I have said in several recent blogs on the Roar that Sean McMahon would be a good choice at No.8 long term or perhaps Lopeti Timani with the other at blindside.
For me, both these players bring skills to the No.8 position that David Pocock lacks in his overall game, not the least of which is ball carrying and as a genuine lineout option.
Michael Cheika admits that there are several contenders for the No.8 spot left vacant by David Pocock’s injury, together with his coming sabbatical next season.
He believes that 22-year-old McMahon is the front runner for the long term No.8 position.
“There’s definitely an opportunity. There’s a few guys there that will be in the mix. Ben McCalman is getting some footy under his belt, Lopeti (Timani), there’s a few other players that we’ve got our eye on, but at the moment he’s playing in the Test so he’s going to be the front runner.”
When Cheika pointed out the strengths that Sean McMahon brings to the position, things became more encouraging, as if he’d had lightbulb moment after Pocock was ruled out. Excuse my cynicism there.
That is until he made comparisons with Pocock which left me somewhat perplexed and reminded me of those accusations from some quarters that sometimes Cheika seems in denial about certain players and is reluctant to change things up.
“He’s (McMahon) done a lot of work on his jump, so we feel confident for him to be able to perform on the lineout as well. It’s nice for us to be able to add a strong ball carrier into the back row. He’s maybe not as tall as your traditional eight, but he’s starting to get some of the qualities that a traditional eight has: ball carries, a strong tackle which Poey’s got as well.”
It is that last tag that has me puzzled.
No one can deny Pocock’s strength in the tackle, but how many would call his ball carrying one of his strengths at Test level?
Notwithstanding Pocock’s breakdown brilliance, strong and consistent ball carrying has clearly been an Achilles heel in that position for the Wallabies since Pocock has been playing there.
This is especially true when compared to the ball-carrying prowess of some of those considered the very best in the world the position like New Zealand’s Kieran Read, and England’s very much improved Billy Vunipola.
Pocock made an impressive six steals against the All Blacks in the first Test, but was still outplayed by Read in that match who perhaps more than usual exposed what Pocock didn’t give the Wallabies in that position.
This for me is another Cheika moment when he does not want to come out and actually say what we all know – players like McMahon offer skill sets that are better suited to the position than David Pocock, so he tags on nonsense that alludes to Pocock’s ball carrying being one of his strengths at Test level.
Am I being too hard? Maybe. I am sure plenty will think so.
But you wouldn’t have Pocock ranging out wide with centers and wings too often like Read does for the All Blacks. McMahon you certainly could, and would.
Pocock’s class has seen him develop into a very good, but non-traditional No.8, but he still largely operates like No.7 playing 8.
McMahon stats at Super level are impressive and illustrate why he suits this position for me.
As Cheika also alluded to, he is not as tall as some traditional No.8s, but at 6.1 feet in the old scale, he is still ahead of Pocock and Hooper for height.
He can also jump – and will get better.
If we look at his stats in this year’s Super Rugby and compare them to the player many consider the best in the world in the position, Kieran Read, McMahon comes out well in all but three of the stats.
The have played almost an equal amount of game time so this makes the stats carry more weight. This however has to be balanced by the fact that by playing in the Australia conference McMahon played more games against weaker defensive sides.
Read is about almost 3 inches taller and weighs 106kg but McMahon is not a lightweight at 100kg.
Kieran Read
Tries 3
Points 15
Carries 115
Metres 360 (Av.3.13 metres per carry)
Clean Breaks 7
Defenders Beaten 9
Off Loads 15
Try Assists 5
Passes 124
Open Play Kicks 1
Lineout takes 54
Lineout Steals 4
Sean McMahon
Tries 3
Points 15
Carries 139
Metres 564 ( Av.3.98 metres )
Clean Breaks 14
Defenders Beaten 48
Off Loads 6
Try Assists 1
Passes 31
Open Play Kicks 0
Lineout Takes 19
Steals 2
These stats show that McMahon offers the skills to be a very good Test No.8 and we know that he is a strong defender. What he needs to vastly improve is his ball skills in the carry – a common problem across the Wallabies and their Super sides it needs to be said.
He needs to improve his off-loading and have better vision at passing the ball to others around him even in tight spaces as well as the open.
Read is arguably the best No.8 in the world at doing this as his number of try assists attest and we all know his off-loading ability.
McMahon will probably never be a Read in the lineout, but no other No.8 in the world can match him there, but he is still a better option than Pocock and is genuine option as well who at 22-years-old must only get better.
