Wallabies 2020

[Braveheart81]

you don’t think been a lineout option is a factor to consider when selecting players?

It is when Wright is playing 6 and may make him a compelling bench option to cover multiple roles.

At 7 though, it's of minimal benefit. With a full lineout you're expected to be at best the 4th jumper and in most lineouts that are less than 7 players, the 6 is going to be the third jumper if needed.

 

[Adam84]

It should figure, but it's pretty low down the list of what I think we need in a 7.

why do you think it should sit low?

when your consider the issues Naisarani has with lineout jumping, Wilson isn’t a known jumper and the lack of experienced locks in Australia, Australia may enter test matches with only 3 solid lineout option, 2 of whom are an inexperienced lock pairing..

lineout factors will rank pretty high up in this years team selection IMO

 

[Adam84]

It is when Wright is playing 6 and may make him a compelling bench option to cover multiple roles.

At 7 though, it's of minimal benefit. With a full lineout you're expected to be at best the 4th jumper and in most lineouts that are less than 7 players, the 6 is going to be the third jumper if needed.

4 lineout jumpers is the absolute minimum any test team should have.
who’s the wallaby 6 going to be?

 

[Derpus]

4 lineout jumpers is the absolute minimum any test team should have.
whos the wallaby 6 going to be?

Minimum? not many teams have 5.

And Valetini.

 

[Bobby Sands]

This was Cheika.

I'm not sure exactly what you think Hooper did at press conferences that was different to what any other captain did or does.

You obviously dislike both Hooper and Cheika but you are tarring Hooper with the same brush as Cheika.

Has Hooper ever been known to regularly criticise referees in the half a dozen or so tests he captained under McKenzie or the 60+ Super Rugby games he captained under Gibson?

It's fair to say that Hooper's captaincy hasn't always been great. He was very inexperienced in the role when he became Wallabies captain and certainly his dealings with referees on field was poor. He's come a long way since then.

It's pretty telling that he was a fairly obvious choice for captain when Moore got injured in 2014 despite being one of the youngest players in the side and that there hasn't been a serious challenger to take over since.

Who would you be making Wallabies captain?

Rather than trying to create a natural bias, in a way to discredit my argument, why not just look at the facts as they present? Or are you a politician - if you are let it be known.

Yes, Hooper has sit in many press conferences whinging about refs with Cheika. If he wasn't happy with the message he should have told Cheik beforehand or not contributed to the whinging, that is true leadership rather than cronyism.

As far as the natural next skip, I don't think that is obvious, but I would think AAA makes most sense for the first test (as he is skip of the best performing team).

But in time I think Liam Wright will be the skipper, and even though he is younger Fraser McReight has practically never been in a side that he wasn't captain of.

Let's see how the boys go tomorrow night, I know that when the Reds have been in a tough spot they have always fronted up for the Tweed derby and I expect the Waratahs to be right up for it tomorrow night.

 

[Adam84]

Minimum? not many teams have 5.

And Valetini.

didn’t say 5, said 4 is the minimum.. but all blacks often have 5 options

Is Valetini are proven lineout option, been getting used much by the Brumbies ?

 

[Derpus]

Well it's good to know we still have inane bullshit to argue about in the absence of Foley and Cooper.

 

[Adam84]

Well it's good to know we still have inane bullshit to argue about in the absence of Foley and Cooper.

Ok mate, sorry for asking who the jumpers might be and holding the opinion the wallabies need 4 lineout options. You disagree so clearly that makes it an inane bullshit discussion to have

 

[Derpus]

Ok mate, sorry for asking who the jumpers might be and holding the opinion the wallabies need 4 lineout options. You disagree so clearly that makes it an inane bullshit discussion to have

Was clearly not referring to your comment.

 

[TSR]

It is when Wright is playing 6 and may make him a compelling bench option to cover multiple roles.

At 7 though, it's of minimal benefit. With a full lineout you're expected to be at best the 4th jumper and in most lineouts that are less than 7 players, the 6 is going to be the third jumper if needed.

