Wallabies 31 Man Squad

[Try-ranosaurus Rex]

I think the requirement behind Dennis is to be able to play 6 and 4. I highly doubt he would have been in the initial squad if MMM had been fit. In the squad chosen, I think Dennis is the third choice 6 and fourth choice 8. He's the only potential 4/6 though. If Deans wants to play two 7s in his matchday 23 and still have 3 back reserves he has to compromise his bench by having a player who covers both lock and the backrow.

I agree on the rationale.

But practicaly, if Timani or Horwill go down with injury in the first 60 minutes of a test and Dennis came on to replace them, you can kiss any chance of winning good bye. The Northerns would jump on this like a fat kid on a cup cake and our scrums would be decimated.

I have a feeling we're going to see a 6:2 bench split in order to get game time for two flyers on the scrum. Much like we did on the EOYT last year (starting Hooper and finishing with Hooper and Gill).

 

[lewisr]

I agree on the rationale.

But practicaly, if Timani or Horwill go down with injury in the first 60 minutes of a test and Dennis came on to replace them, you can kiss any chance of winning good bye. The Northerns would jump on this like a fat kid on a cup cake and our scrums would be decimated.

I have a feeling we're going to see a 6:2 bench split in order to get game time for two flyers on the scrum. Much like we did on the EOYT last year (starting Hooper and finishing with Hooper and Gill).

An interesting note, the reds once play Kev at 6 didn't they? Albeit not very effective, the same could be said for Dennis playing in the second row.

 

[Train Without a Station]

but I do think there is often a certain kind of logic to his selections.

I think there is more than a "certain logic" to his selections to be honest Richo. I just think it's the wrong logic. Many who have said it is the best team to play how he wants are correct in my opinion.

My issue more stems from the fact that we won't beat the Lions playing like Lions-Lite, which is essentially what we are going for. There are the odd misguided ideas such as Timani for his size, when he is probably less effective with it than Douglas or MMM, but generally it comes back to the first item.

Then there is the issues that the guys brought up in the podslam where Robbie said he didn't see JOC (James O'Connor) as a 10, yet now after a number of average games there 2 and 1/2 years later he sees him as his number 1 man. As mentioned, he probably is the right player for the game plan he wants, but considering the game plan has been average to very unsuccessful, is it the game plan to hang his hat (and more importantly, career) on? I personally don't think so.

 

[Jets]

Wasn't there a call be people for Timani to play 8. You could have Simmons on the bench and move Timani to the back if there's an injury.

 

[Try-ranosaurus Rex]

It seems McCabe's injury isn't as bad as firt thought. He'll be back playing in the Brumbies game on the 31st May.

If he is selectd (which I am anticipating), then this forum will go into hyperspeed melt-down.

On the positive news front, George Smith's knee is grade 2. This means he'll be back within six weeks. If we see Hooper of Gill injured in the first test, then George should be availble from the second test.

 

[lewisr]

It seems McCabe's injury isn't as bad as firt thought. He'll be back playing in the Brumbies game on the 31st May.

If he is selectd (which I am anticipating), then this forum will go into hyperspeed melt-down.

On the positive news front, George Smith's knee is grade 2. This means he'll be back within six weeks. If we see Hooper of Gill injured in the first test, then George should be availble from the second test.

What is the general consensus on McCabe? Are we divided like the cooper issue or is there an agreement that he is a committed and devoted player but ridiculously one dimensional and should not be in the Wallabies...

 

[Inside Shoulder]

What is the general consensus on McCabe? Are we divided like the cooper issue or is there an agreement that he is a committed and devoted player but ridiculously one dimensional and should not be in the Wallabies.

The consensus is the same as it is for lobbing molatov cocktails onto smouldering embers

 

[Brumby Runner]

I agree that Kepu is far from perfect but Robbo, Slipper and Alexander pick themselves and then you've got daylight next (due to Palmer's drop in form). It's more a case of looking at the lack of other options available than saying that Kepu is crap.