I think this is one of the best moves Cheika has made this year – albeit forced upon him by Pocock’s unfortunate injury. But McMahon should be in the starting side regardless.
The rest of team remains the same with the bench to be named on Friday.
Dean Mumm, has as expected, retained his position at No.6. I don’t have a problem with this, but I do hope Timani ends up there long term and the sooner the better.
This weekend’s game is watershed moment for Cheika and his Wallabies.
Two in a row on home soil with only one being truly convincing is one thing. They must win away to show they really have got better.
No easy task at a ground they have lost the last six Tests at, and the Springboks will play like they have nothing to lose.
The Rugby Championship is already done and dusted so the remaining games are not so much for the overused and abused word “pride”, because you should have pride in the jumper win or lose.
No – the remaining games are about consolidation and redemption.
South Africa need to redeem themselves before a home crowd and remind us all who they are in the world game and especially at home.
Is that part of “pride”? Well yes , but pride alone is not enough. If it was, no team would ever lose.
Australia, after being completely outclassed by the All Blacks, need to consolidate their place as the No.3 side in the world which they hold on to by the skin of their teeth.
It will also be a telling time for both coaches.
One has not shined at all and looks completely out of his depth at this level and a loss at home to the Wallabies could see loud calls for his head.
The other has looked rattled at press conferences and lost for how to go forward after making the WC final with some poor selection choices and at times, dumbfounding tactics and woeful tactical kicking skills.
But Sean McMahon starting at No.8 is a good start for me and in my opinion long overdue. I just hope, win or lose, he has a blinder.
ForceFan
Guest
@ PeterK Right on the money with your comments re Holloway. Holloway has the potential to be a great test No 8 but he has lots of work to do to earn that position.
Timbo (L)
Guest
"Mcmahon and hooper both roam in wider channels due to their superior pace" McMahon's busting run in the last test was through traffic, from the base of the ruck, it doesn't get tighter than that. I do concede that he does tend to run in the 9/10 channel as well which is a little wider but still a "Forward" Run. Hooper Scored from the 10 Channel also, but that is a close as he normally gets. His big stats are in the 13 channel and if we are comparing apples with apples, Hooper has 87m - the best of any player with a number less than 8. But in the 13 channel, Kerevi has over 300m with less minutes on the field. Stats are meaningless out of context. "There is no way that Mcmahon is better in contact than Hooper." I can't agree with that. Hooper's ball retention in contact is woeful and his pilfer stats are non-existent. AAC, DHP and Hodge have done more for the team. Hooper's key skills are chasing down runners and running in the 13 channel. Re-Watch the last couple of games, when he tackles front on, against the forwards in a hit-up situation, he bounces off - a classic pillow tackler. Hooper is rarely involved in traditional forward contacts, his stats are on 7,9,10&12's "how much more Hooper does in 80min" You are kidding right? We see a lot of Hooper on camera but not much of it actively involved in rucks. He is at the back prairie dogging with his head in the air. The rest of the back 5 are head down taking hits and moving players. Hooper can make 80 mins because he doesn't get his fingernails dirty. Those jobs have been distributed to the other 7 forwards who have to increase their work rate to compensate - Players like Fardy and Coleman are getting burnt out so that Hooper can do the glamorous jobs and win watches. Next time you watch a game, pay attention to how long it takes Hooper to get off the ground and get to the next ruck. You will be dumbfounded - His cycle is one great tackle followed by 60 seconds getting off the ground and back into position, in the mean time, 2 rucks have passed by - with Coleman or Douglas involved in all 3 - that is what a high work rate looks like - guys like these earn the right to come off at 60 minutes. McMahon is proven over 80, you can't judge his performances off the bench or when injured by this standard - that is just an abuse of statistics. Now I am not saying that Hooper isn't a valuable resource to the team but I think it is important that any comparisons are fair and accurate. In a normal team configuration, the jobs that Hooper does are usually done by the backs. Cooper, Foley and Folau are all soft or small defenders. I can excuse Foley, I can excuse 1 small back usually an ace kicker and play maker, Barret and MacKenzie are good examples, but you won't see them both on the field at the same time. Hooper is a symptom of a much greater cancer in the overall team. To an outsider Chiek chooses the 15 players he likes the most and then hands out jerseys the best he can. He seems to favor players with one or two outstanding skills in one area but neglects well rounded players. Every other international coach chooses well rounded players that can do all of the jobs required for that position, allowing only a small leeway for complimentary combo's and specialist skills. Mumm, Folau, Hooper, Cooper, Skelton do not have well rounded/balanced skill sets. McMahon is most definitely a WELL ROUNDED PLAYER and I look for ward to seeing him playing the #7 Role against the Boks He is going to have a hard time containing Warren Whiteley, Hooper is going to need to step up and help stop him.
