• 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.

Australia v Argentina 7 Oct 2017 in Mendoza

Status
Not open for further replies.

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Maybe Rodda and Tui were taken along (like perese) for the experience of travelling with the squad - the intention was for Timani and Arnold to play.

They both trained so poorly that they lost their spots to the youngsters, and have now been sent home to regain form in the NRC.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

So now Timani and Arnold are poor. As a justification as to why they were backed off in the order.

OK BH, over to you.
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
So now Timani and Arnold are poor. As a justification as to why they were backed off in the order.

OK BH, over to you.

What other reason would they not make match day squads for? the only other is for injury and why would you fly injured players to South Africa?
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Why have them travel 20 hours to South Africa to start with then?
Before the tour Cheika said they had a longer training block in South Africa so they were taking more players (because there wasn't a test to recover from) and then would send some home before Argentina because the recovery and long travel meant there were less sessions.

Maybe some or all of Arnold, Timani and Perese were a chance of making the 23 at the start of the week in South Africa. Maybe all of them would have made the 23 or at least the touring squad if there was an injury in their position against South Africa.

I don't know. I am going from a combination of Cheika's comments and my own analysis.

Seemingly people would have preferred those guys to be flown to Argentina and then left out of the 23 on Thursday and then flown home with the squad than being effectively left out of the 23 on Sunday and flown back to Australia without doing almost a lap of the World.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 

Up the Guts

Steve Williams (59)
I think we'll see the 1st XV so to speak against NZ in Brisbane. Then we'll see how where Cheika rates Arnold in the 2nd row pecking order. I feel the last couple of tests Cheika has been trying out a few new combinations as much as he can afford to at top level test rugby.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
I think we'll see the 1st XV so to speak against NZ in Brisbane. Then we'll see how where Cheika rates Arnold in the 2nd row pecking order. I feel the last couple of tests Cheika has been trying out a few new combinations as much as he can afford to at top level test rugby.

Last couple of tests? He has been doing this chop and changing since last year.. including the 2016 EOYT, he has only run the same lock pairing for 2 weeks in a row once.
 

Up the Guts

Steve Williams (59)
Last couple of tests? He has been doing this chop and changing since last year.. including the 2016 EOYT, he has only run the same lock pairing for 2 weeks in a row once.
Since the Dunedin test I think Cheika's been mostly settled on his A team and we've just been trying to nail down a last couple of key positions, wing, 6 and 2 row. Last year's EOYT and June series had more a feel that half the team's positions were up for grabs.
 

TSR

Mark Ella (57)
I think we'll see the 1st XV so to speak against NZ in Brisbane. Then we'll see how where Cheika rates Arnold in the 2nd row pecking order. I feel the last couple of tests Cheika has been trying out a few new combinations as much as he can afford to at top level test rugby.

I hope your wrong about the last couple of tests. It may look like he is experimenting - but I have trouble believing that Cheika has willingly not picked what he considers, or at least hopes, is his strongest test team for the last test against South Africa.

I'm not saying all his decisions have been good or right. But I reckon he is quite possibly as frustrated as we are that there are a group of players who have been given a number of chance who either can't or won't step up to the mark.
 

Up the Guts

Steve Williams (59)
I hope your wrong about the last couple of tests. It may look like he is experimenting - but I have trouble believing that Cheika has willingly not picked what he considers, or at least hopes, is his strongest test team for the last test against South Africa.

I'm not saying all his decisions have been good or right. But I reckon he is quite possibly as frustrated as we are that there are a group of players who have been given a number of chance who either can't or won't step up to the mark.
Perhaps experimenting is the wrong word maybe tinkering would be more apt. But I do think that there has been an experimental element to the extent that he has been willing to roll the dice on a few rookies who have shown great potential over players who haven't quite been at there best but at least you know what you're getting.

Case in point is probably Koroibete over Speight. Koroibete offers more than Speight in attack right now and his defence is tremendous but how he was going to perform at test level was still relatively unknown whereas you knew what Speight would give you.

