Sorry let me rephrase – in the current squad, outside of our number 8s, no one has knocked down the door. I’d have preferred Higgers or Timani to go to 6. Jack Dempsey, even, although he’s been injured all season. He’s shown previous grit and looks like he’s out there to smash someone. RHP has impressed me too.

I’m all for development players, but this is international rugby, regardless of the opposition. Maybe Hanigan keeps his spot for the same reason Mumm did last season, for the lineout – but then why doesn’t Higgers go to 6? Every time I think of a reason for the back row selection, it comes undone. I guess we will have to wait and see how we go on Saturday…

Edging closer to our strongest side, Lopeti at least offers some ball carrying ability in the back row. Not sure Hanigan deserves to keep his spot but no one else is really knocking the door down for that 6 jersey, I suppose.

Horne bewilders me. Has been nothing more than unimaginative and predictable in attack for the Waratahs this year, and you can’t say he was selected on his defensive merits, either, as TK is one of our best in defence.

Maybe it will just be a nice farewell test for a bloke who has served Australian rugby for a long time, but geez, I find it hard to say he’s the best outside centre in the country.

I agree that with two back rowers who play quite loose in Hooper and Higginbotham (although the later did play a tighter game with a higher work rate against fiji), it would be good to have someone at six who can truly bend the line. Timani did lots of that for us last year.

Robertson is yet to convince me, either, but I assume Sio is being eased back into the workload. As for Carter, I suppose his SR form has given him another chance, though I thought he was solid against Fiji.

Easy mistake to make, Nigel. But do you really think a team with THE Dean Mumm could really be anything but an A+ side?

I could be mistaken, but I thought Folau was moved to 13 after Samu’s injury? Given Naivalu came on, DHP went to fullback, Speight stayed on the wing… I think Cheik even said that was “part of the plan” should Kerevi be injured.

Not particularly an advocate for Folau at 13, but as you say, he was much better on Saturday night. He broke the line, asked questions. His form there for the Tahs, too, suggests he’s well suited to being up in the attack.

Anyway, with Kerevi out for the tour my preferred lineup would be Hodge at 12 and Kuridrani or Folau at 13, or (a bit radically), Godwin at 12 and Hodgey at 13. But my assumption is that it will be a Hodge/Kuridrani centre pairing – Cheiks seems to have Izzy locked into 15 for life.

Good point, Clubber.

David, great write up.

Do you think Cheika is likely to throw in such a rare team for the France clash? Definitely I’d consider this likely for the midweek clash against the French Barbarians, but I’m a little sceptical as to whether they would put the French clash – a non-grand slam match, but a test match all the same – second to others. I think we’re likely to see a few new faces, and I like the idea of giving everyone in the 32 a run, but do you think Cheik’s likely to do that?

Cheers.

I do doubt Koroibete will get much of a run, though. He’s got DHP, Speight, Naivalu, possibly(and hopefully) folau ahead of him on the wing. I personally rate Lukey Morahan, too. From reports I’ve seen its Dempsey, Perese and Tupou going on the trip as “apprentices”, a program NZ used very successfully for Ardie Savea and are now using for Beaudy Barrett’s little brother Jordie.

Jordie Barrett, by the way, is absolutely phenomenal. Some serious genetics in that family…

Looks like either Jordan Jackson-Hope or Nic Jooste will be thrown into the cauldron at 10, now. Unless the Brumbies can sign another fly half, which seems highly unlikely given:

a. there a no experienced 10s on the market at the moment to my knowledge
b. they’re unlikely to sign a young talent or an NRC player – they already have Jooste and JJH, the former of which is one of 6 players to ever be offered a SR contract whilst in high school.
c. they already have their marquee player in Cubelli for another year.

Godwin will have to really step up, assuming he’s at 12. A baptism by fire for whoever pulls on the 10 jersey most likely.

Cheers TWAS,

As I said, I’d understand either QC or Foley being selected. I’d assume it was a very tight call in selecting Bernard. Neither have been stunning this year.

Quade’s probably had the better form, and if I had to select a team I really don’t know who’d I’d pick.

The point of my comment was to refute a suggestion Cheika is entirely out of his mind for selecting Foley. Quade is the form choice. No doubt. But personally I can see logic to Foley’s selection, given Quade’s unpredictability. It’s something of a double-edged sword, I guess, where he can bring that real x-factor, or bring an error-filled game.

