Springboks v Wallabies, Newlands, September 28 2013

[Ignoto]

Trouble with Mowen is at risk in a starting side when Higgers and Palu return. Think he is an excellant S15 captain but probably needs another dozen test matches to gain that overall respect of the players.

Why not try all three out on the paddock? We've been using a designated pilferer for the past X amount of months and I wouldn't say it's having as big of a pay off as we're expecting. We're concerned about losing the contest at the breakdown so lets bring some more dynamic players into the mix.

From what we've seen, Higgers is a pretty mobile backrower, great top end speed and seems to be reasonably fit. Hooper has had some question marks over his head at the breakdown. While you can't fault his commitment or attitude there or around the park, he hasn't been the most effectual player in that team (nor has most of the pack).

 

[No4918]

Pocock has to start.

 

[KOB1987]

The 28-man squad to tour South Africa and Argentina has been named:

Backs:
Adam Ashley-Cooper
Quade Cooper
Chris Feauai-Sautia
Israel Folau
Bernard Foley
Will Genia
Tevita Kuridrani
Christian Leali'ifano
James O'Connor
Joe Tomane
Matt To'omua
Nic White

Forwards:
Ben Alexander
Albert Anae
Dave Dennis
Kane Douglas
Saia Fainga'a
Scott Fardy
Michael Hooper
James Horwill (c)
Sekope Kepu
Ben McCalman
Stephen Moore
Ben Mowen
Benn Robinson
Rob Simmons
James Slipper
Sitaleki Timani

 

[KOB1987]

Interesting no Gill..so he's now doing a Dingo and touring without a backup 7.

 

[KOB1987]

with CFS in as well as Kuridrani I'm tipping AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) will be on the wing..so looks like moving to a defensive set up.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Why not try all three out on the paddock? We've been using a designated pilferer for the past X amount of months and I wouldn't say it's having as big of a pay off as we're expecting. We're concerned about losing the contest at the breakdown so lets bring some more dynamic players into the mix.

From what we've seen, Higgers is a pretty mobile backrower, great top end speed and seems to be reasonably fit. Hooper has had some question marks over his head at the breakdown. While you can't fault his commitment or attitude there or around the park, he hasn't been the most effectual player in that team (nor has most of the pack).

good points

 

[fatprop]

We have McCalman as back up 7

 

[hammertimethere]

He'll use CFS at 11 before he would ever consider him at 13. It's good that he is on tour though, he rightfully is next cab off the rank with an injured cummins.

I thought Timani added excellent value in his cameo against the argies. He's an intimidator, his defense at the 2 and 3 positions (5-10m wide of the ruck) was rock solid. Literally once he was on the field, the Argies inside ball and that little pop to a looping Matera that they kept doing was completely ineffectual as he kept turning them back.As far as others, Fardy excellent, Slipper good around the ground but was outscrummed, Mowen ok, Hooper good, Fainga'a enthusiastic, Simmons largely absent, McCalman likewise and Kepu ok. Don't much are about the backs to be honest, the barely saw the ball and made a ok fist of it when they did and kicked well.

For a game at Newlands against an angry at the best of times, and currently bee-stung, South African pack you will certainly need intimidators in defence and technicians of the set piece. We might be able to cobble a few of the former together (Horwill, Fardy and Timani starting) but are sorely lacking the latter. Robbo I think is worth starting. He has historically done some good work post scrum-engagement under the old laws (notably against Jannie du Plessis). I've given up trying to solve the tighthead issue. If robbo, Moore, who knows, Horwill and Timani, Fardy Hooper and Mowen start, I think that would represent the best cross section of our capabilities up front currently. Just pray that they get 30-35 minutes of enough parity that gives us a chance to score some tries and establish a lead the White and Lilo's boot can defend.

 

[Braveheart81]

Why not try all three out on the paddock? We've been using a designated pilferer for the past X amount of months and I wouldn't say it's having as big of a pay off as we're expecting. We're concerned about losing the contest at the breakdown so lets bring some more dynamic players into the mix.

From what we've seen, Higgers is a pretty mobile backrower, great top end speed and seems to be reasonably fit. Hooper has had some question marks over his head at the breakdown. While you can't fault his commitment or attitude there or around the park, he hasn't been the most effectual player in that team (nor has most of the pack).

Regardless of Hooper's effectiveness as a pilferer (which has still been reasonable), he's consistently been one of our best forwards (and best players in the team) in pretty much every test he's played.

Of all our forwards, I can't see his position being under threat until the June tests next year assuming Pocock returns strongly.

 

[gel]

Regarding all this talk about Robinson coming back: was his stellar Shute shield game/form under the new scrum interpretations or the older ones? If it was the older ones, then there surely is no certainty that he will be the cure for the scrum (not that one guy is going to fix it anyway). Surely bringing in a guy who has not played under those interpretations and not trained under them for the last couple of weeks is asking a hell of a lot from him.

I would just like to see our team start to setup for the scrums the same way as everyone else on the planet does: low and flat instead of some guys with their bums in the air, some on their knees, some leaning too far forward and Ben Alexander with his eyes on either the ground or the friggen sky (the direction he clearly wants to go in the ensuing scrum).

(I am not a scrum expert by any means but every other team on earth sets up the same way except us. So maybe there is something we should be looking at copying from others - just an idea).

 

[Braveheart81]

Regarding all this talk about Robinson coming back: was his stellar Shute shield game/form under the new scrum interpretations or the older ones? If it was the older ones, then there surely is no certainty that he will be the cure for the scrum (not that one guy is going to fix it anyway). Surely bringing in a guy who has not played under those interpretations and not trained under them for the last couple of weeks is asking a hell of a lot from him.

No, he hasn't been playing under the new scrum laws.