So I'm not so much suggesting that he's experimenting by picking players that he doesn't think are the best but could be in a couple of years time but more because he's taking a gamble on relative unknowns at test level. And this is the sort of national coach I'd prefer to have. Someone who is willing to take a gamble on his rookies. Hansen dropped Savea for Ioane and now Ioane's shaping up to be one of the finest damn wingers in the world. I'd like to think we can do the same by showing some faith in the up and comers.
 

Hawko

Tony Shaw (54)
Perhaps experimenting is the wrong word maybe tinkering would be more apt. But I do think that there has been an experimental element to the extent that he has been willing to roll the dice on a few rookies who have shown great potential over players who haven't quite been at there best but at least you know what you're getting.

Case in point is probably Koroibete over Speight. Koroibete offers more than Speight in attack right now and his defence is tremendous but how he was going to perform at test level was still relatively unknown whereas you knew what Speight would give you.

There is some logic to what Cheika is doing if only people would look beyond the idea that if they think something should happen then the coach should agree with them. I don't agree with everything that Cheika's done but there is some logic to it. While he is trying to win as much as he can at the moment he is also, in his mind, preparing for 2019.

Firstly, he has discarded some players who he believes will not be up to it in 2019. Higgers, Fardy, Cooper and Moore are examples of this thinking, with Moore being handled differently because of his iconic status in the team.

Secondly he has promoted some very young players who are not yet ready for test rugby but he has promoted them anyway. I think he is doing this to try them in the furnace now hoping it will pay off in 2019. Think Uelese, Robertson, Hanigan, Rodda, Tui, Dempsey, Koroibete. (If you watch some of Koroibete's defensive positioning in the last game it was cringeworthy but if he can learn that in the fire of test rugby he will replace Speight). Now I don't agree with Cheika that Dempsey and Hanigan in particular are ready for test rugby and I believe they need a pre-season in the gym to bulk up and build core strength; but I think I understand what he is trying to do.

Thirdly I suspect (based on his comments) that Cheika wants badly to try out Hunt at 12, with Beale and Foley as dual fullbacks and Koroibete the other winger. That would relegate Hodge to the bench where he covers a multitude of positions and allows a 6:2 bench selection for some games. Cheika likes 6:2 and often used it in the 2013/14 Waratahs. This game upcoming would be ideal, but Hunt's not recovered yet. I doubt he'll try it for the third Bledisloe, except maybe for 10 minutes off the bench. But I think he'll try it on the EOYT. That being said, Cheika makes some courageous decisions (and some of those courageous decisions are in the Sir Humphrey Appleby definition of courageous - ie totally foolhardy). But certainly not all.

PS: BH81 gets a lot of unfair stick for supporting Cheika's decisions when all he is really doing is trying to explain what Cheika's thinking seems to be. He and I often disagree with Cheika's choices but we can see that Cheika has a strategy he is following and is not the loony tune that some on here think.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Appreciate BH81 input, but they have a 43% win rate since the RWC, there is a justifiable reason as to why people question Cheikas selections and logic.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
And have dropped from No 2 in the world to No 5. While ratings are not the be all and end all, it is nevertheless true that in Cheika's time, the Wallabies have deteriorated overall from being one of the top three nations to now being in the 4 - 6 area. The progression has been downwards and many fans are not happy, witness the poor crowds at many test matches in recent times.

While it is argued by some that the franchises are somewhat to blame, Cheika id not lily white either. He has shown over the years that he has his favourites and there is almost nothing that any other player can do to dislodge them or even get a worthwhile chance to show their wares. Mumm is the standout example. He even brought him back from overseas to ensconce him into the team. Rob Horne was another to a large degree. Played him for a season or more after his form had dropped off considerably. Now he is committed to both of Hanigan and Dempsey who had little or no form at Super Rugby level to justify Wallaby selection. I think Dempsey will probably vindicate his selection in time, but Hanigan not likely to do so. And he continues with Phipps when his downside has just about always dominated his attributes.

Over that period he has brought in the like of Naiyaravoro and Nabuli and discarded them just as quickly. Error to have brought them in, but right to discard them.

I believe there has been a lot of poor selections made by Cheika over the years and he does put himself out there for criticism in doing so.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
And have dropped from No 2 in the world to No 5. While ratings are not the be all and end all, it is nevertheless true that in Cheika's time, the Wallabies have deteriorated overall from being one of the top three nations to now being in the 4 - 6 area. The progression has been downwards and many fans are not happy, witness the poor crowds at many test matches in recent times.
.


