Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC

[Brumby Runner]

It wasn't "awful" on the weekend - both packs had some wins and a few came down. Highlanders have been a good scrummaging unit. Were all these down to the Waratahs pack, in particular Robinson or Kepu? I don't know, and I suspect no-one else really does.

If that is the case, and it may well be, on what criteria do the selectors/coaches make their decision on which props to play?

 

[Train Without a Station]

What's with all the sudden harsh criticism of the Waratahs players? I'm reading articles that are saying some of them (like Foley) cannot be the Wallabies options if we want to get out of the pool stage?

It's gone from irrational lauding of them as so vastly superior to any individual alternative by virtue of their team's success to irrational deriding of them. I seriously do not know what we learnt from the weekend that we did not already know. Much like the players at the other franchises, many Waratahs players also have faults. Many of them despite these faults are still our best options.

 

[Scrubber2050]

The surprising thing about fatcat is that despite apparently being overweight, slow and no longer up to it, he is playing long minutes every week and rarely being out scrummaged over a match



Typos by SwiftKey, errors in tone by me

I like Robbo and hope he gets a callup for RWC. Bloke has been at the top or new top dor several years and is probably playing his best rugby for a number of years.

Think he is a long way behind slipper nowdays and also Sio.

His experience won't go astray

 

[fatprop]

It wasn't "awful" on the weekend - both packs had some wins and a few came down. Highlanders have been a good scrummaging unit. Were all these down to the Waratahs pack, in particular Robinson or Kepu? I don't know, and I suspect no-one else really does.

looked like a good contest to me, both sides had some wins and losses, the ref actually commented that they were good until all the changes in the second half when it turned a tad unstable

moments like nines scragging each other highlight good contests

 

[Scrubber2050]

Is PAE now injured ????

 

[fatprop]

If that is the case, and it may well be, on what criteria do the selectors/coaches make their decision on which props to play?

cheika talked about his change in scrummaging mindset after the November tests (and then aided by Ledesma)

less about "games", all about being square, pushing straight, being competitive but not giving away penalties

Cheika was cautiously satisfied with his forwards' efforts in the side's 23-11 victory – their first back-to-back wins this season.
"I'm really pleased with the way our scrum's going ... we're trying to be really straight and try to profit from anything that's wheeling," he said.
"It takes time, it's definitely not completed, but we're working well and improving. We're trying to put pressure on through that. We're not trying to bog it down with too many scrums either, [but] get a good platform and then run, or if we did get an advantage trying to get that and run as well."

 

[BDA]

How long is PAE out?

Read something this morning about Naiyaravoro getting a call up. Not close to test standard yet

 

[Gnostic]

In fact if you read the first post the first name aside from the two mentioned was Skelton's for his exceptional ball running ability. I'm not sure if he's what I'd call consistently world class but he's not far off and more time and coaching should get him there.

I should clarify, I don't believe my premise is akin to an over reliance on individuals as an overriding delay ion philosophy, merely a good model to examine how to solve some selection dilemmas when they arise in particularly competitive spots. However I do think that most of the time it is not good practice to have a inflexible game plan and subsequently select the players best suited to carry it out regardless of things like team balance, form etc. such an approach is really only justifiable when
a) most candidates are in possession of similar health, form and ability
b) the coach is veritably certain they can extract the best performance from a player in worse form who offers what they are looking for over another in great form who possesses a different balance of skill set.

Generally (85% of the time) it is better to develop a flexible game plan that takes advantage the collective skills of your best available 15 players.

It's the balance of "collective skills" that interests me. I don't really want to see a team made up of PURELY hard working footy players all with general skill sets, I prefer to see players bring to the table specific skill sets to a consistently world class level (though having glaring weaknesses e.g being slow, weak tackler, lazy and unfit, poor hands are obviously not acceptable, but those are barriers to selection at lower levels than Wallaby).

We aren't far from thinking the same things Hammertime, the difference is in philosophy.

The fundamental issue that has to be addressed is do you (1) select for a game plan that the coach wants to play, or (2) do you select the best players and try to mould a game plan to suit (your 85% of the time option)

Or even better yet (3) have players that can play a complete game that is adaptable?


I see that on the EOYT largely option 1 was tried and failed because the game plan is as I've moaned about, limited and has big flaws which were exposed on multiple occasions this year at Super Level.

Option 2 is probably a good fall back position and unfortunately often leads to a conservative approach to the game as so many of the "best" players aren't complete players and have skills that don't suit alternative game plans.

Option 3 is unfortunately in my view not an option in Australian rugby at the moment and hasn't been since about 2004. Our players have been de-skilled (or never up-skilled) in key areas, such as kicking from hand. It limits the viability of a game plan and team. Mogg is the only 15 in Australia with a kicking game worthy of a test 15, but the rest of his game simply isn't up to standard, so the ability to play conservative phases in a game are greatly reduced and any opposition will be looking at the Wallabies with a back three of Tomane, Speight, Horne Folau and even Beale thinking we can kick them into submission.

So what I am seeing at the moment is the limitations especially in the back three dictating what sort of game plan the Wallabies can play. They have massive strengths, don't take me wrong, but the lack of any real ability to kick consistently with any length will dictate tactics. Also add in that those options also lack real top end pace and I doubt that any of them could match it for pace with the Fijians or NZ backs.

