Wallabies 31 Man Squad

[BDA]

Train Without a Station

Mate, I never said I agreed with Deans' perspective. It is a bit silly how heavily he weighs it.

He's directly trying to minimize risks because he has lost his confidence and is more or less shitting himself off camera.

BDA

Why Alexander over Slipper?

the toughest decision for me is choosing TH. I'm really not sure who i'd prefer out of Slipper/Alexander/Kepu. Im leaning towards Alexander because Robinson/Moore/Alexander is a combination thats spent a lot of time together at test level with generally good success. I do think Slipper is the most effective around the park. On the other side of the coin kepu looks like the strongest choice from a scrummaging standpoint (also has a good combo with Robinson). maybe deep down im still not sure how slipper will fair at scrum time. Iv seen alexander dominated at test level, but iv also seen him put in some dominant test scrummaging performances (ex. Wallabies v England EOYT 2012). I cant remember slipper ever doing more than holding his own at test level.But im probably playing devils advocate. Id be happy to see Slipper named in the starting line-up, but perhaps with some trepidation. For the moment I'll sit on the fence

 

[Bullrush]

USARugger

But criticising someones logic - especially to the extent that's being done here - certainly suggests that you're more intelligent than them or know more than they do.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Well do you agree with the logic?

 

[USARugger]

No. It only suggests that you don't agree with what they're doing or do not see the reasoning behind it. Nothing more.

Just because I don't agree with unilateral drone strikes on US citizens doesn't mean I think I could be a better president than Obama. This is very short-sighted logic.

To say that because people criticize decisions Deans has made means they think they could be a better coach than him is not only assumptive but ignores the myriad other duties and responsibilities that come with being the head coach of a national squad.

 

[Paradox]

USARugger Alexander finished the best Aussie tighthead scrummager at the end of the test season last year as well.

The two Bens operate well around the park as a unit as well often supporting each in other in attack and defense.

 

[Athilnaur]

USA: my response was just some humour in response to

That's an incredibly stupid argument to propose.

which I assumed was your response to Bullrush's q

I don't really rate RD as an international coach but how many people here really believe they would do a better job than him?​

lost in translation now I expect!

 

[USARugger]

USA: my response was just some humour in response to

which I assumed was your response to Bullrush's q

lost in translation now I expect!

You'd be right but no, not drinking. I doubt many people seriously think they could do better. I know I wouldn't want that job.

I also doubt that many of the people who legitimately do feel they could do a better job could even run a film session.

This all sounds far too much like me defending Dingo, time for bed.

 

[qwerty51]

I don't think there's a whole lot between Slipper and Alexnder. I think both are going to get their tighthead scrummaging found out. I think only Kepu is a better TH scrummager than both but his work around the park has been shit this year.

Alexander got dished up by Healy in the WC but that's an experience in it's self and he'll be better for it. He has more Test runs on the board at TH than Slipper. Their work round the park is equal.

 

[Athilnaur]

To be clear by 'that many, huh?' I was making the sardonic observation that many people on the board think they could do better than RD. As I said lost in translation but at least I got a smile out of it, and hopefully a few others too, haters and apologists alike.

 

[qwerty51]

Timani is officially out of the series. Big loss.

 

[RoffsChoice]

qwerty51 HUGE loss. A wrecking ball who now jumps at lineouts and pushes hard in the scrum - just what Robinson would have needed against the Lions.

 

[qwerty51]

I think he would've been pushing Alexander or Slipper. Horwill will scrummage behind Robinson. Timani's impact in the scrum is unmatched in Aus rugby imo.

 

[Lindommer]

Timani's replacement by either Simmons or Douglas in the team isn't a step backwards. He really does have tits for hands, runs far too high and disappears for the odd little breather too often. Douglas has been by far the better performer for the Tahs this year.

The front row: it's imperative we select our best scrummaging front row, what props do running around the park will count for nought after they put us through the mincer come scrum time. I still hold hope Palmer will get a run some time this series, preferably the first test.

Flanker: forgive me for sounding like a broken record but Hooper's run against the Saders only confirmed to me he's the man to finish off a match, not start it. Gill's superior scavenging is just what we need come the first breakdown. But aren't we lucky to have this pair in reserve after Pocock and Smith went down?

 

[Scotty]

Great post, Lindommer. Agree with all but not sure how far Palmer is ahead of the others - he hasn't dominated some loosies that I expected he would (eg Holmes at the Reds).

Of course the scary thing is we will probably see Simmons in the 2nd row.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Well that's a pretty stupid reason to pick an inferior player. Is it such a huge risk that despite Hanson performing better at Super Rugby level, he will suddenly performer worse than Fainga'a at the next level despite outplaying him all year?

This old test experience chestnut is such a crock of shit. Deans has spent the past 6 years discarding experiences players because they don't toe the line, bringing in young inexperienced and often Ill-prepared and unready players who follow his lead, yet now he is all about test experience? How does a player being foolishly picked over a better option previously and not performing make him a better option this time around due to said anonymous performances (Dennis v Mowen perfect example)?

I can understand if you had a couple of closely equal players who are in similar form, if one has 20 caps you'd take the experience. Where does this translate to, "you've been stinking the place up all season and you had 5 dud tests and 1 good one last year so I'll take you for your experience of losing to the All Blacks and France"?

