We at The Roar are loved by fans (and generally hated by clubs and organisations) because we let people say what they really think about things. In this case, we’re going to let everyone raise any question they like about the Wallabies’ Rugby World Cup squad.
So fire away, but to get you going, I’ve included a few curly questions of my own.
It’s worth flagging that a couple of questions about the squad don’t make it a bad squad. I think it’s a pretty good squad! Go Wallabies and all that.
WALLABIES RUGBY WORLD CUP SQUAD
Where’s the third hooker?
As Red Kev rightly pointed out more or less straight after the squad was announced, if you don’t have a player who can play hooker named in your 23-man squad on match day, you could risk copping a penalty from World Rugby. Is it a forfeit? Loss of points? A fine?
The laws read as follows:
If there are 23 players in a squad, you must name “Six players who can play in the front row”.
Now that introduces a little bit of vagary. The law goes on to say.
(b) Prior to the match teams must advise the referee of their front row players and replacements [six in total in international matches]. Each player in the front row and any potential replacements must be suitably trained and experienced.
(c) The replacement of a front row player must come from the suitably trained and experienced players who started the match or from nominated replacements. A player other than a nominated front row player is permitted to play in the front row only when uncontested scrums are being played and there are no available front row replacements.
(d) A suitably trained and experienced front row forward may start the match in another position.
That makes it much clearer.
There’s no third suitably trained hooker to our knowledge in that squad, so what happens if Steven Moore or Tatafu Polota-Nau get injured? Is Toby Smith in super secret hooker training?
If that’s not the case, then why are the Wallabies taking a huge gamble and picking only two? That means that if one goes down, we’re done. Could it be game over before it began (unless we replace one of the hookers in the squad, in which case there’s no swapsies back allowed).
This is what Wikipedia (not that it’s uncited) says about this issue:
Only players in these squads will be eligible to take part; a player can be replaced for medical or compassionate reasons, but would not be allowed to return to the squad. There is also a stand-down period of 72 hours before the new player is allowed to take the field.
That would be a terrible thing to happen at a Rugby World Cup.
UPDATE: The laws here are long and complex, but the gist of it is that you can name a 22-man team if you don’t have a suitable replacement hooker. There is no mention of the sanctions, and the full laws are published in a comment below.
Where do you get the extra spot from if you can only name 31 players (which, after all, equates to two players in every position, pretty much).
Well, we’ve named four flankers and two number 8s, including Sean McMahon for some reason. There’s also no Scott Higginbotham, who handily can play both 6 and 8. He’s also from the Rebels, so could fill any imaginary Rebels quota.
Then we’ve named Wycliff Palu, who played as poorly against New Zealand at Eden Park as Higginbotham did against South Africa. These are the questions, people, to which there are no answers.
We also named five wingers. Everyone knows you need more wingers.
Which leads us to…
Why have we named five wingers?
This question pretty well asks itself.
They’re all good players, but do you really want five basically wingers instead of, say, another outside centre or fullback? Is Rob Horne REALLY that different to Henry Speight, to Ashley-Cooper, to Joe Tomane? Are they all going to get game time? Like, actually?
Or we could have named another halfback you know. Which brings us to…
Why is Nic White not there?
Oh, hey Nic White, thanks for winning us that game against New Zealand that time recently.
You’ve got great finishing skills, and can kick goals from 50 metres. That’s why it was so hard to cut you.
Kane Douglas is there? Am I missing something?
I’m sure Kane Douglas is a ripper bloke, and I have nothing against him or the way he plays the game. But what happened to James Horwill and all those good performances in the Rugby Championship? It looks to me, through my squad-specific magnifying glass, to be another case of the Nic Whites and the fast-vanishing cred for playing well.
It will go down as one of life’s great mysteries, like why cigar nubs get so unspeakably gross, or what happened to your golf ball when you hit it dead straight down the fairway, and suddenly it’s gone.
Nothing a press release apology from Michael Cheika can’t fix, I suppose.
Alright Roarers, those are my curly questions for Cheika. What are yours?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Daveski Coleman averaged 60 minutes per game. In only 2 games he played less than 40 minutes. They were either side of a period where he didn't play for 2 weeks so was likely injured and went off in one and started off the bench on return. Barring that he has played 40 minutes or greater every game so likely did start.
StMike
Guest
Sharminator, replacements must be suitably trained and experienced to permit contested scrums. Give us a break on last minute training a spare prop to play at 2. We will lose every scrum; every scrum in their half will end up with a penalty; line outs will become a disaster (not that ours are going well right now anyway). When our house is in order I'll start worrying about the makeup of the Pumas squad.
Red Kev
Roar Guru
That's a typo - one out of about 18 times I've typed it. Forfeit is a very real risk - not in terms of the match not actually being played - but of the result being wiped and Australia losing regardless. Everyone thinks that it is not a risk because two people won't get injured in that 48 hour window. That is overly simplistic. All it takes is a niggle that needs a rest for one front rower and a simple mishap (tripping off the bus, back spasms the day of the game, a dodgy curry the night before).
Nobrain
Guest
Sorry I made a mistake , the prop to replace Diaz is Orlandi and not Postiglioni.
