Five talking points from the Wallabies' win over Uruguay

My post is meaningless? You accuse me of not listening? Look in the mirror. How is it emotive? You said the same number of tries were scored in 2013 vs 2014 - suggesting that the quality of our backline play was therefore not diminished. I explained the difference in the nature of those tries. Cooper DIRECTLY created the majority as I demonstrated, Foley had no relation to the try scoring in those blow-out scores vs France aside from 1 effort in Sydney. He was 1/12. How difficult is that to understand? Cooper was 6/9 against the Celtic nations (3/4 of the home nations) and 0/1 vs England. It wasn't about being 'flashy'. Our outside backs were scoring tries vs France that had zip, zero, nothing to do with anything on Foley's part other than him being on the field at the same time. Just as demonstrated vs Italy in 2013, our outside backs can pile on points against weak sides. They repeated that vs France. However against tier one nations away from home, just relying on individual brilliance to score points is not a strategy. How am I being ridiculous in pointing this out? I am not saying for one second that Quade's mere presence will ensure we never lose a game of rugby, just like Larkham's presence in the 2003-2007 period failed to net us a Bledisloe. There are 14 other players on the field, tactics, coach directives etc to consider. Yet we have a much better chance of scoring points against tier one sides with him on there. I went point by point to show you examples of this that you dismiss as if it would make no difference. Well then, where were all the tries in Spring Tour 2014 with Foley running the show? What about Fiji last week? No Dan Carter couldn't make that pass, and nor does he have to. He is part of a well oiled machine that has few if any flaws. We don't have that luxury. We need to be smarter. Our forwards traditionally achieve parity at best. That was my point regarding our pack. I was comparing it to our golden era wallabies, who even with an All Blacks like machine across the park, still couldn't win a Grand Slam. We pushed it very close with a mediocre pack, lacking its best player (Pocock). Quade was instrumental in compensating for our weaknesses through his creativity and some excellent coaching. There is one thing you CAN help me with though Mike if you would be so generous in all your wisdom "Dave, I will say it again, although I fear logic is lost on you: David Pocock did not play a game from the end of RWC 2011 until 2015". If David Pocock hadn't played since 2011 WC, then who on earth was captaining the Wallabies against Scotland in 2012?

He won a great deal of sympathy because of the unjustified smearing of him by some in New Zealand. You can hear that in the voices of the NZ commentators, i.e. they are keen to give him every credit. Good for him. His kicking was flawless. His defence was frankly no more than what other do regularly, but it contrasted with his earlier flaws, i.e. he had ironed them out. His general play was about as successful as Foley would also demonstrate against NZ, albeit with a different style. “Quade had 1 try assist and all our tries were scored by our backline.” Fair enough, so you acknowledge that Foley deserves plaudits also when he is No 10 and tries are scored by the backline? “This video here actually shows the highlights. It’s basically him doing everything he did against Uruguay” No it isn’t. Sure you can take an individual pass and say, “yeah, that is the same as what he did at one point against Uruguay, but that is meaningless. He played much more freely against Uruguay. What he does here is about as effective as what Foley did against NZ the next year, just a different style.

