Despite a terrible performance from the Wallabies against the All Blacks in Auckland in their last match, Ewen McKenzie has decided to stick with the same starting forward pack this week, apart from a change forced by injury.
The changes to the team largely come in the back line with both Nic White and Kurtley Beale demoted to the bench with Nick Phipps and Bernard Foley to start this week against the Springboks.
The other change is to reinstate Tevita Kuridrani to the starting line-up at outside centre and move Adam Ashley-Cooper to the wing.
I agree that all of those changes needed to be made, even if Pat McCabe hadn’t suffered his career ending injury. I think that back line will be a vast improvement over what we’ve seen in the two matches against the All Blacks.
But what about the forward pack? What a leap of faith from McKenzie to persist with players that have shown very little in the last two matches. In my opinion Sam Carter, Scott Fardy and Wycliff Palu, in that order, can count themselves very lucky.
If the Wallabies are to be competitive against the Springboks it is the forward pack, not the back line, that must improve significantly, and I have my doubts that this will occur without adding some fresh faces into the starting team.
Carter has looked well out of form and was actually a liability in the last match with upright ball carries and poor ball control. What has probably saved him is the poor showing from Will Skelton in the limited time he got off the bench. Had Skelton performed anywhere near his destructive best he would surely have grabbed the starting spot over Carter.
Instead it’s James Horwill that has grabbed the bench lock spot over Skelton. After watching Skelton and Horwill play in the Buildcorp NRC over the weekend this was an obvious decision. Skelton made every little impact for the Sydney Stars whereas Horwill looked in good form for Brisbane City.
I’m actually surprised that Horwill isn’t starting with Carter moved to the bench.
Rob Simmons hasn’t performed well enough either in the matches against the All Blacks, but he was never under any selection pressure without a clear alternative lineout caller in the starting team.
I often see people make the suggestion that it can’t be that hard to call lineouts and therefore this shouldn’t justify any player being selected. If you believe that, you’re wrong!
Anyone can call a lineout, but calling a lineout that can secure ball at any higher level of rugby is a difficult skill that takes a lot of work to do competently. The last thing the Wallabies could afford to do is put their lineout under any more pressure than it already will be from the Springboks.
The only experienced options the Wallabies have are Horwill and Scott Higginbotham, so unless they’re in the starting team then Simmons is a certain selection.
Fardy hasn’t produced anywhere near his best for the Wallabies this year and I am surprised Higginbotham wasn’t given the start this week. He added some real energy to the team when he came off the bench against the All Blacks. But Fardy is a quality player who will be a key member of the Wallabies team if he can regain form.
Palu hasn’t played well over the last two matches but it wasn’t that long ago that he was in good form, so he was an obvious retention in the starting side. However, if he doesn’t start to show some form soon he’ll also be under pressure from Higginbotham.
Michael Hooper has been a tireless performer for the Wallabies and played as well as he was allowed to by the All Blacks. There can be no doubting his effort, speed, skills in attack and importance to the team. But his lack of physical influence against the big, physical packs of New Zealand, South Africa and England was evident in the last two matches.
Hooper’s key weapon to counter the physicality of the opposition is his speed to the contest, and he uses that asset very well. But in the last match he was having to do extra work to cover for Fardy and Palu. I thought he was actually trying too hard, but at least he was giving it his all.
In a balanced backrow with all three players functioning well, Hooper’s lack of physicality can be covered, allowing him to focus on the other areas of his game where he can make a difference. But if he’s carrying the other members of the backrow, a player like Matt Hodgson is better equipped to fill that role and that’s why I think McKenzie has included him on the bench this week.
Is this situation Hooper’s problem? No, and that’s why I’m surprised McKenzie hasn’t opted to make a change to the starting team to get some balance.
On the front row, there are no options on the bench or in the stands that will improve performance at this time and there won’t be until Scott Sio is fit again. Benn Robinson is well down the pecking order based on scrum performance alone. I don’t think his work rate (or lack of it) even comes into the equation at this time.
I’m sure there were many people who watched him scrummage against the UC Vikings last week in the NRC that would have been as surprised as I was in how ineffectual he was.
I’ve included a short clip below showing how the Wallaby coaches are trying to encourage the forwards to show some more skills in attack.
In this example Simmons is the ball player and after taking the ball he turns his back to the opposition with Palu and Sekope Kepu running close lines either side of him. Simmons can then make a choice as to which player he passes to and in this example he chooses Kepu.
It’s not a bad play but it will take a lot more than options like this to dent the Springbok defensive line this week – it will take some old fashioned physicality. Let’s hope the Wallaby forwards step up.
RobC
Roar Guru
Just saw the first video, with the raid on the left, then turnover by McCaw. I thought that TO was less about support play: - More about poor option by Beale - which shows his inexperience in his assigned role. In his pass just before the turnover ruck. He had: - a pod of five WBs on four ABs on the right / openside. regrouping - a pot of 4 WBs on this right from previous ruck. - The remaining 6 evenly spread across the rest of the long blind - the ABs bunched up the middle to protect it So next Beale, chooses to step towards that well protected middle: - there was no pods to support him. - He goes lateral into a busy lane, passes to another back who also runs into the same lane. Toomua I think. - Toomua gets hit. McCaw comes in for easy pickings. In fact he had a couple of goes at it cos there were no WBs in sight. What Beale should have done: - either is moved it back right towards the pods - or draw in his tackler / ABs centres even more and throw a wide pass to left wing, where there was a yawning gap Instead he shuffles himself. Then the ball to Toomua, with 3 ABs in front of him.
