Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC

[BDA]

i read somewhere that Douglas could theoretically be fit by the Rugby Championship, though doubtful.

In any event, i doubt I'd select him. I think it's more likely that Horwill will find some form

 

[BDA]

Personally I've seen very little of Giteau over the last few years, so I've got absolutely no idea how he would match up to our current players. Though I can only assume that he has very good game management.

I'd see him fighting it out for a spot against Beale and Lilo. Doubt he'd get selected in their place.

If Cooper / Foley or To'omua are injured, he's a nice back up to have.

 

[Viking]

I would pick Giteau in a WC squad but not the best 23. Valuable experience for the younger players and those without WC experience and could lead the side against Fiji and Uruguay.

Ma'afu would be my 2nd best tighthead. Mitchell mayyybbe only because I think we're short of class finishers but definitely not Ioane.

Why not Digby? He served the wallabies and reds well IMO. Has he been poor overseas?

 

[qwerty51]

Why not Digby? He served the wallabies and reds well IMO. Has he been poor overseas?

Yes

 

[KOB1987]

He can't benefit from this change this year anyway unless he announces he is coming back next season. He has neither 60 caps nor was he contracted for at least 7 years before he left.


Ma'afu - same deal


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[aka_the_think]

Douglas is out for the season

Real shame, even if he wouldn't have ended up in the Wallaby team anyway.

On a side, I have an idea I've been meaning to float for a while, make of it what you will:

The ARU should bring back the Australia A team, with a slight caveat. I know it's a massive drain on funding but imo it's a worthwhile investment for a few reasons.
A. Guys like Harris, Inman, Betham, Godwin and most of those fringe players who are there or thereabouts should get a chance to prove their wares at a reasonably decent level and represent the country.
B. It means you can pick guys that could be picked for other countries, which is quite advantageous from a developmental and talent retention perspective For instance instead of wasting a selection on Sitaleki Timani back in 2011 for that Samoa test in order to prevent him being selected for Tonga we could have just picked him in Australia A as a developmental exercise and not jeopardised the victory with someone inexperienced. Obviously this is one very specific example, but this reasoning is often the motivation behind debuts.
C. You can try out new combinations against better quality opposition and assess how far guys are off the benchmark. In the case of the former, you could conceivably test combos like Genia and To'omua, or White and Cooper (test/club limitations not withstanding) to see if they have any merit. In the case of the latter, guys like Debresceni and Stirzaker will be Wallabies in a few years, and it's worth seeing how they fare at the international level for developmental reasons.
D. The caveat I would introduce to the new Australia A model is that any player, regardless of whether or not they're signed to an Australian Super Rugby franchise, can play in the team. In addition to the obvious advantage that comes from keeping them within the Australian system (to some extent) we could also see how a lot of the names being thrown around - Giteau, Smith, Ioane, Mitchell, Mowen, etc. fare at a reasonably high standard. Given the question marks over their form and the weakness of the comps they play in, this would provide a better yardstick to measure their applicability for the Wallabies team, especially in light of the new policy.

I would have the Australia A team play with more frequency, especially against high quality opposition (i.e. not just Pacific Nations teams, despite them being worthy adversaries) when they come on tour. This could augment the current 3 game tours done by NH sides (which is also obviously the same time our NH players would be free) or slot into other time periods. Touring would be difficult funding-wise.

Just a thought, any takers?

 

[Tomikin]

Oh so not either? Why are people suggesting Mowen?

Dunno, I read 7 years and 60 test caps.

Does allow many too make the squad possibly Gits as the only.. Smith but really Hooper, Poey and Gill should be looked at first..

Sent from my D6503 using Forum Fiend v1.3.1.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Douglas is out for the season

Only seen a few games but from some of the reports in other forums he hasn't been playing well enough anyway.

 

[Tomikin]

So realistically who is going to be picked for a squad. possibly only Gits.. I can't see Chekia bringing in Smith or Mitchell..

Sent from my D6503 using Forum Fiend v1.3.1.

 

[Braveheart81]

Just a thought, any takers?

The cost outweighs the benefit and most of the players are already playing close to the maximum number of games a year.

The replacement is realistically the tests against Samoa and Scotland in 2011 or 2012 (noting that we lost both). Whilst the loss hurts more, if you're taking it seriously and the cost is the same, you may as well maximise the return. The ARU just don't have the resources (available match days or money) to not make the most of every time they put a team on the park.

The second team for a country also secures someone's nationality so your point regarding Sitaleki Timani doesn't apply.

 

[Highlander35]

Pyle's been the pick of the overseas locks TBH. He got a chance early, then has kept his spot against a number of experienced internationals, being a standout in a number of them. His strengths remain the same, but his key weaknesses of maul defence and work in tight have been much improved upon.

 

[aka_the_think]

The cost outweighs the benefit and most of the players are already playing close to the maximum number of games a year.

The replacement is realistically the tests against Samoa and Scotland in 2011 or 2012 (noting that we lost both). Whilst the loss hurts more, if you're taking it seriously and the cost is the same, you may as well maximise the return. The ARU just don't have the resources (available match days or money) to not make the most of every time they put a team on the park.

Thanks for the reply and yea, I know what you mean.

That said, I don't think it - necessarily - has to be an expensive affair and, were I to be in charge of its operation, I wouldn't seek to make it a revenue raiser or glamour event. I see no why reason why a small-ish venue like Concord (or perhaps somewhere slightly more accessible but comparably sized) could be used for this game. Much cheaper for venue hire and you'd probably get what I call the "suburban effect" (whereby people who wouldn't otherwise trek it to ANZ or SFS go out because the grounds are more accessible, have better viewing angles, have a suburban feel, etc. probs would lead to decent sized crowds), so costs could be contained somewhat.

