Anyone that’s been involved in the selection of sporting teams at any level knows that it’s a rare event to go from one game to the next with an unchanged line-up.
The further down the pyramid you go, the harder the job gets; players go up and down grades, players’ availability changes, injuries take longer to get over, jobs happen.
As you go up the pyramid the job doesn’t necessarily get any easier, and there may even be some common curve balls too, but the impact on the individuals significantly increases. Drop a player in a professional setup, and you’re potentially affecting his livelihood.
At the highest level, all the factors above apply, but then you add scrutiny, debate, rumours and politicking of selection at its zenith.
Any possible selection decision will be debated in the lead-up, and dissected and rationalised and debated even more in the aftermath.
This is where we find Michael Cheika this week, as he mulls over his side to face South Africa on Saturday night in Brisbane.
Since the twin Bledisloe Cup losses last month, armchair selectors have recommended anywhere between a bare minimum of changes and ‘drop the lot of them, they’re all bloody hopeless’.
And that’s just the posts that aren’t calling for Cheika’s head first and foremost.
A common rationale for change is that to keep doing that same thing and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity. But the thing here is that chopping and changing has done nothing for the Wallabies in 2016. (Click to Tweet)
In fact, the ‘same thing’ the Wallabies have been doing in 2016 is chopping and changing at the selection table.
Cheika made five changes between the first and second Tests against England in June, and another five between the second and third Tests.
Much was then made of the fact that the team for the first Bledisloe Test included 13 of the starting XV from the Rugby World Cup final. But that first Bledisloe team included seven changes in the starting XV alone from the third Test against England, plus whole new bench. The point being made was supposed to be about stability, but it overlooked 15 changes from the previous game!
Another five starting-side changes were made for the second Bledisloe Test in Wellington.
We decry the lack of cohesion in the Wallabies attack, and lament that ‘it looked like they’d just introduced themselves to each other in the change room’. Of course they hadn’t, but there really hasn’t been much in the way of combination developing in 2016. Israel Folau, perhaps, has been the only constant.
And so here we head into another Test week, and it’s time to debate changes again. Injury has played a role in changes made this season already, and may yet play a role this week. But even if everyone was fit and ‘training the house down’ how many would we want retained to face the Boks?
Cheika is on a hiding to nothing this week. Make a string of changes and he’s just shuffling the deckchairs, make no changes and he’s a selection dunce without a clue.
So what does he do?
In the hotly debated areas of midfield and backrow, he has to back his combinations wherever possible, while treading that inevitably fine line between too many and not enough tweaks.
If Quade Cooper stays at 10 with Will Genia at scrumhalf, and Bernard Foley stays at 12, then why not play Folau at 13 properly and run him at Damien de Allende?
If the ‘Pooper’ combination is to be abandoned – not before time, I hear plenty of you saying – then bringing in someone like Sean McMahon doesn’t make the side stronger than with Michael Hooper and David Pocock in tandem. If it’s not a strong, ball-carrying No.8 coming in, then Cheika may as well stick with Hooper-Pocock-Scott Fardy in the backrow and have them carry on doing bits of each others’ job.
The risk of making too many changes is that that lack cohesion continues for another Test. And given the Wallabies’ record in 2016, a nod toward pragmatism perhaps isn’t such a silly idea this week.
Squirrel
Roar Rookie
We will get flogged by 20 by the springboks and ROARERS will say how great the halves played. They will blame Hooper and Moore and the so called gurus will just follow it thru.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Louwrens is the one I have hope for but need to see him start playing significant game time at the Force if he is to force his way onwards
Timbo (L)
Guest
A back rower from Our lady of the Sacred Heart's Under 7 Girls team would own Hooper at the Breakdown. It might pay to remember that he wasn't selected for his breakdown prowess. The better question is: Do we need the spiritual insurance cover that Hooper offers in the 13/11 channel or have we selected a guys good enough to do their duties without a chaperone i.e. a full time winger, not an exiled center. Perhaps Foley will be our next #11, he, like some other Tah's players, is un-flushable and the 10 and 12 spots are taken.
Reds Tragic
Guest
Amen RussNev! Moore out and even though I am a loyal reds supporter, Simmons too - he needs to show some mongrel for the reds next year before he is sent back into the green and gold. Although I wouldn't have Foley in there, probably Godwin - Foley needs a rest...
Akari
Roar Rookie
Agreed Nigel and Timani needs to be given a go and there's no better opportunity than the coming test for an intro for the big man. Don't really care whether he starts or comes off the bench in the 1st half at 5-10 minutes.