It's not like the new scrum laws have drastically changed the relative scrummaging ability of any other props from what I can see though.

Has any international prop gone from zero to hero or vice versa under the new laws?

 

[Scrubber2050]

Wioll be interesting if Robbo starts and if he does then Slipper to 3

Or does he go with Slipper to start, Robbo on bench Alexander at 3

Combinations are aplenty

Will also be interesting where AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) ends up playing

 

[lewisr]

Don't get Dennis / McCalman both touring and Gill not. Too many blindsides / number 8s, no openside backup. Stinks of WC 2011.

I thought this at first as well. But then I remembered its only a 2 match tour and not an entire world cup. On top of that, Gill has been training with them for the entire season so if he gets called into the squad after the bok match it wont be a massive issue. He'll just slot straight in.

 

[gel]

No, he hasn't been playing under the new scrum laws.

It's not like the new scrum laws have drastically changed the relative scrummaging ability of any other props from what I can see though.

Has any international prop gone from zero to hero or vice versa under the new laws?

Whilst I can't say that anyone have gone zero to hero, I would say that there is a very clear difference in the behaviour of the scrums - even when Australia isn't playing.

I would say that ALL of the australian scrum so far have gone from slightly less than passable before the change to absolutely ridiculously and retardledly useless after the change.

So, not hero to zero as we were never even remotely hero status, but we used to have some chance previously and now...... Using a hero to zero and vice versa is a bit of a stupid measure tbh as it implies all or nothing requirement.

If he was awesome, he would have been picked to play originally (if for no more reason than to justify him being paid by the ARU for the next three years).

*edit* I am not saying he will fail, just that on the balance of probabilities from what I can see - he probably won't be the saviour. If you know that he will save our scrum (as you quite clearly watch him a lot more than I do and know that he is definitely up to it) then I'll have to take your word for it.

 

[Braveheart81]

Whilst I can't say that anyone have gone zero to hero, I would say that there is a very clear difference in the behaviour of the scrums - even when Australia isn't playing.

I would say that ALL of the australian scrum so far have gone from slightly less than passable before the change to absolutely ridiculously and retardledly useless after the change.

So the only large change in relative strength of international scrums is Australia's going backwards considerably?

The two major changes we've made to our scrum since the new rules came in is to drop our best scrummager over the last five years and put a player at TH lock who seemingly is the weakest scrummager out of all our test locks and normally plays on the LH side.

I think McKenzie took a punt that our scrum wasn't that bad to begin with and the new scrum laws would depower the scrum somewhat so he wanted more mobility in his forward pack.

I think it has backfired spectacularly.

 

[cyclopath]

So the only large change in relative strength of international scrums is Australia's going backwards considerably?

The two major changes we've made to our scrum since the new rules came in is to drop our best scrummager over the last five years and put a player at TH lock who seemingly is the weakest scrummager out of all our test locks and normally plays on the LH side.

I think McKenzie took a punt that our scrum wasn't that bad to begin with and the new scrum laws would depower the scrum somewhat so he wanted more mobility in his forward pack.

I think it has backfired spectacularly.

I wonder if the impact on the hooker, or more accurately, the lack of push from the hooking hooker, was underestimated. Both TPN and Moore have been good scrummaging hookers, I believe, but the size of the hooker should not be an issue - look at du Plessis for example. Tom Lawton was a massive unit, but he managed to hook too. In fact, he was the prototype "big unit" number 2.
I dunno. It genuinely puzzles me that years of supposed expert scrum coaches at various levels cannot get to the bottom of Australian scrummaging ills.

 

[Scrubber2050]

A lot of posters suggest when that Robbo plays WE WILL FIX OUR SCRUM PROBLEMS - one bloke, and I dont care if it is Robbo, Palmer ain't going to fix it. This is a problem of our 8 pigs

 

[cyclopath]

A lot of posters suggest when that Robbo plays WE WILL FIX OUR SCRUM PROBLEMS - one bloke, and I dont care if it is Robbo, Palmer ain't going to fix it. This is a problem of our 8 pigs

True, but it might be a start.
Really, it's a Band-Aid. The need for a proper, centralised scrum school headed by someone like Mike Cron (i.e. of that ilk, I realise he is contracted for life to the NZRU) is way overdue.
It seems intuitive that Robinson scrummed well by getting a good position, then driving, rather than using his lesser bulk to out-hit his opposition, so why shouldn't he do OK with these laws?
I dunno, I am no prop.

 

[Braveheart81]

A lot of posters suggest when that Robbo plays WE WILL FIX OUR SCRUM PROBLEMS - one bloke, and I dont care if it is Robbo, Palmer ain't going to fix it. This is a problem of our 8 pigs

I have been one of the main posters pleading for the recall of Robinson, but I really don't think I've said it will fix all our scrum problems.

I have insinuated that putting our best scrummaging prop back in the side is likely to improve the situation though.

 

[gel]

So the only large change in relative strength of international scrums is Australia's going backwards considerably?

I never said that. I actually said in the post you quoted that I thought they had clearly changed even when Australia wasn't involved.

Having said that, our scrum has clearly disintegrated whereas the other nations have merely struggled a bit to adapt it would seem.

You may well be right - based on you seeing him towelling up some guy in a Shute shield final using laws that none of the test nations have been using for weeks I will have to take your word for it.

I hope you are. But I just dot see him being the cure all.

The two major changes we've made to our scrum since the new rules came in is to drop our best scrummager over the last five years and put a player at TH lock who seemingly is the weakest scrummager out of all our test locks and normally plays on the LH side.

I think McKenzie took a punt that our scrum wasn't that bad to begin with and the new scrum laws would depower the scrum somewhat so he wanted more mobility in his forward pack.

I think it has backfired spectacularly.

We will see in a couple weeks if Ben R gets a run.