My real concern is that in the RWC they will be up against a side in Wales that are a very good defensive unit and perhaps the most highly honed conservative team in the world with Warrenball, and the Tahs type plan that would form Option 1 failed consistently this year with that. Then against the Poms the physical dominance game is also unlikely to work with the pack they are likely to select and the targeting of the set piece we can expect has me worried.

I honestly don't know what the answer is, but I think Chieka will favour the Option 1 setting and we will see selections that people will question as not being the "best" player, but is actually the one best suited to execute the plan.

 

[fatprop]

I think we will gamble a bit and play to win. Not play to minimise risk, so we will win some and get beaten hard sometimes as well

 

[Gnostic]

Agree FP and that is what I styled Option 1. Its is about all there is in the short term, but I wish Australian Rugby would look long term and employ specialist coaches to aim for Option 3. Every coaching position at professional level in Australia is short term. Season to season, be it NRC, Super Rugby or test rugby, and we just don't see the same level of technical development that we do in NZ.

The ARU needs to actually get some use from the HPU and get some long term development instead of just paying the wages. Were is the scrum school and kicking coach?
These have been key areas of failure for the last decade or longer that we moan and bitch about constantly and they have not been addressed at any level on a long term structural basis.

 

[cyclopath]

If that is the case, and it may well be, on what criteria do the selectors/coaches make their decision on which props to play?

My main issue was the description of the Tahs scrum as awful. It wasn't. It didn't dominate but it didn't get dominated either. Saying that, then writing off one or both props on that basis is pretty simplistic and ignores plenty of good performances this season, and others.

 

[fatprop]

My main issue was the description of the Tahs scrum as awful. It wasn't. It didn't dominate but it didn't get dominated either. Saying that, then writing off one or both props on that basis is pretty simplistic and ignores plenty of good performances this season, and others.

yeah, our lineout was awful, the scrum was competing and solid

 

[topgun]

So what was the real verdict on the Tah's wallabies players on saturday? I was in the loudest dingiest pub in Tamworth looking at the game on the smallest screen trying not to get the shit kicked out of me by League mungoes and PBR enthusiasts...

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Cheika should go down to all the under 7 training sessions and begin teaching every kid to kick with both feet

 

[fatprop]

So what was the real verdict on the Tah's wallabies players on saturday? I was in the loudest dingiest pub in Tamworth looking at the game on the smallest screen trying not to get the shit kicked out of me by League mungoes and PBR enthusiasts.

We don't know, they weren't allowed to play their game, the Tahs had two real weaknesses in their team. One kicker in the backline and an average lineout. They were exploited effectively to stop most of the momentum and ramp up pressure.

You then add the smart offside work when they did get any roll on and it added up to very few shots fired at all

 

[Dave Beat]

Dave as I noted on the locks thread, short line outs are not a great solution. The benefit of a line out is it locks 8 players into the 15m channel and gives the remain 7 (or 6 if you exclude the halfback) up to around 50m width to attack in a 1 on 1 of better attacking situation.

Short line out cramp the space, which means there is less distance between each defender and therefore is less difficult to defend.

For a crash ball to set up quick ball a short line out is great, but it's not the most effective use of an excellent attacking situation.

As did the old fashion restart where the forwards packed the tram tracks and the kicker tried to land it in the tram tracks.
Guess what we don't see that any more - old school.

Maybe our vision needs to change from the specific line out set piece, master the short man line out, and target phases centre field with options either side.


Need to turn a weakness into a strength, sorry to reveal this but I think we are going to find any timber between now and the RWC.

 

[Train Without a Station]

As TOCC noted, the largest source of RWC tries has been the line out. To not try and have the strongest full line out possible is crazy when it's the greatest source of tries.

 

[Gnostic]

SO the question always comes back - how do you (Chieka) want to play? If you want a strong lineout that will count Skelton out of the side either starting or the bench. It will determine 6 and 8 as well I would suggest and perhaps even 2/16.

That then determines how the rest of the game will be played as none of the other options allow the physical dominance game that Chieka was after last year on the EOYT.

Maybe you do a Deans and select for a strong lineout but expect them to play that physical dominance game, as he did in deciding to play a running 10 and non-kicking fullback to play a conservative defence based game in the 2011 RWC.

As discussed above the I think game plan will determine the selections, not necessarily who has been in the best form for their provinces. I don't think our players have shown over the last decade that they can play anything but the game they play. They are not adaptable and do not have the skills that NZ players are trained to.

 

[Gillys_ghost]

The Tahs scrum was absolutely dominated by the Reds scrum 3 weeks ago. The only scrum I remember the Tahs winning was when the Reds were penalised for deliberately wheeling it. Awful probably was a bit of hyperbole but I wouldn't say it isn't at least a bit of an issue. As I said as well in my post, it would be unfair to blame the whole scrum issue on just the props but the whole point of my post was questioning the part where you said Fat Cat hadn't been dominated at scrum time.

Apologies, it was fat prop who said Robinson hadn't been dominated at scrum time

 

[barbarian]

I'm sorry but the Tahs scrum was not 'absolutely dominated' by the Reds scrum. The penalty count was 2-2 in the end and while the Reds got the shove on in a few early scrums the Tahs came back after that and had the better of the second half.

Also neither side managed to win a tight-head (from memory).
.