Big names benched for Wallabies side to play Italy

You’re not right. This is an opinion site, so very few people are right, but in any case, your premise holds no water whatsoever. It goes without saying that we are all fans and don’t see the players every day. So? What is your point? As I said, if you take that attitude then this site is redundant. 'I am right. The coaches themselves state that they look at form on the training field in helping determine the lineup. That’s how my statement is relevant and correct. On what grounds do you refute the statements of international coaches? Whether the fans see the training is completely irrelevant – they aren’t the selectors.' We've been through this. This is pretty academic. It is the unspoken rule that we, as fans, know less than the coaches, therefore it is pretty irrelevant to mention that point. The entire value of this site lies in debating players, so to come out with "Well, the coaches run training..." etc completely misses the point. 'Wrong again? Sorry, I shoul’d have been more precise – Simmons has only been with the squad for the vast majority of the season. More precise? You stated an unequivocal absolute and you were wrong.' I see. That's sure put me in my place. Completely irrelevant that Simmons has spent months with the Australian squad.

I don’t appreciate your tone. I’ve mentioned this to you on countless occasions. The moderator has too, and you’ve had comments deleted for various reasons. Asking you to stop being sarcastic is hardly playing the man. This is a constant theme, and it spoils threads. We can do without the ad hom thank you. You’re not right. This is an opinion site, so very few people are right, but in any case, your premise holds no water whatsoever. It goes without saying that we are all fans and don’t see the players every day. So? What is your point? As I said, if you take that attitude then this site is redundant. I am right. The coaches themselves state that they look at form on the training field in helping determine the lineup. That's how my statement is relevant and correct. On what grounds do you refute the statements of international coaches? Whether the fans see the training is completely irrelevant - they aren't the selectors. Simmons may be better suited to Sharpe And there we have it; what I said in the beginning. Wrong again? Sorry, I shoul’d have been more precise – Simmons has only been with the squad for the vast majority of the season. More precise? You stated an unequivocal absolute and you were wrong.

It still doesn’t answer why a 34-year-old has been selected in the squad. If he’s not good enough to be in the 22, as you say, it further emphasises my point, why has he been selected in the first place? Surely, no one selects an older player to be simply ‘cover. I don't see what his age has to do with it if the selectors believe he is the fourth best lock in the country.

It still doesn't answer why a 34-year-old has been selected in the squad. If he's not good enough to be in the 22, as you say, it further emphasises my point, why has he been selected in the first place? Surely, no one selects an older player to be simply 'cover.'

'So once again when it’s demonstrated you’re wrong, you resort to playing the man, not the ball.' I don't appreciate your tone. I've mentioned this to you on countless occasions. The moderator has too, and you've had comments deleted for various reasons. Asking you to stop being sarcastic is hardly playing the man. This is a constant theme, and it spoils threads. You're not right. This is an opinion site, so very few people are right, but in any case, your premise holds no water whatsoever. It goes without saying that we are all fans and don't see the players every day. So? What is your point? As I said, if you take that attitude then this site is redundant. 'Now while the number on the back doesn’t determine definitively the type of gameplay an individual brings to the field, it’s a commonly accepted tradition that the tighthead lock plays a tighter game, just as they normally jump at two in the lineout. For all Simmons is more athletic than Van Humphries and a better lock than Byrne, he still played a tight role for the Reds and as I originally stated; is better suited than Chisholm to partner Sharpe.' No. That may have been commonly accepted in the pre-professional era, but rugby isn't so generic anymore. Locks scrummage wherever they aid the scrum, just like locks can have exactly the same/similar duties, just as you incorrectly said they couldn't. Simmons may be better suited to Sharpe, but in traditional terms Simmons is not the stereotypical 4 lock. 'The obvious difference is that Simmons has been with the Wallabies all season Wrong again. Rob Simmons joined the Wallaby squad for the Tri Nations.' Wrong again? Sorry, I shoul'd have been more precise - Simmons has only been with the squad for the vast majority of the season. Those 4 games pre-3N reallly reduce the validity of my point.

