Wallabies squad for the Rugby World Cup: What would Michael Cheika do?

Today I want to talk national selection, named how our Wallabies squad will shape up for the Rugby World Cup.

For some time now I have been contemplating contributing to some of the better discussions that take place on this website, but life, work and some comments on this site get in the way of putting digital pen to digital paper.

However, the comments around this topic often follow an unproductive pattern, so I think it’s worth having a look at the issue and really work through the nuts and bolts of the choices and the ramifications.

So I wanted to set out the team that I think Mr Michael Cheika may choose, based on nothing more than gut feel and previous selection, and contrast that with a team that I would choose were I to coach the Wallabies.

I confess that I have coached in the Brisbane Premier Rugby comp in years past and know something, albeit something small, about Rugby, but I am not a complete novice who thinks that you should shove Sio and Slipper in the front row (as our best props) which is something I have seen on this site a few times.

So to start, I think ultimately Cheika will choose a team as follows:

1. Slipper
2. Moore
3. Kepu
4. Skelton
5. Simmons
6. Fardy
7. Pocock
8. Palu
9. Phipps
10. Foley
11. Horne
12. Toomua
13. Kuridrani
14. Ashley-Cooper
15. Folau

16. Sio
17. Alo-Emile
18. Polota Nau
19. Jones
20. Hooper
21. Genia
22. Cooper/Giteau
23. O’Connor/Beale

While I think that would be a reasonable starting side (should that be the side he settles on), I personally think that the individual players are not the best in each position and more importantly, I think the side is not balanced.

I think it’s a side that is stuck between the philosophy that Cheika employs at the Waratahs and the more conventional philosophy of playing the forwards tighter to the halfback.

It lacks authority and arguably capacity in the lineout. The back three are not likely to get the team out of trouble in the often heavy northern hemisphere conditions, given none are noted kickers.

The team lacks ball runners and ultimately, and this is the completely subjective part of my assessment, not just partially subjective – it does nothing for me.

If I were coaching against this team, I would not be worried and I say that with all the respect in the world for the players listed.

I am not enthused to follow the team, I am not excited by the prospects of the team and I don’t think they can get the job done in the Rugby Championship and/or the World Cup. I don’t think that the team will have a strong chemistry and and genuinely don’t think that opposition coaches will lose sleep over facing this team.

It is solid, it is honest and will likely play to a standard that screams sixth in the world. If I were an opposition coach, the only answer to the question of how they would hurt me is Israel Folau.

So with that scathing assessment aside I will lay out my side, but more importantly set out why I would choose them. I will say upfront that despite not agreeing with the team above, which again is just my guess as to the team that Cheika will choose, I am still very unsure of who should play blindside, who should play lock and who should play in the centres.

I also want to make one more confession, I am extremely focussed on the mental side of the game, sometimes even moreso than the physical side. In my defence I assume that at the elite level most teams are fairly even from a physical perspective. So in choosing my side, or the side that I would choose were I the coach, I am going for a team that does not just contain David Pocock and Folau (in the eyes of an opposition coach), I want a team that has threats all over the park and has opposition coaches over analysing because they are so concerned.

The front row
There is no escaping the fact that this has been our weakness for a long time and frankly, with the team above, it is likely to still be, although not entirely of their own making.

So getting down to it, I want a tighthead who will not get moved in the scrum. That is it. I don’t care if he lacks the ability to sidestep or chip kick, nor do I care if he is not the world’s best ball runner or most punishing defender.

I simply want him, in the northern hemisphere, under the watchful eye of referees who consciously have no bias but subconsciously know and expect the Wallabies’ scrum to be weak, to be able to lock down the scrum, lift in lineouts, shift bodies and make their tackles. Of I were to dream, he would even put pressure on the opposition scrum.

So for me, it’s simple that the straight-backed Paul Alo-Emile starts.

He is a rock, almost immovable at scrum time. On top of that he actually is a decent ball runner in tight and a solid defender.

