Wallaby 31 players for 2015 RWC

[Latts1992]

Maybe leaving White and Horwill out is a cost saving measure... at least if they're needed they will already be in Europe and their new clubs will have already paid for their flights over. Times are tough.

 

[DTH091]

I think this was already proposed a few pages back and by far makes the most sense considering how close together the Uruguay, Fiji, and England games are.

 

[USARugger]

Maybe leaving White and Horwill out is a cost saving measure. at least if they're needed they will already be in Europe and their new clubs will have already paid for their flights over. Times are tough.

Pretty sure QANTAS covers the flights.

 

[Lorenzo]

I still don't get it, tbh. This squad could lose 4 wingers to injury and still have a backline as good as anyone's but NZ. We lose one hooker at a bad time and suddenly we are playing England in England with a prop playing hooker. Wanting two full teams isn't really an explanation I understand.

 

[gold heart]

Is it wrong to only take two hookers - yup
Is it wrong to only take two halfbacks - probably but not so much of an issue
Should horwill be there instead of palu - absolutely.

I am not too worried about the selections - overall we have some solid cattle and fancy pretty boys. At the end of the day we have an extended squad and with opposed training and a match against USA there are bound to be some injuries - we have been lucky so far - but the odds are someone will be injured in the next month or so. My guess might be a pretty boy winger at training - then a hooker comes in as a replacement. I have a gut feeling horwill will be on the plane as well.

 

[Viking]

He was pretty terrible at 10 in 2013 - getting selected in a position by a coach doesn't make you the best in the position, or the second-best, or third-best..

Anyway, his personal form during Super Rugby this year really wasn't good enough to concretely warrant selection over the guys recently named in the squad.

JOC (James O'Connor) isn't a risk to get picked up by Fiji if he doesn't play against the USA either.

It all seems a bit ironic though now that Douglas was selected for the squad. I mean why do they ignore that he had zero club rugby form but it's not okay that JOC (James O'Connor)'s club form wasn't there?

JOC (James O'Connor) actually has a history of superb Test performances on the wing, plus his skillset would be complimentary to Folau as he can kick and be an extra play-maker. Yet Douglas has no decent Test runs on the board.

So there happy for Douglas to return to form from what sounds like a major back injury but they don't do the same for JOC (James O'Connor) who only has niggling injuries?

Something not right here. The whole Douglas selection really has sent a poor message to everyone.

 

[qwerty51]

Because we have depth at wing and little depth at lock.

What's the poor message it sent? Douglas was clearly picked on the job he did for Cheika at the Tahs in 2014.

 

[Langthorne]

That's all fine, but my approach is to get an expert to do a specialised job...

Like playing hooker in the World Cup?


This is a very good squad, no doubt about it. I think they can win it, with a bit of luck.


On the 2 hookers issue (rehash of my front page post, but also a few genuine questions for anyone who knows):

Benefits: one extra squad member in another position (recalling that 8 of the 31 may not be used in the game day 23). Some suggest that it means the whole starting XV for England can be rested Vs Uruguay. It may be because I am was a (not very good) forward, but two games close together for a front rower is very different from two for winger - let a couple of princesses double up.

Risks: (this is a difficult one, as I am not sure of the tournament rules in this area) - having less than the required 2 hookers for a 23 player game day squad (due to one of the hookers being injured within 48 hrs of kickoff)?
Possible consequences?
Hard to say, but it seems to me that the benefits do not outweigh the risks.
Being limited to a 22 player gameday squad?
Being forced to play a prop as a reserve hooker (with the associated lineout issues)?
Having to send one of the two best hookers (one the captain) home, even if their injury would not have kept them out beyond one match?
Having to send another player home in order to draft in a hooker (a potentially dishonourable solution to a problem)?
Forfeiting all competition points for a match in which we were not able to play a sufficient number qualified fromt rowers?
Going to uncontested scrums due to the substitute hooker being injured before the match, but listed to play anyway (again, very dishonourable, and reckless with player well being)?


The relative merits of all the other selections can be argued many ways, but they are not in the same realm as the hooking issue. Taking only 2 specialist scrum halves is a bit risky, but there is no law of the game requiring qualified scrum halves (*insert joke here*). Same story with excess wingers, or locks, or No 8s.

