Wallabies 2023

[Tomthumb]

The fact

Genuine question - do you know that as fact?

I’ve heard plenty of speculation about Rennie’s training but I think that’s the first I’ve heard that it was full contact all week. Certainly I’ve hear a lot of the sessions were physically torrid - but my understanding was that it was more high tempo/high intensity in terms of training load. I don’t recall any comments that the contact has been excessive (not saying you’re wrong - I just haven’t heard that).

If true i agree it sounds nuts.

There was multiple training concussions in Argentina last year, requiring 2 emergency flights for players to get over there

the fact that he didnt learn from the first one and modify training was amateur hour

 

[TSR]

The fact

There was multiple training concussions in Argentina last year, requiring 2 emergency flights for players to get over there

the fact that he didnt learn from the first one and modify training was amateur hour

Okay. But that doesn’t actually address what you wrote.

I’m not defending Rennie’s training practices. But to state he did contact training all week isn’t proven by a couple of head knocks in one session.

 

[Derpus]

‘Who’s timing it?’ Rennie’s reservations over 15-minute full-contact training cap

The groundbreaking new measure announced by World Rugby will have a major impact on the game around the world - but the Wallabies coach said it left some questions unanswered.

www.smh.com.au

15 minutes of full contact training. Wasn't RUPA though - WR (World Rugby).

 

[LeCheese]

The fact

There was multiple training concussions in Argentina last year, requiring 2 emergency flights for players to get over there

the fact that he didnt learn from the first one and modify training was amateur hour

I recall one of them occurred during a non-contact (or low contact) drill

 

[Wilson]

‘Who’s timing it?’ Rennie’s reservations over 15-minute full-contact training cap

The groundbreaking new measure announced by World Rugby will have a major impact on the game around the world - but the Wallabies coach said it left some questions unanswered.

www.smh.com.au

15 minutes of full contact training. Wasn't RUPA though - WR (World Rugby) (World Rugby).

As far as I'm aware that has never been enforced (or particularly enforceable). That article has Rennie questioning it and a year later McKellar came out and said they completely ignored it because it wasn't a law:

I asked McKellar if the Wallabies had ever considered moving towards the target times as they prepare to meet the full force of England.

“To be honest, I saw that for about five minutes. It was a headline in an article and after that five minutes I’ve not thought about it again,” McKellar said.

“It’s never been discussed within our coaching group. It’s an interesting one, I’d like to see how they’d measure that 15 minutes from one week to the next.

“It’s certainly not at the forefront of my mind. I think the best way to avoid contact injuries is to train the technique required in a contact situation. Limiting it to 15 minutes is, I don’t see how that works at all.”

The reality is no professional team in this sport, or any other, will act on a recommendation rather than a law.

 

[Mr Pilfer]

Can we make a backrow work with Valentini at 6 and Gleeson at 8? Would love to see it. Guess that would rule out Skelton starting as would definitely need 2 jumping locks

 

[qwerty51]

Probably not. You'd need a Holloway type at 6 for the lineout, maul defence, and other general tight areas.

 

[dru]

Can we make a backrow work with Valentini at 6 and Gleeson at 8? Would love to see it. Guess that would rule out Skelton starting as would definitely need 2 jumping locks

Probably not. You'd need a Holloway type at 6 for the lineout, maul defence, and other general tight areas.

This in turn starts making the choice at 7 interesting. What second row/back row configuration beats 4: line out caller 5: Skelton; 6 Holloway/Hanigan/LSL (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto); 7: Valetini; 8: Gleeson.

Both Hooper and McReight don't obviously squeeze in to a pack that includes the big Will.

 

[Derpus]

This in turn starts making the choice at 7 interesting. What second row/back row configuration beats 4: line out caller 5: Skelton; 6 Holloway/Hanigan/LSL (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto) (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto); 7: Valetini; 8: Gleeson.

Both Hooper and McReight don't obviously squeeze in to a pack that includes the big Will.

Wouldn't this lack workrate, particularly in D?

 

[stillmissit]

But results dont matter apparently. Supposedly your team gets better the more they lose

Don't be bloody stupid, we are not here to lose but there is more to winning than many here realise. It takes skills, planning to win and determination but mostly it needs a focus on doing lots of bits well. That is what McQueen did and the results speak for themselves.
All of you shouting about 35%! are missing what it takes to be successful, Rennie did some good things but it was the details bit that killed him and he deserved to be shot BUT if you all want to ignore what he did, then all you can do is hope Eddie is the Messiah. I am not a fan of religions or simplistic thinking.

 

[stillmissit]

This in turn starts making the choice at 7 interesting. What second row/back row configuration beats 4: line out caller 5: Skelton; 6 Holloway/Hanigan/LSL (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto) (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto); 7: Valetini; 8: Gleeson.

