The Rugby Championship Week 4: The big questions

Week 4 of The Rugby Championship has New Zealand getting their first look at South Africa in Wellington, while Australia hosts Argentina on Gold Coast.

After a mixed weekend of form and results, Biltong, Digger, and I haven’t mucked around with this week’s big questions.

As always, please feel free to post your own thoughts, or indeed, lodge your own big question. The guys and I will tackle them during the day as we get a chance.

Brett McKay asks: With Ewen McKenzie’s decision to keep heavily criticised Wallabies 4-5-6 combination of Sam Carter, Rob Simmons, and Scott Fardy intact, do we think incumbency plays too big a role in selection when underperformance is being readily pointed out?
I’ve actually tempered my thoughts on this, between asking the question and answering it.

I still have to wonder how players are judged to have done ‘enough’ over a string of games, and these three especially have all been well down on they’re capable of. There was no way all three were going to be dropped at once, but I was still surprised to see all three retained when the side was named on Tuesday.

However, I have to concede that there is an understandable point in letting incumbents play themselves back into form. After all, even a small improvement in form at Test level has to be seen more favourably than finding the same degree of form at a lesser level. They’re Test players; they should be standing out at lower levels.

So I guess then, the question is really one of whether the coach and selectors see the same concerns we punters do? And I can’t actually answer that question; I’ve never been in the position know. But surely, if we can see that a guy didn’t complete a lineout catch, or if a guy only made two runs for a game, they can see that too?

Digger: Generally I would suggest ‘yes’, but as it pertains to the Wallabies in those positions currently I actually think Link might have this right.

Having impact from the bench is crucial and while the obvious would be to start your best team, Link does not have many options. None of the starters offer as much as Horwill and Higginbotham can from the bench and I believe Link feels he can judge accurately when those players may be required and is balancing his 23 to get what he feels is the best all round eighty-minute performance.

I also hold the theory that Link both through his time at the Reds and as Wallaby coach knows very well what Higginbotham and Horwill, among others, can offer and is attempting to develop some more depth and experience in the Wallaby squad looking forward to next year’s World Cup. He can only work with what he has available and currently he has the best mix in my view.

Biltong: Ewen McKenzie strikes me as rather hardheaded and not easily moved from his own perception of who he wants to play. I think it applies to most coaches; having an incumbent and allowing them to play themselves out of the team.

But it is hard to judge as I don’t know the man and his convictions. How much faith does he have that there are better replacements out there?

Scott Higginbotham might be an option, but then he doesn’t really stand out as being a class above Fardy.

The same applies in the locks. Who are standing out above Carter and Simmons? Skelton? No way. James Horwill? Possibly.

The biggest issue this past weekend for Carter and Simmons was Victor Matfield, and Simmons’ discipline. Neither should be an issue this coming weekend as they aren’t playing against Matfield, and it should be easy enough for Simmons to curb his infringements.

Diggercane asks: At the halfway point, how much has each team improved (or not) since last year’s Rugby Championship?
Argentina has certainly improved in my view, although it unfortunately not reflected in their win/loss record. They have introduced more width to their game to compliment an impressive set of forwards and their first win surely cannot be too far away. Questions remain over their depth to last the tournament, but I am enjoying watching them play.

Australia has also improved, not just in terms of results but mostly in terms of their attitude and belief. Arguments could be made about their ‘cattle’ but it is clear to me this is a team on the up and slowly growing in confidence. I was at the Wellington match last year where they looked flat and disorganised so there is a definite improvement there and a good base to grow from.

New Zealand has made some slight improvements, highlighted by the injuries suffered this season as opposed to last and yet still manage to keep on keeping on. Notable improvements have been made at scrum time and some new set piece enterprise has been seen this year particularly in the attacking lineouts.

South Africa has not improved; frankly, they have regressed. Disappointing considering last year’s results. I feel a combination of injuries, underdone players, and conservative tactics have all conspired against the Boks thus far, and their halves are a real concern moving forward.

Biltong: Conditions have certainly made an impact with two of the weekends affected by rain. South Africa has seriously regressed, Australia has not yet convinced, and New Zealand seems more or less on par.