I think the requirement behind Dennis is to be able to play 6 and 4. I highly doubt he would have been in the initial squad if MMM had been fit. In the squad chosen, I think Dennis is the third choice 6 and fourth choice 8. He's the only potential 4/6 though. If Deans wants to play two 7s in his matchday 23 and still have 3 back reserves he has to compromise his bench by having a player who covers both lock and the backrow.

I think there is a strong chance that Gill and Hooper will both be in the 23 because Deans considers both of them to be amongst our better players (which I agree with).

I fail to see the logic of selecting Dennis as 6/4 cover if it is accepted that MMM would have this role if fit. Now having committed to Dennis, what happens if MMM is fit to be included in the final 6. If he is included, Dennis becomes superfluous, or otherwise we have second best if MMM is not included. Far better had he not made the decision to include Dennis until MMM's availability and fitness had been established. I suspect the reason a second No9 wasn't included was to wait until Burgess' position was clear so that a superfluous person didn't result. Having said that, though, I do not subscribe to the notion that Burgess should even be considered. Nic White deserves his chance and a second No9 should be in the squad for training purposes.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I fail to see the logic of selecting Dennis as 6/4 cover if it is accepted that MMM would have this role if fit. Now having committed to Dennis, what happens if MMM is fit to be included in the final 6. If he is included, Dennis becomes superfluous, or otherwise we have second best if MMM is not included. Far better had he not made the decision to include Dennis until MMM's availability and fitness had been established. I suspect the reason a second No9 wasn't included was to wait until Burgess' position was clear so that a superfluous person didn't result. Having said that, though, I do not subscribe to the notion that Burgess should even be considered. Nic White deserves his chance and a second No9 should be in the squad for training purposes.

3 people currently in the 25 are going to miss out on the 23 anyway (even though 25-3=22) - however much logic you try to impose on the selections they will defy that logic because of this fact.
It is as close to farcical as i can recall.

 

[Lindommer]

What is the general consensus on McCabe? Are we divided like the Cooper issue or is there an agreement that he is a committed and devoted player but ridiculously one dimensional and should not be in the Wallabies.

I don't see how the squad can carry both Horne AND McCabe, you pick one or the other. The only things McCabe does Horne doesn't is cover wing and fullback, and in this squad he'd be the sixth winger and fifth fullback. Horne, however, covers 13, where we desperately need cover.

 

[Ash]

I don't see how the squad can carry both Horne AND McCabe, you pick one or the other. The only things McCabe does Horne doesn't is cover wing and fullback, and in this squad he'd be the sixth winger and fifth fullback. Horne, however, covers 13, where we desperately need cover.

Agree. And Horne's been playing rather well the last few weeks, and not too badly before that.

McCabe, in comparison, has gotten over the gain line. That's about all I can sadly say about his contribution this year. He's been willing, but not deserving of selection over any of the other 12s.

That being said, I fully expect Deans to pick McCabe in the next six.

 

[Ruggo]

I'm very much not in the pro-Deans club (is there one still?), but I do think there is often a certain kind of logic to his selections. Experience over form, direct over flashy, reliably over mercurial, loyalty, a preference for size and strength and so on. As Scott Allen did on the latest podcast, you can put on a Robbie hat and see the "sense" in some of his odder choices, but it really requires stepping into his world.

Most of us disagree with the basic premises of his approach, but once you assume them, things make a lot more sense.

Honestly Richo, I think he is playing it safe. I don't think it is the best way to go because I think the Wallabies are at their best when we chance our arm. We have a point of difference in how we play and it has been the equalizer to the areas of the game where we are not so strong at. To me it feels like we are throwing it out the window and I fear we are being lead into a style that just isn't us against an opposition that will just lap it up. If the Wallabies didn't play with the courage to chance their arm in 2001, Harrison would not of even attempted that steal and the result and history would be very different.