Mike
Guest
In fairness, Smith was not available for selection at RWC 2011. There was no 60 test rule in those days. But I agree very much that RWC is not the place to cap a prop. Particularly when one of the other two looseheads has only 9 tests caps (and only 1 start).
Mike
Guest
I actually don't have a problem with Pocock at 8, now that I have seen him play it. He looks quite at home there. But that then begs the question why he didn't play there in Bled 2. Although if Cheika was giving him a rest or he was carrying a niggle I can understand it. But then why not give Slipper a rest, instead of three starts and one bench out of four tests? If he goes down to injury we are relying on Sio (9 tests, only 1 start) and Smith (0 tests).
Mike
Guest
"It really doesn’t matter that much as the difference between him and Douglas is negligible and I haven’t been watching them train. Have you?" No, but I have been watching Horwill getting a gruelling work out by Pumas, Boks and ABs, and acquitting himself reasonably well. I have also been watching Douglas play 17 minutes of test. This is not a black-arm-band-we-are-all doomed comment, but I am surprised. "Secondly, Horwill’s selection in the squad was initially met with derision. Now his non-selection is being criticized." There is a reason for that. But then, I wasn't being derisory about Horwill. For me, its always whether his past proven test performance can be unlocked. I wouldn't put Douglas in quite the same category. "On a side note, it seems to me that Cheika picked this squad before TRC even started. That means there is some plan in place. Have a little faith." Okay, but then why not give Douglas some game time in TRC, if that is the case?
Mike
Guest
"And that killed us in the pool match against Ireland." No it didn't. Anyone who thinks that Beau Robinson or Matt Hodgson (as he was playing then) could have made a difference in that match is delusional The fact is that back then we had no depth behind Pocock, whereas today we do have some. In 2011 our team was not good at a hard grinding game, particularly under Bryce Lawrence (look at the game before and the game after under him).
Mike
Guest
Cruel but fair
Mike
Guest
"If Cheiker had selected differently with a different philosophy his future would have altered with those changes." Errr right, so jokerman could have selected the Wallabies team to beat the All Blacks. Stick with the first four letters in your handle.
Nobrain
Guest
I think is pretty much the best we have. I have different opinion regarding the non selection of Carizza that in my opinion is the best jumper in the lineout ( Argentina usually strugles in this area) . Imo Albacete is ourbest lock but his differences with the coach ( called him a liar) cannot be fixed, and the second best are Lavanini and Carizza. It is a shame that we lost Figalo, Diaz, and Herrera ( knee surgey in july, he might make it) so we are short in props. For a team that base his game in scrums is a lot of handicap we are giving.
Red Kev
Roar Guru
You are making the overly simplistic assumption that the only way Australia runs into trouble is if two front rowers get injured in the 48 hour window. I have to say it does not surprise me that so many people can't think beyond the simple. Sio picks up a niggle in one game. He will be fine in a week but he can't plsy the next game. This is a very common occurence in rugby. Now Australia has no last minute cover to the front row as all their available players are named. Stephen Moore has back spasms again on game day - it happened last world cup. Now Australia is in strife. MAYBE Law 3.5(g) allows the game to continue with only 22 for Australia or with the injured Sio on the bench. Regardless if Australia can't cover the first replacement to all three positions in the front row the matter goes to the tournament committee. Forfeit does not mean the match isn't played in the RWC. It means regardless of the result, Australia will not get points from it. One player covering six positions that are mandatory in the rules is simply poor risk management. I really hope it blows up in Cheika's face. Not because I want him or the Wallabies to fail, but because I want to log on to The Roar and laugh at all of you.
Bakkies
Guest
He has to pick a match day squad before than though.
Hello
Roar Rookie
It does make you wonder Nobrain. Also what is your take on the Argie squad?
Sharminator
Roar Rookie
Injury rule for this RWC is 48 hours, not 72 for a replacement to join the squad, so there if even less risk.
Hello
Roar Rookie
Kaks He did have that perfect swan dive over the ruck
Sharminator
Roar Rookie
Cant do that ... in international rugby you have to name a 23 name bench, however Australia has 7 front rowers, and as long as its players are "suitably trained and experienced" any one of the props in the squad can be nominated as a replacement hooker, as “3.5 M It is not the responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row replacements nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility.” In other words the Wallabies can nominate a prop, who hasnt played hooker in a test, as the replacement hooker. For this RWC if a hooker goes down more than 48 hours before a match, the player can be replaced (not 72 hours as in the 2011 RWC). If not, the extra prop will be nominated as reserve hooker. Obviously Cheika realises this and is and has been taking appropriate precautions, with some of the props forming at hooker for scrum practice. Argentina have also only included 2 hookers in their squad.
Sharminator
Roar Rookie
Comments from Leinster supporters when he left were joyful, as they saw Douglas as a waste of space ...
Sharminator
Roar Rookie
The number of players who can throw in the ball is sometimes surprising, these days there is a lot of sevens rugby, and many of the Wallabies came through the sevens program, where there are no XVs front rowers playing, so there are actually quite a lot of backrowers and backs who have the ability to throw in ... in XVs the lineout is more complicated, but Im sure they have thought about the scenario and have it covered.
Sharminator
Roar Rookie
Agree completely Sluggy, in addition for this tournament the rules allow a replacement in 48 hours, rather than the 72 from 2011.