Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC

[ACT Crusader]

Yeah, that sounds like him


He's not a starter yet, but after those numbers (which also don't include his maul defence) I don't see how you could NOT take him. I don't get the logic in taking 3 options who are clearly not as good?

"Clearly not as good"?? Even the stats and from an armchairs view doesn't indicate that he he clearly above all others.

Vaea gets the opportunity to push for test selection, but he will have to play the house down in whatever opportunity he gets to push ahead of the others. That is often the case when a player is on the fringe in what is a relatively strong area for the Wallabies.

From an opposition fan's perspective, the Wallabies don't have issues in the back row, the issues are midfield experience, 9/10 combo, lock and back up props.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I think you are rewriting history a bit there BR. I distinctly recall Giteau being one of the Brumbies best in the lacklustre 2011 season, and remember sitting in a post-match presser where Tony Rea said that the team's main problem was relying too heavily on Gits.

Actually Rea was quite effusive about Giteau, as a quick google search confirms- http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/union/8262772/giteau-a-must-for-wallabies-says-rea

I'm not saying he was great, just not as terrible as you suggest. It's also flawed to judge him on his 2011 form, because if you were doing that then Kurtley Beale would be one of the first guys you picked.
.

Too much to respond to here Barbs, but I'll give it a go.

Matt Giteau was not playing good in 2011. When he came back from WA, most of the fans at the stadium thought the sun shone out of his arse. But by the end of the season, there was hardly a fan left in Canberra who thought he was worth the money being paid or worth his spot in the team. It matters not a jot what a coach says in those circumstances. Rea was just a fill in and probably not much good at it either. Even Steven Larkham whom I admire as a player and as a person, has defended Giteau during the period he has been away, but I don't personally put any credence in a statement by someone who was more than a colleague, but a friend, of the one being lauded. It remains true that the Brumbies had one of their worst years ever in 2011 and that in that year Matt Giteau did not have a very positive impact at all for the team. He really was as terrible as I have suggested. I would not be happy to see him included in the Wallabies at the expense of any of Genia, White, Foley, Cooper, To'omua or Lealiifano.

As far as saying that I should select Beale on his 2011 form, I'll remind you that there were at least a dozen (slight exaggeration) Reds' players from that year who achieved a hell of a lot more than KB (Kurtley Beale) so, NO, he would not be one of the first picked imo.

Unfortunately, I fear I am going to be bitterly disappointed when the Wallaby squad is announced and both Giteau and Beale are in it. But I am just a sure that one or both will let the side down before they achieve their RWC dream this year.

 

[Brumbieman]

Because the side isn't selected on the basis of raw stats.

McCalman, Higgers and Palu all have years of experience under their belt and all played good test rugby in 2014. All proven, and all in decent 2015 form. Vaea just doesn't have enough upside to get in ahead of them.
.

Sure, I agree they have experience.

Palu has spent 10 years and never showed up v NZ or SA.

McCalman has run himself to a standstill trying to make an impact, and has been a fairly lightweight 8. I really love the guy, but he's not someone who will make metres in tight when several people are trying to shut him down, which Vaea has been doing all year, albeit at Super Rugby level.

Higgers has done SFA at test level, other than be a petulant cheap shot merchant whilst acting as an enforcer. He's been a flaky seagull in a good chunk of those matches. I'm not sure which games in 2014 he played that were good, I don't remember him being much chop.

We've been looking for an 8 that combines the best of all of the options, and aside from the lineout, Vaea has shown in his numbers that he's had the wood on everyone, and he's done that in his first season back in pro rugby, which is just astounding. The other's have years of fitness and experience to have called upon to make a better contribution to their team, what's the excuse?

 

[Intruder]

While I don't think Palu will be replaced as starting Wallaby #8 (Chieka's view). I can definitely see Vaea coming on with 20 or 30 to go and provide some great impact especially in a pool with England's Vunipola and the Welsh Faletau we could send out our very own Tongan hit men to nullify them.

I think Chieka will take two of each and I've chopped and changed my selections especially in the back row;

6. Fardy, Higginbotham
7. Pocock, Hooper
8. Palu, Vaea

McMahon, Smith, McCalman, Gill

 

[qwerty51]

Has this been reported yet? We have Poite vs England.

Literally needed to be anyone but him.

Joubert vs Wales

 

[Joe Blow]

I'd say Vaea is unlikely to go at this stage and that Cheika would pick Smith ahead of him for the squad(RWC), being that he is able to cover all 3 backrow positions.
In a 31 man squad that makes Smith very attractive along with his experience.
Who knows what will happen in the RC with injury and form.

 

[something]

You can't have Palu & Vaea in the 23 - It has to be one or the other. When Skelton is on the field we have to have Higgers for the lineout

Also, i'm not sure Fardy's position is seemingly set in stone - he hasn't done much to stand out since 2013 and personally, i would leave him out. Could Jones play 6? Or alternately let Simmons play 6? Fardy has pretty average line out stats at an international level.

Could we have a back 5 as such

STARTING
Skelton
Simmons
Jones
Pocock
Higgers

AFTER RESERVES
Jones
Simmons
Hooper
Pocock
Vaea/Palu

This option gives 3 line out options for the majority of the game
and toward the game allows for both Hooper & Pocock to be on the field whilst maintaining a 'wrecking ball' in the replacement 8

 

[emuarse]

CarnTheBrumbies said: [/B]↑

It's all up to opinion. I don't think Cheika will go with Vaea for the RWC but with a successful 2016 Super Rugby he should overtake Palu for test matches.​

Probably sums up this whole thread.

