UPDATE: Michael Cheika names Wallabies team for England clash

QC may as well head home now. Foley is the man!

I wrote that (a) several people have mentioned the issues with our lineout, contrary to your assertion, and (b) our lineout wasn't "woeful". Your long response used a lot of words but doesn't ever seem to engage with the issue. Your various comments on the scrum are also waffle. I pointed out how your earlier post was misconceived or simply wrong on several points, in particular that pre-game BS has actually been relied on by the English for far longer than anything done by the Australians, that your assumption about the high moral ground was entirely misconceived, and that your point about first scrum simply isn't true. Again, its impossible to discern an actual response to those points in your rambling reply.

Spot on.

Nice try, RO, but that wasn't the point being made. It was suggested that having Quade rather than Foley would result in significant increase in tries. If its just a small increase, who cares anyway? So take your own advice and read my post next time before responding to it. "3 tries is more tries than 1 try." Yes, and you have to go back to 2010 to find 3 tries scored. Seems you are living a long way in the past.

Hey Not Bothered, My point was that even a small increase in the amount of tries scored is "more" tries. Read Mike's comment first.

And Fiji are renowned for line out steals are they? Hardly a gauge there You say "Sometimes they do. Sometimes also they are just cr*p, by their own standards, like they were in Sydney. What has this got to do with England forwards anyway?" Stupid argument - I suggested they make play cat and mouse games like the AB's sometimes do - nothing wrong with that at all - so I made comparison of possible tactics which make a nonsense out your last question and redundant You say "Oh please – are you seriously telling us that the English haven’t been using the same pregame BS propaganda since at least 2001? Some (although by no means all) of Australia’s problems in the past have been due to referees coming into matches with preconceived ideas, heavily influenced by said BS propaganda. " Wow brilliant logic based on what i said...I pointed out this was just PR BS...gee must because I KNOW it is a tactic used by sides - all sides - nice point but negates nothing whatsoever what I said as I never claimed England and others don't do it... You say 'Who has suggested that Australia “takes high moral ground”? People are questioning the technique of the English scrum – they are entitled to do that. Stop being so sensitive.' Again - rebuttal and ironically it is you who sounds sensitive about the Wallabies scrum and not me about England...silly argument because you assume a double negative that does not exist in my statement. I made a statement based on observation that the Wallabies have used similar tactics...the assumption you made was that I am saying the Wallabies are taking high moral ground...I bad misread as this is statement that simply points out a truism and I go on to state that ALL teams have done so in the past ...and England do use illegal tactics but hey don't we all at times eh? You state "I guarantee 100% that behind closed doors the Wallabies are a little nervous about every aspect of their game. So are the English." Again you are simply expanding on what I said not negating it. I was discussing one aspect of the game the scrum...Your point that they are nervous about every aspect of the game proves what exactly? That I'm right? The scrum will certainly be something they will be worried about ? And I was not discussing England being nervous because i was talking about the scrum and that is one area I doubt they are shivering in their boots about - wary maybe but really nervous about - no I doubt it. So again you are merely expanding on what I have said rather than negate anything there...!!! you say.. "Sounds to me like you are taking an each way bet." An each way bet on what exactly? That If Australia holds parity then the English bluffing is the reason? And of course I damn well taking an each way bet on the possible tactics England may use.. Then you say "..the first scrum may impress the spectators, but it is rarely predictive of the final tally in scrums." Actually if a team decimates another side at scrum time in the first scrum, the other team had better get it together or it certainly will be "predictive of the final tally in scrums." But I never said the first scrum would be that. No - I said England may play cat and mouse or they may try to destroy the Wallaby scrum first up. And there is a huge psychological advantage in using both tactics if of course they are successful. Again and your point is? You say... Actually I think several people have already mentioned it The Australian lineout problem). But where did you get “woeful” from – are you sure you watched the games? " Other way round. Clearly no one would be talking about the line out problem if it wasn't a major issue and it has been. They lost 4 in a row to the All Blacks and both Argentina and SA disrupted the Wallaby lineout. At test level I think that is pretty woeful and I am entitled to my opinion. The Wallaby line out was talked about earlier - sure - but the discussion about the English test has been focused on the scrum - the ref - the bonus point and the table and Pocock and Hooper at the breakdown and largely the line out has gone off the radar in newspapers and TV for this game so I stand by what say You say "As far as I can see, the results in the Fiji game made absolutely no difference to Welsh comments about English scrummaging." The one point you may have some ground on- but only some- because the Welsh newspapers and TV were both fuming about the English tactics at the scrum - but after the Fiji game they started to come to the conclusion that English tactics or not the Wales scrum was a real concern...so yes I will concede some ground to you there but there - a little only Anyway enjoy the game mate