I like Sekope Kepu, and think he has gotten much better over the last 24 months. Under Ewen McKenzie as Wallabies coach I think he was one of the best forwards the Wallabies had.

He is a decent ball runner and has experience but he still cannot lock down the tighthead side, and for me, against Wales and England I just don’t feel confident that we won’t have a penalty try awarded against us.

The other thought behind the choice is my feeling that Kepu adds much more impact from the bench than Alo-Emile does, in the same way that Alo-Emile sets the platform better than Kepu at scrum time.

I will add that I really am impressed by Greg Holmes this year and he would be the third tighthead in the squad, not Alexander, especially when you consider his ability to play both sides.

Hooker has to be Stephen Moore, with daylight a distant second. Tatafu Polota-Nau would be the backup, but only because he is a decent scrummager, otherwise there is not much between him and Fainga’a/Hanson.

Loosehead prop was actually a really tough decision, not because I am a Queenslander but because I genuinely think that Slipper and Sio are literally line ball when I look at the totality of their games and contributions.

Slipper is every bit the modern prop, fit, industrious, respectable scrummager and reasonable defender, without being a star in any facet.

I think that he is fitter and the better defender but I think that Sio is the better ball carrier and probably the better scrummager.

At the end of the day I would choose Slipper and for one reason, because frankly I rate them as dead even on an overall assessment, and that reason is experience. Slipper has oodles of it and has experience leading a team this year so he would get the nod.

Second row
This is a tough selection because of the lack of choice. It is not a lack of players but the lack of variance in style.

With any choice you make, you essentially lock yourself into a style of play and limit one aspect of your play as I feel that our locks are all fairly one dimensional, unless we are going to choose a hybrid lock pair of Luke Jones and Scott Fardy.

If you choose Rob Simmons and James Horwill you have a decent scrum and very solid lineout, but ultimately lack ball runners, lack defensive hitters and in the case of Horwill, essentially carry a forward around the field given his alarming lack of mobility.

I would choose Skelton as one lock and I am prepared for the backlash on that call. Simply, he is a player that would worry other teams.

His maul defence is very good and much-needed against Northern foes. He is a decent carrier, has an offload game, is also a good defender and moves reasonably well for a big man, not to mention the fact that his fitness is actually pretty good. On top of that he adds weight to the scrum and has improved his technique immeasurably this year.

The other reason I like Skelton is that he puts doubt in the defensive line as a runner or decoy, he makes opposition defences make a decision, to double team or not double team, and he makes opposition coaches devise a plan to stop him.

That’s not to say he is the finished article but he poses more danger and asks more questions of the opposition than our other options. For our remaining lock I would choose Simmons. He is our best lineout operator, a decent scrummager and while Skelton can be used in the lineout, Simmons provides Cheika with a genuine lineout dominator.

I should add that I don’t rate Carter or Horwill (heresy for a Queenslander) and I think that neither would get a gig in my team. Fardy would be the third Lock and Jones would be the fourth.

Backrow
So you can probably guess from my team that I don’t mind a dominant set piece and for that reason my back row would be as follows (and this is where I really expect to cop flak, although I genuinely think it is unwarranted).

I would start Luke Jones at blindside, Scott Higginbotham at 8 and the great and still dominant George Smith at 7.

Test Rugby is not Super Rugby, especially on some of the bogs up North, and for that reason I want a strong lineout, which brings me to Higginbotham, who I think is one of the best operators in the competition.

I also like Jones at blindside, given his prowess in the lineout and experience calling this year.

I opted for Jones at 6 because I think he offers slightly more than Fardy in attack. I have watched both very closely this year and I think a lot of people were caught in the hype around Timani because Jones was the better lock.

He is a stronger ball runner than Fardy, a good defender and very solid lineout operator. Moreover, he has a bit of “fuse” about him and is often near or involved in scraps. I like that.

I think Fardy is the better defender and stronger over the ball, but being the better defender does not mean he makes better hits. I like a bench where we can have an experienced, older head like Fardy.