Can you drop the juvenile sarcasm just for a paragraph? If you take that attitude then this sort of site becomes redundant. The entire point is to debate as fans, for goodness sake. /sigh So once again when it's demonstrated you're wrong, you resort to playing the man, not the ball. Now while the number on the back doesn't determine definitively the type of gameplay an individual brings to the field, it's a commonly accepted tradition that the tighthead lock plays a tighter game, just as they normally jump at two in the lineout. For all Simmons is more athletic than Van Humphries and a better lock than Byrne, he still played a tight role for the Reds and as I originally stated; is better suited than Chisholm to partner Sharpe. The obvious difference is that Simmons has been with the Wallabies all season Wrong again. Rob Simmons joined the Wallaby squad for the Tri Nations.

Hey FO'K I was thinking along these lines 15 Beale 14 Ioane 13 Chambers 12 Ash Cooper 11 O'Conner 10 Cooper 9 Genia Big centers will open up Cooper again, as well as open up that classic inside ball for Ioane.

AJ I think the result will be the same regardless of which small back we put there. I think we need a hard running 12 at this point in time. Hape, Nonu and SBW have shown the benefit of a big 12. Using our fullback (beale) to control the second line of attack and Cooper to control the first line we will benefit the most. So when Chambers and Ioane are available I think Ash Cooper needs to try his hand at 12. I also think Horne would be better suited to 12, as he is small, but he is a dominating defender, unlike Barnes, Gits etc.

Agree, yes Moore has been the key difference there, not Robinson, Alexander or Slipper, Moore adds that power and agression

'Well according to the All Black coaches and Robbie Deans, form on the training paddock is a good indicator for who will be pushing for selection, but what would they know?' Can you drop the juvenile sarcasm just for a paragraph? If you take that attitude then this sort of site becomes redundant. The entire point is to debate as fans, for goodness sake. 'All of Van Humphries’ games for the Reds this year were as the loosehead lock. If Adam Byrnes started with Van Humphries he was the tighthead lock, otherwise he was the loosehead lock. Obviously both Byrnes and Van Humphries can’t have been performing ‘the more traditional tight duties for the Reds’ along side each other. Rob Simmons played every game he started for the Reds as the tighthead lock.' Where you scrummage as a lock does not define the role you play, and yes, of course you can select two similar locks, just as Lievremont has done with Pape, Nallet, Pierre, Thion etc, just as Robinson has done with Hamilton and Hines, and similarly just as Johnson has done with two looser locks, Lawes and Palmer, and just as Kidney has done with O'Callaghan and O'Connell. 'If Van Humphries was ‘adept at playing the 4 role then you’d wonder why he wasn’t thrown in earlier given how mediocre Mumm has been, and then how poor Chisholm has been?’ It would also make less sense to start two loosehead locks together. As I said; in comparison to Chisholm, he plays tighter and does the hard work in and around the rucks, which will permit Sharpe to play his natural loose role.' The obvious difference is that Simmons has been with the Wallabies all season, and Humphries hasn't. No? Most locks play tighter than Chisholm. IMO Simmons is not a traditional 4.

Too true. Another media beat up. There were always gonna be changes for this particular test (and should be). Probably not the changes Deans wanted with JOC gone (would've liked to see him tried at 12), given he's also the current kicker. I suspect Barnes wouldn't have made the run on side (and maybe the 22) if JOC was still there. As many have said, I'm surprised Van wasn't given a go (in place of Sharpe, who needs a rest). He had all of 15 min in the Munster Mash, and even tho had little impact, he was the only one showing any heart for the job out there. I think he would've stepped up at test level, or at least given his all. Having said that, there does appear to be disharmony in the 'group'. I have no idea what really gives me that impression - maybe because I am just so surprised at Van's omission. Have to wonder that as a more mature, experienced player he has told the coaches that they are totally clueless, or perhaps I too am paying to much attention to all the media nonsense.