Dave, Rationally, it is a pathetic argument and you have done an excellent job of proving why. Your post is mainly emotional descriptions of great things Cooper did which didn’t result in tries. Now that's okay, as long as you acknowledge that this can be said about every fly-half who has ever played. If you went through the mistakes he made on that tour in the same detail, the list would be twice as long. And what is the point of this anyway? As I wrote above, Quade was involved in just under half the tries on that tour, not the “almost every try” as claimed by Dave. And the end result is no different to when Foley plays at No 10. “This doesn’t count his work prior to these points in directing the play and getting us into scoring positions.” Exactly the same applies to Foley, hence why Australia does just as well with him at flyhalf as it does with Cooper. “So against the Celtic nations 9 tries scored. He had a DIRECT hand in 6.” 5 actually, I don’t count Cummins. But why “the Celtic nations” anyway? You have arbitrarily cut out Italy and England, so sure you can lift “less than half the tries”, to “just over half the tries”. What does this tinkering with stats prove, except that you can’t deal straight? “Again, we came very close to a grand slam. That call vs England was effectively a 14 point turn around, as we went from a try scoring position to instantly conceding 7 points.” In a fairy floss world where you assume that two crucial things are changed in our favour, and nothing changed against us, sure. The fact is that we lost the England game by 7 points, and sure with two things going in our favour we could have won it – yet with only one thing going against us we could have lost either of two matches which we won: Scotland by 6 points and Wales by 4 points. “This all happened mind you behind a forward pack which did well but was hardly dominant, and lacking our best player (Pocock).” Dave, I will say it again, although I fear logic is lost on you: David Pocock did not play a game from the end of RWC 2011 until 2015. He wasn’t available to Foley either. What is the possible relevance of this point? “To come so close to a grand slam in such circumstances I think was excellent, and considering the nature of the tries above, his skill set was essential in making it happen.” I agree it was excellent work by the whole team, and logic says that we would have done just as well under Foley, even though he isn’t as flashy. “Of course, this tour came off the back of the RC tail-end. Vs SA he was players player; vs Argentina he was again instrumental in a record win; vs NZ he was widely considered best on ground. All this was reflected in the John Eales points tally of course.” Dave, can we be serious, please, just for a minute? Many players get players player, but that doesn’t mean they are effective. Against South Africa we scored Nil tries with Quade at 10, until the last few minutes of the second game when it was lost. Against Argentina yes he was in a record win, and he very nearly gave us our first loss against them in the preceding match. Against New Zealand he had the same effect that Foley did the following year. “Do you see the pattern? Cooper directly sets up and creates try scoring opportunities for his team mates.” So you keep telling us, and the final result is: exactly the same as Foley. You need to start learning what a flyhalf actually does and how he influences games instead of staring at a long pass, and saying ”oh that’s wonderful”. “He is a play maker. He creates the space, and more often than not executes the pass to enable his team mates to score – in cases like last night, or as seen multiple times in 2013 by throwing passes only he can execute.” Yes, and the end result is: exactly the same as when Foley plays at 10. Dan Carter couldn't execute those passes either, but so what?

Hard to know who is softer.

He won plaudits for putting in a complete performance against top opposition. I haven't watched the game for a while so I'm only commenting on statistics, but we scored 4 tries. Quade had 1 try assist and all our tries were scored by our backline. In addition Cooper made 8 of 11 tackles, made try saving tackles and kicked at 100% This video here actually shows the highlights. It's basically him doing everything he did against Uruguay, but kicking better. The AAC try assist is almost identical to the Mitchell try. Many of the LB assists are identical to his try assists against Uruguay. But of course the AB's are much stronger so they are able to limit the pain. https://youtu.be/kBBbHBSPZLg

Best thing is none of your opinions matter Quade won't be there thank the heavens above he can hang out with his buddy Mundine and watch from the stands

The first law of life outside the UK is to never pay any attention to any English commentator. They are only good for laughing at :)

