• 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.

Wallabies 2023

Dctarget

Michael Lynagh (62)
If BPA is playing at an elite level next year, I don't think his contract status will hold him up playing at the RWC23

We know Rennie is already seeking to have the rule amended.
I think it'll be increased to 5.

I'd personally do, in order of importance: Kerevi, Cooper, Koroibete, Skelton, Foley. If there's a 6th I'd take Arnold, a 7th whack on BPA. Mind you this is banking on Latu going. If Latu doesn't perform next year I'd probably take BPA as a 5th, dropping Foley.
 

Tomthumb

Watty Friend (18)
I think it'll be increased to 5.

I'd personally do, in order of importance: Kerevi, Cooper, Koroibete, Skelton, Foley. If there's a 6th I'd take Arnold, a 7th whack on BPA. Mind you this is banking on Latu going. If Latu doesn't perform next year I'd probably take BPA as a 5th, dropping Foley.
If we are just going to increase the number by 1 every time Rennie is under the pump, just open it up totally
 

Derpus

David Wilson (68)
If BPA is playing at an elite level next year, I don't think his contract status will hold him up playing at the RWC23

We know Rennie is already seeking to have the rule amended.
It doesnt seem likely for BPA. If Rennie was keen wouldnt we have seen him on the EOYT?
 

PhilClinton

Jim Lenehan (48)
It doesnt seem likely for BPA. If Rennie was keen wouldnt we have seen him on the EOYT?

I recall reading somewhere that under the current rules he doesn't qualify.

Even though it's more liberal, there is a still a baseline of 30 tests or 5 years playing Super Rugby.
 

PhilClinton

Jim Lenehan (48)
I think it'll be increased to 5.

I'd personally do, in order of importance: Kerevi, Cooper, Koroibete, Skelton, Foley. If there's a 6th I'd take Arnold, a 7th whack on BPA. Mind you this is banking on Latu going. If Latu doesn't perform next year I'd probably take BPA as a 5th, dropping Foley.

No use increasing by small increments, as TT says, if you're opening it up, just open it all up.

There will always be a case made for the 6th, 7th, 8th etc bloke to get selected. Save the maybes and what could have beens and just let them all play.
 

Dctarget

Michael Lynagh (62)
Yes but Rugby Australia will be trying to save face and have some semblance of authority. I doubt they'll go to open slather straight away.
 

Members Section

Bob Davidson (42)
He finishes up next june at Montpellier if he signs for a Super Rugby club we automatically becomes eligible similar to White at the last world cup
 

PhilClinton

Jim Lenehan (48)
Yes but Rugby Australia will be trying to save face and have some semblance of authority. I doubt they'll go to open slather straight away.

Obviously people have different opinions on the subject, but I fall into the camp that the best way to save face is to put the most competitive Wallabies team on the park, win games and win the fans back, regardless of where the players are playing.

Part of the reason I feel that way is because I follow QPR closely (and Shute Shield occasionaly) so I actually enjoy seeing players come through the Super Rugby ranks to backfill roles of players who leave. Also, being a fan of American leagues like the NBA, I'm used to seeing key players move on from teams as part of the modern game.

I know other rugby fans hold different opinions, for example mates of mine with no affiliation to QPR would much rather see all our guys playing for the Reds and have the strongest possible Super Rugby tournament because that's the main rugby they watch outside of internationals.
 

dru

John Eales (66)
I think it'll be increased to 5.

I'd personally do, in order of importance: Kerevi, Cooper, Koroibete, Skelton, Foley. If there's a 6th I'd take Arnold, a 7th whack on BPA. Mind you this is banking on Latu going. If Latu doesn't perform next year I'd probably take BPA as a 5th, dropping Foley.
If you have a choice of three:
Only one of Quade/Foley. We are pretty solid out wide, even if Koroibete ups the quality. I’d take Skelton. So:-
1:- Quade/Foley 2:- BPA (if in form); with our two obvious holes considered, then 3: Skelton; based on most impact.

After that 4: Koroibete and 5: Foley if we already have Quade. If open slather think about another lock.

Edit: Don’t we need to add Kerevi?
1 Quade (if not Foley) 2: BPA 3: Kerevi 4: Skelton 5: Foley if we don’t have Quade, if we do then Arnold.
 

Derpus

David Wilson (68)
If you have a choice of three:
Only one of Quade/Foley. We are pretty solid out wide, even if Koroibete ups the quality. I’d take Skelton. So:-
1:- Quade/Foley 2:- BPA (if in form); with our two obvious holes considered, then 3: Skelton; based on most impact.

After that 4: Koroibete and 5: Foley if we already have Quade. If open slather think about another lock.

Edit: Don’t we need to add Kerevi?
1 Quade (if not Foley) 2: BPA 3: Kerevi 4: Skelton 5: Foley if we don’t have Quade, if we do then Arnold.
Koroibete is our best player.
 

Merrow

Nev Cottrell (35)
Koroibete is our best player.
I’m not so sure about that anymore. Great player but think sometimes he overplays his hand. That and his tackling is a card waiting to happen. I’ve kinda liked having 3 potential fullbacks as the back 3.
 

Members Section

Bob Davidson (42)
I’m not so sure about that anymore. Great player but think sometimes he overplays his hand. That and his tackling is a card waiting to happen. I’ve kinda liked having 3 potential fullbacks as the back 3.

Completely disagree with this, not one of any back 3 we have remotely comes close to the attacking or defensive player MK is. In terms of cards I'm 100% more worried about Jake Gordon making a stupid decision under pressure & getting a card than a winger getting his technique wrong that he may have done 2 times ever.
 

Merrow

Nev Cottrell (35)
Completely disagree with this, not one of any back 3 we have remotely comes close to the attacking or defensive player MK is. In terms of cards I'm 100% more worried about Jake Gordon making a stupid decision under pressure & getting a card than a winger getting his technique wrong that he may have done 2 times ever.
I guess why this is a discussion forum then :p

I’m not saying he isn’t a great player but he trys to do way too much sometimes to the detriment of the team IMO. The odd pick and go is fine but honestly think he gets in the way of others trying to do their job.

I’m not specifically saying the current back 3 is the way to go but it‘s given us way more go forward than previous iterations of the team. Wright regularly makes close to 100m per game. Like him or not, his stats are pretty impressive. I think Mark N (Nawaqanitawase) has higher ceiling in terms of attack then MK, especially in the air. Gordon wouldn’t be in my top 3 halfbacks, I’m not worried about him giving away too many more yellow cards in tests.
 

dru

John Eales (66)
Koroibete is our best player.

yes sure. Perhaps. It’s still not the position we are most wanting. By a long shot.

fill the weakness/gaps first, then add strength. 10-2-possibly 12. Strength comes from Kerevi (already done with 12), then Skelton (backs go nowhere without tight forward gains) koroibete.

Without Koroibete we should still be fine out wide. Without a reasonable 10 and 2 we are buggered.

Open up the selections solves everything, but if needs be prioritise 10 and 2. Thence 12, lock. For me, anyway.
 

Wilson

Mark Loane (55)
Izaia Perese, has a good chance of making it if fit.
He's not out of it yet, but the emergence of Nawaqanitawase won't help his chances. I think they're less likely to look at Perese as a wing option now and it'll be hard to argue the case for carrying two specialist outside centres in the squad when there are so many other players who can cover 13.
 
Top