 

[I like to watch]

If you are promoting Quade style Rugby as the best option, that is fine.
But you cannot reference the style we played in the last series to support that view.

 

[lewisr]

If you are promoting Quade style Rugby as the best option, that is fine.
But you cannot reference the style we played in the last series to support that view.

"Quade style rugby" is a very specific phrase. He is promoting attacking, exciting rugby and I have no doubt O'Connor is capable of delivering this. However I am cognisant of the fact that Deans is not a big fan of throwing the ball around or playing this style so I think we will see a reserved O'Connor with Barnes shifting up from 15 a lot of the time (as happened in the Argentina match).

Why can't he use the last series to support that view? Sure, it's old, but it absolutely proves his point about what kind of rugby defines(d) the Wallabies.

 

[Bullrush]

Forget Cooper for a min......do you think the Wallaby forward pack will put at least some 2nd thoughts in the BIL pack? Is there anyone who will put a bit of hurt on?

I think it's been a long time since teams respected the Wallaby pack in terms of really getting hurt. They pull out a performance every now and again but not consistently enough. Fortunately, I think some of the Wallabies play better against NH opponents than SH teams eg Palu but I hope a guy like Fotu Aelua gets a chance and puts in a few damaging runs and huge hits. If your forwards can put even a split second hesitation or doubt in the BILs then your back-line will get a chance to fire. If they don't front up and lay some hurt on though, even the BIL backs will get in on the action and start dominating the Wallabies physically.

I reckon sometimes it doesn't hurt to play one forward who's technique may be pretty crap but no-one wants to see either running at them or lining up to hit them.

Just a bit of islander/bush philosophy to consider maybe.....lol

 

[qwerty51]

You're can forget about Auelua. He's 100/1 to make the squad. He's barely made an impact since that great 1st half against the Sharks early in the year. Fallen off big time.

The only player we've had in recent times who the opposition feared in terms of getting hurt is Vickerman. He has quite a record. I don't see the Lions pack bettering ours man for man at all. We have a better backrow despite that being the Lions strength. I'd take Robinson and Moore over their loosehead and hooker any day. I think their only positions of strength are tighthead and the locks but our locks aren't too shabby depending on who is picked.

6. Mowen/Higginbotham
7. Hooper/Gill
8. Palu

vs

6. Croft/Lydiate
7. Warburton
8. Faletau/Heaslip

 

[I like to watch]

"Quade style rugby" is a very specific phrase. He is promoting attacking, exciting rugby and I have no doubt O'Connor is capable of delivering this. However I am cognisant of the fact that Deans is not a big fan of throwing the ball around or playing this style so I think we will see a reserved O'Connor with Barnes shifting up from 15 a lot of the time (as happened in the Argentina match).

Why can't he use the last series to support that view? Sure, it's old, but it absolutely proves his point about what kind of rugby defines(d) the Wallabies.

The main reason I think he shouldn't use the last series to promote playing open exciting football, is because they didn't play open fast Rugby last time around.

 

[madflyhalf]

Cummins' thoughts on being picked. He's just "keen to get out there", good attitude.

Sorry guys I'm Italian and I really don't catch the very last quote of the Honey Badger, min 3:08 after "hopefully get a gig".

Can someone please help me and transcript that quote??

I don't want to miss any HB's interview to come!!

 

[Ruggo]

If you are promoting Quade style Rugby as the best option, that is fine.
But you cannot reference the style we played in the last series to support that view.

I am promoting enterprising rugby. "Quade style rugby" sounds like a throw away term.

 

[Sandpit Fan]

Sorry guys I'm Italian and I really don't catch the very last quote of the Honey Badger, min 3:08 after "hopefully get a gig".

Can someone please help me and transcript that quote??

I don't want to miss any HB's interview to come!!

Means that he hopes to be in the starting 23. In the context he's used it, a gig means a start