Player payments would be an issue I concede, but I feel like there might be an argument to say they won't be massive? I mean the players already earn lots overseas, and the reality is those that would be interested in playing (be they overseas, earning lots of money with a passion for the gold or fringe/younger players yearning for a cap) would probably settle for comparably small matchday payments. Or they could just be greedy bastards and bankrupt the ARU.

In any case, there could be a way to do this, but I don't doubt that the feasibility of a similar idea has been considered to some extent.

The second team for a country also secures someone's nationality so your point regarding Sitaleki Timani doesn't apply.

Yea, sorry, this was the point I intended to make, sorry if it wasn't written well/clear. I was trying to say that Aus. A is advantageous in that it means we can secure nationality without having to pick them for a test like Scotland or Samoa and subsequently lose due to inexperienced/lower quality players.

 

[topgun]

I really doubt Cheika would pick Giteau or Mitchell

 

[Braveheart81]

Thanks for the reply and yea, I know what you mean.

That said, I don't think it - necessarily - has to be an expensive affair and, were I to be in charge of its operation, I wouldn't seek to make it a revenue raiser or glamour event. I see no why reason why a small-ish venue like Concord (or perhaps somewhere slightly more accessible but comparably sized) could be used for this game. Much cheaper for venue hire and you'd probably get what I call the "suburban effect" (whereby people who wouldn't otherwise trek it to ANZ or SFS go out because the grounds are more accessible, have better viewing angles, have a suburban feel, etc. probs would lead to decent sized crowds), so costs could be contained somewhat.

Player payments would be an issue I concede, but I feel like there might be an argument to say they won't be massive? I mean the players already earn lots overseas, and the reality is those that would be interested in playing (be they overseas, earning lots of money with a passion for the gold or fringe/younger players yearning for a cap) would probably settle for comparably small matchday payments. Or they could just be greedy bastards and bankrupt the ARU.

In any case, there could be a way to do this, but I don't doubt that the feasibility of a similar idea has been considered to some extent.

Of course it would be expensive. You can't put on a quasi test match for much less than you can put on an actual test match. If you take it with the necessary seriousness to make it worthwhile it also means putting players together at the very least at the start of the week.

The Australian Barbarians have effectively replaced it and if they ever get another game you'd expect it to be filled with people who would otherwise be playing club rugby or NRC at the time. It wouldn't be overly serious in terms of preparation.

 

[aka_the_think]

Of course it would be expensive. You can't put on a quasi test match for much less than you can put on an actual test match. If you take it with the necessary seriousness to make it worthwhile it also means putting players together at the very least at the start of the week.

The Australian Barbarians have effectively replaced it and if they ever get another game you'd expect it to be filled with people who would otherwise be playing club rugby or NRC at the time. It wouldn't be overly serious in terms of preparation.

The phrase 'quasi-test match' is a bit too gratifying for what I have in mind - I see it as a mid-week friendly sort of game. I genuinely don't think it needs to be overly serious, but you're right, one week of preparation is certainly necessary at the very least.

Australian Barbarians is a perfectly reasonable setup/approach/name for what I have in mind. Imagine those NRC guys (the fringe players not in the Wallaby squad I referred to earlier) augmented by a few of the internationally based players we are interested in looking at for the purpose of Wallaby selection.

Furthermore, I reckon the best way to do it would be to just play the games up in the NH. They're already there, not doing anything at the time, and arrangements can be made to organise it in the same fashion as a Barbarians game. I really don't care too much about the format, the name of the team, or anything else, what I really am interested in is seeing the names being thrown around going up against a strong international team.

Bear in mind, the ARU should have a bit more $$$ in its pockets soon - many of its highest paid players are defecting, which - will regrettable - obviously frees up their pockets + the TV rights deal + the fact that clubs like the Rebels are reasonably certain they'll be able to run independent of the ARU soon (read an article recently, could be bullshit). Perhaps a portion of that money should be allocated to a project like this, with a view towards minimising costs a la the Barbarians game that was played.

 

[BDA]

Cant say the new eligibility rules have changed my preferred squad at all.

If there's some injuries then perhaps.

Some talk about Ma'afu returning to Australia (possibly to Toulon). If that's true he'd be worth considering for a TH spot but again I have no idea what his form has been like in the last few season.

 

[qwerty51]

He's a pot plant but he holds a scrum up.

 

[Tomikin]

Do we see Git's being brought out for at least a look at by Chekia before the cup ?

 

[Brumby Runner]

A few things.

A. "Under the revised Policy, players returning to Australia from overseas who make a two-year commitment to an Australian Super Rugby Club will also be eligible to represent the Qantas Wallabies immediately upon their return."

Isn't this already the status quo? I am pretty sure a number of guys have signed with Super clubs and - before they've played a game of Super rugby - have been picked for the Wallabies. Can't think of any examples but still fairly certain. (I'll see if I can come up with any and I'll post them in an edit, feel free to point out if I am wrong).

I believe a decision was taken a couple of years ago that Luke Burgess was eligible to play immediately after signing a Super contract even though he wasn't due to start playing Super rugby until the following year.

Like you, I think it it just the status quo.

 

[TOCC]

I'd definitely take Giteau in the squad, for his experience but also his goal kicking.. Probably at the expense of Leakifano..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk