Wallabies 31 Man Squad

[Scrubber2050]

think we need close to parity in the set pieces - dominace is very unlikely.

Our forwards need to be more mobile, more involved, tackle and run the buggers off their feet. The backs can then swing it accross the width of the field further putting their forwards under running pressure. Hopefully running rugby will provide a wonderful spectacle to all

 

[fatprop]

Here's a theory from the Fern on Quade.

"Ewen McKenzie is trying to get Quade picked, 'cause he knows Quade will fuck up, lose the Wallabies the series, cost Robbie his job, and then Ewen gets the promotion.

Then he won't pick Cooper, because he will want to win"

I think the more Link publicly white ants Deans, the less likely he is to get the Wobs job

 

[RoffsChoice]

If we have Mowen and Higgenbotham, we have two guys who can steal opposition lineouts and win their own. Add to that Gill, Horwill and Timani/Douglas/Simmons, and we have five jumpers in the full lineout, and we can get three/four in the five man lineout.

 

[biggsy]

Here's a theory from the Fern on Quade.

"Ewen McKenzie is trying to get Quade picked, 'cause he knows Quade will fuck up, lose the Wallabies the series, cost Robbie his job, and then Ewen gets the promotion.

Then he won't pick Cooper, because he will want to win"

I should put this pointless theory on my signature So i can chuckle about it every time I jump on this forum.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Great to hear George may be back for game 2. Still think he is the best option by far (because of his experience) over Gill and Hooper BUT one of those lads is going to get the first opportunity to show their wares. If that performance is special then George may not get a start... It is a great opportunity for either Gill or Hooper to become the stand out 7 in Oz - Pocock, being a fantastic player himself may then find himself behind the 8 ball.

 

[RoffsChoice]

Will they select George Smith in the next six, despite his not being available until the second test (at best), and maybe not able to play at all?

 

[Try-ranosaurus Rex]

think we need close to parity in the set pieces - dominace is very unlikely.

Watching Scot Allen's most recent analysis of the BI Lions front row (in particular Jones vs Robinson and Alexander vs Healy) dominance is less likely than the second coming of Christ.

Parity would be a huge achievement.

 

[FrankLind]

I should put this pointless theory on my signature So i can chuckle about it every time I jump on this forum.

Yeah, I think it is BS too. I just found it funny because I don't like Cooper.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Yeah, I think it is BS too. I just found it funny because I don't like Cooper.

Obviously, correctly, Kiwi fans think Aussies spend too much time worrying about the back room and spin and not enough time on fundamentals.

 

[BDA]

As for pressuring the Lions Lineout forget it, they have 5 genuine jumpers in what I expect to see in their starting pack, and with the mauling skills I expect any Lions lineout in the 22 could well result in points to the Lions.

Fuck mate should we even bother turning up?

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

A Finger has looked good since moving to 12 and the 19 year old CFS had looked very dangerous at 13.

As to you comment about the missed tackle - he sure did stuff that up, but if you think that is indicative of his defensive work this season then you haven't been watching much.

his d is definitely better. no doubt, but he still is not good enough in contact. i think that would be hard for you to argue. especially when you compare him to other international fly halfs.

what are your thoughts that he has perhaps over compensated? whether this is a result of the criticism he received or also because he is lacking a bit of confidence pose knee op. it seems to me like he's a bit concerned to undertake the big jinking runs and is also underplaying his hand, a bit too much.

would be interested to know others thoughts on that, as having watched the reds' last 4 games, it is something i have picked up on.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

also - deans comments on cooper being too predictable and not assertive enough in attack
these are the same reasons he excluded giteau. clearly something he doesn't like and i agree that cooper is more predictable now - leads back to the fact i think he has overcompensated to try and correct his weaknesses. he doesn't run as much, meaning he doesn't take the ball into contact enough (or when he does he too often does a stupid offload in contact) and as a result, others don't step up into the playmaking and vary the attack.

 

[BDA]

The huge problem with Timani is the fact that his selection compromises the first phase possession from the lineout. Regardless of whether he adds as much to the scrum over the other options that some seem to think, there are far fewer scrums in the game that there are lineouts. The Wallabies will at best have two genuine jumpers running on if Timani is selected and here I am assuming that Higgers or Mowen will start. As Scott Allen said in the Podcast the Wallabies will be running 5 man lineouts and they will be under huge pressure as even with the reduced numbers I expect the Lions will compete heavily with the Wallabies such I have serious doubts they will be dominant on their own ball let, to the extent they anything they get may well come from 2 and will be under heavy pressure. Thus when Timani get the ball for his "hit up" at 12 (because Deans says tries cannot be scored from 1st phase) he will be tackled at least 5 metres behind the gain line if not held up.

Sure they'll be more lineouts than scrums, but the latter will be a significant source of penalties. The only penalties coming form the lineout will be from a resulting maul and in that respect it is also important to have big bodies to defend a rolling maul, as well as jumpers. For the same reason he is good in the scrum, Timani's big frame helps stop the initial momentum of a rolling maul. That's handy particularly in 2013 where the referees give teams less time to use it or lose it.

I'm not sold on the idea of having Palu and Timani on the field at the same time, because I agree we need 3 genuine lineout jumpers. We might be better off having one start from the bench.