Both Hooper and McReight don't obviously squeeze in to a pack that includes the big Will.

If Gleeson continues I would prefer him at 7, Hooper is going to have to lift significantly to hold a spot for RWC as I think Gamble is in front of him and McRight 1:1.

 

[KOB1987]

This in turn starts making the choice at 7 interesting. What second row/back row configuration beats 4: line out caller 5: Skelton; 6 Holloway/Hanigan/LSL (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto) (Lukhan Salakaia-Loto); 7: Valetini; 8: Gleeson.

Both Hooper and McReight don't obviously squeeze in to a pack that includes the big Will.

I don't mind that but I'd have Gleeson at open side. And Latu at hooker.

 

[stillmissit]

Wouldn't this lack workrate, particularly in D?

D I would prefer work in the breakdown as well as the D, both are important to win internationals.

 

[wamberal]

If Gleeson continues I would prefer him at 7, Hooper is going to have to lift significantly to hold a spot for RWC as I think Gamble is in front of him and McRight 1:1.

I have floated this before, and been shot down in flames. But Gleeson is quick enough to play 7. And he is on the small size for an international 8, or even 6. As others have said, Holloway is probably our first choice 6, Valetini is our best 8. Makes sense to me.

 

[dru]

Wouldn't this lack workrate, particularly in D?

A lot of similar comments here, Derpus. We also know that Eddie values workrate.

 

[dru]

I have floated this before, and been shot down in flames. But Gleeson is quick enough to play 7. And he is on the small size for an international 8, or even 6. As others have said, Holloway is probably our first choice 6, Valetini is our best 8. Makes sense to me.

If we have selected the same names in the back row, I'm less bothered by the numbers on their back. But given my scenario (missing McReight and Hooper) Gleeson to 7 has some support.

I'm not sure that the Skelton experiment will fly, but it seems to connect with Eddie's "smash and grab" great rugby swindle.

 

[stillmissit]

I have floated this before, and been shot down in flames. But Gleeson is quick enough to play 7. And he is on the small size for an international 8, or even 6. As others have said, Holloway is probably our first choice 6, Valetini is our best 8. Makes sense to me.

Sorry mate, I missed your earlier ideas about Gleeson to 7. It has only been in the last couple of weeks it started to dawn on me as I was unconvinced about him at 8 at all.
Good early call by you.

 

[qwerty51]

I was the original Gleeson at 7 supporter since he was playing a bit like a 7 for Manly although he's clearly playing a #8 role now, ranging out wide etc. BUT I do think he could adapt to a 7 role if required, he's quick enough. He's certainly playing better than Hooper at the moment. Some of those runs he did where he picked the ball up at the back of the ruck and ran straight and hard were exactly what Hooper did early in his career. And he does try to do a bit of pilfering although he's not great at it at this level - yet.

You then play Latu to make up for a lack of pilfering.

2. Latu 5. Skelton 7. Gleeson 8. Valetini is a lot of power.

Add in hopefully Bell, Tupou, Frost and a lineout foil in the Hanigan/Holloway type and you have a nice pack. Frost, whoever the 6 is your main lineout targets and potential options in Rob and Langi. You can then even bring Leota & Pone off the bench to keep the relentlessness up. It might not work - but it won't be beaten physically.

 

[dru]

I was the original Gleeson at 7 supporter since he was playing a bit like a 7 for Manly although he's clearly playing a #8 role now, ranging out wide etc. BUT I do think he could adapt to a 7 role if required, he's quick enough. He's certainly playing better than Hooper at the moment. Some of those runs he did where he picked the ball up at the back of the ruck and ran straight and hard were exactly what Hooper did early in his career. And he does try to do a bit of pilfering although he's not great at it at this level - yet.

You then play Latu to make up for a lack of pilfering.

2. Latu 5. Skelton 7. Gleeson 8. Valetini is a lot of power.

Add in hopefully Bell, Tupou, Frost and a lineout foil in the Hanigan/Holloway type and you have a nice pack. Frost, whoever the 6 is your main lineout targets and potential options in Rob and Langi. You can then even bring Leota & Pone off the bench to keep the relentlessness up. It might not work - but it won't be beaten physically.

Latu is going to have to prove himself highly reliable in the line out before he is again close to number 2. There are not a lot of quality alternatives, but that choice imho needs to be made primarily on then out.

 

[upthereds#!]

I have floated this before, and been shot down in flames. But Gleeson is quick enough to play 7. And he is on the small size for an international 8, or even 6. As others have said, Holloway is probably our first choice 6, Valetini is our best 8. Makes sense to me

At international level, Gleeson, like Samu and Mcmahon before him, will ineffective as an 8, useful in a tournament squad as the backup 7, and hugely effective as the no.20.

If Gleeson makes the WC, it will be at the expense of Mcreight or Samu.