• 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 v Wales, Principality Stadium, Sun 27th November, 2.15am AEST

stillmissit

Bill McLean (32)
If you play your locks wide, who is doing the heavy stuff in tight?
Dru, I think you are alluding to an issue with our tight forwards. What exactly is their main role? Is it to work the tight or to be more involved in the loose or general play?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dru

Dctarget

Michael Lynagh (62)
Who moved to fullback when Paisami went off? Was it Wright or Petaia?

I would like to keep the same back three of Nawaqanitawase, Wright, Petaia. They provided a lot of go forward on the weekend and won the aerial battle.

Not really sure who goes centre then. Is it better to Have Hodge at centre with Petaia outside or vice versa. Poor Hodge, bloke has been moved so much.
 

The Ghost of Raelene

Trevor Allan (34)

Yeah, we want to win this match as you say @Tomthumb

@Dctarget I'd try to change as little as possible. We don't have the ability to chop/change and experiment as was shown v Italy. I'd keep that back three also and slot Hodge in. We know he will get a job done. Can think of it as poor guy but his versatility is what makes him valuable in the current squad.
 

Dctarget

Michael Lynagh (62)

Yeah, we want to win this match as you say @Tomthumb

@Dctarget I'd try to change as little as possible. We don't have the ability to chop/change and experiment as was shown v Italy. I'd keep that back three also and slot Hodge in. We know he will get a job done. Can think of it as poor guy but his versatility is what makes him valuable in the current squad.
Unfortunately we have to change a lot with Foley, Kellaway and Paisami all unavailable.

edit: Then in the forwards there's Tupou, Valetini, Skelton, Porecki. So at a minimum there'll be headlines bemoaning RENNIE RINGS MASS CHANGES.
 

The Ghost of Raelene

Trevor Allan (34)
I understand the forced moves but I'd have Lolesio > Foley, Wright > Kellaway and Hodge > Paisami. Many have said Ikitau to move to 12 or even Noah and have Donaldson at 10 with him. I see those changes as mixing it up just because it could be done and that seems dumb.
 

upthereds#!

Peter Fenwicke (45)
What I would do (6/2 split)
1. Slipper 2. Fainga'a 3. Ala'alatoa
4. Frost 5. Neville
6. Holloway 8. Samu 7. Hoops
9. Mcdermott 10. Lolesio 11. Wright 12. Hodge 13. Ikitau 14. Nawaqa 15. Petaia
16. Lonergan 17. Gibbon 18. Talakai 19. Swain 20. Hanigan 21. Mcreight 22. Gordon 23. Campbell
 

Derpus

David Wilson (68)
And you think a rookie with barely half a season of Super rugby behind him can? Pete Samu doesn't hit it up hard like Valetini but is one of the very few Wallaby forwards who consistently makes ground in contact and has the ability to break the line. Give me someone I know over a promising but very inexperienced novice in test match rugby any day.

For the hitups, I can see the load falling on Holloway, and perhaps Frost if they play him a bit wider.
Yeah TBH I'm not sold on Gleeson entirely either.

If the state of rugby wasn't what it is we'd have Naisarani and Wilson lining up to take Valetini's spot. Alas.
 

Slim 293

Phil Waugh (73)
Who moved to fullback when Paisami went off? Was it Wright or Petaia?

I believe it was Wright...

Nic Bishop wrote a fairly glowing review of our back 3 (largely re: Marky Mark (Nawaqanitawase) and Petaia) from the game:


The reference to Folau is moreso to do with Marky Mark (Nawaqanitawase) and Petaia's dominance in the air, and ability to gain ground afterwards.
 

Dctarget

Michael Lynagh (62)
Yeah TBH I'm not sold on Gleeson entirely either.

If the state of rugby wasn't what it is we'd have Naisarani and Wilson lining up to take Valetini's spot. Alas.
Why would Wilson be there if Rugby were healthier? Naisarani I get. But Rennie could've taken Gleeson or Wilson and he took Gleeson.
 

Viking

Mark Ella (57)
I dunno, Ikitau is such a cornerstone for us now, I’d be loath to move him from 13. I’d have Hodge at 12.

I see your point of view, but if there is an injury then Ikitau is going to get shifted to 12 anyway, like what happened last match, I believe Kellaway was shifted to 13, Petaia came on the wing (interesting he didn't go straight to 13 - apparently Kellaway is a better 13 then Petaia).

Unless you always have Hodge on the bench, but we are unsure on that likelihood come RWC.
 

Derpus

David Wilson (68)
Why would Wilson be there if Rugby were healthier? Naisarani I get. But Rennie could've taken Gleeson or Wilson and he took Gleeson.
Because people would be making smarter decisions.

Rennies selections have become fairly questionable.
 

Viking

Mark Ella (57)
I don't have an issue bringing on players from the bench. My question is why do it with 5 minutes to go for what wasn't an injury replacement.

I reckon once you get to about 65 minutes the bench player should either be on the field or your plan should be that they don't get on the field. Maybe extend that out to 70 minutes.

It seems pretty pointless to give someone only 5 minutes on the field and is more likely to be detrimental to that player and the team than the opposite.

Maybe the plan was 10 minutes but with no stoppages it was brought down to 5 minutes.

I wonder how Donaldson feels about it. Would he want a cap for 5 minutes of play. If he kicked the goal he certainly would have.

I recall Eddie Jones in an interview say he likes to bring on young players even if its only for a couple of minutes just so they can feel the experience of the occasion, so next time they get decent minutes they have that experience under their belt and its not such a big deal. Makes a bit of sense since the first game the crowd/stadium/noise/atmosphere etc. could be over-whelming.

Not saying I agree with that, as i agree with your 65min idea, but it does seem like there is some logic there.
 

Viking

Mark Ella (57)
You've answered the question in your first sentence. We're looking for someone to replace Valetini's ball running in the middle of the field, not complement him.

Derpus and myself (and potentially others) are suggesting that Gleeson should start because we are sorely lacking ball running ability with the players available.

I'd say Samu is a very effective ball runner, just not a crash-baller like Valetini.

Samu also brings experience amongst a whole heap of other attributes that Gleeson doesn't. So far, Geelson only brings a crashball option and nothing else.

I think Samu is the safer option. He's got the stats to prove he is one of the best attacking forwards we have. I think he has the ability to absolutely carve up the Welsh like he did against the All Blacks.
 

Tomthumb

Watty Friend (18)
To be honest, they well overdo the crash ball stuff with Valetini anyway. Becomes super predictable for defences. Samu's footwork is what we need
 

Sword of Justice

Darby Loudon (17)
The context of these discussions though was triggered by players debuting when a test match was in the balance. Totally see the logic in a different scenario when a game is already all but decided.
 
Top