England v Australia

[BDA]

I was probably a bit hard on Cheika in my earlier comments. He shouldn't be judged on the results of this tour, given the unique circumstances he's dealing with. By and large the team has played some pretty entertaining rugby and could have won the games they lost.

Still the idea of losing 3 games in a row is extremely disappointing. I'll stand by Cheika on the way to the world cup, I've just lost a bit of the initial confidence I had in him.

But seriously..Kurtley Beale? d'fuck

 

[BDA]

Forum will actually explode if Beale is named @ 13.

Imagine what would happen if he's named at 12.

I'd personally be on a plane to Europe to murder Cheika

 

[Brumby Runner]

Is there an abundance of test quality players that Cheika would have selected instead? There was potentially one or two selections which had discussion around them but otherwise it's basically the best of what's left.

How much time should he expect. The biggest problem Cheika has had is his time in the role. If he took over next year at best he would have had 2 weeks prior to the first test, which is what he's had now, with a tour match in that time which was a good opportunity to see how some players performed.

EDIT: By his time I mean being appointed so close to the tour commencing.

If Michael Cheika needs a lot of time with the team in order to be successful, he never will, as you don't get that in international rugby.

I also don't buy into any notion that you have to go backwards to go forwards. Success may not be immediately forthcoming, but you don't need to go backwards.

Other posters have also defended Cheika by saying that he didn't select the squad. I have asked them on another thread to nominate those who they think Cheika would have picked, acknowledging that Beale and Schatz might have been two given he brought them over mid-tour. But so far, I havent seen one response with names of those superior players that were left behind.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Not surprised to see members of the media calling it a disaster as that is what they do, but a bit surprised to see some people here call it so.
a new coach and new systems not to mention the turmoil before hand and the fact that, one game aside (last bled), the wallabies weren't that flash under mckenzie either (argentina & south africa anyone).
i put very little stock in the french series as it is a totally different team now.
obviously want to beat england, and in doing that, i think the tour is fine. largely played well against ireland though a terrible 15 minutes which is largely attributable Luke Jones going into contact too high twice and throwing a horrible pass near aus' 22 and nick phipps brain farts.
for me, jones was terrible in the first 15 but after that looked solid and should be retained somewhere to get him experienced as i think he could be a world cup asset given his hardness and versatility.
i thought the lineout did a fairly good job. a few excellent steals. really rattles me that horwill seems to be struggling to return to form. he's a great big body and he has an excellent opportunity to seize his spot. simmons was good in my opinion and again, after jones' initial mistakes he looked very strong on the scrum. i would persist with him at 6 though bring hodsgon on at 55 -60 mark to close it out.
backline is where the most changes are needed. cooper either needs to start or come on earlier.
AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) is a great player but he's not a world class winger and i think more is gained from tomane on the wing than AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper). i would have AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) on the bench to cover fullback, 13 and wings. unless TK is injured, in which case AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) to 13.
wings of speight and tomane either way. i thought To'omua played great, but neither he nor foley are great kickers of the ball in play. i would have cooper at 10.
my bench would be genia (i think he's looked better than others give him credit for), Beale, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)/Horne (if TK is out). To'omua and Beale can play 10 if anything happens to cooper.
Beale needs to come from a straighter line when in support and then change either just before or just after getting the ball. i think that forward pass from To'omua was very avoidable and you can see in the replays that To'omua initially goes to pass where Beale should be coming from, has a look and has to readjust resulting in the forward pass.
I'd like to see higginbotham on the bench for the forwards as well and tell him to play tight and take it into contact hard when he gets on.

again, a win against england and, given the tight loss to ireland and the improvement in play, i think this is not a bad tour. ireland are a solid team and beat the boks as well.
will be interesting to see the progress next RC with hopefully pocock, moore, palu and fardy back in the squad.

need to test some new props and locks asap though.

Luke Jones got caught out early by not expecting the multiple, choke tackling tactic of the Irish. I recall Pat McCabe had exactly the same problem with the Irish at the last RWC, but in later years became a very valuable and honoured player with both the Brumbies and the Wallabies. I am sure Luke will have learnt the lesson and expect him to go on to a good and valuable career in the Wallabies.