I think incumbency should be highly respected: the 2 teams in the rugby codes who respect it most are the maroons and all blacks, and their records speak for themselves.
However, there is a definite issue with the Deans version of respecting incumbency and its the same issue with nearly everything he does: it's inconsistent.
I think for Deans incumbency is one of his grab bag of justifications for decisions he makes which are based on who he likes - and who he likes may be based on their playing ability or the cut of their jib.
So to use a (now) neutral example: Gitts. Incumbent but not liked so incumbency is not worth a pinch of shit. Oconnor, not really incumbent, doesn't turn up for photo opp, but well loved so kept in squad. Test the last example by imagining if QC (Quade Cooper) had missed a happy snap over the last 6 months.
The earlier examples in this thread from his tenure at the ABs confirm the haphazard implications of Dingo's brand of loyalty.
One thing that emerges is that, though we disagree between ourselves in specific selections, we all struggle to understand what deans is thinking: I guess that could be a strength if Gatland has the same issue!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[gold heart]

Who the fuck are we to tell an international coach who he can and cannot invite to train.

Is there some sort of unwritten protocol?

The bitching about Robbie is sometimes warranted, and a lot of the time just hysterical, like you just did.

So he calls Phipps in to force the Rebs to play Burgess so he can go have a look at hime. He pulls White in because, after all, any fool can see how good he is and White gets inside track on some of the plans.

Seems to me Robbie knows what he's doing. Anyone can disagree but he is taking advantage of every opportunity to finalise his 23 for the first test. What the fuck is he supposed to do?

As for your 36 guys idea I disagree. What's better, that or let the guys you are not sure about play competitive rugby? Simple answer I reckon.

Hey grumpy....who are we to tell Robby? As a passionate Wallaby follower for 40 years and having seen some of his selections over the past 6 years, and about to watch a Lions series that only comes every 12 years, I would not call it hysteria at all; I would call it being entitled to a friggin opinion just like you are.

I think your confused and think we are sitting in the ARU boardroom ffs and anything that might be said could be deemed as inappropriate. If it was Deans first go at this I would get your point....but nah I don't.

As far as 36 players in the squad or whatever that number might be - the point is to have combative training not just a bunch of fluffy bunnys running around feeling good about themselves before their first test of the year.

Oh and I doubt very much that Deans reads the opinion of people like myself ....unfortunately!

Come June 22 I will follow the Wallabies with passion and will be shouting and cheering just like everyone else.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I think incumbency should be highly respected: the 2 teams in the rugby codes who respect it most are the maroons and all blacks, and their records speak for themselves.
However, there is a definite issue with the Deans version of respecting incumbency and its the same issue with nearly everything he does: it's inconsistent.
I think for Deans incumbency is one of his grab bag of justifications for decisions he makes which are based on who he likes - and who he likes may be based on their playing ability or the cut of their jib.
So to use a (now) neutral example: Gitts. Incumbent but not liked so incumbency is not worth a pinch of shit. Oconnor, not really incumbent, doesn't turn up for photo opp, but well loved so kept in squad. Test the last example by imagining if QC (Quade Cooper) had missed a happy snap over the last 6 months.
The earlier examples in this thread from his tenure at the ABs confirm the haphazard implications of Dingo's brand of loyalty.
One thing that emerges is that, though we disagree between ourselves in specific selections, we all struggle to understand what deans is thinking: I guess that could be a strength if Gatland has the same issue!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The AB's and Maroons respect incumbency when they are successful. Failed players in failed campaigns don't get tried over and over again. Any parrallel's to be drawn to the currently successful Maroons and the Wallabies has passed though, because the combinations of Smith, Thurston, Lockyer and Slater for example were persisted with in 2006 after not being greatly successful in 2005. They haven't lost a series since 2006.

All the slack for early losses in the name after the master plan has already been given. They haven't come into fruition.

Also on the AB's and their incumbency, I've never heard of an injury fill in or fringe player who has failed to really show he is test class after a number of tests be considered an incumbent. Based on what I have seen in All Black's selections, if we were in the All Blacks system, the players like Robinson, Moore, Horwill, Genia, and a few others would be considered incumbents and first selections and the remainder would be up for grabs based on players who are performing. The only difference between us and the All Blacks, is they have more players worthy of this that continually perform for them (Ma'a Nonu is one example). They don't consider incumbency highly for the sake of it, but because their players perform at the level expected.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Train Without a Station I think the differences in our views are pretty small.
But my real point is that incumbency is valued by RD when it suits him and ignored when it doesn't.
I think we rely too much on current form in s15 - but that may just be because few of the Wallabies from 2012 are true or worthy incumbents, which I think is part of your point.
A good line ball example of the problem is Dave Dennis: probably did not play well enough in 2012 to be considered an incumbent; s 15 form is nothing to write home about; most on here think he should not be picked. Deans evidently likes him so the chances are that despite all these misgivings he'll make the game day 23.

 

[USARugger]

The ABs drop players who are off form almost immediately, it is razor thin margins over there and incumbency only means so much. Joe Rokocoko anyone?

Deans has persisted with certain players in spite of performance in the past.

Saying they treat incumbency the way Deans has the past 18mo-2yr is reimagining history. They run that side in a ruthlessly efficient manner and it is a part of their success over the years. It also helps remind some players, like SBW, that they are not bigger than the blackness.

 

[Braveheart81]

Dennis is a tricky one.

He has been incredibly consistent in Super Rugby in 2011 and 2012 and thoroughly deserved selection for the Wallabies in 2012. He had a slow start in his first few tests but got better as he went and finished the EOYT with a couple of strong tests. I'd argue that his form at the end of the 2012 test season was better than Higginbotham's.

He had a terribly slow start in 2013 and certainly for the first dozen games was well behind Higginbotham and Mowen. He has improved in the last couple of months though and is now playing quite well (apart from a poor game against the Rebels).

I certainly wouldn't pick him in the matchday 23 right now (and Mowen certainly deserves to be selected ahead of him) but the reality is the form gap has closed and comments about his 2012 tests don't really stack up in my opinion as Higgers has played more tests and struggled to dominate as well.