I totally disagree and if you think the reduced competition and favorable draw didn't favor the Wallabies this year you don't know much about sport As for for rant about comparisons between tier two nations and tier one etc etc - That has nothing to do with my point but shows I touched sore point with you mate. And I did not say Cheilka was bad coach but I think people have to be objective as you ironically like to claim you are - when using the RC as guide to how good he is. I am sorry but he was not tested away from home by a SA or NZ and when push came to shove at Eden Park - the real test for any side - he was found seriously wanting This means he has no doubt learned but it does not mean that the Championship Schedule this year did not aid Cheika and the Wallabies - yes they still had to play well but in the SA game Cheika was aided by some dumb decision making by his opposite number who pulled his tight five when they had the wood on Australia until that happened even though Australia loves to claim it was all their benches doing No it was the two together that got the Wallabies back into the game but good on them but it was not JUST the bench It seems that you are one who can't be objective - Objectivity is looking at all the aspects before judging and that is what I have done. Did I say he was a bad coach - no I said the Rugby Championship favored Australia this year - a point I might add that has been made by X-Wallabies and others as well - that is what you call objectivity But you are obviously a thin skinned Wallaby supporter and clear Cheika fan - get a grip mate - the Championship was shortened and the Wallabies played the two powerhouses at home with sides experimenting with new players and combinations and players coming back from injury tested their readiness for the WC etc etc If you can't acknowledge that made a difference then you are living in tunnel and understand little about professional sport

Hey Rucking, its 2015, not 2010 and in Foleys last match against Eng 2 were scored not 1. QC averages 1 try per half and so does Foley. Work it out.

Tbh, who cares what these guys say. Its clear to anyone and everyone that they are just sore because their favs didnt get the call up. I mean its clear why Cooper hasnt been selected, hes been horrible all year. Its not rocket science. However if you dont want to see that, you wont and you will cry foul when he isnt selected. Cooper creates trys but for both teams, not just Aus. Always has but now hes not creating many (please dont mention his 3 try assists from 11 scored against Uraguay) and HASNT all year, for his own team. Anyone who is balanced can see why he isnt selected. Anyone whos not will just attack Foley, attack Cheika and be negative towards Australias chances without Cooper despite his poor form and questionable ability under pressure...when hes IN form!

Nearly spat out my coffee cs, funniest thing i've read today!

Queensland is still Eastern Oz, even though we have a pre-historic attitude to daylight saving!

@Mike extremely well argued points of argument. An objective criticism of a subject piece ... gold!!!!

If he turns it on as he did in SR. Haven't seen much of it at a test level.

Good post Moniano. Yes, this is a debating website and we log-on to have the exchange of ideas. It's not a fan site (those are boring). But it could do without the automatic bashing and the "my state team is better" arguments.

I'm with you Moniano, with hope and foreboding in a tight struggle with each other as we speak. Go the Wallabies!

I guess one forget to mention Cheika has only a couple of years to win Super Rugby title, has won also a Northern Hemisphere main trophy. He has now had less than 12 months putting the wallabies in a good position to have a good WC than 12 months ago and hopefully to win a WC. Oh also I guess one has forgotten to mention that Sir Henry has taken 2 world cups(2007 + 2011) to win one and oh again Sir Clive Woodward has taken 2 world cups (1999 +2003) to win one for England. Cheika is on the helm for less than 12 months!! So frontrow winning against ABs + Boks + Pumas does not have "huge amount of credence" - are you equating this to beating Georgia or Namibia (ABs + Boks were 1st and 2nd respectively in the ranking - Wallabies was 6th. How dare anyone takes winning against these powerhouse so lighltly). Remind me what happened on RWC 2003 - the ABs + England did beat the wallabies badly before the tournament - ABs putting 50 pts on Wallabies + England beat wallabies badly - only for the ABs to be beaten on RWC semis by the wallabies and only England just won by a drop goal in the final. Criticism is good - it is the vehicle to obtain knowledge - objective criticism that is. When it is done subjectively then it is not constructive and lots of layers to be peeled off before can be readable. A lot of criticism here comes from wanting to put subjective interests on whether State or personal first. Another case in point perhaps its a time of support for a team that was seen 12 months ago of may be not possible to progress from pool stages to possible progression or may be to winning its own pool. Thats how I love my wallabies and wishing them a very good game on Sunday against England. Good Luck Wallabies!

If the Wallabies are trying to 3 point the English to death, why is Mike Harris not in the squad?

Hey Mike, 3 tries is more tries than 1 try.

I think the below comments are also worth drawing attention to, exempting Train Without A Station above, who wrote 'social media', and not necessarily with disrespect to the authors, but as a post-modern argument: What you looking at his facebook anyway ... The video was posted on his personal site which one would assume is followed by people who are fans of Cooper. The thing is that it almost works, until you realise that Quade posted it on the internet, which is to say, he stuck it up in the one place where the entire world could see it with no trouble in a flash, the most public place that's ever existed in the entire history of humankind. So it's your fault if you hear about it.

See above.