 

[It is what it is]

Other posters have also defended Cheika by saying that he didn't select the squad. I have asked them on another thread to nominate those who they think Cheika would have picked, acknowledging that Beale and Schatz might have been two given he brought them over mid-tour. But so far, I havent seen one response with names of those superior players that were left behind.

You'll need to get that answer off Cheika.
Who said the players he left behind were superior?

 

[Brumby Runner]

Really? Because the Wallabies easily disposed of France, had a hard fought draw with the All Blacks, defeated the Springboks, had troubles with execution and defeated Argentina, were quite just as good as the Brisbane Bledisloe for 70 minutes against the Boks in Capetown and then lost a close contest in a massively disrupted week prior to Brisbane.

The only time they ever looked off the pace was in Auckland. I'd argue it didn't really come out of the blue. A single bad loss had people paint all close victories and all close losses against the top 2 teams as failures.

Yeah, in the context of the whole test season, the Auckland match was the result that "came out of the blue".

 

[Brumby Runner]

Given the last minute coaching change, squad issues and general negativity and rudderless leadership surrounding the team leading into departure, I find it incredible you expect so much more of the EOYT.

No-one is saying we are happy with the result. What we are saying is that there may be factors and mitigating circumstances that have given us this result.

Why don't we just call the EOYT what it really is; a development/housewarming/speed dating tour.

Because it hasn't been used effectively as a development tour?

 

[Quick Hands]

Luke Jones got caught out early by not expecting the multiple, choke tackling tactic of the Irish. I recall Pat McCabe had exactly the same problem with the Irish at the last RWC, but in later years became a very valuable and honoured player with both the Brumbies and the Wallabies. I am sure Luke will have learnt the lesson and expect him to go on to a good and valuable career in the Wallabies.

He's a great prospect and those two early errors aside, I thought he had quite a good game. He should certainly be retained for this week.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Cheika claimed the team less than 5 weeks ago.

Obviously everyone has different opinions on who are the best Hookers, Props, Locks, Back Rowers, Halves, Centers and Wingers. The team on tour is not the strongest, not everyone is fit or available, blah, blah, blah, blah.

At a minimum, of the players not available/on Tour, Moore, TPN, Sio, Fardy, Higginbotham, Pocock, Palu, Gill, O'Connor and Hunt will be considered, fitness permitting.

Then others, such as T. Smith, PAE, Weeks, Cummins, Neville, Mogg (hahaha), Cowan, Charles et al may be bolters, depending on Soup form, injuries and eligibility.

Come September, the Wallaby team to play England should be more than a bit stronger than the one out there today. I don't think England have more than a handful to get back, all they really can do is improve combinations (note: I don't rate Billy V. At all.)

No, but Morgan is pretty good.

 

[Quick Hands]

Because it hasn't been used effectively as a development tour?

There's been a number of players who have been given an opportunity haven't there? Jones, Speight, Schatz, Tomane, plus Genia and Cooper have been brought back from injury.

 

[S120]

He's a great prospect and those two early errors aside, I thought he had quite a good game. He should certainly be retained for this week.

Absolutely agree. He made those two turnovers early but after that I thought he was very solid and well worth persisting with at 6 against England. Fardy is my first choice blindside given full fitness, but I like Jones a lot.

He needs to put some more weight on to compete with bulls like O'Connell, Toner, Retallick, Etzebeth, Wynn-Jones but I like his style. I hope he can become a good lock eventually (lord knows we need some).

 

[KOB1987]

Other posters have also defended Cheika by saying that he didn't select the squad. I have asked them on another thread to nominate those who they think Cheika would have picked, acknowledging that Beale and Schatz might have been two given he brought them over mid-tour. But so far, I havent seen one response with names of those superior players that were left behind.

'Superiority' doesn't come into it..in a national squad of 32 players, I'd say that probably 28 or so would be common names no matter who the coach is..who fills the other approx 4 seats on the plane is more a matter of perception than anything..

Looking at the squad he inherited, it seems pretty clear that English & Godwin would have stayed at home if he had picked it himself..however, I am also sure he would have given them the benefit of the doubt and had a good look at them at training with a view to giving them a berth and for whatever reason they haven't got a run..McMahon probably wouldn't have been picked to tour either..aside from those (potentially) I think the make up of the squad would have been the same as Link's..

