 8 you go for ita Vaea- the 8 in form in Aus conference
 
J

john mcgomery

Guest
If you think Palu is the best option at No 8 after the two previous years of super rugby and tests matches, you're obviously a one-eyed waratahs supporter
 
Joeleee

Joeleee

Ted Fahey (11)
john mcgomery said:
If you think Palu is the best option at No 8 after the two previous years of super rugby and tests matches, you're obviously a one-eyed waratahs supporter
Click to expand...


He has an immense work rate, is bruising in defense and is a more than capable ball runner and operator at the back of the scrum. An argument can be made for him not being the first choice 8, but to claim it's impossible to think so is a fair way off the mark.
 
Grandmaster Flash

Grandmaster Flash

Johnnie Wallace (23)
Instead of the optimum 23 for the RWC, which I don't think will be settled until post RC, I'm going for a 31-man squad, picking two of every position +1, either a hooker or halfback.

So...

1/ Slipper, Sio
2/ Moore, TPN
3/ Kepu, Holmes
4/ Simmons, Dennis
5/ Skelton, Horwill
6/ Fardy, Higgers
7/ Pocock, Hooper
8/ Palu, McCalman
9/ Phipps, Genia
10/ Foley, Cooper
11/ Horne, Tomane
12/ To'omua, Lealiifano
13/ Kuridrani, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
14/ Speight, JOC (James O'Connor)
15/ Folau, Beale

31/ Giteau

So Gits is the reserve rserve halfback and backup 10/12. Think Dennis will sneak in due to leadership, experience, solidness and Cheika. No real bolters and I don't think there will be, unless there's injuries during the RC. Obviously Beale and JOC (James O'Connor) will grind at some people due to lack of form etc, but realistically, they'll be in the 31.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top