Great read thanks for that. I started in the 14 until the Coach realised I only had 2 speeds (one of which I’m demonstrating now sitting down typing … i.e. “stop”) and so I proceeded directly into the No.4 which suited me a lot better.

Excellent post, well said.

The Wallabies won their last test so – in the interests of keeping results consistent – I expect Foley will be rushed back into the team with Pooper to given (at least) one more chance …

Very good article.

Cheers Nicholas thanks for the reply much appreciated.

I enjoyed reading this – mostly. As an analyst myself in my professional life I really got a lot out of it. As a former 2nd rower though … not so much. I think from a player point of view, it’s a bit over the top. As a sweeping generalisation I think far too many sporting teams are plagued with an over supply of hangers on. Analysts. Assistant analysts. Assistants to the assistants. How much value are they really bringing? Well, to answer my own question I give you this: no coach since Rod McQueen retired in 2001 has a winning percentage of over 60%. Quite a low bar considering the Wallabies position on the World Rugby ladder – yet no Coach has cleared it since 2001. I don’t subscribe to the “haven’t got the players” line either. It just doesn’t wash. We have the players. What are they actually doing though in their preparation? What’s in their heads when they run out onto the pitch? Would an extra half an hour in the squat rack be more beneficial than a lecture on “pods” and who should be where and when? Blokes certainly spent a lot of time looking at each other on Saturday arvo, presumably looking for their pod buddies rather than hitting the rucks – and I take nothing away from how good the under strength Scotland were on the day, hats off to them in fact – but I really think one of the top Shute Shield teams would have played better than the Wallabies. Probably would have still lost, but you can take a loss when you’ve gone out and played your best with your team and what we were served up with on the weekend certainly wasn’t that! (With apologies to Quade, a man who still, after all these years, demonstrates his Gen Y sense of self entitlement: pay up peasants just don’t dare criticize us).
At the risk of being labelled as a hater and dismissed I’d like to talk about Michael Hooper for a moment because if Union was a game for individuals then all the flowery comments about him above would be true. I’ll use that unsupported break he made in the first half as an example. Blasted his way out of a maul and trucked it up field like a man possessed. No one knew it was on. Not his team mates. Not the opposition. Who knows what play was being called by Genia at the time? Anyway, off he’s gone and at one point he’s even propped a bit – possibly because he knew he’s run away from his support – and quite rightly the Scots let him run just far enough to make sure he was isolated enough to get the turn over. And that’s what happened. Higgers tried his best to get there, but Hooper – being the show pony that he is – was just too far in front doing his own thing. It’s the oldest phrase in the book but here it is again: There’s no I in team, but there’s plenty in individual brilliance and that’s the problem at the moment here. Hooper is such a protected species that rather than chip him a bit for running away from his support when no one knew what he was about to do, it’s just easier to blame the other 14 blokes out there.
You can either have blokes who buy into the pod thing, or blokes who play what’s in front of them. You can’t have both. Apparently.
No doubt there’s more dramas going on with the ARU than anyone knows how to fix. Where my coaching %% comments above tie in though is here: We still have a full back who can’t kick for field position. We still have a No.10 who can’t defend in his channel. We’re still trying to box kick when we just can’t box kick. We still have wingers who can’t catch the ball and we still have a No.7 who can’t poach it. None of those things have anything to do with front office dramas.

Great comment well said.