 

[Pfitzy]

his d is definitely better. no doubt, but he still is not good enough in contact. i think that would be hard for you to argue. especially when you compare him to other international fly halfs.

Funny you mention that - watching Wilkinson versus Larkham last night in the 2001 Lions 2nd Test was instructive.

What I've noticed is that Quade doesn't want to get his head low, particularly front-on. Hip height tackles are just not really part of his instinctive play in the line, and neither is driving low into contact when he has the ball. His cover and chase tackling don't show the same symptoms.

Is there some incident as a kid that put him off?

 

[ACT Crusader]

Holy cow, 38 pages in and posters are still talking about Quade.

I think there are more important things to discuss, like the back row. Pocock is still IMO a massive loss. He would've learned a hell of alot from the WC and the big game occassion - which every single Lions test is. I don't doubt the talent and skill of the other two young un's but you can't coach experience and Pocock has it. Plus he can play a bit of footy as well

I don't mind the likes of Mowen or Dennis, they are grafters that shift bodies with some oomph. I would hate to see both Higgers and Palu start also. Both want to run with the ball and that's fine - but on together, don't like it, especially if Hooper starts who also likes to run with it and is quite proficient at it.

For me it's

6. Mowen
7. Hooper
8. Higgers

Palu could get a test starting spot at Higgers expense. Gill on the bench. And with Timani starting or on the bench I think you have no8 covered also

 

[Bullrush]

Funny you mention that - watching Wilkinson versus Larkham last night in the 2001 Lions 2nd Test was instructive.

What I've noticed is that Quade doesn't want to get his head low, particularly front-on. Hip height tackles are just not really part of his instinctive play in the line, and neither is driving low into contact when he has the ball. His cover and chase tackling don't show the same symptoms.

Is there some incident as a kid that put him off?

Played too much touch?

Moved to Australia?

 

[Nathan's]

I agree, but they were lacking against both the Tahs and Crusaders, where the strategy of "try not to lose" failed them when the opposition simply finished stronger and their forwards got edged as the game went on.

They seem to start red hot and get inconsistent as the season wears on

Yeh you're right here, however I wouldn't say that the Waratahs forwards were any better than the Brumbies. In my opinion, Mowen beat Dennis/Palu, Smith beat Hooper etc.. They were trying to close out the game to early and it backfired. The Brumbies put all sorts of pressure on both those teams with their 'rushing up' backline defence. I don't think it's a case of the Brumbies being inconsistent, more a fact that the Waratahs and Reds were fast asleep at the start of the season. The Brumbies exploited this and pumped on the points. Now both the Waratahs and Reds are at the level of the Brumbies. The Brumbies are far from inconsistent. They have lost 3 games all season and the only reason they aren't winning the whole competition is due to the two draws they had, which effectively they should have won. This team is now on par with two of the best teams in recent times, the Bulls and Chiefs and are currently ahead of the Crusaders.

This week, the Brumbies vs Blues and the Reds vs Stormers will be interesting following the Wallaby squad announcement, to see if the players heads are still focused etc.. These games coupled with the one for the Waratahs the week after against the Crusaders will determine the stature of these sides in the competition, and will show if they are either consistent or inconsistent. Due to recent form, the Brumbies will probably be pushed, there is no reason for the Waratahs to the lose against the Crusaders and the Reds also have to reason to lose against the Stormers.

 

[Lindommer]

I would hate to see both Higgers and Palu start also. Both want to run with the ball and that's fine - but on together, don't like it, especially if Hooper starts who also likes to run with it and is quite proficient at it. For me it's

6. Mowen
7. Hooper
8. Higgers

We have a significant advantage over the BILs in the 7 position, they don't have a scavenger up to the class of Smith, Gill or Hooper. Hooper's not quite as good as the other two when his team doesn't have the ball; I think it's imperative we start with Gill and run Hooper on later in the game. A couple of turnovers at the tackle will surely take the wind out of the BILs' sails, we've got to create this sort of damage early in the game. We'll be lucky to get parity at the set pieces, we simply have to attack the breakdown like hungry dogs.

 

[Scotty]

I think the more Link publicly white ants Deans, the less likely he is to get the Wobs job

You would think that Deans white anting the Reds would have him censured, but the ARU doesn't seem to care about that too much!

 

[Braveheart81]

Yeh you're right here, however I wouldn't say that the Waratahs forwards were any better than the Brumbies. In my opinion, Mowen beat Dennis/Palu, Smith beat Hooper etc.. They were trying to close out the game to early and it backfired. The Brumbies put all sorts of pressure on both those teams with their 'rushing up' backline defence.

I thought Mowen had a strong game but I don't think the rest of your forwards really did. George Smith had more impact at the breakdown than Hooper but that is Smith's game. Hooper made a lot of running metres (70m including two line breaks) compared to Smith's 14m. A telling moment of the game was when Hooper got outside Smith on the left edge and Barnes put him into space with a nice pass that led to a try.

They are hard players to compare because they excel at different things but I don't think you can say that Smith beat Hooper.

If you are going to decide which player beat the other, I'd suggest that Hooper's try was the winning play between the pair.