In saying all of this my choice is 50.5/49.5 in favour of Jones and I would not be bothered in the slightest to start Fardy, so much so I have re-written this paragraph three times.

Wycliff Palu is not an option for me. Can be good but in extremely small bursts and just does not play at his weight. He is slow, lacks mobility, offers little in the lineout and is unlikely to last longer than 50 minutes.

I don’t rate Ben McCalman, he is all energy but no impact. Tries hard, plays hard but never makes an impact in contact and has little x-factor.

Higginbotham has a mongrel streak in him, which sometimes bubbles to the surface, is a terrific captain, great lineout operator, strong ball runner, skillful player and also a decent defender.

He is mobile, fantastic off the back of the scrum and frankly, puts himself in position or performs in such a manner as to ensure that he scores tries, and lots of them, as evidenced by his record in Super Rugby. Again, he is a player the opposition coaches would spend time devising plans to negate and players get headaches over, even if they are small headaches, which I fear they would not do for the one dimensional Palu and Ben McCalman.

Now to the real straightforward decision, in my mind, but one I know will cause me grief. Put simply he is the best player Australia has ever produced and is still playing brilliant football in a tough, forward-dominated competition in a different position than he usually plays.

He is dynamic at the breakdown, gifted in attack, still playing brilliant football, experienced and he is a player that not only draws attention from opposition coaches, he draws respect (which sometimes manifests in trepidation) from oppositions and he has “mana”.

Smith is hugely respected, a legend of the game and if I were a player I would prefer to see him next to me in the game than the other options. If the chips were down and the game was in the balance, I would rather stand behind the sticks with George Smith, not David Pocock (an absolute freak) or Michael Hooper, who is another very good player.

Smith also commands the same respect from referees that McCaw does, and as such often gets away with disgracefully illegal play, simply because referees carry the perception that despite the outcome of his involvement seeming improbable, the fact that he is George Smith means he possibly was involved legally. He is just so good that he can actually do things others can not.

If you are an opposition, you know that you are going to have to play out of your skin because a team with him in it is not going to lie down and is a chance until the 80th minute.

While I rate Pocock ahead of Hooper, in terms of the balance of the side, I would pick Hooper on the bench for his incredible impact over the last 30 minutes of the game, which pains me because I really am not sold on him as a person and leader.

Halfbacks
I think Nick Phipps played well last year and was the deserving starting 9. Will Genia has played really well all year in a side coached by the worst coach in Super Rugby history, with a game-plan that I still cannot work out.

I am discounting Stirzaker as he has been left out of the squad, but I would pick him in the squad and not just for development, which means White drops out.

I don’t think Genia is back to his 2011 best, but he is playing well and with a different game-plan and a fit flyhalf, you saw glimpses of how dangerous he can be.

My one criticism would be the delivery of his pass. He doesn’t have the speed or width, and often does not hit players on the chest, out in front. I think players have to check their run somewhat. Phipps’ clearance speed has also dropped this year. This was especially evident in the semi-final.

Ultimately I think on the big stage Genia frightens opposition coaches, genuinely so. He is a leader, game breaker, good runner and defender and commands attention from opposition coaches and players alike. Moreover, as per the views of the sometimes logical Bob Dwyer, I think at his best he is the best option and I would back myself as a coach to get that best out of him.

I would start Quade Cooper at 10. Not because I am a Queenslander but for the same reasons as above.

At his best he is world class and scares oppositions more than any player in the Wallabies, maybe Israel Folau aside. He is not the flake of years past, and I am sick to death of that stupid argument.

He was dominant in the 2013 Test season and from Dunedin onwards, playing some brilliant football. He is a reasonable defender these days and could arguably handle the frontline.

Bernard Foley is a solid player but nothing more. I would not be threatened by him individually as a player, nor would I feel threatened by a Foley led team as an opposition player/coach.

He is a good bench option, due to his sevens experience and late game running ability, but I would back myself to get the best out of Cooper.