I think we were ranked 4th when Cheika took over.
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
Appreciate BH81 input, but they have a 43% win rate since the RWC, there is a justifiable reason as to why people question Cheikas selections and logic.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

To put this into context, where do you think our win rating should be?

Considering we play New Zealand more than any other team, and then South Africa next it's hardly surprising we don't win more than we lose. I think that's reflected by our still respectable world ranking. If we played France, Wales, Scotland, Italy and Ireland more regularly than NZ and SA we'd have a much higher win percentage and would probably still rank about the same.
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
I think we were ranked 4th when Cheika took over.


And anybody who knows anything at all about the game would accept that some of the other countries have improved a lot. England is the most obvious. Scotland and Ireland are two others.



At the end of the day, we just do not have the strength in depth to rank above the middle of the best. If we do get up to 2 or 3 again we should be celebrating like there is no tomorrow.



We are about where we should be, all things considered. Remind me, how did we go in the Soup this season, and was it all Chubby’s fault?
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
And anybody who knows anything at all about the game would accept that some of the other countries have improved a lot. England is the most obvious. Scotland and Ireland are two others.



At the end of the day, we just do not have the strength in depth to rank above the middle of the best. If we do get up to 2 or 3 again we should be celebrating like there is no tomorrow.



We are about where we should be, all things considered. Remind me, how did we go in the Soup this season, and was it all Chubby’s fault?

I'd argue that Cheika is performing above average given the tools at his disposal.

There is no way that the wider problems facing rugby in Australia are having no impact on his squad. Just no way. I think he's doing well to keep them focused and performing as well as they can.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
To put this into context, where do you think our win rating should be?

Considering we play New Zealand more than any other team, and then South Africa next it's hardly surprising we don't win more than we lose. I think that's reflected by our still respectable world ranking. If we played France, Wales, Scotland, Italy and Ireland more regularly than NZ and SA we'd have a much higher win percentage and would probably still rank about the same.

Well we certainly shouldn’t be losing at home against Scotland for starters.. Nor should they be losing a 3 matches in a row against England on home soil. Should have won in Perth against South Africa and against Ireland last November.

And the manner which we won against Fiji and Italy in the June series was hardly compelling stuff.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
And anybody who knows anything at all about the game would accept that some of the other countries have improved a lot. England is the most obvious. Scotland and Ireland are two others.



At the end of the day, we just do not have the strength in depth to rank above the middle of the best. If we do get up to 2 or 3 again we should be celebrating like there is no tomorrow.



We are about where we should be, all things considered. Remind me, how did we go in the Soup this season, and was it all Chubby’s fault?

Yes indeed others, particularly England, have improved - in their case a dynamic administration has completely transformed the game there.

And yes, where we are now is the new normal as it reflects the state of the game at all levels.

So no, the fault does not lie with Cheika. Dare one suggest that the responsibility for this situation lies with those who you defend with all the strength that you can muster - the ARU?
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
To put this into context, where do you think our win rating should be?

Considering we play New Zealand more than any other team, and then South Africa next it's hardly surprising we don't win more than we lose. I think that's reflected by our still respectable world ranking. If we played France, Wales, Scotland, Italy and Ireland more regularly than NZ and SA we'd have a much higher win percentage and would probably still rank about the same.

But as I understand the WR (World Rugby) rankings system, who you play makes no difference to the ranking as opponents strength is weighted in the calculations. (Not that I have particular confidence in the rankings by the way)
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
Well we certainly shouldn’t be losing at home against Scotland for starters.. Nor should they be losing a 3 matches in a row against England on home soil. Should have won in Perth against South Africa and against Ireland last November.

And the manner which we won against Fiji and Italy in the June series was hardly compelling stuff.


We struck a very very good England side, the only game I was really disappointed with was the Scotland game; and we know the efforts in this June window were hampered by a want to get a decent fitness base on these guys; and we are see the outcomes improving in this set, we are working harder off the ball and finishing game better.

The results will come
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top