Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC

[Brumbieman]

But to pinpoint it to one moment doesn't consider what leads to that moment.

If one player has to cover for another's misses multiple times he's fatigued when it comes to his own tackles.

How did the opposition get to the field position for that miss to occur.

To lay the blame solely at one play ignores the fact that unless the player ran 100m to score, it's probably down to errors by others too which lead to a try.

Foley also gave away a try at the other end earlier by coming out of the line and jamming in, giving NZ an overlap.

NZ were in our 22 at the end, because no one other than White had made any attempt to organise themselves for the clearing kick. We cant pick and drive for 2 minutes on our 22, no way.

Shit kick, but it was the right option and if they'd made their tackles they'd have won.

 

[BarneySF]

Making sure he Straylian mate.

Just to be clear, if he actually gets on the field, he's a no-go for being capped for another nation, right? But if he stays on the bench (and never takes the field) he'd still be eligible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cyclopath]

That's lots of deleting! More effort even. Much easier to say, Too many Tahs!

Never gets old. Wait............


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[cyclopath]

Beale over Lealilifano is absolute bullshit

Giteau is filling the role Lilo would.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[cyclopath]

Foley also gave away a try at the other end earlier by coming out of the line and jamming in, giving NZ an overlap.

NZ were in our 22 at the end, because no one other than White had made any attempt to organise themselves for the clearing kick. We cant pick and drive for 2 minutes on our 22, no way.

Shit kick, but it was the right option and if they'd made their tackles they'd have won.

Or their kicks. So many variables.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Gnostic]

The provincialism (pettiness) of some posters never ceases to amaze.

My only pettiness if it can be called that is a well stated belief that Beale shouldn't even have a contract, let alone be selected and my continuing belief that the Australian Policy of selecting Australian based players should be followed in the spirit of the rule as well as it oft abused letter, hence why I think Mumm, regardless of his "England best award (though I note the dream team he was named in had very few regular test players) should not be there over somebody like Jones or even Wykes who have given an entire season to Australian Rugby. That is before we take into account actual form which should have seen Jones selected IMO.

Now I can accept the 60 test rule, as those players are long serving "veterens" and I can see the argument that they have given back to Australian Rugby over the 5+ years it takes to earn that number of caps, but it really pisses me off to see situations like Elsom, Vickerman, Mumm and now the rumoured return of Douglas. Those examples may well have followed the letter of the eligibility rules but they shat all over the original intent and spirit.

That rant over I can see what Chieka is doing, without picking a second string team he is resting some players with a clear intent IMO to give others a chance to push their case in a game. Those like Lilo are known factors while Gits and Mitchell have been away from Super Rugby and test matches for some time. I wouldn't be surprised to see some different tactics to be tried with some positional / personnel changes and skill sets. I certainly hope so because without a far more balanced game plan to what was presented and defeated last year the RC and the RWC will be a lost cause in the same way the Tahs season this year was flawed with a total lack of kicking options in the back three.

 

[Slim 293]

Giteau is filling the role Lilo would.

Yep...........

I'd love to see Beale gone, but it's Giteau that has taken Lilo's spot............

It's a bit harsh on Lilo who has been in good form this year, and seems to have regained some of his acceleration and ability to break the line...............

But with Giteau being given a shot he was going to the one to miss out.............

However, if Giteau fails to live up to the hype, or Cooper breaks down again, Lilo is next in line.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I'm good with Cheika picking Giteau and Mitchell for one of the next two tests at the very least on the bench, just to see if they're still up to test level.

 

[Brumby Runner]

The provincialism (pettiness) of some posters never ceases to amaze.

My only pettiness if it can be called that is a well stated belief that Beale shouldn't even have a contract, let alone be selected and my continuing belief that the Australian Policy of selecting Australian based players should be followed in the spirit of the rule as well as it oft abused letter, hence why I think Mumm, regardless of his "England best award (though I note the dream team he was named in had very few regular test players) should not be there over somebody like Jones or even Wykes who have given an entire season to Australian Rugby. That is before we take into account actual form which should have seen Jones selected IMO.

Now I can accept the 60 test rule, as those players are long serving "veterens" and I can see the argument that they have given back to Australian Rugby over the 5+ years it takes to earn that number of caps, but it really pisses me off to see situations like Elsom, Vickerman, Mumm and now the rumoured return of Douglas. Those examples may well have followed the letter of the eligibility rules but they shat all over the original intent and spirit.

