Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
No, but he has blamed his players a few times. It has never ever been his fault, or lack of preparation, or woeful selection. I still haven't forgiven him for selection Timana Tahu at 13.
Wallabies 31 Man Squad
- Thread starter Bowside
- Start date
- Status
No, but he has blamed his players a few times. It has never ever been his fault, or lack of preparation, or woeful selection. I still haven't forgiven him for selection Timana Tahu at 13.
lewisr
Bill McLean (32)
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...d-white-misses-lions-shot-20130608-2nx7x.html
Am I late in posting this? Looks like Burgo is our third halfback (frisby or Lucas would be better options IMO). I don't think he should be in the final six though.
Am I late in posting this? Looks like Burgo is our third halfback (frisby or Lucas would be better options IMO). I don't think he should be in the final six though.
I thought Cooper showed last night the reasons why he should be selected last night and the reasons why he won't be selected. I have never cheered so much for a guy's audacity and then sworn at his dumb decisions.
Shame about White, he deserved a spot. Burgess just didn't show enough to justify selection. I wonder if Deans will now select a third 9, do we think he will select a 3rd hooker as well?
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
Shame about White, he deserved a spot. Burgess just didn't show enough to justify selection. I wonder if Deans will now select a third 9, do we think he will select a 3rd hooker as well?
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
gold heart
Ted Fahey (11)
Personally I hope we just stick with the two halfbacks - Genia and Phipps, pick a third hooker Hanson making the final six; Hanson, Sio, MMM, either Kimlin or Pyle, Beale and Ioane,
redstragic
Alan Cameron (40)
Nothing wrong with Frisby. In the warm up Genia was doing some drills with him. He had a long flat pass.
In the game I thought he made some really good decisions and was aware where quade was all night. He will become a fine half.
We are very very vulnerable at #2. Not sure that FingerS is the best option to bench for Squeaky.
On the pro front: He does gain the odd pilfer, and get over the ball to force "holding on" penalties. His defence is about average and doesn't miss too many tackles.
On the con front: He does attract far too many penalties. Like most 2's around, his lineout throwing is not as reliable as it should be.
Who is a better #2 to be on the bench for the Wobs. Dunno. Hansen possibly. Is he Test ready? probably not.
Can Liam Gill chuck a ball in to a Lineout accurately and reliably?
vidiot
John Solomon (38)
Anyone can throw the ball into the line out. It takes a special type of foolhardy to stand in the middle of the scrum.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
I expect Deans will go with both an additional No 2 and No 9. In that case, Hanson and Burgess are near certainties for the final 6. Then I think he will go with a prop, a 4/6/8 cover, cover for 10 and 12/13/wing/FB.
If Deans can be believed, these spots will go the those who have used their "opportunities to push for selection" in the last couple of games.
Dan Palmer has probably ruled himself out with average performances lately. So the extra prop will be either Sio or Ryan. Sio has put in enormous performances all year but especially in recent matches. He would be the frontrunner, but Ryan has today's game to make a case.
Cover for 4/6/8 comes down to MMM, Kimlin or Jones. MMM will need to establish his fitness and form today. Otherwise, Kimlin has used the recent games as opportunities to press his claims, and would be favoured over Jones on experience as well as form.
If he goes for an extra 10, it will be either QC (Quade Cooper) or Matt To'omua. Depends whether QC (Quade Cooper) is really on the outer and has no chance of selection regardless of form. Looks like To'omua might be a real chance to make the squad.
Cover for 12/13/wing and FB would come from McCabe, Tapuai, Faainga or Mogg. I would be very surprised if Pat McCabe is not selected. He is an accomplished FB, has test experience at wing and 12, and has shown in recent games he can play 13. He is also distributing the ball more now than simply being a crash ball runner.
So my final 6 are Sio, Hanson, Kimlin, Burgess, To'omua and McCabe, with Ryan and MMM still in the running and largely requiring massive games today to make the squad.
