Wallabies squad for Ireland series

[Rebels3]

Alloutrugby lists the following as the current tackle stats:

Simmons 107/11 = 90.7%
Arnold 70/12 = 85.4%
Carter 79/14 = 84.9%
Rodda 106/20 = 84.1%
Coleman 97/8 = 92.4%
Douglas 115/10 = 92%

All the stats sites have a reasonable amount of variation but certainly Simmons seems to stand up there.

Anyway, he's going to be one of our three locks this weekend and I don't think Arnold will be an automatic selection for the second test unless one of the locks has a poor game.

I look forward to you still complaining about Rob Simmons when he plays his 100th test.

Im not a big fan of these types of stats. It doesn't show facets that matter a) did the person win the contact (almost as crucial as making the tackle itself) b) does the team apply an aggressive rush defense which is suspect to missed first up attempts but keeps the opposition behind the gain line. c) speed and ability to reload for the next phase.

Not saying the stats are useless, its obviously better to have someone that makes their tackles, but i'd take an 85% tackler that dominates the contact and gets off the deck quickly over a 95% technically proficient, that sometimes wins the contact and reloads into the defensive line at moderate pace any day. You can't beat the eye test, if Simmons ticks more boxes (contact zone, success rate, speed off the deck, etc.) than anyone else then he should get picked.

Who ever gets picked lets just all agree to get behind them. I'd personally go for Rodda and Coleman but Simmons has been playing very well the past 3/4 weeks

 

[Brumby Runner]

It's a bit rich to infer that reports from players regarding his scrummaging are false unless verified with names, yet carry on like "your eye" is an unbiased beacon of measurement with regards to the scrummaging ability of the THP or lock you're questioning. The thing regarding Simmons was reported by several posters close to players at the Reds and Wallabies, and not by posters who were championing Simmons at all in other regards. It's as likely to be true and any inference on these pages.

And equally as likely to be false. Many claims are made (some by me), that take on a life of their own as they get repeated by posters who have simply read the first claim.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Man, the bloke has played 82 tests. If you have to rely on stats to make a qualitative assessment of him then you haven't been watching enough rugby.

We all know what he brings. Set piece ability and a decent work rate but low impact ball carrying.

Derpus, as many know I have always had a very low opinion of Rob Simmons as a rugby player at test level, pre-dating his move to the Tahs by quite a few years. I do not rely on stats to form an opinion, but any impartial observer would have to say the stats in this case do more support my notion than refute it.

 

[Brumby Runner]

See I thought this was interesting, until I dug into the numbers (Link). The Reds (10th) are still within 5% of the Waratahs (2nd). To give context are talking about around 10 throws (if my maths is correct, I don't trust it as far as I can throw it but I think it's correct). The Brumbies have the most throws at around 170, the Reds at 150, and then the Rebels on 145, and Waratahs on 140 (numbers aren't exact because I had to work backwards from the percentage and the number of own throws won).

So I think saying 'the Waratahs are most efficient' is kind of a non-starter, perhaps they are more efficient because they throw less, perhaps because they are better, perhaps it's a meaningless number because there are too many factors to say the difference of 5% (again around ten throws) is really significant or indicative of anything more than the line-outs from all the Aussie sides are all working well. (Also for some more context the 'worst' line-out side in Super Rugby is the Highlanders on 82% so were literally splitting 10% into 15 bit. So really it's everyone is winning their own ball.)

The difference in success rates could just as easily be put down to the abilities of the respective throwers rather than the caller/jumper. In fact, probably moreso when account is taken into crooked throws and overthrows, which cannot be attributed to the caller.

 

[Braveheart81]

Well, the good thing is we'll get to see what Rob Simmons' 2018 test form is like this weekend when he runs out for his 83rd test.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Settle down, were not talking about Dean Mumm! Simmons has been going okay, he's no worse than Hanigan.

Kind of says it all, really.
I find him wholly unconvincing.
The improvement in the tahs line out has coincided with selection of someone who can throw the ball to the same postcode as the line out.[edit - I see brumby runner has made this point].
There’s no doubt Simmons plays like he believes he’s picked for his set piece.

 

[Gnostic]

As I have said before, I had the very same negative view of Simmons, but was extremely happy that he was poached for the Tahs as I identified the fundamental weakness at second row for the 2015 season and it was not fixed until this year with his arrival.