Timbo (L)
Guest
Brett, An interesting look at all the other side of a controversial topic. Well done. I am not sure you use of stats was justified though. You speak of many changes, but they were in what I call commodity positions. Trying not to disrespect the tight 5 you can swap like for like without effecting much change of performance. In my opinion, with the exception of avoiding 50 minute locks, the selection changes hadn't been where they actually made a difference. You are spot on with breaking up Pooper only to bring in MacMahon, As much as I love Mad Dog's work, A guy like Timani has a better skill set. MacMahon should have the bench, covering the Back Row I particularly Liked your quote " doing bits of each others’ job" This observation is the tip of an iceberg, I would understand selecting a #7 that can jump in a lineout but cant fetch alongside a #8 that can fetch but not jump -this would be synergy.. What the Pooper combo has given us is 4,5,6,8 collectively compensating for a #7 that only has 1/2 the #7 skills and Half the #13 skills. This produces 4 very tired and bloddiied men, another with a shiny jersey and neat hair. and the #4 and #5 position being churned for being able to compensate for the skills void in the lineout. Surely the answer is to find a better back line, not to burden the pack with it's shortcomings. With the exception of introducing Cooper the back line changes have been been as you say moving deck chairs. I believe the decision to keep Foley by giving him the #12 re-enforces Cheiks "Go-Fish" Selection Policy 2 #1's, 2 #7's, 2 #10's, 2#13s. A rugby team needs to like an SAS Platoon, All players have a strong base skill set but you need to sprinkle specialized skills in key places not to use (misquoting another article) 6 Castles in a chess game.
Toanuiunno
Guest
I like you would prefer to see this as the backrow with Timani and McMahon as the 6/8. I would have Kerevi somewhere either starting or on the bench though.
Toanuiunno
Guest
Yeah that's right. I had thought at the time that link dropping some of his reds players was more to show that he wasn't biased towards them and prove that point rather than the replacements playing better and demanding a start though.
Skirttheissue
Roar Rookie
Phipps is a 'tosser'............?
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Tbh I think there is far more justification to drop Foley or Horne than there is to drop Hooper.
Nicholas Bishop
Expert
Yes. I'm sure it's far less a matter of replacing personnel en masse, and much more a matter of finding some psychological 'hooks' to build their self-belief back up to 2015 levels again. That's why you try some small details in a particular area to build that foundation, and I think the Wallabies have a decent chance to do just that against SA.
McCaw was onside?
Guest
Its entirely predictable. People dont like players being picked out of position. Team loses. Fans dont think about what really went wrong and blame what they want to, which is what they didnt want in the first place. How about you actually think about whats going wrong rather than blaming the easy targets. The problem with Aus is clearly not Fardy-Pooper. In 2015 they did extremely well with Fardy-Pooper and in 2016 there has been so many things going wrong and players playing poorly that pointing at Fardy-Pooper first is like "WTF?" to anyone actually paying attention imo. You may aswell blame the socks they are wearing. Aus won the RC, beat NZ, beat Eng in Eng, beat Wales in Wales, beat Arg and made the WC final with Fardy-Pooper. Now theyve lost a few games and true to Roar form you point the finger at the Fardy-Pooper combo. Oh well, I cant expect any better because I will never get it here. Needless to say...youre all barking up the wrong tree.
McCaw was onside?
Guest
It doesnt make sense. Its just a "the grass is always greener" selection and it wont improve the team because that is not the problem.
Rt
Guest
I love you just the way you are.... Btw Harry it was remiss of me not to congratulate you on a fine well researched article this week re the MV Waratah etc. mate what a read! I don't know what you do for a living but your prose is excellent. Regards AF
Rt
Guest
Memo to m checka: we need 3 genuine line out targets. Jones knew what it was like to have 2 world class 7's. He played one off the bench + boks own hooper at the breakdown. I love the bloke and wish I'd had an ounce of his talent but he gets bullied by the bokke.
Who?
Guest
Exactly Browny. Exactly what I've been saying for six months. Folau back to 14, where he won his first Wallaby caps. On the right wing, where he excelled for the Broncos and Qld. DHP in his real position of 15. Kerevi and Kuridrani at 12 and 13. Kuridrani is miles ahead of Kerevi and Folau in defence at 13. Folau has to be back to cover the high ball. And he runs in the 13 channel anyway, so if he's got that roving commission, he's going to run at (and through) de Allende anyway. Agree with your locking selection, too. Well, not Douglas (he's done the least of the Wallaby locks this year), but the other three. And I agree with you that wing is actually a problem position. We don't have great depth there currently. I can't think of many who are banging down the door for selection - not specialist wingers. Not when we're selecting converted centres (Horne and AAC), guys who've been around for ages and have gone overseas (AAC and Mitchell), guys who don't normally play wing (people talking about Kuridrani, plus Hodge and Phipps - though I think Phipps is a natural winger). There's not a huge amount out there (don't say Naiyaravoro...).
Harry Jones
Expert
A song for the Wallaby selection committee: "Don't go changin' To play the Boklings Don't change the colour Of your hair."
CUW
Guest
@ Brett McKay: is Chris Alcock any good? he has joined the brumbies .....
Scott
Guest
This is precisely the problem Nick, Cheika's stubbornness. It's either Hooper or Pocock to start. But He just can't drop Hooper, or Foley or Horne for that matter.
Fin
Guest
Hi Nick, Cheika also made a similar point about the self belief recently. After Bledisloe 1 he revealed that even last year some of the players didn't beleive they could achieve what they did, and that maybe just right now some of them don't beleive they can improve on 2015. At the moment Cheika thinks it's their mental skills that needs to progress probably more than their football skills.