PeterK
Roar Guru
considering the Wallabies lack a ball runner who can make the advantage line in tight , the hard yards, and it has been the 8's role for the Wallabies it is a very important aspect. McMahon makes few pilfers at the breakdown. So yes he gets to the offensive one quick and stands over it , but so does Hooper. Hooper and McMahon are very similar and it is doubling up on strengths and ignoring weaknesses that have been exploited.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Pocock is performing the 7 role far more than Hooper. Pocock plays the 8 role at back of the scrum mainly when the opposition feed the scrum, when wallabies fed it McCalman was switched to 8. Outside of the scrum Hooper plays a wide ranging 8 role like Read. Pocock plays the 7 role. Considering Pocock is playing the 7 role I agree he is not suited nor perform an 8 role well BECAUSE HE IS PLAYING AS A 7. Yes Timani should be at 8 and if fit Pocock at 7. McMahon won't play a good 8 role either but better than Hooper but in reality Cheika is persevering with 2 7's.
Timbo (L)
Guest
Nice Back row. I would put McCalman back at 8 when he is fit again, but both he and Timani would fill the role nicely
Machooka
Roar Guru
Bless those Chef types :)
Muzzo
Roar Rookie
Thanks Chook, as with you fella's up in the veldt. No Buddy still haven't dried out, but thankfully no flooding here Really looking forward to this weekends, Sunday morning encounters, especially our one, as the missus will have to attend church, on her own, mate............ You know it's a Chiefs, thing. Lol. Cheers.
Machooka
Roar Guru
Hey Muzzo... you dried out yet? I don't have issues with McMahon's abilities and really rate him. Infact I was super impressed with his most recent comments about others now wanting the Wallaby 8 position... come and try and get it from me stuff. Excellent! No my issue is we haven't produced a classic styled 8 in say a Read mould. And when I say Read I'm NOT saying an exact replica but someone that has his skill set and size et al. I would love for McMahon to force me to eat my shorts... not on a Sunday though as it's 'free ball' day :)) Good luck in Argentina against those meat eating passionate locals!
Timbo (L)
Guest
I think you guys may be arguing an invalid point. The Facts: The team structure has 2x #7's THERE IS NO #8! - so there is no point evaluating any player against that standard. So, McMahon is playing the #7 Role and Hooper is playing "the Hooper" position at the expense of fielding a #8 Any skills shortage in the position should be attributed to Hooper's inclusion in the side, the arguments here direct blame to the "#7" Patsy has been given the #8 jersey.
Timbo (L)
Guest
That is an interesting, valid analysis, I hadn't considered that perspective. It could be a high risk choice though, with both Fardy and Pocock out there is no real Jackal in the team and allowing the Boks to rapidly cycle their phases uncontested could be costly. Maybe Hooper will finally step up and do his job. validating the selection.
Rebellion
Guest
"Hooper would be picked in every test side bar none" I think it's time for you to 'hit the bricks' Whispering Jack. You are either clueless and deluded or deliberately baiting roarers with your BS comments. Hooper wouldn't be allowed to clean the toilets in the AB's dressing room let alone get a black jersey and as he is not an effective pilferer, the Boks would laugh him out of Newland if he put his hand up against Louw or Kriel. This will really grind your gears seeing this side and the amount of Tah boys in it: 1. Sio 2. Ready 3. Kepu 4. Coleman 5. Simmons 6. Fardy/McMahon 7. Pocock/Gill 8. Higginbotham/Holloway 9. Genia 10. Cooper 11. Naivalu 12. Hodge 13. Kerevi 14. Folau 15. Haylet Petty
Rebellion
Guest
Whispering Jack, why not select the staring Waratahs XV ? Your inspiring selections such as Dean Mumm and suggesting a Hooper, Dempsey Holloway backrow would be Chieka no holds barred. If Chieka has brought Australian rugby to its knees then you would do us all a favour and kill it off. The problem with the Wallabies all stem from Chieka and his automatic selection of Hooper which unbalances the entire pack. Hooper would be a great player if he was a foot taller and 25 kg heavier but unfortunately a midget version of Schalk Burger is still a midget and his glory hounding loose play means other players are compromised in tight where he is needed.