BDA
Peter Johnson (47)
Pyle is out injured. MMM is the best option for a backup lock. Other than that Carter and Neville are the other options
Cosmo Jones
Allen Oxlade (6)
I disagree that Cooper played himself out of the Wallabies in last nights game. IMO he showed what the wallabies need to be doing if they want to compete with the BIL. God help us if Deans sticks with his stupid 'grind' of a game plan. The BIL will simply win the games through their superior kicking if we decide to play conservative, that is what the BIL are good and and theres no point trying to beat them at their own game it simply wont work. IF Deans sticks with the grind, Cooper will have no place in the Wallabies, BUT IF Deans actually takes something from the Reds game, he will. It is obvious from the reds game that the BIL cannot compete with expansive, open, running rugby, IMO the reds could have very easily won that game if their set piece wasnt dominated as it was and their place kicking was better.
I disagree with the notion that last night the Reds showed how to 'unlock' the Lions. And I would be disappointed if Robbie Deans decided the Wallabies needed to play that way in the test matches.
Let's not forget that the Reds lost the game. And never really looked like winning it.
It showed the Lions could be vulnerable if you shift it wide quickly. But ultimately the Reds were only doing that because their forward pack couldn't compete with the Lions pack in tight. The Wallaby pack can, so there is no need to avoid this situation like the Reds needed to.
And I don't get this idea that playing physical rugby will somehow play into the Lions hands. Did you see their back 3 counter-attacking last night? If anything it was a good ad as to why cross-kicking and chip-kicking won't work, nor will going too wide too early and turning the ball over.
Beating the Lions isn't as simple as choosing to play 'expansive' over 'conservative'. There is a place for both plans, but at test level always expect the latter to come first.
.
Exactly. I noted in my review that the Lions counter-attack was potent enough. No need to feed it. Attack the breakdowns intelligently, wait for narrow rushing defence then look for chances wide. Lions defence closed some big overlaps down too. They're not chumps. It will need to be smart.
lewisr
Bill McLean (32)
I personally think that with a toned down, more sensible version of last nights game plan along with a half decent goal kicker (didn't need to be johnny wilkinson to land the ones we missed...) and full strength forward pack the Reds, or more importantly, wallabies, would have beaten the Lions.
I don't think going for the tap inside the 22 is the right approach at all, if you were confident in your set piece you would go for the kick and that goes for all those kinds of decisions around the park. The point is that last night was an extremely exaggerated example of what we should be trying to employ. If we integrate the high tempo, expansive approach with a good set piece that wins line outs and scrums the Wallabies should have a very good chance of beating them. This obviously includes the influence of Hooper/ Palu/ Horwill will have in close around the rucks whilst we wait for an opportunity.
Having a strong Wallabies forward pack and world class outside backs will in itself improve the defence and set piece deficiencies that exposed the reds. And then let Izzy's aerial skills do the talking for those cross kicks
I don't think going for the tap inside the 22 is the right approach at all, if you were confident in your set piece you would go for the kick and that goes for all those kinds of decisions around the park. The point is that last night was an extremely exaggerated example of what we should be trying to employ. If we integrate the high tempo, expansive approach with a good set piece that wins line outs and scrums the Wallabies should have a very good chance of beating them. This obviously includes the influence of Hooper/ Palu/ Horwill will have in close around the rucks whilst we wait for an opportunity.
Having a strong Wallabies forward pack and world class outside backs will in itself improve the defence and set piece deficiencies that exposed the reds. And then let Izzy's aerial skills do the talking for those cross kicks
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
My view is totally different to Barbarian's stated above. I think the Reds did indeed show how to beat the Lions. The game plan they took out was the only one they could given their squad. They played to their strengths and nullified the Lions as best they could, and they led the game for much of the first half. Then came the rain and they didn't have the pack or the set piece to compete with the Lions. However they stayed true to the plan and executed some marvellous wet weather Rugby, which I will add is a traditional weak point for all Australian teams. Let us not under estimate the achievement of the Reds last night, a severely understrength Provincial side played very entertaining Rugby with a generally high level of skill execution against a test side. To say they were never in it is churlish, they certainly went out with the intent to win and play, unlike the Force earlier in the week appear to be in harm minimisation mode.
