Wallabies v Pumas, GIO Stadium, Canberra, Sat 16th September

[Inside Shoulder]

are you suggesting that we have a team of gen Y players who are used to getting a medal just for turning up?

I don't think its a sense of entitlement which that explanation implies.
I fear that these blokes have had their judgment coached out of them and not necessarily at test level.
There are so many elaborate drills which have predetermined desired "looks": the fact that, barring injury, blokes can train their way into the team is really odd to me when their game craft is so woeful. I fear we are picking the blokes who can train well - give the coaches what they look for at breakdown X in Y position and you will train your way into the team.
Sport at this level has to be majority instinct, assuming you have the basics including fitness.

 

[A mutterer]

I don't think its a sense of entitlement which that explanation implies.
I fear that these blokes have had their judgment coached out of them and not necessarily at test level.
There are so many elaborate drills which have predetermined desired "looks": the fact that, barring injury, blokes can train their way into the team is really odd to me when their game craft is so woeful. I fear we are picking the blokes who can train well - give the coaches what they look for at breakdown X in Y position and you will train your way into the team.
Sport at this level has to be majority instinct, assuming you have the basics including fitness.

it was a sarcastic comment however, i do think the players have learnt to shit the bed when they are in the lead over the past 18 months. that comment is .

 

[Inside Shoulder]

it was a sarcastic comment however

I dont think it necessarily should have been

 

[TOCC]

This match is an absolute must win for the Wallabies, it can't be a draw or a close loss, they have to beat Argentina at home..

 

[Namerican]

I don't understand the complaining about the players on here. I don't get the impression they aren't trying their best or that they don't care. Bernard Foley cops so much flack, but I've seen him absolutely battered out there. The team plays heads up rugby as much as any other test side.

People seem to be grasping at straws when it's mainly just that Australia isn't as good at rugby as it used to be. Talking about bigger/stronger/faster and overall depth. Slagging the players seems unwarranted.

Look at the teams ranked higher, like England or New Zealand. Would any of them consider starting Hanigan/Simmons/Carter/Mumm/Skeleton? No because they have 6-15 clearly better options. It isn't Hanigan's fault Australia doesn't have a Robshaw/Lawes/Itoje/Haskell/Squire/Todd/Cane/Kaino/Savea/that mac truck NZ pulled out of their ass last week etc.

What do people want Hooper to say after a loss? That Aussie rugby is kind of shite and the team stinks? How does that help?

 

[dru]

This match is an absolute must win for the Wallabies, it can't be a draw or a close loss, they have to beat Argentina at home..

In the past perhaps. Cheika has a way of having lowering performance test our tolerance levels, quickly it settles into the new norm.

 

[fatprop]

Cheika on the Arnold dropping.


Hanigan is consistently a passenger so I guess that suits Cheika's ethos.

He is doing a load of work, he just needs to improve each piece of work

I would love to have a unit that will hit as many rucks and make as many tackles he does, just with more quality.

At the moment those units simply aren't around.

I am trying to get to the logic of why Cheika is persisting with him

Cheika said earlier in the year that one of the things on the to-do list this year was reduce the penalties per game; so we aren't attacking the ball at the ruck as that is a lottery with failure cost of 50m, so Fardy's key skill was devalued.

The other option Higgers plays the attacking role of Hooper and doesn't hit enough rucks or make enough tackles.

With Haylett-Petty wounded, he picks Korczyk, another guy prone to get through a load of work, I actually though that Korczyk may have got some time in this game.

 

[Brumby Runner]

FP, I think you have here done a better job of unscrambling the Cheika brain and way of thinking than Cheika himself has done. I still don't agree with the selection of Hanigan and Dempsey, nor the continual selection of two No 7s in the backrow, as I think they and it represents a significant weakness in the makeup of the team, with detrimental impacts also on the No 9 and No 10.

It really is time for Cheika to change up imo. In the absence of alternatives in the squad right now, that should mean bringing Timani in at 8 and leaving Hanigan at 6 for his lineout prowess. But from outside the squad, I'd really like to see Matt Philip come in at 6. He looks to be the ideal build, 1.98m and 118kg, plays with both speed and aggression, and is able to impose himself on the breakdown. Many more up sides to Philip than to either of Hanigan or Dempsey.

 

[fatprop]

I don't understand Dempsey at all, but continually talking about locks being converted into backrowers for test? Nah

"If" Philip was do heaps of work in the back row, in the NRC/Super Rugby like a "Mumm" who could play that 5/6 hybrid, I could understand it

 

[wamberal]

I don't understand Dempsey at all, but continually talking about locks being converted into backrowers for test? Nah

It's called desperation.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I rather think Hanigan/Dempsey is desperation with a capital "D". When the present arrangements aren't working, something different needs to be tried.

FP, there really doesn't seem to a lot of difference in the mode of play between a 6 and the enforcer style of lock that Philip is. There are many more better examples of players able to handle both than Mumm. I believe it would work in Philip's case, and at least would offer more impact in tight stuff than Hanigan does at present.

 

[TSR]

I don't understand Dempsey at all, but continually talking about locks being converted into backrowers for test? Nah

"If" Philip was do heaps of work in the back row, in the NRC/Super Rugby like a "Mumm" who could play that 5/6 hybrid, I could understand it

Largely I agree FP. I think it is mostly a product of the consensus that the current option isn't working and, with the lack of depth/player availability/lack of form from Timani it is the only other option.

It seems to me though that Cheika is looking to emulate the Melbourne Rebels previous approach in the backrow - light, agile, industrious. A bit of a departure from his Tahs game plan and it's not filling me with confidence so far.

 

[fatprop]

Largely I agree FP. I think it is mostly a product of the consensus that the current option isn't working and, with the lack of depth/player availability/lack of form from Timani it is the only other option.

It seems to me though that Cheika is looking to emulate the Melbourne Rebels previous approach in the backrow - light, agile, industrious. A bit of a departure from his Tahs game plan and it's not filling me with confidence so far.

Mainly because we don't have big, angry, aggressive

 

[TSR]

Mainly because we don't have big, angry, aggressive

Ain't that the truth.

 

[wamberal]

Anybody who wants to play a Soup level lock at 6 for the national side needs to to google "Garrick Morgan".

 

[dru]

FP, I think you have here done a better job of unscrambling the Cheika brain and way of thinking than Cheika himself has done.

+1 FP, I think you're on to something

 

[KOB1987]

nor the continual selection of two No 7s in the backrow,

McMahon isn't a 7. He's a 6/8 that's a little on the small side. He's adequate cover if we lose Hooper, but he's by no means a specialist 7.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I disagree KOB. Sean is a bit on the small side, and at test level cant impose himself in contact, to be a 6 or 8. I think he is the closest we have to an Ardie Savea who mostly if not always comes off the bench to play at 7. That would be the role I'd give to McMahon as well. His ability over the ball at the ruck is better than Hooper's and certainly good enough until he makes way for Pocock to return.

 

[wamberal]

McMahon isn't a 7. He's a 6/8 that's a little on the small side. He's adequate cover if we lose Hooper, but he's by no means a specialist 7.

He is not a lttle on the small size, he is a midget at Test level. Huge heart, tiny body.

 

[Warpath]

McMahon was in his prime between 2014-2016, he isn't good anymore. Wobblies should get Higginbotham back, he still got it because other 8's in Oz including the ones in NRC are under performing, even Timani .....Isi is not eligible so Cheika needs to get an old head back in the meantime.