PiratesRugby
Guest
No, thank you Scott. The difference between your calm and thorough analysis and the drivel served up by Zavos, Lord and the Fairfax and News Ltd hacks is startling. Even Bob Dwyer sounds like a troll compared to you. Keep it up mate.
markjohnconley
Guest
Simmons for 6
carnivean
Roar Rookie
The idea of "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" isn't that it actually happened, but that it is a rather compelling example of something that would be completely pointless, and completely ineffectual.
carnivean
Roar Rookie
Scott a study was once done with European Handball players, freezing play and getting them to plan the next actions. As with your attempt, they found that there was no improvement over real time decision making, or a drop in performance. The outcome was that "learned mastery" was considered the only way to get players to make the right decision in match situations. The only way to get "learned mastery" was to play and replay scenarios and build basic skills to the point that they could support any action the player wants to take. In terms of lineout calling, you would not only have to train the caller, but also the players that they're playing with, so that any option the caller calls can be performed. The only truly sufficient method of training response under stress for a lineout is opposed training. 2 sets of forwards, 2 coaches, 100s of lineouts.
IvanN
Guest
Imagine the Boks had to play a loose trio of 6. Potgieter 7. Alberts 8 Vermeulen adding to that Bismark at Hooker, with Bakkies and Etzebeth behind him.
Worlds Biggest
Guest
great work Scott !
Fin
Guest
Honestly I think our forwards will get dusted regardless of who we put out. At least giving Skelton time has significant benefits for the future. I also think to get comprehensively out muscled in the forwards and making no changes sends the wrong message.
Harry Jones
Expert
Glad you caught that!
44bottles
Roar Guru
"" If the Wallabies can play a 10 that needs to on the wing in defence (Quade Cooper and Kurtley Beale) then there is no reason that you can play a game without a “Specialist Line out Caller” "" I don't think that's quite the right comparison. I'd say not having a specialist lineout caller playing is more like not having a specialist 10 playing. Like playing O'Connor, or Ben Smith, or Willie Le Roux at 10. Just because they are skillfull and can put players into holes, doesn't mean they are specialist or good 10s. I'm excluding Beale from this as he has been playing a specialist 10 role (with a 12 on his back) but is still not as good as a converted 10 when compared to one who has played there often. (Eg. Foley or Cooper)
44bottles
Roar Guru
You could do better than to just ridiculously exaggerate Scott's claim past the point of reason. I believe that is known as the strawman argument, and is a logical fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Takeshi Kovacs
Roar Rookie
Fair enough, but I'd like to see the stats in regards to how many lineouts that we actually competed at on the oppositions throw.
Takeshi Kovacs
Roar Rookie
I also agree. In my experience the best Locks weren't players that stood out and caught the eye. Well, they would be noticed, but only by those who really understood the darker arts of the tight 5. They tend to be more about those 1%'ers, as referenced above. The fact that the All Blacks have Locks that do really stand out is down to the fact that they are very special players. Some of the SA locks have a similar claim. The Wallabies? Not so much. Well, not lately. Yes, there was the magnificent John Eales, but he was the exception to the rule. Some of our best Locks recently have been guys like Giffen. Perhaps even Nathan Sharpe in the later stages of his career. Even Justin Harrison, The Plank, achieved some great things on the field of battle. Unless you know what you're looking for you almost don't realise that they're out there.
Jameswm
Guest
Why can't the Aussies pick a pack of 8 mean mamas. Do we even have 8 in the country?
jeznez
Roar Guru
Same - would like to see Palu on the side, Hooper open and Higgers at the back. We have a quicker 8 to help support Hooper off the scrum and do the link work - and we have a heavy hitter covering those blind channels and picking up any inside runners.
Starchild
Guest
Backline is better. But the forwards are looking a little wish washy. Its like Link is trying to make his own breed of stone wash jeans...just recycling and rewashing until you get he stoned wash look. Link needs rockstar pants but where is the tidy fabric that doesn't deteriorate at the slightest of harsh conditions?
Brendan Hope
Roar Guru
Good team. For once I believe starting Pienaar is a good decision. His kicking game will be invaluable if it does indeed rain in Perth. Probably the best team make up HM could put together based on who's available. Looking forward to this one!
ohtani's jacket
Guest
It's possible if he played in NZ that he'd be a 6, though he might be viewed as not being athletic enough. It would be interesting to see a backrow of Palu, Hooper and Higginbotham.
Markus
Guest
Douglas' workrate this year for the Waratahs was great, but all previous form at Super and Test level showed his workrate to be inconsistent at best (good one week, poor the next), poor at worst. I would have liked to see him carry this season's form into the Test series, but he chose not to be available.
TheColonel
Guest
Crockett appeared offside at the previous breakdown and it was Crockett who took out Palu which allowed McCaw to make the turnover uncontested. The Wallabies should have been playing with the advantage and the McCaw turnover should have resulted in a penalty to the Wallabies. Just saying.