• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wilson

Wilson

David Codey (61)
Absolutely, he has been superb in the scrum under the new laws and is exactly what we need in bench tight head. It'll be a question of how he recovers from the shoulder injury though.

Assuming 5 props I think the ideal will be slipper, kepu, sio, Holmes and either Faulkner or Alexander to cover both sides. I'd prefer weeks to Alexander as a tight head but I think that 5th prop will need to be able to play both and I'm not sure weeks has much experience there.
 
Jagman

Jagman

Trevor Allan (34)
I've seen Weeks play loose head for Sydney Uni but it shouldn't matter cause both Holmes and Kepu have played plenty of loosehead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BDA

BDA

Peter Johnson (47)
Could we maybe just rest Kepu for the whole of the Super season? Watching him go into contact for the tahs will be like eating glass. We're no chance without him in at tighthead.
 
hammertimethere

hammertimethere

Trevor Allan (34)
Yeah I 100% agree, as fucking average as some of the Reds play was in 2014 their set piece work was generally top notch.

At loose head I'd look at Slipper, Sio, Robinson, Cowan Smith in that order

At tight head I'd rank Kepu, daylight, then Alexander, Faulkner and Holmes all about level really. All of those 3 have a great opportunity to slide onto the wallaby bench and if Holmes has a similar season to 2014 he seems to be best equipped to provide what the wallabies need
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
I find some of the responses to the article on the front page about having a selection committee for the Wallabies interesting.

It seems that a lot of people in favour of the selection committee seem to think that it would result in quite a few different selections.

The two most common suggestions is that Matt Hodgson would be the starting 7 and probably the Wallaby captain and secondly that Quade Cooper would have been the starting 10 last year.

I think the Hodgson one is unbelievably unlikely.

The Cooper one is perhaps more likely but I think would have been much of a muchness. He wasn't ready to start at the beginning of the EOYT and could have started in the last test or so of the tour. If a selection committee was picking the matchday 23 then perhaps they'd have reached that conclusion but then again, they could have easily decided not to. He was making a good impact off the bench but it was hardly chalk and cheese between him and Foley. I'd imagine there'd have been a reasonably likely chance that a selection committee would have put the losses down to our scrum getting destroyed and decided that sacking the fly half wasn't really the solution.

If a single selector is replaced by a panel of three and certain players still aren't selected, are people any less outraged? I don't think so at all.
 
Brumby Runner

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
Braveheart81 said:
I find some of the responses to the article on the front page about having a selection committee for the Wallabies interesting.

It seems that a lot of people in favour of the selection committee seem to think that it would result in quite a few different selections.

The two most common suggestions is that Matt Hodgson would be the starting 7 and probably the Wallaby captain and secondly that Quade Cooper would have been the starting 10 last year.

I think the Hodgson one is unbelievably unlikely.

The Cooper one is perhaps more likely but I think would have been much of a muchness. He wasn't ready to start at the beginning of the EOYT and could have started in the last test or so of the tour. If a selection committee was picking the matchday 23 then perhaps they'd have reached that conclusion but then again, they could have easily decided not to. He was making a good impact off the bench but it was hardly chalk and cheese between him and Foley. I'd imagine there'd have been a reasonably likely chance that a selection committee would have put the losses down to our scrum getting destroyed and decided that sacking the fly half wasn't really the solution.

If a single selector is replaced by a panel of three and certain players still aren't selected, are people any less outraged? I don't think so at all.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with all of this. But it does beg the question that if the losses could be put down solely or in the main part to the scrum being destroyed, how is that going to improve markedly by RWC time? I can't see much improvement to the tight five coming out of this year's Super comp, unless it is in the reserves. So here's hoping we can put together a stronger back row with certain players coming back into form.

However, while the scrum was a major worry with our reserves on, I really don't think that was the only reason for the losses. All of Ireland, France and England played strategic kicking games as well which we didn't seem to be able to counter. Particularly, Ireland put the ball up at almost every opportunity taking advantage of our game plan to keep ball in hand and not kick for territory (not that we had anyone who could kick with accuracy and length in the back three). And they were very successful in keeping most of the kicks away from our most threatening runners. We just didn't seem to have the game plan or nous to counteract the opposition tactics in our three losses.
 
A mutterer

A mutterer

Chilla Wilson (44)
i think izzy will need to step up a gear this year.

at times he looked too timid last year, and i'd put some of this down to second year syndrome.

but he, like many of the wallabies, better show an early fire in the belly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top