I genuinely think that almost every coach in world rugby would rather face the Wallabies with Phipps and Foley running the show, rather than Genia and Cooper.

Centres
This was difficult because it really is hard to choose from the long list of options. Arguably, if you play Cooper at 10 you could afford to play two big bodies in the centres because he is creative enough by himself, which Foley is not (as evidenced on Saturday night). He also has the ability to pass beyond them should it be required.

I think ultimately I agree with Rod Kafer – I like a big body at 12, and while I would love to see Kuridrani at 12 and Folau at 13, we really have little cover at fullback unless you go completely left field and pick Hunt or pick Beale, who is shocking under the highball and has not played there in years.

I think Kerevi is still a little raw and is arms, not shoulders, in defence.

I should also confess that I coached him in club rugby and I do rate him as a 2016 certainty.

But not quite yet. This is not a case of playing favourites.

Christian Lealiifano lacks presence but is reliable, where Matt Toomua is a strong defender but lacks penetration in attack and is not mobile enough for my liking, plus I worry about his health.

Godwin, Fainga’a, Inman and Tapuaii are all not really options, although I like Inman. So that leaves me with Giteau.

I like his experience, both in the game and in the North, I like his running ability, his defence is strong, he is a leader and crucially, he has a left boot. He is also a big name player, and while I am loathe to even say that, I really do believe that some of the “big names” like Carter, Folau, McCaw, Smith etc get away with things or are allowed the time and space by oppositions because they are reluctant to over commit.

Players like Giteau, who worry opposition players and coaches alike, are often afforded time on the field that other lesser known players are not, simply by virtue of the perceived danger.

In addition I think that his presence would also take heat and attention away from Cooper, who in turn takes the same off of Genia and so you end up with an inside back division of players that all worry oppositions.

At 13 I would choose Tevita Kuridrani, but I think he needs to sharpen up his defence. He sometimes gets caught out on his lateral movement, especially on the outside. Some work on his speed would also be welcome.

Adam Ashley-Cooper is a good player and is solid. While he would do a good job in a World Cup final, I believe the thinking above applies to Kuridrani more than it does to Adam Ashley-Cooper.

Opposition coaches and players alike are always mindful of his presence and would be worried by him more than Adam Ashley-Cooper, although I really do rate Ashley Cooper’s defence. Much like Jones/Fardy above it really is a 50.5/49.5 proposition for me.

The other reason I start Tevita is that Ashley-Cooper allows you to play six forwards and two backs if he is on the bench, which is a huge bonus.

Back three
So Folau picks himself at the back but I would say this – he really needs to work on his kicking game. A side not on the fullback position is that I would really like to see Karmichael Hunt here in a good team with a good coach.

He is a fantastic defender, a second ball player, strong kicker and good under the high ball. I also think that Dane Haylett-Petty played very well this year for the Force and I would like to see how he plays in better company.

I should note at this juncture that Joe Tomane is my absolute favourite player and while I think Australian rugby has missed a huge opportunity by not playing him at 13, he would not start for me, despite my man love for him. I never understood why in years passed both Link and Cheika pick him on the left wing when he has a left hand fend, while they and pick Adam Ashley-Cooper on the right wing, when he has a right hand fend – it’s maddening. Not to mention the fact that Tomane was dynamic on the 2013 end of year on the right wing!

For me Henry Speight and Joe Tomane are dangerous, while Rob Horne is very wholehearted. The problem is they are all limited and one dimensional.

Horne is in great form and would be worth another look at 12 in my mind.

Speight is unlucky in my team and I would not really mind if he made the cut, but he has no kicking game and I feel like smarter sides could pick him apart, as they could with Tomane. I also think Speight is a poor defensive reader, often coming in off the wing and getting caught on the outside.

Again, as I have noted above, I would pick a player that I think is potentially world class and one that I could get to play to his potential, so I would pick a player who is arguably as dangerous as Folau on his day, so for that reason I would pick James O’Connor on the right wing.