Foley is a more consistent performer. Albeit, this year he may have been consistently below average. But I assume Cheik’s reasoning for selecting him was based upon the ideology of ‘knowing what you get’ with Bernard. With Hodge at 12 for the first time and Henry playing his first international footy in over a year, I can understand the logic.

Like I said, we don’t know how Quade would go in the goalkicking department – his last performance was 5 from 11 against Uruguay. Again, I assume the Cheika mentality was at least knowing what he was going to get with Foley.

Cheika tends not to be a risk-taking coach, we’re growing to see, so the selections aren’t too surprising.

I’d even say they’re not illogical. They may not have been my selections, but I do understand the ethos behind them.

Cheers.

A nice balanced comment, Nick.

I agree that while Foley hasn’t taken the world by storm this year, it isn’t difficult to see Cheika’s logic on the decision. QC has notoriously performed poorly at Eden Park, Foley seems to have regained goal kicking form, and there is an established connection with Phipps.

I’ll be the first to admit QC probably unlocks a hard-running centres pairing like Hodge/Kerevi better than Foley, and I really have no doubt this was a very tough decision for Cheik’ to make. My point is, it’s not unbelievable that he’s selected Foley. If anything, it’s the safe option is a new and relatively untried back line.

For a nation crying out that we need a reliable goal kicker throughout the June series, I do find it a little funny that so many are now happy to discredit Foley’s improvement in that area. Then again, Quade’s untried in that area this year, so we may never know. I imagine Cheika thought of last year’s match against Uruguay, where Quade was kicking, and his decision was made in the kicking department.

Both QC and Foley could have started on Saturday night, I think Cheika has gone for the safer, more predictable choice. Nothing unreasonable about that IMO. Phipps… well let’s hope he redeems this year’s form. He wasn’t playing too badly for the Tahs, but then again neither was Israel.

Perhaps the bigger-hitting centre combo will give Israel a little more space, something he desperately needs, but against the ABs that does seem unlikely.

I’d have Fardy in for Mumm too, but with Cheika opting for the physicality of Arnold/Coleman in the row I suppose there’s logic to that decision too, given the lineout could play a large role in this match.

Ultimately, I do think that small, baby steps are being made in the right direction. Michael Cheika is a great provincial coach, but he’s never coached internationally before and with that comes inexperience in the arts of selection, blooding new talents and building towards a World Cup. Like I said, baby steps. Kerevi and DHP have been revelations IMO, not to mention Coleman. Hodgey will have to really stand up at 12. Should he do so, then we’re well on our way to having a young, powerful back line which will all be around for Japan in 2019. Albeit, we’re moving slowly – England at the end of the year will be the real test of how far we’ve come this year.

A very balanced comment, James.

I agree it’s brash to rule out Phipps and Skelton forever, as some would happily do. Phipps may have brain snaps, and be unpredictable with his pass, but he has shown great form at times too. Should he reign in his inconsistencies, he could be a very reliable player. A lot is said on this website about the incumbents having no passion for the gold jersey – Phipps is certainly not among that crowd.

Skelton too, is a promising enough prospect. I only worry that his bludgeoning style is being left behind by far more agile, back row-like locks in the mould of Itoje, or to a lesser degree even Coleman. Brodie Retallick, too, has a very diverse game. Though he does combine well with a more aggressive, bulky lock in Whitelock. So maybe the formula of one agile, blindside-esque lock combined with one big, punishing, physical lock is one worth prevailing with. Time will tell…

The scrumhalf competition at the Tahs next year is going to be intense. Would be no surprise to me if Lucas or Gordon move interstate or overseas, though both are young and may be content to bide their time behind Phipps.

Surely Phipps would have to take the bench. Gordon’s been playing too well all year, and his sniping around the ruck works very well with the Eagles’ backline (arguably a triple-playmaker axis at 10-12-13, although Horwitz does have a decent running game, as does Godwin).

Gordon deserves to start.

I tend to think that no, sports stars have no obligation to be role models. No obligation, yet you’d think they inadvertently become one. Agree with Celtic that, for many kids who mightn’t have male role models in their lives, their sports idols may become their first stop in looking to emulate behaviours – particularly in NZ, where rugby is religion.

