How many Waratahs would make a full-strength Wallabies?

Well if that's the case then thats fine. And why is it a wild statement? Because you're on the 'jump on my incorrect predictions bandwagon?' I would expect the Tahs to provide more W's than any other side and probably more than 30% given the superiority of their win. But if that's not the case then that's fine, though still a bit surprising.

Genia will never play Test rugby again. You might as well have picked Gregan or Farr-Jones. Sadly, I think the same goes for Pocock. One major knee injury is career threatening. Most players would never be the same player. Two major knee injuries makes it near impossible. It's just asking too much of Pocock. Moore is in the first category of player and time will tell if he can beat the odds. At this stage the odds are against him. Fardy plays either at 6 or not at all in McKenzie's team. Fortunately for him, McKenzie is not a Higginbotham fan and Higgers has done himself no favours this year. TPN will be back. Foley is doing well at 10 or at least well enough. Phipps is a great player who has a bad pass and can't kick. Bit of a problem if you want to play halfback. Having said that, he's a close second to White.

Same view on McCabe/Horne being carbon copies. Think one is slightly better than the other in acceleration (Horne), and top speed (McCabe). Also on same view that you need a playmaker at 12 to play the game plan the wallabies and their fans want, not McCabe/Horne. In regards to Beale being left off the bench, i think it is because you want more variety. I think the ideal bench is 21. Halfback of choice, 22. Beale/O'Connor, 23. McCabe/Horne Beale can cover 10, 12, 15 and wing at a stretch. O'Connor is similar, can cover 11, 12, 14, 15 and 10 at a stretch. They are similar players though, elusive quick playmakers, so that's why niwdeyaj chose one, because he views O'Connor as better than Beale, likely just a personal preference. Horne/McCabe cover the remaining positions but in a different way. Horne can cover 11-14 though 13 may be a stretch. Same for McCabe but he can also, if necessary, cover fullback. They provide the harder running/defensive bench option. That's why Beale was overlooked for McCabe in the example.

There's actually something in that... Putting Beale at FB would give us a better kick return game and allow Folau to do a lot of damage on the wing.

I agree with most of this, but really think that at 12 it has to be Toomua/Beale. I got very tired of McCabe during the Deans era. Solid player for sure, but he creates nothing and has almost no value as a bench player, as he brings zero dynamism in attack late in a match. He's just a solid tackler and runner with a pretty ordinary pass, and to be honest I reckon him and Rob Horne are basically carbon copies of eachother. Compared to Beale he just has very little to offer. Beale, along with Cooper, is the one of only players in Australia with a long, flat and accurate passing game. We saw that in the GF and I really can't understand how you'd over look him as a bench player for a guy who is effectively there just to tackle.

ok...(for the simple minds that is)... The Tahs have generally played the same side all year. They now go onto provide the bulk of the W's side. (that is the eggs in one basket comment for the less informed). And they will be relied on again to step up another level to face the relatively stronger SA and NZ sides, who's sides are generally selected from a wider catchment of teams, and therefore not subject to the rigours of finals rugby in the same way as the tahs were. So they face burnout in trying to again lead the way for Oz rugby, yet will be required to up their levels to test rugby. they also face a greater risk of being injured this series due the number of tough matches they have to face in comparison. With the Tahs winning in front of McCaw and Read and co, they know the W's are a threat and will play them with the final loss in mind. (Thats is the 'And Tahs did Oz no favours by winning S15?' comment). Will the ABs win the first test? Only reason they won't is if they don't get their combinations going being first up, same as vs England this year. But they wont lose either of the following two to Oz, the AB players being much better managed already this year.

So are you predicting an Oz win, or just bagging because its easier? It was easy for Tahs fans to keep predicting the Tahs as they kept winning. Being a kiwi I was looking for ways that they might lose. Simple as that. And if you can't see how the Tahs did Oz no favours, then keep watching the rugby. Theres already been mention here that McCaws staying onfield after the match was an ominous sign of that. But if you don't get that then thats fine.

popular opinion here was they were beaten by the two. I didnt see that it was that obvious and Reads run to set up for the try was anything as good as Hooper or Palu did all night. They were marginally better if anything- they wont be vs the ABs, simply because they wont get as many opportunities, and, theyre generally inferior anyway.

Firstxv is that the same Read & McCaw that lost to Hooper & Palu in the super rugby final??

The series is goooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeee for the wallabies but though we may lose 4 nil I still believe the wallabies are on the rise and are ok for 2015. Sounds strange but we need Squeaky, Speight and Genia and decent props. ITs looking great for 2015 when JOC will also give us a lift. Go the wallabies but I think we will lose by 20 this weekend but stay positive.

