Wallabies 31 Man Squad

[Dumbledore]

He could be first in to every ruck in the match and it still wouldn't matter. I had to watch the past several rounds of Waratahs games a few times for that Waratahs bit on the front page and either his technique is awful or he is very lazy. He does a lot of flopping around at ruck time.

If you watch the clip of Adam Jones at ruck time that Scott used in his first LIONS THREATS article it is nearly identical to how Timani hits most breakdowns.The difference in physicality in that area changes a lot when Skelton comes on.

See I don't think that's true. The Tahs had vastly more posession against the Rebels and strung up some seriously long phases of play. If Timani was as bad as you say he is, they'd be losing the ball constantly at ruck time. I'm just having a quick look at that game again now. At about 59.50, about 30 seconds after Skelton comes on, the Tahs get turned over at a ruck as a direct result of Skelton not getting there quick enough and not being effective when he arrived. Could easily have been penalised as well, makes zero effort to go in through the gate.

Obviously there's context to these stats, as Gagger mentions. It's a huge, huge, discrepancy in the raw numbers though. It's not only that Timani is on the shoulder of a runner, it's that he's running more per game than everyone save Palu and Folau. He's clearly not a lazy player, despite what the majority narrative would have you believe.

 

[USARugger]

They lost that entire game from the ball being turned over at the ruck. It happened in the first half as well.

After watching a few hundred minutes of Waratahs game film I saw Timani actually use his bulk a handful of times. He is very inaccurate at the breakdown and needs to learn how to drop his hips and use the fact that he weighs the same as a fucking car to actually move people. He may get to a lot of breakdowns but he is hardly effective (doubly so when you consider his size) which is where I got the 'lazy' bit from.

I'll keep a closer eye on him for the next couple of weeks but I saw much, much more flopping on top of players or bridging/sealing from him than I did any effective clean outs or counter-rucking of any kind in the matches I watched.

 

[Bullrush]

I'll admit to not having watched a lot of Tahs games thi syear but what I've seen of Skelton hasn't really impressed me. I think the same criticisms that get leveled at Timani could apply to him as well.

When he came on against the Rebels I thought, 'Here we go. This guy should be able to roll a few blokes!'. Errrrrr.......negative. He didn't really impose himself either defensively or with ball in hand.

 

[Dumbledore]

Effectiveness can be tought though, better technique can be tought. What the numbers show is that he actually has a huge workrate, one of the very best in Australia. I've got no problem with Deans picking someone like that, especially if he thinks he can work on his technique in camp as well.

 

[I like to watch]

Jeez that's a bit harsh.
I have been skeptical about him being mobile enough, but I thought he blew a few rucks apart...the times he got there.
To me the only question is will he have enough "involvements"

 

[USARugger]

He's had how many years to learn the clean out techniques that most schoolboys master by 15-17? Lets not even get into the jumping in the line out end of things. Clean outs aren't exactly rocket surgery. They are fucking exhausting though which is why I lean the way I do.

My issue with using that stat to say he has a high work rate is because it is like saying that someone who runs 5 miles has a higher work rate than someone who runs 2 1/2 miles but is dead lifting 150kg every quarter mile.

Let's agree to disagree for now though, we'll have to wait and see. Thanks for that original post though. Nice new dimension to an old topic of conversation.

 

[Scott Allen]

Stats only tell you part of the story and should not be relied on as the sole basis to reach a conclusion.

The first into attacking rucks stat comes from Rugby Stats http://www.rugbystats.com.au/rugby/super15.html - it's not one I measure for Super Rugby.

We know that the Tahs run wide of the ruck 39% of their phases which is significantly more than the other four Australian teams (average 28%). It's therefore a reasonable assumption that a good portion of the Tahs rucks occur wider on the field.

Supporting that proposition is the fact that topping the list for first into breakdowns for the Tahs so far this season is AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) with 85 and Israel Folau is equal second with 81.

The backrowers are more mobile than the tight five so normally cover both wide and tight rucks better. As a result they should feature high up the list - Hooper has been first into 81 rucks so far this season and Dennis first into 80. Palu has been first into 69 attacking rucks in fewer games and we know he also plays tighter where the work is normally shared by the tight five.