The revelation has been Argentina. Their pack has improved their abrasiveness, but it is their backs courtesy of Sanchez that has been rather exciting to follow.

Question is, since the 39th minute try of New Zealand last weekend, things started going pear-shaped for them. Can they pick themselves up for the second half of the tournament, or will they once again fade?

One issue worth noting is most teams have been severely affected by injuries and unavailable players.

Brett: I probably have to agree with Biltong here. I think of the four teams, only Argentina has really improved.

The Pumas are an altogether tougher and more physically competitive unit this season than they were last year. Their scrum has to be seen as one of the best in world rugby currently, and they certainly won’t die wondering at the breakdown. And as I said a few weeks ago, they’re playing with freedom in attack.

The All Blacks are still winning, but are they winning as well or as clinically as they did last year? I’m not so sure.

And there’s a reasonable argument that the Springboks and Wallabies have regressed a tad. Neither team look as good as the sides that finished 2013, though I will say I think the Wallabies appear to have more idea of how they want to play currently.

Biltongbek asks: How damaging was the loss of the Springboks this past weekend to Heyneke Meyer’s game plan, and what chances are there that he will adapt in the long term?
I suspect the damage was more impactful on the supporters than on Heyneke Meyer. It is doubtful that he will lose his resolve in his selections and game plan. It will be same tactics as usual.

Digger: Well, Meyer has made a change with Handre Pollard being afforded a start at Morne Steyn’s expense, but with Ruan Pienaar at halfback it is hard to imagine any real change of tack from Perth.

The vital cog in Meyer’s machine is Fourie du Preez, and he has been sorely missed thus far with his ability to organise and control a game and enact his coach’s instructions.

I suspect Meyer would be consoling himself that all should be well again once du Preez has recovered from his injury, so I cannot see any change in the near future.

Actually, this is also a concern I have for the All Blacks. An injury to Aaron Smith could leave quite a hole…

Brett: I understand Biltong’s frustration here, and the length of his response is a giveaway to a very bemused South African this week!

I think the real answer comes tomorrow night in the way Pollard plays. If Pollard is allowed to play the way we know he can, then perhaps we will be seeing the early stages of evolution in the Meyer plan. The timing of Steyn’s injection into the game might provide another clue, too.

The tips for TRC Round 4:

Brett: #NZLvRSA – This match actually strikes me as one of those ones where perception and reality might be a long way apart. On paper, and even on current form, New Zealand should win this pretty well. But South Africa do always lift for the All Blacks. I think it’ll be closer than we think, All Blacks by less than 10.

#AUSvARG – This one is a bit of a ‘banana skin’ game for the Wallabies. They should be too good for the Pumas, but you can already see the manner of a win being called into question unless it’s a real thumping. Had the Pumas played the Wallabies prior to playing the All Blacks, they might have really fancied their chances and even come into this game on a high. I have to wonder if the loss in Napier might have erased much of that confidence. Wallabies by 12.

Digger: #NZLvRSA – South Africa will always get up to play New Zealand and are always a chance, but I simply can’t see them winning in Wellington. Of course, since I’m actually going to the game… (rope-a-dope?)

#AUSvARG – The Pumas are an excellent chance here. Their physicality in the forwards and excellent set piece will really challenge the Wallabies, but I do think the Wallabies will pull through in the end by about 12.

Biltong: #NZLvRSA – It hurts me to say this, but this is not a case of who will win, but rather by how many. No matter which game plan South Africa employs this coming weekend, they will have to match the All Blacks try for try, and their current negative tactics won’t accomplish that. They have not played a running style the whole year, which doesn’t suggest the players will be confident in executing it. New Zealand by as many as they deem necessary.

#AUSvARG – Many suggest Argentina will take this one, but with Tomas Lavanini receiving a one-match ban, their pack will lose some physicality. This is also the point where historically Argentina have faded, and Australia will be confident after their near escape against South Africa. It is going to be a close one, if Australia can somehow manage to negate or avoid scrums, they should be able to pull this through. Australia by 10.