Quite a flowery little piece there. Let me start by answering the question this way:
1991 World Cup winning side was:
Daly, Kearns, McKenzie, McCall, Eales, Poidevin, Ofahengaue, Coker, Farr-Jones, Lynagh, Campese, Horan, Little, Egerton, Roebuck.
1999 World Cup winning side was:
Harry, Foley, Blades, Giffin, Eales, Cockbain, Wilson, Kefu, Gregan, Larkham, Roff, Horan, Herbert, Tune, Burke
There’s a school of thought that says the very best Islanders – those with Islander heritage – are picked up by the ABs. Quite an outrageous notion. Let’s just have a quick look though at the team who lost the 2015 World Cup:
Sio, Moore, Kepu, Doublas, Simmons, Fardy, Hooper, Pocock, Genia, Foley, Mitchell, Giteau, Kuridrani, Ashley-Cooper, Folau.
Make of all that what you will.
So where would the Wallabies be without the Pacific Islander connection? Well, probably growing the game at grass roots level (and THAT’S the way it should be!!!), picking players from the long established successful pathways of years gone by and winning World Cups again.
Won’t be a popular comment but it doesn’t mean it’s wrong either.

The first change I’d like to see is the Coach. 56% win rate speaks for itself but it’s the way they’re playing the game that bothers me most. I’m currently watching the game against the Scots for the second time. The scrum and line outs by the run on team looked pretty good (particularly in the context of how embarrassing the scrum has been in years gone by – like, back as far as when Eddie Jones was trying to coach the team for his 58% win rate) but it’s general play that’s a complete shambles. It’s almost like these blokes have never met each other. Passing. Catching. Passing to players in a better position. Setting a forward platform. Protecting box kick Willy at the rucks. Basic skills are sub standard. The biggest myth in the Nation is the notion of “running rugby”. The current version of that is shovel the ball from side to side – most likely going backwards while doing so – until someone (most likely Speight) drops it. Team selections just don’t stack up either. Look at last year: picking blokes like Hooper (more on him later) / Skelton / Mumm in the same team (how have the Waratahs gone this year with similar selections? Coincidence?). Switching our best 7 to 6 to accommodate Phil Waugh … oops I mean Hooper … rather than having our best 7 at 7 and our best 6 (Fardy) at 6 and Timani at 8. How would that have been for a back row? We’ll never know. Why did it take so long to give Timani a start? Why isn’t he playing now? Higgers has never delivered at international level. I’ve watched him in the last 2 tests and I don’t even think the bloke knows where he is most of the time let alone what to do next. Coleman is the only player currently bringing any real aggression, followed by Polota-Nau. Is there anyone else in the forwards who could even be descried as being even mildly abrasive?
The second change I’d like to see is this: Michael Hooper to be left right out. How a bloke winning as many awards as he has by being as ineffectual as he is – simply remarkable. The bloke just isn’t the No.7 the Wallabies need. He’s had a run at 7 for 2 coaches now. Link for a 50% win rate and now Cheika for not much better. Have a look at the kick off from last weeks game. Hooper caught it and rather than taking it into contact and setting it up he took it nearly to the line before shovelling it out and then Speight fumbled it over the touch line. That’s just one example and there’s many others. At least Hooper tried his hardest yesterday to stick his head in the rucks and pinch the ball – which I thought was an awesome and unexpected change for the better – but he just doesn’t have the strength and balance of (the legendary) George Smith or (the nearly as legendary) David Pocock. It’s just not in his bag. By comparison I noticed Hardwick come on last week and almost straight away he’d won a clean turnover – a bit like Liam Gill did against the Lions in 2013. Gill could never get a start. Will Hardwick suffer the same fate? Looking like another long, tough year for the Wallabies and their supporters.

Lots of love (including from me) for the idea to bring back rucking.

So here’s another one:

Law 1,999: The Wallabies shall not box kick. Ever.

Embedded in the DNA indeed. You can’t tell me that anything has changed in terms of player behaviour since the days of Raper & co. running amok. I don’t think I’m speaking out of school there. What we have seen though is a raising of the stakes from drunken shenanigans to match fixing & drug trafficking.

We have also seen drama on 2 fronts for rugby league players (in particular). The first is the evolution of 24/7 media coverage where journalists seek to not only report on the things that have happened but also seek to influence future directions via their own moral barometers. For example, the Souths drama concerning Sutton & Burgess. Is it just me or did anyone else get the feeling that Phil Rothfield threw a week long tantrum in the Daily Telegraph about an issue that had already been lawfully resolved just because he hadn’t been told about it when it happened? I’m not connected to Souths & I have no beef with Rothfield but I absolutely filed that whole thing under “who cares lets get on with the footy.”