But this is no different to the argument that Hooper isn’t a 7 because he doesn’t pilfer.

The modern game has gone beyond what you are suggesting. Somewhere in the back row there needs to be a primary lineout target and second serviceable jumper. Same as somewhere in your pack you need 1-2 guys who are adept at slowing down the breakdown and forcing turnovers. The later doesn’t need to be the 7 and often isn’t, but there is no reason you 7 can’t be a target if it balances the backrow and lets you pick a more abrasive 6.

I get the frustration with all the dumb shit criticism of Hooper over the years, but at the same time I‘d suggest there is also just as many who won’t accept any criticism which might call his place into question.

The bloke is an extremely good rugby player and his level of effort is beyond reproach, but he’s not untouchable.

 

[Braveheart81]

But this is no different to the argument that Hooper isn’t a 7 because he doesn’t pilfer.

What I am saying is that Wright's lineout ability assists him far more as a selection option at 6 than it does at 7. Part of this is because none of our locks or 6/8 options aren't lineout targets.

Wright's ability to jump at 7 would have been more of a boost to selection chances if we had someone like Skelton around still in the period where he wasn't a lineout option at all.

Maybe if Wright does get the 7 jersey it will be determined that he's a better jumper than the 6 or 8 and he becomes the third lineout option. Who knows? What I am saying is that I think it will be incredibly low on the selection criteria because it won't be something that is essential to get out of that position.

 

[Bobby Sands]

It is when Wright is playing 6 and may make him a compelling bench option to cover multiple roles.

At 7 though, it's of minimal benefit. With a full lineout you're expected to be at best the 4th jumper and in most lineouts that are less than 7 players, the 6 is going to be the third jumper if needed.

You realise this make no sense if you 6 isn't a good jumper?

The 6 jumping over 7 isn't for any strategic reason, other than 6's have been traditionally taller.

Naisarani is not a great target, neither is Samu, Wilson is ok.

It needs to be balanced out, and this never happened with Pocock and Hooper.

But Hooper supporters just never realise this, or care about the lineout.

 

[Bobby Sands]

But this is no different to the argument that Hooper isn’t a 7 because he doesn’t pilfer.

The modern game has gone beyond what you are suggesting. Somewhere in the back row there needs to be a primary lineout target and second serviceable jumper. Same as somewhere in your pack you need 1-2 guys who are adept at slowing down the breakdown and forcing turnovers. The later doesn’t need to be the 7 and often isn’t, but there is no reason you 7 can’t be a target if it balances the backrow and lets you pick a more abrasive 6.

I get the frustration with all the dumb shit criticism of Hooper over the years, but at the same time I‘d suggest there is also just as many who won’t accept any criticism which might call his place into question.

The bloke is an extremely good rugby player and his level of effort is beyond reproach, but he’s not untouchable.

I will shut up, this is much better said than I could.

 

[Derpus]

You realise this make no sense if you 6 isn't a good jumper?

The 6 jumping over 7 isn't for any strategic reason, other than 6's have been traditionally taller.

Naisarani is not a great target, neither is Samu, Wilson is ok.

It needs to be balanced out, and this never happened with Pocock and Hooper.

But Hooper supporters just never realise this, or care about the lineout.

I guess the counter to this is that the backrow was unbalanced because we were shoe-horning in Pocock, not Hooper.

It worked in 2015 but not after and Cheika was an absolute chump turning it out in 2019 with Pocock so far past his best.

I also think there is more room for a 7 who can't jump than a 6. In my view, jumping at 6 is a core role.

A 6 that doesn't jump has no place in a test side. Like a hooker that can't throw.

 

[TSR]

What I am saying is that Wright's lineout ability assists him far more as a selection option at 6 than it does at 7. Part of this is because none of our locks or 6/8 options aren't lineout targets.

Wright's ability to jump at 7 would have been more of a boost to selection chances if we had someone like Skelton around still in the period where he wasn't a lineout option at all.