Very good. We agree the WBs were NOT cohesive during 2013 TRC last year. I believe you can then agree this is why ABs and Boks won. The Boks vs ABs record between 2010 to 2012: seven tests, six losses. We can only agree to disagree re the scrum. I would only repeat that a successful scrum is the start of Rugby success. It is not the only part, nor the end of it. WBs played teams with weak forwards in the last seven games? We can disagree re this also. We can do a match by match for 2010-2012 at a later time. In any case, the point I was making was altogether different: - A key challenge for WBs is to get the states to buy-in to a cohesive approach. To better leverage state best capability - Before EM, there seemed to be less cohesion - 2014 seems like the year it starts to realise. But we'll only find out soon. The tell-tale is the scrum. Then rucking

:)

So if there was no difference then there was no undulation. Honestly, just read what you write instead of tagging on innacurate, throwaway comments about teams you don't actually watch to people you presume won't challenge you.

"It has been much better since, more focus on the pack. And so has been our Rugby" RobC, as best I can follow your thread, you are arguing that it has been better since the end of 2013 TRC, i.e. on the 2013 EOYT and against France this year. And the simple explanation for that is, when you face easier opposition, of course you look better! "The 2013 TRC WBs were pretty incoherent, Mike. Im unable to fathom how anyone could think otherwise. I fact I believe they were worst WBs for a long time, including the maligned Deans era." Thanks - that was my point. And right now, we do not know if they have improved. We won't know until they play ABs and Boks this year . The "maligning" of the Deans era mostly proceeded from ignorance, and from a blindly optimistic belief that Australia would have done better during that period under a different coach. Perhaps they would have, but there is no objective reason to believe so. "Rugby first and foremost, starts with THE SCRUM and the tight five." No it doesn't. The scrum is just one facet of forward play; it is less important than the forwards work in general play, particularly at the breakdown; and if we are going to make distinctions among the forwards then I would say that the back five are more important. "This was ignored also for a long time:" And rightly so, not least by the ABs. Scrums are important, lineouts are important, and pressure at the tackle and at the breakdown are important, and more so than the first two. "It has been much better since, more focus on the pack" I would have said there has been less focus on the Wallabies pack, not more! That has shown up particularly in those who want to look only at our last 7 matches and not think about TRC 2013. The reason we have done so well in our last 7 matches is because we were up against teams where the forwards generally aren't as good. That doesn't mean our last 7 victories are worthless. But we really now have to put that work to the same acid test as last year. Hopefully the results will be better. And if we are improved, I see no reason why it can't show next weekend "The epitome was 2011 RWC. It was going to be won by QC razzle-dazzle and Pocock. After that it was the incessant arguments about who was going to be next 10, fullback etc" Who are you talking about? If you mean the coaching staff, then I don't recall anything like that being said. If you are talking about comments on the Roar or in the press, what is the relevance of that, and how has anything changed anyway? And right at this moment, I would like to take things one step at a time in terms of RWC. We at least got to the semi-final in RWC 2011. "Wins over Springboks? They also had their own problems during that era." The same problems that led to them beating the ABs more than any other team, you mean? Yep, some problems. You asserted in your post, "Before this: 2010-2012 and early 2013 were years of ‘give the ball to xxx’. ie Cooper Beale Folau JOC + Pocock will outdo G.Smith and save the day." and I am sorry, but that is not an accurate description of how the game was played then. And if it had been, there is no way the Wallabies would have won so many games against Boks and against ABs.

How many tries did QC set up . Sweet FA. Compare that to Foley who set up plenty and got a title, Qc should go to France

Pocock at Hooker you have to be joking we have Squeaky who is a great hooker, why not make him a tight head prop that would make more sense. I think 6 will do

"So what is different about Ireland’s current ‘form’ last season than any season before that? Absolutely nothing whatsoever." Thanks for making my point for me :) "I’m not repeating myself to an armchair provocateur." You will repeat yourself again and again to anyone - we already know that!

The 2013 TRC WBs were pretty incoherent, Mike. Im unable to fathom how anyone could think otherwise. I fact I believe they were worst WBs for a long time, including the maligned Deans era. Yes, I have oversimplified that era. Let me add to that Rugby first and foremost, starts with THE SCRUM and the tight five. This was ignored also for a long time: - This is the 2010 scrum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLVVx_qprUA - This is the 2013 BIL scrum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co1Kl5RmY-4 - 2013 TRC scrum was also appalling There was too much focus about halves, backs, OS flanker and running Rugby. It has been much better since, more focus on the pack. And so has been our Rugby The epitome was 2011 RWC. It was going to be won by QC razzle-dazzle and Pocock. After that it was the incessant arguments about who was going to be next 10, fullback etc Wins over Springboks? They also had their own problems during that era.

6 would make the starting team I'd choose - Folau, AAC, Palu, Hooper, Kepu and - yes - Skelton. Sio or Slipper may become better at TH, but they're not yet. Before Pocock's last injury I'd have said Hooper would struggle, but now the onus is squarely on Poey to dislodge Hooper (or accompany him). Hooper is going too well, and Poey's been out too long. I'd love to be able to accommodate both on top form - you never know. I think they would work better in tandem at 7 and 8, with Fardy at 6 as a lineout option. Another 3 on the bench - TPN, Phipps (ahead of White) and Beale/Foley. Skelton would have to be on the bench if not starting. AAC could possibly be pushed out of the starting team next year if Speight and JOC go well enough.