The point about throwers is a very good point, but I say this from my previous negative position, after being made to re-assess this opinion through talking with a very well positioned mate involved in the Qld game, I saw the value that Simmons is one of the best set piece locks in the Australian game. He looks to be doing so much better in NSW and have such good form because his relatively poor workrate away from said piece has been appropriately balanced with workrate forwards. What the Tahs still lack is a player such as a Nathan Sharpe, Wil Skelton type who have the technique or upper body strength to destroy opposition mauls. At the moment that is the Tahs weakness, and could well be a huge weakness for the Wallabies, that any lineout 10M out if not turned over or messed up for the opposition can be as good as a try against an opposition with a half decent maul.

 

[Up the Guts]

. At the moment that is the Tahs weakness, and could well be a huge weakness for the Wallabies, that any lineout 10M out if not turned over or messed up for the opposition can be as good as a try against an opposition with a half decent maul.

This is why I'd have Arnold in the 23 if not starting for the Wallabies when he returns from suspension, he's the best in Australia at disrupting a maul.

 

[Derpus]

This is why I'd have Arnold in the 23 if not starting for the Wallabies when he returns from suspension, he's the best in Australia at disrupting a maul.

Yeah, our best three locks are Arnold, Coleman and Rodda followed closely by a few others.

I was surprised when Arnold seemed to get the shaft after he and Coleman had done so well together.

 

[Gnostic]

I'm not really, Coleman is athletic and mobile, Arnold strikes me as ponderous.

None of Arnold, Coleman or Rodda are a real threat on the opposition throw, though if Hanigan (who I am not a fan of) is selected that aspect is balanced somewhat.

 

[Slim 293]

Arnold has been in top form this year..........

His all round game had been excellent, and I would’ve had him starting with Coleman until the suspension.

 

[Brumby Runner]

As I have said before, I had the very same negative view of Simmons, but was extremely happy that he was poached for the Tahs as I identified the fundamental weakness at second row for the 2015 season and it was not fixed until this year with his arrival.

The point about throwers is a very good point, but I say this from my previous negative position, after being made to re-assess this opinion through talking with a very well positioned mate involved in the Qld game, I saw the value that Simmons is one of the best set piece locks in the Australian game. He looks to be doing so much better in NSW and have such good form because his relatively poor workrate away from said piece has been appropriately balanced with workrate forwards. What the Tahs still lack is a player such as a Nathan Sharpe, Wil Skelton type who have the technique or upper body strength to destroy opposition mauls. At the moment that is the Tahs weakness, and could well be a huge weakness for the Wallabies, that any lineout 10M out if not turned over or messed up for the opposition can be as good as a try against an opposition with a half decent maul.

Yep, best maul disrupter atm is Arnold without doubt.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I'm not really, Coleman is athletic and mobile, Arnold strikes me as ponderous.

None of Arnold, Coleman or Rodda are a real threat on the opposition throw, though if Hanigan (who I am not a fan of) is selected that aspect is balanced somewhat.

But Coleman has the best stats by far for lineouts pilfered. But, of course, opposition throwers target him more than Simmons when they throw. Silly me.

 

[fatprop]

So Mr Samu, is he any good or does he just look better playing for the saders?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Joe Blow]

It sounds as though he is a little shocked to be there but is happy about it. I would be surprised if he plays a big part in this series unless there are multiple back row injuries.

 

[Derpus]

So Mr Samu, is he any good or does he just look better playing for the saders?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

Hope he's good.

It would be kind of a shame if we pull him from the Saders and throw him in and he doesn't cut it. For himself and us.

 

[Braveheart81]

I reckon he'll be on the bench in the first test.

 

[Joe Blow]

Maybe. I think Cheika will have a look at him. The first test may be the best opportunity if Hanigan is fit for the second.

 

[Zero_Cool]

Hope he's good.

It would be kind of a shame if we pull him from the Saders and throw him in and he doesn't cut it. For himself and us.

I don't recall him being a first choice for the Crusaders. I see the most likely outcome for Samu is him being used as a bench player. He'll get a cap off the bench, not be up to it, then never used again. Like so many before him.

 

[Joe Blow]

Will he go with Timu and Samu to back up Pocock and Hooper? I doubt it.
More likely that Tui will be on the bench with Timu starting or the other way around.