Maybe if Wright does get the 7 jersey it will be determined that he's a better jumper than the 6 or 8 and he becomes the third lineout option. Who knows? What I am saying is that I think it will be incredibly low on the selection criteria because it won't be something that is essential to get out of that position.

I think you need to have another look at the lineout ability of our 6 & 8 candidates.

 

[Braveheart81]

You realise this make no sense if you 6 isn't a good jumper?

The 6 jumping over 7 isn't for any strategic reason, other than 6's have been traditionally taller.

Naisarani is not a great target, neither is Samu, Wilson is ok.

It needs to be balanced out, and this never happened with Pocock and Hooper.

But Hooper supporters just never realise this, or care about the lineout.

Of course it didn't happen with Pocock or Hooper. We compromised our lineout because the only options we had at 6 or 8 were a long way inferior in every other aspect of play.

I think we will pick 2 of Valetini, Wilson and Naisarani at 6 and 8. I think all are of adequate lineout ability that there won't be a huge desire to pick Wright at 7 purely because he is a stronger lineout option than at least a couple of those guys (which I agree with, I think he is a better lineout option than them).

I don't really think Samu is in the frame for a starting position. He should make the squad and will be a big chance of a bench spot because of his versatility. I also see Wright competing for that same bench spot for the same reasons.

 

[Sully]

Okay then.....

Firstly isn't it great to have arguments over who's best in a key position for the Wallabies. Wright is clearly a talent. But Hooper should be a legend in Australian rugby.

Now don't get me wrong I wouldn't swap Wright for Hooper at the Reds but I also don't think Wright is clearly better. Given Hoopers status in our game I think if he is to lose his spot it has to be to a clearly better player.

Imho Wright is perfect for the bench spot right now. Later on he's a great prospect for the Wallaby captaincy and the 7 jersey. I'm yet to be convinced McReight will be any better than him.

Wright's advantage as a lineout jumper should be his weight and the speed he can get up. I believe the Reds and Wallabies should be focusing on this, if they aren't already, because it can be a real weapon.

My problem with Australian captains and this includes Hooper is the obsession of kicking to the corner when there are certain points on offer though penalties. The art of building scoreboard pressure seems lost in our country and it's a shame. The number of times I've watch the chance of a eight point lead being an eleven of a 12 point being a 15 is mind numbing and hard to fathom. At least it is for me.

As for the Wallaby captain? I've never been a fan of picking a captain the picking a team. When I played in the UK we always had a club captain. Come to think of it my club team in outback Qld also had a club captain. Even my surf club has a club captain. This person is a off field captain can play any division or occasionally not play at all. I think Super Rugby teams should do the same and appoint An on field captain every game. Even if that is the same person. Harder to do at Wallaby level of course but Why not an off field captain and an on field?

TLDR; Hooper should be the front runner for the openside until someone is clearly better than him.

 

[Bobby Sands]

What if Wright is more effective at the rucks, makes more tackles, makes more turnovers, and is a better line out option?

Would you consider then?

 

[TSR]

I’ll post one more time and then leave it -

Do I think Hooper, all things considered, remains a better player at the moment then Wright. Yes - but I think it isn’t by much. Obviously his test experience is a big plus and I expect him to be picked and for Wright to be given more experience from the bench.

Do I think Hooper, Nasirani & Wilson/Valetini is a better backrow combination then Wright, Nasirani & Wilson/Valetini or indeed Hooper, Nasirani & Wright. No - not given the importance of the lineout in the modern game, I don’t.

Edit: and people should remember Rennie comes from a background where you pick your game strategy first and then pick the best players to execute it.

 

[Braveheart81]

What if Wright is more effective at the rucks, makes more tackles, makes more turnovers, and is a better line out option?

Would you consider then?

After four games the stats have them as follows:

Wright - 19 carries for 42 metres, 48 tackles with 4 misses, 6 turnovers won.
Hooper - 35 carries for 99 metres, 60 tackles with 7 misses, 5 turnovers won.

Hooper brings better ball running, Wright is substantially better in the lineout.