SPIRO: Is Cheika becoming too Red-eyed with the Wallabies?

On the bench?

Wrong Quade cooper overplays his hand way more I'd rather Kurtley any day

On your original point Peter. A number of the comments here are very strong and disrespectful criticism of players, coaches and administrators without any consideration for the need for them to make quick decisions and the knowledge they had available when they did. If my supported responses discourage people from making acerbic remarks without any supporting evidence, and most evidence can support the player, administrator or coach then I do not feel bad at all.

Hi Wait until we see Dave Dennis (192 cm according to Wikipedia) as a lock... Cheers

My understanding is that Timani was chosen at lock because McGahan has a plethora of loosies (note his comments that McMahon is not an international #6 but a #7) and chose to play his best players -- and those most suited to his ball-in-hand game plan (note that the Rebels had the most time with ball-in-hand of all Super 15 teams). Recall also that Jones played a lot at #6 when Pyle and (an in-form) Neville were the second rowers. For all his weaknesses as a lineout jumper, Timani did all the other second-row roles well: he pushes hard (perhaps as hard as his older brother was reputed to push) behind the TH; clears bodies out at rucks, and runs and tackles with intent. But there was a price. The Rebels had the worst-performing lineout in the competition because they only had two reliable options: Jones and Higginbotham. I think the problem was compounded by making Jones the lineout caller as well: he called himself VERY often, which made life easier for the defenders. (I thought a deal of the criticism of Leafa's throwing was misplaced: he was forced into crooked throws as the defenders were waiting to pounce on throws to Jones.) I wondered whether there was an element of striving for national selection here: Jones wanted to add a useful skill to his armoury and show how good he is as a lineout option. That may be unfair as from what I hear he's a good team bloke; but the thought did cross my mind in a WC year and after Jones fluffed his chances last year by playing surprisingly poorly in his limited opportunities in a gold jumper.

A lot can be gained in comparison if the stats are used in a standardised manner and if analysed over the longer term. As TWAS has covered, Hodgson averaged 15 tackles per 80 minutes in 2014. This was 26% of the total tackles made by the rest of the Force's regular Fwd Pack (who averaged 8 tackles). Hooper averaged 11 tackles per 80 minutes in 2014. This was 22% of the total tackles made by the rest of the Waratah's regular Fwd Pack (who also averaged 8 tackles). Yes, the Force had to make more tackles than the Waratahs because of their style of play and low % possession. However, Hodgson still made a larger contribution of total tackles made by his team's regular fwd pack. On this basis, with the same base as Hooper's 11 tackles, Hodgson would make 13. Hodgson's 29 tackles against the Rebels last week (and the commercial guys have this at 36) may be a high for an Aussie in SXV. This was 29% of the total tackles made by the Force's fwd pack (103) (including replacements). The Waratahs Fwd Pack (inc replacements) made about the same number of tackles (101) against the Reds. Hooper made 14% of the tackles. Turn Overs can be standardised in the same way. In 2015 Hooper has averaged 0.4 TOW from his average 7 Defensive Rucks per 80 minutes. On the same base of 7 Def Rucks, the TOW by the other No 7s would be: Gill 1.1, Pocock 0.9 and Hodgson 0.8. - at least 2x the TOW rate of Hooper. These numbers confirm most people's perceptions (for whatever the reasons, game strategy etc).

i viewed him as light entertainment on the filed [sic] (which you appear to do) Nah Jib Jabs, I view him as serious entertainment of the highest and rarest order, one of those players who make you feel deeply grateful that you lived in the same era as he went round. I deduce that you must be a Highlanders or Chiefs fan? Boasting is cheap. If you're lucky, we'll soon see who gets into 'panic mode' that costs field position and points. Bring it on!

I agree with your point. Stats can't be used in isolation. I see them as a good way of filtering out the players who can't provide what you need. Take out those who are statistically poor THEN look at the remaining players and consider their impact. If they are doing the minimum work you need, then have a look at their impact of involvements.

Peter, I often like to look at for example tackles, as a comparison to their team. Was Hodgson making 15 tackles a game last year that impressive? Not when their whole pack was making 10 per game themselves. Much the same as Hodgon's superior pilfer stats. He made about twice as many as Hooper. On a per ruck basis though, Hooper was about 25% less. So of course Hodgson made more. The Force played on average 40% possession whilst the Waratahs were closer to 60%. He essentially had 20% of the game extra opportunities to pilfer.

HarryT nobody is ignoring the argument. Defense and attack in professional rugby requires a TEAM effort. If they are poorly coached or playing poorly as a team, despite their individual ability, they will perform poorly. The point is that these are players who were capable of being the best in these categories previously. So clearly they are capable of better. What's changed at the Reds since then? Coaching. How many uncapped players are in from the Reds? 2. I agree there is argument for neither being there, but the point is only players who have shown to be capable of more, and all at test level, other than Hunt and Kerrvi were the players selected.