As long as Berrick plays like he did for Uni when he was away from Phil Waughs influence we should go alright. Note to Chris Hickey you are the coach not Phil Waugh, there IS a bloke called Chris Alcock from Gordon who is willing and able to take Phim Waugh's place -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.

Cliff(Bishkek) I wasn't referring to Barnes in the Tahs backline. I thought it was pretty clear that without saying his name I made it obvious. Tom Carter is at least in my book is 'Mr Truck it up". Quite often on promising attacking opportunities he would choose to hit it up instead of spreading it, he's far too one dimensional and stifles the backline. By far the least talented footballer of the lot. And I am aware a player doesn't play off the cuff these days and the gameplan is paramount. Thought that was obvious with the "The problem is you’re not Hickey and you don’t have your head stuck up your own arse, or possibly Phil Waugh’s arse."

I just read Cliff's comment on the "loose and tight" second row concept, and have no understanding of it. I played several years in the second row and we just used to ask each other at the start, assuming we hadn't played together previously, which side we preferred. Can anyone please explain the difference in the roles. I even played one game, as a visitor, where my second row partner who was the senior man also asked me whether I preferred to jump at 2 or 4, having no particular preference he suggested that on the left hand side he would jump at 2 and on the right he would jump at 4. The logic as he explained it was that it saved running a fair bit in those days of direct kicking for touch from all parts of the ground and 30 or 40 lineouts a game. They were simpler times and as I recall the front rows just looked at each other and then simply went for it. No Crouch touch etc. If you failed to get down at the right time you ended up winded as the opposing prop drove into your midriff.

WCR & EP-RW, Do you honestly believe it was Barnes who was implementing the tactics and not Hickey & Waugh or Hickey on his own? Seems highly unlikely. Gone are the days when players change tactics on their own - as it is professional and they lose their job. Not that I agree. The days of the Farr Jones', saying "boys forget what the Coach has said and we are going to do this"? Barnes was just following instructions - because his instinctive play was well and truly "in vogue" when he was at the Reds??

There's a line of thought that goes Australia's backline would look good with... 15. Kurtley Beale 14. James O'Connor 13. Digby Ione 12. Berrick Barnes 11. Lachie Turner 10. Quade Cooper 9. Will Genia But Ashley-Cooper has always been so strong and solid, you wonder if it looks right. But Digby's a nice big bloke you can have in the centres.

No way! He is not even the worst 12. Anyone remember Lloyd johanssen?

Brett - re Higgenbottom - I was just asking the same thing this am and was talking to a mate in Laos on the telephone. Apparently Higgenbottom has not impressed in both mid-week games. But the report is from the mate who saw the Leicester Game - Higgers sea-gulled all evening and did not enter many rucks. Apparently the same in the Munster Game. Not sure but that is the latest I heard and you cannot have a loosie, or a No 8 who does not commit to a ruck. I do not understand this 4 and 5 bit on locks - fro me you are a lock and a lock and depends on your preference on which side you want to pack. Both are meant to do the same job - push, line-out and ruck. As far as I am concerned this loose and tight definition of a lock is crap - never heard of it when I played - we were there to do the above.

England were the better side. But when Genia turned that ball over when he went from the snipe, the game went from England dominating Australia, to England taking a knife to Australia, sticking it in, twisting it a little bit, ripping out the intestines, and wearing it as a trophy. That 10 minute period about the first half was the only time Australia had control of the game, control of possession, and it looked like they'd score. The score would have been 13-16, and maybe Australia could have made something of it. I prefer to say England were the better team on the day by far. They dominated, and if Australia got it back to 13-16 then they'd have a shot, but really it was all England. It was a great counter-attack too - really excellent.

Thing is there's still hope that Giteau can get better. Giteau was better for having Eddie Jones drop him in 2005. I honestly believed that. Giteau performed well in 2006.