Mike, Above Dave wasn't me but I agree with his sentiment. Those results on the spring tour 2013 were close, and his touches made all the difference is my point in the crunch games. Many of the blow-out tries were vs Italy so lets not count that. Vs Scotland; Inside ball to Folau to score. Then he had two touches and a wrap to set up CFS to score. 2/2 Vs Wales we did bomb a number of tries admittedly from breaks he engineered. Folau twice, Cummins once, Genia once. He directly set up CLL and Tomane tries, plus worked us into position for the Folau try, but Genia was the instrumental one there so wont count it. 2/3 Vs Ireland he set up the play leading Cummins try (great ball from Moore too). He put Cummins away with a near identical pass to the Mitchell ball but the badger was held up. He scored himself from the following scrum. Hooper got two from non Cooper involvements. 2/4 So against the Celtic nations 9 tries scored. He had a DIRECT hand in 6. This doesn't count his work prior to these points in directing the play and getting us into scoring positions. Again, we came very close to a grand slam. That call vs England was effectively a 14 point turn around, as we went from a try scoring position to instantly conceding 7 points. This all happened mind you behind a forward pack which did well but was hardly dominant, and lacking our best player (Pocock). To come so close to a grand slam in such circumstances I think was excellent, and considering the nature of the tries above, his skill set was essential in making it happen. Of course, this tour came off the back of the RC tail-end. Vs SA he was players player; vs Argentina he was again instrumental in a record win; vs NZ he was widely considered best on ground. All this was reflected in the John Eales points tally of course. As for 2014, I agree Beale (and the poor weather conditions) did not help with our backline. I have also credited Foley on this forum as having two good matches for Australia - Vs France in Brisbane and Vs NZ at Suncorp. By 'good', I mean our attack worked effectively. Of the two French blow-out scores in Brisbane and Sydney, how influential was Foley however? In Brisbane we scored 7 tries. Foley had 0/7 contribution. All were off the back of abysmal French defence and fumbles, and nice outside backs individual skills, tackle busts and interplay. Not through play facilitated by Foley. He did kick well though (6/7), and I'll give him credit for being the no.10 for such a big win. Again in Sydney, 5 tries scored. Foley's contribution was 1/5 (inside ball to Beale, who gave to Hooper). Skelton created more tries than he did. Foley kicked well again in that match however (4/5). Do you see the pattern? Cooper directly sets up and creates try scoring opportunities for his team mates. He is a play maker. He creates the space, and more often than not executes the pass to enable his team mates to score - in cases like last night, or as seen multiple times in 2013 by throwing passes only he can execute. Foley doesn't do this. I appreciate that the structures are different, so the responsibility isn't on him alone. The problem is as you say, against these 'lesser teams', we look ok with individual brilliance, yet that isn't enough to win a world cup in my opinion. Its the classic 'give it to izzy' mentality, that the top teams wont be troubled by. Its one out. Its predictable. So its not a pathetic argument Mike. Call it whatever you will, but to me its blindly obvious what a fundamental difference Cooper brings to his team's attacking prospects - both for Australia and QLD.

Back tracker cooper ??

Was Lealifano the No 12 in the recent Barbarians squad? He looked pretty good there if it was...better than the current wallabies...

Did you not see the game ? self explanatory really !

TWAS, I have never suggested that Quade is a bad player, nor indeed less than a very good one. Dave the Quade-worshipper made wild assertions about Cooper's play-making ability that bear no relation to reality. I showed how each of them was factually incorrect, or misleading in their context. Re your points: "Quade was great against NZ in 2013" He played one game against NZ, and received plaudits for outstanding goal-kicking and no defensive lapses. But Dave is making assertions about his playmaking ability, remember?. Quade set up one try in that game against NZ. The following year, Bernard Foley also played one game against NZ, and also scored one try. "and players player against SA." Of course Quade will get such awards from time to time, but how is it relevant in context of Dave's assertions about Cooper's ability to create tries? In the first match against South Africa at Suncorp we scored zero tries. In the second match in Cape Town we scored one try at the death, when the game was already lost.

Mike, Quade was great against NZ in 2013 and players player against SA. The only tier 1 nation he didn't play in that period was France. He played 10 consecutive tests. Was ineffective fir 2, then of the next 8 the loss to England was his only average game. Still was potentially one if our best 5 players in that game.

Thurston "can tackle"? That'll just about do me. One of the weakest defenders in either code.