Can anyone see any upside to this decision, aside from drawing attention away from the, up to now, underperforming Foley and Cooper?

 

[Viking]

On what level has Douglas ever been better then Horwill. He never has.. And his coming back from back surgery and 20 mins rugby.

Genia, I get at one stage was one of if not the best in the world.. But Douglas hasn't shown anything ..

Nice post. I 100% agree.

Douglas is being selected on potential alone. Which is bullshit because if your selecting on potential then they need to be in form. Douglas has no form for the last 12 months.

 

[cyclopath]

^^^
Surely if you're selecting on potential they need to have potential; if you're selecting on form they need to be in form. I would think.
And I would have expected him to have picked Horwill too. Maybe Douglas as well, one less backrower, one less winger and another hooker.

 

[fatprop]

Nice post. I 100% agree.

Douglas is being selected on potential alone. Which is bullshit because if your selecting on potential then they need to be in form. Douglas has no form for the last 12 months.

yeah, I guess the issue is that Cheika was not confident that the other options could do the role he wants done as well as Douglas.

Typical QLD selection bias as far as I care

 

[Viking]

Because we have depth at wing and little depth at lock.

What's the poor message it sent? Douglas was clearly picked on the job he did for Cheika at the Tahs in 2014.

You think picking a player for his 2014 super xv form alone is sending a good message?

When you got guys like Horwill missing out. An ex-Captain who has 2 recent solid runs on the board against the 2 best teams in the world.

Don't tell me Cheika isn't taking a huge risk here?

 

[qwerty51]

You think picking a player for his 2014 super xv form alone is sending a good message?

When you got guys like Horwill missing out. An ex-Captain who has 2 recent solid runs on the board against the 2 best teams in the world.

Don't tell me Cheika isn't taking a huge risk here?

Dropping Horwill is not a 'huge risk'. Say what you want about the hooker situation but don't pretend Horwill is some kind of game changer.

 

[Viking]

Dropping Horwill is not a 'huge risk'. Say what you want about the hooker situation but don't pretend Horwill is some kind of game changer.

Game changer? Who ever said that. He proved himself to have solid performances against the 2 best teams in the world.

PROVEN he is capable.

Douglas could easily end up being a huge liability or a complete passenger like he was on his previous Tests.

Douglas, rightly so, has huge expectations on him now. He will need to have just-as-good if not better performances then Horwill has shown - and currently there is zero indication to the public that he is capable.

Maybe not a "huge risk" but definitely a risk?

 

[qwerty51]

Ok and if he is then he's the 4th lock in the squad - big deal. Some are seriously going over board here as if Douglas has been picked to start against England or something already.

 

[KOB1987]

If cheika's opinion was that it was line ball between Douglas and Horwill I can understand why he would pick the player on the way up rather than the one on his way out. I think whichever one was picked was destined for the group outside the main 23 anyway.

That said, I think Kev deserves to be there and I think he will be.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Viking]

Ok and if he is then he's the 4th lock in the squad - big deal. Some are seriously going over board here as if Douglas has been picked to start against England or something already.

He should start.

Apparently he is better then what Horwill can offer and can hit rucks hard, make run metres and big hits.

I haven't seen it before.... no one has.

So now I'm bloody excited to see it!

 

[qwerty51]

Is Horwill in your 23 if he was in the squad?

Douglas is the 4th lock in the squad imo.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Is Horwill in your 23 if he was in the squad?

Douglas is the 4th lock in the squad imo.

If he was there I think you'd start him and Simmons against England. We have to have our best scrum on the field against them.

Probably other options against other teams.

Mumm, Douglas or Skelton? Not exactly confident with any of them there against the English in a 5m scrum. Hopeful, but not confident.

 

[Train Without a Station]

So now Horwill is behind both Mumm and Douglas as a lock? Has Mumm performed better than Horwill?

As for your comment about depth at lock that's complete bullshit.

Horwill has not made it despite playing well at test level. Jones was great at super rugby level and has not made it. Coleman and Arnold have both shown potential.

How is that any different to choose Horne, Speight and Tomane over JOC (James O'Connor), all of which lack the all-round skill set that JOC (James O'Connor) has as a winger?

It's clearly picking and choosing when to apply certain selection principles.