Timani has also been first into 81 rucks this year. To get to that level either 1) he's been leading the way in getting into tight rucks ahead of the other tight five forwards but as Timani doesn't play tight very often I doubt that's it or 2) he's as mobile as Hooper and Dennis so can get to tight and wide rucks the same number of times as they do or 3) he's often standing out wide for the Tahs where the ball goes most often so is often starting in a better position to get into those wide rucks alongside AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Folaua.

My money is on option 3 and that may suit the Tahs game plan but I doubt Deans is going to play a wide game plan like the Tahs.

You will find most locks playing tight rather than out wide so you wouldn't expect them to normally dominate this particular stat as you'd expect them to share the tight work with the other tight five players. Comparing Timani's work rate in this measure to other locks who play a completely different positional game is not a relevant comparison. Comparing him to Pyle with this stat is probably relevant as Pyle has also been playing wide.

For the match against the Rebels the order first into attacking rucks was Palu with 12, Hooper with 11, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Betham with 10 each, Dennis with 9 and then Douglas with 8. Timani was on 5, the same number as Robinson. Kepu and Ulugia had 4 each.

The first into ruck stat also only measures first in and no credit is given if you arrive just after the first guy. There is also no measure of how effective someone is at the ruck once they got there.

 

[Gnostic]

Whilst being far from a Timani fan, it should be pointed out that the frequency with which Timani is in the right location for the next ruck to be able to hit it speaks clearly of his presence wide being a coaching directive.

The argument about his effectiveness at those rucks is an entirely different argument than this one on statistics.

Now as to this on going love affair that some have with Timani being so HUGE:-

Douglas 202cm 119kg
http://www.nswrugby.com.au/Waratahs...PlayerPage/tabid/182/playerid/26/Default.aspx

Timani 203 cm 121kg
http://www.nswrugby.com.au/Waratahs...PlayerPage/tabid/182/playerid/49/Default.aspx

Skelton 203cm 135kg
http://www.nswrugby.com.au/Waratahs...PlayerPage/tabid/182/playerid/67/Default.aspx

Neville 202cm 120kg
http://www.melbournerebels.com.au/Team/Player/tabid/297/playerid/41/Default.aspx

Pyle 201cm 117kg
http://www.melbournerebels.com.au/Team/Player/tabid/297/playerid/29/Default.aspx

So Timani is the same size as Douglas, and Neville, within the variation that will occur in body weight and only slightly heavier than Pyle.

Now consider the player regarded as the probable new enforcer of the Wallabies MMM.
200cm and 114Kg. Now he is the light weight of the second row, comparable to the second rowers of the Brumbies.

I usually do not really give a crap about people's size fantasies but the constant quoting of ho huge Timani is just doesn't cut it with respect to his actual size when compared with the leading Locks in the country. It also has no baring on how those players are used by a coaching team given their respective strengths and talents.

Has it occurred to anybody that perhaps Douglas is being held closer to the action for the Tahs for a reason while Timani is directed wide?

 

[Dumbledore]

Great post. Is it possible that Deans wouldn't mind Timani out wider though? Especially if we pick a smaller, relatively speaking, midfield?

 

[Scotty]

I think some versatility will still be valued. The current position of Australian propping stocks sees Robbo, Slipper and Alexander as clearly better than the other options.

I'm not sure who will start out of Alexander and Slipper at THP but my guess is that Deans will be looking to get as much of the 160 minutes in each test out of those three as possible.

Potentially we could see whoever is on the bench out of Slipper and Alexander coming on for whoever needs replacing after half time and the remaining starting prop going as close to 80 minutes as possible before being replaced. This tactic will work better if Alexander is a bench prop as he's probably a better LHP than Slipper and Slipper is a better THP than Alexander.

If this tactic is used then the fourth choice prop also needs to be versatile as they could come on at either position in the last 10 or so minutes.

If Alexander and slipper play both sides, why would the 4th prop need to be versatile? Just pick a THP I reckon (in case Alexander and slipper both go down).

Maybe there will be a day that we see the 4th prop as a guy that can also play loose forward though - maybe just maybe.

 

[Scott Allen]

Great post. Is it possible that Deans wouldn't mind Timani out wider though? Especially if we pick a smaller, relatively speaking, midfield?

