Wallabies 2019 Thread

[Show-n-go]

But if there is legitimate concern that Pocock is not fit and a high chance of injury (either starting or as a replacement) then he shouldn't be in the squad.

May as well cut him now then

 

[Mudslider]

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm responding to the suggestion that because the Brumbies are the best Australian side they should make up the majority of the Wallabies side. My point is that it is ridiculous to consider that an all or nothing proposition. There's no logic to suggest that a team winning 10 games vs 8 vs 6 vs 6 is overwhelmingly better across the park than the teams that won less games.

I don't know how you are getting down to only selecting one or two Rebels. I'd have thought just about every squad you have named would include Philip, Jones, Naisarani, Genia and DHP at a minimum. It is pretty clear that the Rebels have the best squad on paper and have underperformed this season. I think it is guaranteed that they will be over-represented in a Wallaby squad this year because I think they will have more players in it than any other team.

I'm unsure how you'd come up with more Reds than Waratahs or Rebels. Rodda and Kerevi would seem to be the only players likely to be in the starting XV. Tupou will be either in the best 23 or in the squad depending on whether he is picked above Kepu and LSL (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto) will probably make the squad (although unsure at this stage if he makes the 23). Naivalu would be the only other Red likely to make it in an initial squad but I think he will be hard pressed making the RWC because I think he is behind Koroibete and they are too like for like for both to make it.

It’s pretty clear the Rebels don’t have the best squad on paper... results count on paper too... Genia really is the standout in the Rebels the rest aren’t this season... Banks has a far better attack and kicking game than DHP. His kicking game with the brumbies set piece has crushed many teams bring in points this season

 

[Derpus]

Daryl Gibson would definitely fall into the same failing upwards category as Grey, if true.

 

[Mudslider]

Daryl Gibson would definitely fall into the same failing upwards category as Grey, if true.

Failing upwards is a nice way to put it....

 

[Braveheart81]

Can this really happen ! Unbelievable this is laughable .. do results not matter, is anyone holding Cheika to account ? Can he just sign his mate onto a yes man gig in Tokyo RWC.

Cheika has told the players that they don’t need to be concerned who will come in for Larkham, only that he has someone in mind.

Ahead of the Super Rugby season Rugby Australia boss Raelene Castle indicated that their preference would not be to disrupt the four franchises.

But all the indications are that the attack coach, at this late stage, will come from Super Rugby.


His former assistant, Daryl Gibson, shapes as a likely fit given that he was the man that had the Waratahs’ attack humming in 2014 when Cheika was at the helm in 2014.

It's a role that exists for 6 months and a maximum of 12 tests. Cheika is gone at the end of the year.

It's not really possible to sell it as a long term position and try to get a candidate that could be suitable for a long time because then the next coach might be lumped with someone they don't want.

 

[Derpus]

It's a role that exists for 6 months and a maximum of 12 tests. Cheika is gone at the end of the year.

It's not really possible to sell it as a long term position and try to get a candidate that could be suitable for a long time because then the next coach might be lumped with someone they don't want.

It may make sense contextually but it is kind of hard to get past the fact that the Wallabies keep hiring assistant coaches that have largely failed at Super level, including Larkham.

 

[Braveheart81]

It may make sense contextually but it is kind of hard to get past the fact that the Wallabies keep hiring assistant coaches that have largely failed at Super level, including Larkham.

For sure. We're in a difficult position though. We need to try and improve the pathways for coaches in Australian rugby but likewise, they're not currently up to scratch to produce world class coaches. All our best coaches have spent significant periods overseas honing their skills.

I think budgets are probably a big part of it too. Are the funds available to hire the top level assistants we need?

 

[Derpus]

Yeah, doubt it. We can't even afford to retain our best player.

Watching the financial situation slowely destroy the game here is painful.

 

[Brumby Runner]

If Hooper and Pocock are in the same 23 (which is likely if Pocock is healthy), Pocock won't be coming on to replace Hooper. He'll be replacing the 6 or 8. If you reversed that situation (Hooper on the bench) then it wouldn't change.

I can't see any situation where we pick a 7 on the bench and the planned backrow substitute is to replace the starting 7.

I agree. Therefore, either Hooper or Pocock starts, assuming Poey is fit, and the other is left out of the 23 altogether. Then the better performer gets the big gig in the final.