Fox
Roar Guru
"Agree, Fox Saker is completely captivated by the number on the back as opposed to what they do on the field." What the Peterk? Considering you yourself argue that you believe McMahon is too small for the no8 position - something Cheika does not believe by the way and has gone on record in the Courier Mail today to say exactly that - but considering you have made that argument, I find it a bit odd that you now claim that the light weight, and shorter Hooper - according to you - is there to play the eight role. Hooper is there not to play the no eight role but because of his high value to the side in cover defense in the inside backs - his speed in the open play - and his high work rate in defense but he does not defend like a number eight does in the tight - Pocock does that role He does not come off the back of the scrum like number eight and he does not defend or take ( very rarely) in the lineout either like a number eight normally does either. Hooper and Pocock play both positions as a hybrid of each position though Hooper is closer to a number 7 than Pocock is to an 8. And no I am not captivated by numbers on jumpers Peterk except when someone like Pocock play 8 like 7 and then it is valid because Hooper does not cover the role of an number 8 and nor should he have too and or does Cheika expect him too either. Hooper has his own style that he brings to the game and that comes with both strengths and weaknesses - like he is a superb ball carrier in open play but not strong over the ball like Pocock is. My argument - and you can disagree and clearly do - is that Pocock does not give the no8 position some of the strengths the position demands in the modern game and I think someone else like McMahon or Timani whom I know you like, are better suited to that position. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong
Fox
Roar Guru
Did you actually read the article properly CUW I said exactly that in the article and i quote from it here "These stats show that McMahon offers the skills to be a very good Test No.8 and we know that he is a strong defender. What he needs to vastly improve is his ball skills in the carry – a common problem across the Wallabies and their Super sides it needs to be said. He needs to improve his off-loading and have better vision at passing the ball to others around him even in tight spaces as well as the open." So you claim I am captivated by the the first part of the stats is complete nonsense as I point that very fact out immediately after I list the stats - no offence my friend but seriously fair cop - what are you saying here that I didn't say?
Gilbert
Guest
Wallabies should be chasing Jason Taumalolo from the cowboys. He's the bruiser they need at 8 or 6.
Boz the Younger
Guest
It isn't just about ball running, he is one of the best at the offensive breakdown and that delivers the quick ball that wins games. Of course you need to drop your preconceptions and get your nose out of the stats to notice that.
Scott
Guest
A question for Roarers: If you had McMahon and Timani starting in the backrow, who would you have joining them?
CUW
Guest
FOX SAKER is completely captivated by the first part of comparison with Read. Kieran Read Tries 3 Points 15 Carries 115 Metres 360 (Av.3.13 metres per carry) Clean Breaks 7 Defenders Beaten 9 Sean McMahon Tries 3 Points 15 Carries 139 Metres 564 ( Av.3.98 metres ) Clean Breaks 14 Defenders Beaten 48 however , its the second part that tells the difference between the value of Read. passing offloading lineouts!!! Kieran Read Off Loads 15 Try Assists 5 Passes 124 Open Play Kicks 1 Lineout takes 54 Lineout Steals 4 Sean McMahon Off Loads 6 Try Assists 1 Passes 31 Open Play Kicks 0 Lineout Takes 19 Steals 2
Timbo (L)
Guest
Chook, I think I replied to the wrong post. My point is that the wallabies aren't looking for a #8. They are looking for a #7 with as many #8 qualities as they can get. I didn't mean to imply that Quirky had any test caps, but he should have, and is exactly what we need right now. A fetching number 8 - the perfect compliment to Hooper's (being polite) "unique", restricted skill set. For those unfamiliar with Ed, read this article from earlier this year. http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/super-rugby-reds-wary-of-sunwolves-ginger-ninja-ed-quirk/news-story/7e27b6bbcce84e640d1b91e9f00423f5 I toyed with the Palu metaphor. I started with "cannon ball" but thought it needed to be something that rolled in a straight line and knocked stuff over.
Whispering Jack
Guest
Peterk that does make sense however I think the Boks are going to play 10 man rugby and kick the leather off the ball so a scavenger (Fardy) is not needed. I think Cheika is thinking that it is better to sure up the lineout (Mumm) because the boks will be kicking to touch a lot, and have our 2 best attacking backrowers (Hooper-Mcmahon) for when we throw the ball around once in possession. There are a lot of poins on offer at altitude if you play your cards right.