I suspect that Beale got called up because he viewed him as a better option as either of the first two aforementioned players..alone, given he has played in 50 or so tests and those two are uncapped I can kind of understand that..also remember that when the squad was picked Beale was unavailable for selection, and then he became available..I personally would have left him at home but Cheika's job is to pick the best team..Link also picked him when he was available..Cheika's objective is to win the RWC next year, not hand out Wallaby jerseys..

On Shatz, he was an injury replacement..many (even non-Tahs) would argue that due the developing 6/8 'crisis' Stephen Hoiles would have been worthy of a recall, especially considering that he had a blinder of a Soup season and Shatz had a shit one..but Cheika picked Shatz..

 

[Brumby Runner]

You'll need to get that answer off Cheika.
Who said the players he left behind were superior?

My inference of course, but if they weren't considered superior why would Cheika have selected them in the touring squad in preference to some whom he "inherited"?

 

[Mr Doug]

Bring back Link!! Ah, sorry -- forgot he lost the confidence of the team.

Brumby Runner, you may remember a bloke named Kevin Rudd, who made a return to a "Leadership Position"......... Anything is possible, in politics, (and in sport)!!

 

[Brumby Runner]

There's been a number of players who have been given an opportunity haven't there? Jones, Speight, Schatz, Tomane, plus Genia and Cooper have been brought back from injury.

Tomane, Genia and Cooper have all had substantial test experience and could not in any way be considered as having been developed on this tour. Both Jones and Speight should have been given a run at least off the bench against France, so their development won't be as effective as it could have been.

 

[HighPlainsDrifter]

Maybe the revolving door mentality by some in Australia at the moment from the fan base on coaches and players is set to destroy a meaningful build up to the 2015WC . This EOYT is the vehicle to take a step back and give some latitude to the Coach & Players to get the mental part right "belief" ...last test was for me a revelation to see the boys fight back against the 6 nations champions after being 17 points in the hole ....Also I would like to know from a veteran when Jones was being held up he didn't seem to get timely required support in the 2 mauls (its an aspect of the game I am trying to come to grips with) ..Is a maul a forgone conclusion to be lost when in possession or can it be used as an attacking tool ? Thanks in advance.

 

[KOB1987]

Maybe the revolving door mentality by some in Australia at the moment from the fan base on coaches and players is set to destroy a meaningful build up to the 2015WC . This EOYT is the vehicle to take a step back and give some latitude to the Coach & Players to get the mental part right "belief" .last test was for me a revelation to see the boys fight back against the 6 nations champions after being 17 points in the hole ..Also I would like to know from a veteran when Jones was being held up he didn't seem to get timely required support in the 2 mauls (its an aspect of the game I am trying to come to grips with) ..Is a maul a forgone conclusion to be lost when in possession or can it be used as an attacking tool ? Thanks in advance.

It can be used as an attacking tool provided the ball is in a position to be cleared as soon as the ref shouts 'use it or lose it'..eg a rolling maul or a variation of..

The 2 mauls you speak of he simply ran in too high and the Paddies have a strategy to hold guys like that up..most of our locks particularly have that flaw..

 

[HighPlainsDrifter]

thank you

 

[Bairdy]

Absolutely agree. He made those two turnovers early but after that I thought he was very solid and well worth persisting with at 6 against England. Fardy is my first choice blindside given full fitness, but I like Jones a lot.

He needs to put some more weight on to compete with bulls like O'Connell, Toner, Retallick, Etzebeth, Wynn-Jones but I like his style. I hope he can become a good lock eventually (lord knows we need some).

Luke Jones is as big as Fardy.
He needs to build strength not put on weight, and that comes with time.
Agree that he should be persisted with though.

 

[Quick Hands]

Tomane, Genia and Cooper have all had substantial test experience and could not in any way be considered as having been developed on this tour. Both Jones and Speight should have been given a run at least off the bench against France, so their development won't be as effective as it could have been.

Depends on the long term view of the coach. The team needs to be developed as a unit as well as individuals. I can't see how chopping and changing personnel over a 5 week tour is terribly productive - more likely to be the opposite if players aren't given a number of matches to find their feet.