The second issue is a theory I have, based on nothing other than a gut feeling formed via stories on the grapevine. I believe the passing of Peter Frilingos had a significant effect on the quality of reporting as well as the content of what was being reported. I believe Frilingos was a gate keeper who let go of the little “rugby league player urinates on bush” type stories to focus on things of more substance that enhanced perceptions of the game & the images of the blokes who played it. Having put that thought out there I freely admit that I could be completely off the planet & others more closely aligned to the game may seek to disagree.

Re. the title of the article … it’s just a bit of wishful thinking. Call me greedy but when it comes to forwards I want both those traits. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticising the bloke – he’s played for his country after all – but even in his preferred position could he be described as:
a) abrasive
b) intimidating
c) a bloke other teams just don’t want to play against?
d) competent & reliable

There’s too much option D in Australian rugby (in general) & not enough A, B & C. At this early stage I’d say not a good move by the selectors. Hoping to be proved wrong …

What I don’t understand though … and it makes me sick … is the old forwards coaching the team seem to have forgotten the mentality a forward needs. The rot … and let me just commit the sin of using capitals to express my frustration .. the ROT set in with Eddie Jones and the mentality that Scott described above: the effeminate approach to scrums. Wallaby rugby hasn’t improved in a over a decade.

“Parity” is a disgraceful word when it comes to forward play. Sometimes the Wallabies can manage it in the forwards. More often than not, not. The is only 1 word that acceptable: “domination.”

Coach Cheika needs to change his tune. The quotes above are embarrassing. It’s not good enough. The current kiddie they’ve got trying to captain the team – fair dinkum every time he opens his mouth he reinforces the fact that he’s got no idea about test rugby. None. Rugby Hooper style = run around. Run around. Run around some more. Wait for the glory ball. He’s very good at that, but it’s not helping. Neither is his ignorance. Yes I’m being harsh, but also somewhat fair.

Wake up Wallabies. The fans deserve better.

G’day Harry I think you’re spot on in what you’re saying. I’ll paste a couple of thoughts I just left over on G&GR which are along similar lines:

“For those who follow the Planet Rugby site, they’ve just announced their Team of the November Tests. Toomua & Kuridrani have been named as 12 & 13 with Kuridrani described as being “currently the best 13 in the world.” I tend to agree so I just don’t understand why anyone would contemplate taking a bloke who’s currently best in his position & move him. Is it a joke that I’m not getting or is it just a bit of light hearted trolling?”

&

“I agree that the return of some of our top shelf cattle will assist. Moore (leadership / experience), Pocock (ruck pest / fetcher), Fardy (Fardyness) in particular. Blokes like Higgers & Palu also get mentioned & fair enough but I’ve really enjoyed seeing how well McCalman is progressing. This is a bloke who Coach Deans all but wrecked but now seems to be coming back stronger & stronger. He’s not quite the intimaditing physical presence needed at 8 but is very close. The WC after this one should see him at his peak.”

Thanks for the reply Harry, cheers!

Well done Adam!

Really enjoyed this article & agree with your comment re. Australian rugby & Michael Hooper. I just don’t think his play style works at international level. A massive mistake would be to leave Hooper at 7 & play a fetcher at 6. He would possibly be good off the bench as backup to Pocock (for example) but (respectfully) he isn’t the bloke to build a team around. As frustrated & disappointed Wallaby supporters were reminded yet again: light weight forward packs simply arent in a position to dominate & will lose more games than they win.

Which brings me to your use of one of my favourite words to describe rugby forwards: abrasive.

It should be a pre-requisite. Not described as abrasive? Sorry mate, no jumper. So who in the current regular forward pack – other than Scott Fardy – currently wears that tag? Nil.