You do need one forward to play wide but that forward needs to be a bit faster and more mobile who can play like another back to work in with the backs rather than just catching it and trucking it up. That sort of one dimensional ball carry takes opportunities away from the backs.

Deans may well go with Timani out wide instead of say, Higginbotham but I don't see the sense in picking a big, less mobile unit like Timani and then sticking him out wide. I think his bulk would be better deployed in close - he's not exactly a Pyle type attacking threat.

 

[jimmydubs]

I usually do not really give a crap about people's size fantasies but the constant quoting of ho huge Timani is just doesn't cut it with respect to his actual size

that's what she said

 

[Gnostic]

You do need one forward to play wide but that forward needs to be a bit faster and more mobile who can play like another back to work in with the backs rather than just catching it and trucking it up. That sort of one dimensional ball carry takes opportunities away from the backs.

Deans may well go with Timani out wide instead of say, Higginbotham but I don't see the sense in picking a big, less mobile unit like Timani and then sticking him out wide. I think his bulk would be better deployed in close - he's not exactly a Pyle type attacking threat.

I know what you are saying Scott, but I can think of no other reason why Timani would be able to be in position to make the ruck on so many occasions. As the Blog videos have shown a few times he doesn't work all that hard off the ball to cover that much ground.

As for his ability to truck the ball up in tight, I just have never seen it. He is invariably tackled behind the gain line as he is just too slow and not nimble enough to evade the first tackler. I see his positioning for the Tahs and the historically the Wallabies as using his bulk and strength in contact against backs who are less likely to hold him up and turn him over. This then frees up others to make quick yards.

I don't support the tactic or like it at all but I am looking for reasons why it is so. At the Tahs Chieka can be excused as he has to make the most out of the squad he inherited. Deans on the other hand has a free choice of how he wants to play and a very diverse range of locks and associated skill sets to choose from. I just fail to see why he chooses such a slow and easily countered system when it effects other areas of the team and game plan so greatly.

 

[Scott Allen]

I know what you are saying Scott, but I can think of no other reason why Timani would be able to be in position to make the ruck on so many occasions. As the Blog videos have shown a few times he doesn't work all that hard off the ball to cover that much ground.

As for his ability to truck the ball up in tight, I just have never seen it. He is invariably tackled behind the gain line as he is just too slow and not nimble enough to evade the first tackler. I see his positioning for the Tahs and the historically the Wallabies as using his bulk and strength in contact against backs who are less likely to hold him up and turn him over. This then frees up others to make quick yards.

I don't support the tactic or like it at all but I am looking for reasons why it is so. At the Tahs Chieka can be excused as he has to make the most out of the squad he inherited. Deans on the other hand has a free choice of how he wants to play and a very diverse range of locks and associated skill sets to choose from. I just fail to see why he chooses such a slow and easily countered system when it effects other areas of the team and game plan so greatly.

I agree that it's baffling but if Timani is going to start (and there's every indication that he will) then how do you see he should be deployed by the Wallabies? Tight or wide?

 

[Gnostic]

I agree that it's baffling but if Timani is going to start (and there's every indication that he will) then how do you see he should be deployed by the Wallabies? Tight or wide?

That would totally depend on the other selections in both forwards and centres. Here I find myself agreeing with your earlier blog pieces on who will be selected. So I can see the basic structures we have seen last year being revisited. In attack off lineout he will be at 12 or perhaps even 10 as first receiver to make the "hit up" (have I ever said how I hate these terms and plays creeping into Rugby) in an attempt to create space on quick ball. He will be followed by Palu doing the same. and then perhaps AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) a little wider. I don't expect him to receive the ball on phase play unless it is static and they want to drag in an extra defender or the Lions backrow. Given his body position going into contact it will very tempting for the Lions to position O'Connell and one of the backrow (especially Obrien if he gets the start) so that they can hold him up and gain the turnover. Some real dangers there IMO.

In defence, that is a totally different matter and here I am struggling. I just don't see that his previous workrate in gold has been sufficient and I see big holes around him in last years tests. Is that a factor of Deans as the Tahs seem to be making good use of him by the stats and his involvements are high? I'll give it a stab - on phase play I think he will be defending wide, between 12 and 13 positionally. No reason really except perhaps looking to have him first into the ruck to make these "big" cleanouts (that I haven't seen) and support Gill/Hooper for the turnover.