Why Dave? As I have shown in the long post above, your assumptions about the relative merits of Cooper and Foley are simply wrong: *You assumed that Cooper had a hand in every try on the 2013 EOYT - he didn't, it was just than half. Not a bad performance for a fly-half, but nowhere near the God-like performance you claim. *You assumed that our backline scoring fell away after 2013 EOYT - it didn't, it only fell away when Beale replaced Foley *You assumed that backline tries were more prevalent in the 2013 EOYT than in any comparable time - they weren't, our backline scored more tries per match in the France series when Foley was the 10 *You ignored the relative effectiveness of Foley and Cooper in TRC - in fact, the number of tries per TRC match in 2013 when Cooper was 10 is almost identical to the number of tries per TRC match in 2014 when Foley was 10. I won't complain if Cheika picks Quade for England - it could be justified on this last game, if certain other things are done as well. But your arguments are just one-eyed Quade-worship. There is in reality little to choose between the two fly-halves.

Dave, you need to get a grip. You keep throwing out arguments without seeing that you are actually reinforcing Taylorman's point! Yes, Cooper did well on the 2013 EOYT, against second- and third-tier teams. That was Taylorman's very point. Against top tier teams in 2013, by which I mean England, South Africa and New Zealand, he didn't have any significant effect. We all know Quade can rip third tier teams apart - look at what he did to USA and Russia in RWC 2011. But then you get the better teams where his sublime performances rarely happen, often the reverse. "If he was wearing a black jersey you would be hailing those performances." No he wouldn't, because an AB 10 would achieve those sort of performances against top tier teams. . "We were one dodgy touch judge call away from a Grand Slam." No, we lost that game against England by 7 points, so ignoring one dodgy call only gets you to a draw. By comparison, we only defeated Scotland and Wales by 6 points and 4 points - any number of things could have happened differently to turn those games into losses. "Pocock wasn’t playing on that tour either." Pocock didn't play in any tour or any series from the end of RWC 2011 until 2015. How is his absence relevant? "Like yesterday, his hand was in nearly every single try on that tour." No it wasn't. Not even close. He had involvement of some kind in just under HALF the tries scored on that tour. With howlers like this one, can you see why you don't convince people? "Do you think its a coincidence that our backline play dropped off the face of the earth from 2014 onwards?" Rubbish. Just look at the series that immediately followed, France's tour of Australia - we scored 12 tries in that series, 9 of which were scored by the backs. Foley was the 10 when all the tries were scored. We scored more backline tries per match in that series than we did on the 2013 EOYT. Where our backline stopped scoring tries in 2014 was when Mackenzie, for some unknown reason decided to play Beale at No 10 instead of Foley for the 2014 rugby championship. Once Foley was brought back as 10, the rate of tries scored in the rugby championship returned to the same rate it had when Quade was the 10 during 2013 TRC - about 2 tries per match. Australia's backline has performed much the same whether Foley or Quade were at 10, but not when Beale was at 10. That is presumably why Cheika has two preferred flyhalves on this tour - Cooper and Foley. "Or how last night when he was off the field we bumbled around, then when he returned magically we started piling points on again?" Dave, this is a pathetic argument. Quade played excellently last night, but the reasons you give don't prove it. With the flyhalf in the bin and the fullback forced to cover, of course the backline didn't look as good for 10 minutes - apart from anything else they were trying to cover for the loss of a man. "I don’t see any coincidences there." No indeed, just poorly thought-out arguments.

Horwill was the best wallaby playing lock. No lock has played a better international game this season. Carter struggled for the wallabies last year and was down on form at super level this year.

One English commentator makes an interesting point: says Auatralia are in danger of being underdone and lacking match hardness. Is the rugby championship too much of a distant memory?

EJ I just watched the replay again and think you're very unfair. The height was acceptable. I say this because Cooper was immediately in front of the player when he caught it. Going low in this particular case would not have been the best execution. Immediately wrapping the stationary player up would be. Certainly if there was space and you were moving, low would be. But as Cooper was stationary it would have only given the player more time to pass. As for the lateness. Watch the replay closely. He has the ball when Cooper grabs him and starts to throw him. At that point it cannot be a late tackle. The ball carrier basically just lets go of the ball as he cant pass properly and the ball almost stays in the same spot as he is thrown away from it. If he wasn't thrown the ball likely would have gone to ground.

Higginbotham for lock. Right...