A similar question is, just because someone is a sports star, does this mean that public and sometimes cruel criticism is okay? Dean Mumm springs to mind – I’ll be the first to admit his performances of late have been less than stunning, yet his selection is not his decision. He gets selected, he runs out on the pitch and tries his best. Dean seems like a genuinely lovely bloke, too. At the Brisbane test in June, which I was there to watch, he was one of the first (and only) to make a full circuit of the field to thank fans afterwards. He seems a devoted dad, too: his Instagram is chock-full of smiling selfies and videos of his young baby.

Character aside, Dean raises the question of whether sports personalities should ‘live by the sword, die by the sword’, that is – accept the publicity, pay, lifestyle of doing what they love, at the cost of public scrutiny.

I think there was no one absent of blame – the medic shouldn’t have had a crack at the ball, Phipps shouldn’t have pushed the bloke.

I tend to think Nick is a good guy, with a real weakness for pressure decisions. Wouldn’t mind Frisby getting a crack.

Mumm did some good things, but the immediate and obvious impact of Fardy at the breakdown was more significant, I thought.

Fards came on and straight away started causing headaches for the Argentine breakdown. With Poey out I really do think we need that breakdown presence which Fardy brings.

That said, Hooper hit some rucks too, even earning a penalty. I think it’s far too often suggested that Hooper is a no-show at the ruck – something which his performances and statistics challenge. Anyway, Fardy should start at 6 for Eden Park IMO, or any go-forward we make is at risk of a turnover every time.

Thanks, Mitch.

A good read. It’s a strong argument to suggest that stability in a lineup is the way forward, as we can see from such well established combinations such as Carter/Nonu at RWC 2015.

The sooner the team settles the better in my eyes – throughout 2015 I assumed Cheik was justified in his experimentation given he was a new coach, and it was a world cup year, yet his constant experimentation and ‘revolving door’ policy this year does unsettle me a little.

I haven’t seen a great deal of Lance, but he does seem an interesting and reliable player. Versatile too.

I’d forgotten about Meakes. We’ll have to wait and see how he goes coming into Super Rugby – sometimes great form in the Premiership or Pro12 doesn’t always translate to good SR performances, but he certainly does seem promising. From snippets I’ve seen of him at Gloucester, at least.

I reckon Cheik will have the vision to secure him early, and perhaps the lure of joining the pecking order at 3 or 4 will seem more appealing than falling in behind the likes of SBW or Crotty, and a number of other NZ super rugby players. He did only move to Aus in 2014, though, so you could be right.

Hodgey on the other wing has arguably the biggest boot in Australia. Given he’s been taking all kicks for touch since joining the starting side, I’d say he can kick alright.

The laughs turned to guilty laughs as I realised this was a little too realistic.

Great read Fox.

TWAS,

Hadn’t seen that statistic. I guess Deb has some way to go in his goalkicking, and I’d predict Cheika will have a bit of a word to Tony McGahan to see if Reece can take the kicking duties a little more during the Super season. So he may find it difficult.

Any idea what Mack Mason’s kicking has been like so far in the NRC? I’m of the impression he’s pretty promising in that department.

I love that back 5… but I think you’ll find Mumm just re-signed with the tahs for 2 or 3 years. As much as I’d love that young, ambitious pack, hard to see Mumm being dropped by Gibson right after re-signing. We can dream, though…

One thinks this might be the Pooper combination’s last chance…

I like this idea.

I’ve noticed the NRL’s Facebook page has been posting the occasional video from Tony Archer, the head referee, explaining decisions and interpretations of rules. It really helps a fan understand why interpretations or decisions were made, even if we are all still mystified by the Bunker.

I also like the notion of getting to know a referee. Nigel Owens is a great character, and I feel that a lot of the respect afforded to him from players is a result of his no-nonsense attitude. So too, Craig Joubert offering an explanation for running from the pitch after the 2015 World Cup Quarter Final helped restore respect for him for some (notably, not the Scottish). That explanation is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/04/14/craig-joubert-why-i-ran-off-the-pitch-at-rugby-world-cup/

This plan has the potential to go well, assuming it is taken on as a process of explaining decisions, not fighting criticism for a contentious accidental offside call (for example).