Thank you for clarifying. You don't consider though that for every miss Beale makes, somebody else needs to cover and that person is no longer in their spot in the defensive line. That miss itself may not impact the game. It may be 3 phases down when they run out of numbers because everybody has shuffled consistently after a miss. It may be because others are fatigued after covering consistently. A strong defensive line relies on every player making their tackle, but most importantly, the players trusting their men either side to do their job and staying on their own man. Beale misses 2 tackles per game out of around 6 attempts. How much can the players inside and outside trust kurtley to do his job?

Hunt?????

" I reckon it’s virtually every team’s gameplan isn’t it Sluggy?...If you think the Wallabies are going to come up with something significantly different, I’m all ears" It was certainly the plan for the Deans era Wallabies. Robbie wanted them to play like the ABs. He, at times, criticised the players. "We don't have the cattle". He sacked two mercurial playmakers who objected to the suffocating dourness of it all. Here in the land the Irish built, we say a good farmer never blames the dog (or the stock). He selected, and played it, safety first. Just as the Irish do it their way, we need to go our own. So, actually, different yes, although the rest depends on what you mean by 'significant'. MC has developed a game style that the 'tahs have used to beat the premier Kiwi/Saffer super-provincial sides. A style which is probably going to 'trickle-up' , to mis-appropriate a Reaganism. Cast your mind back to Samoa v England in RWC 2003. The 'tahs kick the least of any SR side and look to smash the other team at the breakdown, run them off their feet, and (this is the important bit) to create opportunities rather than waiting for them to arrive. Must be the Irish thing. Adieu

Simon says (sorry) "I am pleased Paul Alo Emile has been named. He is not that exciting around the field but as a specialist tight head prop he is perfect...someone who can anchor the scrum so the Wallaby pack doesn’t get shoved 20 metres backwards. " He can waddle from scrum to scrum for mine, if he turns them from a bleeding wound into a weapon. Obviously he can't do this single-handedly, but he could well be the catalyst for change.

If you miss a third of the tackles you attempt, then you are a weak defender. It doesn't even matter if they were important tackles or not. You can get away with missing tackles at Super level, but do that in a Test and you will get punished nearly every time.

I had not thought much about it but the generality of what you say is right Spiro. From the back I would say that Haylett-Petty, Godwyn, Inman, Debreczeni, Stirzaker & Timani could consider themselves unlucky. James O'Connor & Karmichiael Hunt very fortunate. Both have done next to nothing all year.

True but Mr Hunt has a looooooong way to go - i would be very surprised if he made the WC 23. He has good RL history of course but he has yet to make an impact in the real game. If he did make the squad would that be a reflection of his skill set or the quality of the other players.

Well cs as a supporter of a team who plays beale consistently and wins - good luck with your views. Carlos Spencer was a brilliant mover on the field going forward and Beale is similar but Spencer lost us a world cup in 2003. Had Merhtens been selected (a Mitchell gaffe of the highest order) the ABs would not have lost to the Wallabies that night. The Wallabies cannot afford a mediocre tackler in the inside centre position. I have only focused on beales tacking in the past few games because previously i viewed him as light entertainment on the filed (which you appear to do) and regardless of the one or two tackles you say you saw him execute (which I did not see) all I saw as a player waving his arms around. Some of these 'missed tackles' may have not led directly to tries however the covering up of his missed tackles by his 'in panic mode' colleagues because of his missed tackles would certainly have cost field position and points. As you say he is entertaining as an attacking player with exceptional skills that mostly come off but are you (and the other Oz fans) happy and satisfied to be entertained in the Bledlisloe games, RC games and at the World Cup or do you want to try and actually win it? I think your view maybe in the minority !

ForceFan - Thanks and I agree in the main. There is no doubt Slippers workrate is far higher than Robinsons unless you count adjusting your scrum cap. Some of the stats I mentioned are available it is just that more work is needed. Take you example of number of tackles. Comparing raw figures of tackles between slipper and robinson is very misleading. The tahs run the most and kick the least, reds kick a lot more. What would be a fairer comparison is the percentage of a teams tackles. So get the total tackles done by a team where the player played and calculate the percentage of tackles that are made by that player. The percentage is a fairer comparison. Of course it is more work to do and even for me who likes stats and looking at the context I would not do often.

Raw stats MAY be misleading without context but rugby followers don't have access to the stats that each club pays to have collected commercially. They have to make do with what they can get. I agree with your comments if trying to read too much into stats for a single game but stats over a number of games or season start showing who, in a particular team, does put in the effort around the ground - not just for their own position. A good example is the difference between Slipper and Robinson in 2015. Robinson has averaged only 70% of Slipper's tackles and 64% of Slipper's ruck involvement. From the same number of defensive ruck involvements Slipper earns turn overs at twice Robinson's rate. Both players are used by their teams in pick-and-run situations and make about the same m/carry, yet Slipper beats defenders at 3x the rate of Robinson. Slipper does pass the ball a bit more than Robinson but other published stats are fairly even. All of these stats tell me that Slipper's work rate, outside of scrummaging (for which no stats are available) is much higher than Robinson. This supports my impression from regularly watching both play. Some of the other stats you mention would be great to have (and I'm unsure if even the teams get those). In the case of ruck data I just went and started taking my own. If a prop is regularly avoiding ruck involvement and tackling (or missing lots of tackles) and not reliably taking the ball into contact then he's only doing a small part of his job.