When fit, in form, confident, playing in good company and with a decent coach, he is so dangerous it’s actually frightening and has all the skills (shocking exit kick aside). On the other I would plump for Drew Mitchell. He is a specialist left winger, a brilliant player still, a great team man and has a kicking game.

I really feel like this back three is rounded and can easily interchange, whereas other selections permutations don’t offer this.

So my team:

1. Slipper
2. Moore
3. Alo-Emile
4. Skelton
5. Simmons
6. Fardy
7. Smith
8. Higginbotham
9. Genia
10. Cooper
11. Mitchell
12. Giteau
13. Kuridrani
14. O’Connor
15. Folau

16. Sio
17. Kepu
18. Polota-Nau
19. Jones
20. Hooper
21. Phipps
22. Foley
23. Ashley Cooper

So the keen observers among you will note that I have changed my mind again and settled on Fardy.

When I look through the pack I note the following:

– Our scrum should function reasonably well
– Our lineout should function very well, especially with outstanding jumpers in Higginbotham and Simmons and a good thrower in Moore.
– Our pack has players who can impact rucks (Skelton) and can slow down or steal the ball, with Fardy and Smith.
– Our pack is full of players who work in Slipper, Moore, Smith, Fardy and arguably Simmons and Higginbotham.
– We have ball runners in Higginbotham and Skelton, not to mention to the leading try scoring forward in Super Rugby history.
– We have mongrel, no nonsense in Fardy, Skelton, Moore and Higginbotham.
– We have leadership, experience and respect in Slipper, Moore, Smith, Fardy and Higginbotham.
– We have smart players.

When I look through the backs I note the following:

– We have a potentially great and frightening halfback pairing who can control games.
– We have a 12 who is extremely experiences, possesses a good left boot and also has experience in and against the North.
– A 13 who can punch holes and get us moving forward.
– A 14 who is world class and is arguably one of the most dangerous players on earth, playing outside one of the most dangerous 10s in world rugby.
– We have two wingers who can find the line, create something from nothing and clean up messes with decent kicking games. Moreover, all three are good under the high ball.

When I look at my team in totality, I see a team that opposition coaches would not like, a team that has not just Folau and Pocock, but Folau, O’Connor, Kuridrani, Giteau, Cooper, Genia, Smith, Higganbotham and Skelton that opposition players and coaches would need to worry about.

These players create doubt in the opposition’s mind, they create stress simply through reputation, as all good players do, and they have the ability turn games.

There are strong leaders throughout the team in Slipper, Moore, Higganbotham, Genia and Cooper, not to mention Australian rugby legends like Smith and Giteau. There is experience, attacking ability, defensive starch, turnover ability, strong kickers and most importantly a team of players who can think their way out of a problem on the pitch.

Finally, I think it is a team that is capable of playing multiple game types, ranging from the 1 dimensional kicking game perfected by South Africa, to the running game used at the Waratahs and is a team, that if the coach can get to play to their potential has some world-class players in it – which is actually what I think Cheika can do.

In the interests of completeness, my remaining squad would be:

24. Fainga’a/Hanson – too close to call
25. Holmes
26. Pocock
27. McMahon
28. Horwill
29. White
30. Hunt
31. Horne

I know I said I did not rate Horwill but his experience in the squad is valuable and in an emergency, he would still do a job and not be overawed.

Hunt could be a very good player I feel and you cannot discount him based on this year’s form under a shocking coach, he is potentially a very good player and I genuinely believe that he would not skip a beat if called up to start a World Cup final, he is composure and experience personified (although I realistically expect Beale to get the call up).

I should note finally that if Smith does not start then Pocock does, Hooper is a bench option!

So Roarers, thoughts – how would you rate my team?

And can we try and keep the discussion free of bias and club loyalty and focus on analysis. I would love to see a genuine debate, not a slanging match. Let’s see if we can put state loyalties aside, even if those in charge of the game seem incapable of doing so.