It is on set piece defence (or just after) that I see the big defensive problems from his selection. His counter maul work (along with most other Australian Locks) has been weak IMO and I don't see that he works that hard to get back in defence after a scrum with the front row often beating his back to the defensive line.

 

[Blue]

Whilst being far from a Timani fan, it should be pointed out that the frequency with which Timani is in the right location for the next ruck to be able to hit it speaks clearly of his presence wide being a coaching directive....

I usually do not really give a crap about people's size fantasies but the constant quoting of ho huge Timani is just doesn't cut it with respect to his actual size when compared with the leading Locks in the country. It also has no baring on how those players are used by a coaching team given their respective strengths and talents.

Has it occurred to anybody that perhaps Douglas is being held closer to the action for the Tahs for a reason while Timani is directed wide?

Good post but on what do you base Timani's supposed presence to be in position to do the job. Some sort of stats or perception? My big gripe with him has been his laziness. It's got better but seems he hits a couple and then slacks off. Workrate is a definite issue.

As you note seems to be playing the "looser" role though which is where I have a problem. The "loose" lock is usually your more athletic ball carrier and the core of your lineout. Timani does not have the aerial skills to fill this role properly and if he is supposed to be the tight lock he has not proven that he is good at it.

As for MMM, he may be smaller (ever so slightly) but he has big kahunas and a big engine.

This is why I would start Douglas for 40 and bring on MMM.

 

[Gnostic]

Good post but on what do you base Timani's supposed presence to be in position to do the job. Some sort of stats or perception? My big gripe with him has been his laziness. It's got better but seems he hits a couple and then slacks off. Workrate is a definite issue.

As you note seems to be playing the "looser" role though which is where I have a problem. The "loose" lock is usually your more athletic ball carrier and the core of your lineout. Timani does not have the aerial skills to fill this role properly and if he is supposed to be the tight lock he has not proven that he is good at it.

As for MMM, he may be smaller (ever so slightly) but he has big kahunas and a big engine.

This is why I would start Douglas for 40 and bring on MMM.

I know and agree with what you say. Timani as I have stated wouldn't even be in my 31. The only reason I would suggest he could be in position to do the job is his recent work for the Tahs. It is different to anything he has produced in gold as I said, and it will depend on his instructions whether or not he is going to be used in a similar fashion by Deans to produce similar results.

But for mine he just limits too many others aspects of play to be selected. He just unbalances the side too much, from the lineout to the phase play in both attack and defence. The only real strength I see is his performance as a scrummaging lock, but I am left wondering if even this is needed when you consider he will be paired with Horwill. I would much prefer Douglas or Pyle (Simmons has been a bit erratic and prone to concede penalties at the worst possible time until recently). On the bench either MMM or Mowen. But all that comes back to the game plan to be played, and none of those mentioned are suitable for the plan we saw at the RWC and last year.

 

[Bullrush]

I was just thinking....I have never heard so much about 'balancing' a team as I have since moving to Aussie. In NZ, most punters talk about whoever are the best players in their position and that's who we think we should go with. I guess in a simple view of the game, the positions should in themselves 'balance' the team and so if you have the best player in each of the positions, the team theoretically should pretty much be balanced.

 

[Gnostic]

I was just thinking..I have never heard so much about 'balancing' a team as I have since moving to Aussie. In NZ, most punters talk about whoever are the best players in their position and that's who we think we should go with. I guess in a simple view of the game, the positions should in themselves 'balance' the team and so if you have the best player in each of the positions, the team theoretically should pretty much be balanced.

I would agree, but we have until recently only had a small number of top line players to select from so invariably some get picked out of position. Hence in Australia it has always been about balance, and why you would find someone like John Eales selected at 8 when Tim Gavin was injured in 1991. It is most often used when talking about the pack and the centres.

Given you compatriot's penchant for selecting people out of position even though we have form players in every position we still have to talk about balancing the side.

 

[Pfitzy]

Simple depth is the answer. When you have two open side flankers who are daylight ahead of the best blindside available, you pick them.

New Zealand doesn't have this problem.