 

[Braveheart81]

I agree. Therefore, either Hooper or Pocock starts, assuming Poey is fit, and the other is left out of the 23 altogether. Then the better performer gets the big gig in the final.

I don't really agree. I think we are very likely to finish with two smaller backrowers on the field regardless of what happens. I think there is a big chance this will be Samu if it isn't Pocock.

Hooper is going to start as long as he remains healthy. He's the form 7 in the country and is the Wallaby captain.

 

[RoffsChoice]

We've been losing players overseas forever. I'm sad to lose Kerevi but I see the future in our next generation. Now let's just make sure we don't lose them.......

 

[Dctarget]

I think people are forgetting how incredible Pocock is. He's carried the Wallabies in games before and he'll do it again. He doesn't need to prove anything. If he's fit, he can play and he's in the 23. Leaving out the best pilferer in the world would be criminal.

 

[Dctarget]

Also, applies to Hooper. Both will be in our team, you'd be an absolute nonce to have someone else in there if Pocock is fit.

 

[Up the Guts]

I don't really agree. I think we are very likely to finish with two smaller backrowers on the field regardless of what happens. I think there is a big chance this will be Samu if it isn't Pocock.

Hooper is going to start as long as he remains healthy. He's the form 7 in the country and is the Wallaby captain.

NZ often finish with Ardie Savea and Sam Cane on the field. It's not an uncommon move.

 

[Derpus]

I think people are forgetting how incredible Pocock is. He's carried the Wallabies in games before and he'll do it again. He doesn't need to prove anything. If he's fit, he can play and he's in the 23. Leaving out the best pilferer in the world would be criminal.

If he is fit he will be in the team, of that there is no doubt.

Looking like a big IF though.

I'm all for him coming off the bench though, i think it's a great idea.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yeah I think it's the perfect use for him. David is finding it more difficult to go 80 minutes (notwithstanding troubles actually getting on the park at the moment) consistently and having him go nuts for 20-30 at the back end of a game when his skill set would be best used (especially in a tight game) seems a sensible option. I hope we don't see a return to both him and Hooper starting. All the good sides have worked out how to combat that now.

 

[Derpus]

Yeah I think it's the perfect use for him. David is finding it more difficult to go 80 minutes (notwithstanding troubles actually getting on the park at the moment) consistently and having him go nuts for 20-30 at the back end of a game when his skill set would be best used (especially in a tight game) seems a sensible option. I hope we don't see a return to both him and Hooper starting. All the good sides have worked out how to combat that now.

Fixed.

 

[Braveheart81]

I hope we don't see a return to both him and Hooper starting. All the good sides have worked out how to combat that now.

I doubt we will because there are some great options available this year that weren't there before.

I still disagree that it failed because sides worked it out. I don't think there was really much to work out. Our game plan never really changed. Players still did what they do well and structures in terms of pods etc. remained unchanged.

It became a focus for blame because it wasn't the standard selection but if we played a traditional backrow and they got dominated by the opposition no one sighted that as being the reason for losing because the opposition worked it out.

I reckon everyone would struggle to go through any of those tests where we played both Pocock and Hooper and determine that our backrow was the area where we fell down against our opposition.

 

[Derpus]

I dunno, the All Blacks double clean out/sealing off act seemed to nullify the 'Hooper makes the tackle and Poey jumps on top' play.

 

[Braveheart81]

I dunno, the All Blacks double clean out/sealing off act seemed to nullify the 'Hooper makes the tackle and Poey jumps on top' play.

Sure, but Pocock's ability to force penalties/get pilfers gets nullified by some teams and some games better than others. Other games he has a field day. It is not like he becomes a poor player or necessarily has a bad game if he doesn't get multiple turnovers.

Clearly there is a need for sides to focus harder on securing their breakdown when Pocock is playing and then moreso when we had Hooper and Pocock.

I don't think it was a one trick pony. It's not like we were leaving out a dominating number 8 who other sides had no answer for or that our tight 5 were dominating and backline were carving up the opposition but were let down by a backrow doing nothing.

When you boil it down, the number of forced turnovers/penalties probably averages under 2 per game for Pocock at test level. Hooper would be around 1. That's a relatively small part of their role and positive or otherwise impacts on a game.