That rant over I can see what Chieka is doing, without picking a second string team he is resting some players with a clear intent IMO to give others a chance to push their case in a game. Those like Lilo are known factors while Gits and Mitchell have been away from Super Rugby and test matches for some time. I wouldn't be surprised to see some different tactics to be tried with some positional / personnel changes and skill sets. I certainly hope so because without a far more balanced game plan to what was presented and defeated last year the RC and the RWC will be a lost cause in the same way the Tahs season this year was flawed with a total lack of kicking options in the back three.

Nailed it on all counts @Gnostic.

 

[qwerty51]

but it really pisses me off to see situations like Elsom, Vickerman, Mumm and now the rumoured return of Douglas. Those examples may well have followed the letter of the eligibility rules but they shat all over the original intent and spirit.

This makes no sense. What was original intent if not what Mumm, (Douglas), Vickerman, Elsom did?

 

[dru]

This makes no sense. What was original intent if not what Mumm, (Douglas), Vickerman, Elsom did?

Nailed it on all counts qwerty51.

 

[wamberal]

So Wykes and Jones played in Australia primarily for the sake of the game here?


I don't think so. They are both professional sportspeople, and they played here because the net benefits of playing here outweighed the net benefits of playing elsewhere.


The possibility of representing the country would be worth something in the cost/benefit equation.


But let us not delude ourselves into imagining that professionals do things just for the love of their country. Or even just for the love of the game.

They do what is on their own self-interest. That will include both tangible and intangible factors and each player will have his own weighting for the intangibles - like the prestige of being a Wallaby.

There is very little room for sentimentality or jingoism on either the side of the player, or of his employer(s).

 

[Train Without a Station]

No. They play here because that's what you have to do to be eligible for the wallabies. The sake of the game is the ARU's benefit of that.

You start accommodating overseas based players who have never had a successful test career anyway and they will think what's the point?

 

[qwerty51]

The rule was clear before, if you commit to the ARU for the following year, you're eligible for the Wallabies that year. No one seemed to care when it was introduced but now..

 

[Quick Hands]

The rule was clear before, if you commit to the ARU for the following year, you're eligible for the Wallabies that year. No one seemed to care when it was introduced but now..

I was always against that part of the rule - if you think back to the Luke Burgess v George Smith discussion, I was pretty much the lone voice arguing that Burgess shouldn't have been considered for Wallaby selection in that year as he hadn't played super rugby in that year.

 

[Joe Blow]

Sykes is nowhere near a Wallaby jersey and seemingly Jones is not much closer right now. Not every pro player will be a Wallaby.
I do not see why Douglas would be such a high priority when we have some excellent young locks coming through(including Jones) and keeping in mind he(Douglas) has been adequate but not much more at test level.
Cheika has his second row crew for the RWC and was even able to leave the best performed lock statistically and the obvious up and comer out of the mix completely.

 

[RayC]

Amsterdam
O'Reilly's
Paleisstraat 103 - 106
(020) 624 94 98
http://www.oreillys.com
Comments: 2 Big screens and a staunch rugby following. Big match specials from the kitchen. A big reputation for quality food.

Amsterdam
The Tara Irish Pub
Rokin 89
Comments: Has lots of TV and 2 large screens. Unfortunately they show football at the same time. Lots of rugger fans in there though.

Thanks Daz

 

[Quick Hands]

Yep.....

I'd love to see Beale gone, but it's Giteau that has taken Lilo's spot....

It's a bit harsh on Lilo who has been in good form this year, and seems to have regained some of his acceleration and ability to break the line.....

But with Giteau being given a shot he was going to the one to miss out.....

However, if Giteau fails to live up to the hype, or Cooper breaks down again, Lilo is next in line.

As someone who has been described as being both a Beale hater and a Beale apologist on these threads, I feel uniquely qualified to add that on Super form last season there was some case for Beale to be picked in the match day 23 (from the bench only). IMO no such case exists this year and on form he's quite a way off even getting into the RWC squad.

I should add that I expect him to be picked in the match day 23 at some point in TRC and I also expect him to go to RWC.

Note that above opinion is based on form alone.

 

[Groucho]

This makes no sense. What was original intent if not what Mumm, (Douglas), Vickerman, Elsom did?

Correct. The eligibility rule around players who sign up for the following year is there for precisely that reason: to encourage players to return. It's not a loophole that the ARU keeps forgetting to close.

 

[Quick Hands]

Correct. The eligibility rule around players who sign up for the following year is there for precisely that reason: to encourage players to return. It's not a loophole that the ARU keeps forgetting to close.

But does it actually "encourage players to return" any more than having a rule whereby only players who are playing in Australia in that season are eligible?

IMO it's a bizarre rule, which allows certain players to have their cake and eat it too; i.e. play a full season in Europe on big dollars and then waltz back into Wallaby eligibility ahead of guys who have slogged it out all season in super rugby.