To my mind this whole argument shows the polarity in difference between the approach of Mackenzie (Reds version and not Waratahs version) and Deans. Mackenzie's side played to its strengths and tried to win. Deans side up to this year (since the RWC) has played not to lose the games and minimise risk, much the same as I argued against the Tahs for many years. The Reds were severely lacking in two key areas to actually be able to compete effectively, especially when the rain started coming down, and that is in both set pieces. Without primary possession the game is very very hard to win. Here we can return to the many arguments I have posted on this site about the selection of Timani in the 2nd row. This example better than any other showed for the last couple of years what the focus of Deans' side was. The fact that he is now injured and we will actually have a lineout option is a blessing in disguise for the Wallabies, but I still believe that the basic structures will change little in his absence and that will play into the hands of the Lions.
However if the Wallabies decide after all to play a wide running and passing game like that displayed by the Reds, with better structures in the forwards because they have the personnel to execute those aspects, then JOC (James O'Connor) is certainly not the 10 to execute that and neither are Barnes or Beale. The three 10s in Australia who could execute that game plan are not in the squad and one will not get to play against the Lions because of a ridiculous decision to send him off the the 7s. If the Wallabies do play a wide running/passing game with who they have selected it will be yet another in a long litany of nonsensical decisions from Robbie Deans, yet I will not be surprised if that happens. Shit I will be happy to see it as long as it is executed properly and part of that is again in selection of the right people for the task.
To my mind this whole argument shows the polarity in difference between the approach of Mackenzie (Reds version and not Waratahs version) and Deans. Mackenzie's side played to its strengths and tried to win. Deans side up to this year (since the RWC) has played not to lose the games and minimise risk, much the same as I argued against the Tahs for many years. The Reds were severely lacking in two key areas to actually be able to compete effectively, especially when the rain started coming down, and that is in both set pieces. Without primary possession the game is very very hard to win. Here we can return to the many arguments I have posted on this site about the selection of Timani in the 2nd row. This example better than any other showed for the last couple of years what the focus of Deans' side was. The fact that he is now injured and we will actually have a lineout option is a blessing in disguise for the Wallabies, but I still believe that the basic structures will change little in his absence and that will play into the hands of the Lions.
However if the Wallabies decide after all to play a wide running and passing game like that displayed by the Reds, with better structures in the forwards because they have the personnel to execute those aspects, then JOC (James O'Connor) is certainly not the 10 to execute that and neither are Barnes or Beale. The three 10s in Australia who could execute that game plan are not in the squad and one will not get to play against the Lions because of a ridiculous decision to send him off the the 7s. If the Wallabies do play a wide running/passing game with who they have selected it will be yet another in a long litany of nonsensical decisions from Robbie Deans, yet I will not be surprised if that happens. Shit I will be happy to see it as long as it is executed properly and part of that is again in selection of the right people for the task.
Surprise Surprise...
@iainpayten 7m
Kurtley Beale is one of the Wallabies six squad additions. Quade Cooper is not. Full squad named tommorrow.
Kurtley Beale is one of the Wallabies six squad additions. Quade Cooper is not. Full squad named tommorrow.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
Never looke like winning? They left 5 points in easy kicks out there and the Lions scored a try from a half back stripping a no. 8. Not to mention most 50-50 calls going against them.
From my viewing they were right in the game, with both teams very even.
That's one way of looking at it.
I was cheering desperately for the Reds, but apart from the few minutes where they were 7-0 up they weren't in control of the game. The Lions won the physical battle, and the set piece, and that meant the Reds were always pushing shit uphill to get in the game.
I don't doubt they were right in the game, and don't want to take anything away from what was a great effort. But I don't think they deserved to win.
If you want to talk about hypotheticals and 50/50s, you also have to consider the Lions came agonisingly close to scoring on 3 or 4 occasions as well.
.
- Status