Why I chose the word 'optimum' as part of the title - a feeding ground for 'opinion'

 

[Marcelo]

About JOC (James O'Connor), he should get his plane ticket to TRC. He has many skills and can cover many positions but their level hasn't been brilliant this season (His team didn't help much) At the moment I prefer AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) or even Joe Tomane. Tomane doesn't have many abilities and only covers the wing but doing one thing is doing well. One-on-one he can win many meters. JOC (James O'Connor) should destroy to the ABs to get a spot on the plane

Also, i'm not sure Fardy's position is seemingly set in stone - he hasn't done much to stand out since 2013 and personally, i would leave him out.

Could Jones play 6? Or alternately let Simmons play 6? Fardy has pretty average line out stats at an international level.

Simmons is too soft to play at blindside flanker, we need a tough guy there. His ability that stands out at test level is his jump. In all other skills he's overtaken by top class forwards

 

[Train Without a Station]

Cheika and many here may not agree, but if we are serious about the line out, it needs to be either Skelton OR Palu/Vaea in the 23, not the XV.

I just don't see it as any sort of real solution that one player can only be subbed on when another player is subbed off, but they play different positions, meaning it forces you subbing 2 other players. What if there's an injury? You just cop a line out being compromised for 60 minutes of a game?

If you want a really strong line out, either you take what Skelton offers, and make up for his short comings at 8, or you take what Palu/Vaea offer and make up for their short comings at lock and either way you take what they can offer for around 60 minutes and then revert to a lighter weight, looser, more line out strong option for 20. Or you even opt for dual opensides for the last 20 if you've gone a 6/2 bench which leaves you scope to make adjustments as needed without altering other players.

 

[fatprop]

I don't even think Palu & Vaea play the same type of game

 

[Train Without a Station]

They don't but they offer the exact same shortcomings and weaknesses to the pack.

 

[barbarian]

Sure, I agree they have experience.

Palu has spent 10 years and never showed up v NZ or SA.

McCalman has run himself to a standstill trying to make an impact, and has been a fairly lightweight 8. I really love the guy, but he's not someone who will make metres in tight when several people are trying to shut him down, which Vaea has been doing all year, albeit at Super Rugby level.

Higgers has done SFA at test level, other than be a petulant cheap shot merchant whilst acting as an enforcer. He's been a flaky seagull in a good chunk of those matches. I'm not sure which games in 2014 he played that were good, I don't remember him being much chop.

We've been looking for an 8 that combines the best of all of the options, and aside from the lineout, Vaea has shown in his numbers that he's had the wood on everyone, and he's done that in his first season back in pro rugby, which is just astounding. The other's have years of fitness and experience to have called upon to make a better contribution to their team, what's the excuse?

You're views on the other options are just lazy stereotypes. Palu 'never shows up in the big ones'. McCalman 'toils hard with no impact'. Higgers 'cheap shot merchant/seagull'. A cursory view at last year's tests would dispell each of those reputations.

You've obviously made up your mind, which is fine. We've probably reached an end point to this debate, so I will stop now, except to say that I just don't think Vaea is as good as you suggest.
.

 

[TOCC]

You're views on the other options are just lazy stereotypes. Palu 'never shows up in the big ones'. McCalman 'toils hard with no impact'. Higgers 'cheap shot merchant/seagull'. A cursory view at last year's tests would dispell each of those reputations.

You've obviously made up your mind, which is fine. We've probably reached an end point to this debate, so I will stop now, except to say that I just don't think Vaea is as good as you suggest.
.

Fortunately test teams aren't selected on the opinions of parochial fans

 

[TOCC]

Squad announced today...
My roughies are Samu Kerevi and Taqele Naiyaravoro.

Unlucky to miss out:
Gill

Lucky to be there:
JOC (James O'Connor)
Horwill

 

[fatprop]

They don't but they offer the exact same shortcomings and weaknesses to the pack.

Yeah, nah

 

[Purce]

We often hear this sort of whispering, so who is the person or persons at the "top" pulling the strings and forcing a national coach to select a player in a run on side at a position he hadn't played at for some time?

From the very top if memory serves. As I said, it had something to do with contract negotiations at the time and trying to keep KB (Kurtley Beale) in the game(aus rugby). The point of my post is that it wasn't necessarily Links selection.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Yeah, nah

Nah. Yeah.

Neither are strong competing line out options. Neither play regular full games. Neither are strong, fast, wider running options.

Palu may be a bit more of a work horse and more of a third lock type in tight and Vaea more of a bruising carrier, but either one brings the same problems to a pack which is why neither works with Skelton.

 

[Joe Blow]

I'm hoping the two rumored debutants are interesting.
Coleman and Kerevi? Arnold and Latu maybe?

Cheikas first squad. Should be interesting!

 

[fatprop]

Nah. Yeah.

Neither are strong competing line out options. Neither play regular full games. Neither are strong, fast, wider running options.

Palu may be a bit more of a work horse and more of a third lock type in tight and Vaea more of a bruising carrier, but either one brings the same problems to a pack which is why neither works with Skelton.

I don't think this is an issue at all, both can play longer, but with planned replacements they can exert their energy over the 50 minutes they are usually budgeted

But they play substantially different games with the only real comparison their lineout skills and that they both wear the number 8 on their backs