Time for Michael Cheika to stick with his top 23

I don't think 12 has to be restricted to crash and bash - Foley certainly isn't playing it that way and the best Aussie centre I got to see Tim Horan didn't play it that way either. I think having a 12 that can truck it up when there is nothing on is important but that shouldn't mean that is the only thing they can do. Ultimately I'd like to see Kerevi/Kuridrani at 12/13 or Kerevi/Folau. The first in the hopes that Kuridrani can re-find his mojo with a genuine running threat inside him, the second with the options likely to open up for Samu with a threat like Izzy outside. The first option has really strong defence built in, while the second would take a bit of work to get Izzy up to speed in D at 13 so maybe the calls to shift him to wing are the ones that should be heeded. Hodge is the one I'm struggling with - want him in the team for that boot of his so maybe it is a case of leaving Samu at 13 and having Reece see if he can make a fist of 12. I think the players that are locks for me at the moment are Genia at 9, Cooper at 10, DHP at 15 and Kerevi as one centre. Then you have Folau at 13 or wing and the last spots becomes a shoot out between Naivalu for his pace, Hodge for his boot and Kuridrani for his defence and previously shown running ability. One of those last three goes to the bench and influences where Izzy plays.

Sage has not read all of James' comments obviously.

Hi there again James - "Play the ball" - golf or rugby ball? :-) But just on that saying for a moment. It's a bit silly in a rugby forum is it not because if we only ever played the ball and not the man then no one would ever be tackled. The par for the course issue is a question to Peter who used this quip to me recently and then gave Taylor the same accolade.Peter was the one that first raised it. Advice about growing up and getting a life etc is rather crass. It could be moralising on your part. Could be both. But seriously if you continue picking on me I will tell my mother. Not sure about your lawyer reference but I might even consult my lawyer. :-) Giddyup.

James - I respond to individual posters, not 'Aussies'. Whether you are from Sydney, Waikikamukau or Timbuktu is of no concern to me. One does not have to look too hard to find a chance to respond however. You and Peter alone offer plenty of opportunity. I recently made a comment that striving to have high standards is a worthy aim. You made a snide remark about moralising. Here I have made a comment about Peter using statistics and again you make a snide remark about moralising. I'm not sure of your motivation but it might be that you pause for a moment and concern yourself with where some of your implied criticsm is from. There is some moralising just for you.

To Peter - (I am intelligent - are you simple?) - not a slanted insult? - yeah right... yep..yep.. Peter you consistently incite others with your comments in this forum. It happens far too often for it to be unintentional. Then you play the victim. In this instance I said you are happy to use bald statistics.That is without doubt and so is relevant to the discussion.

i agree with your first sentence. i did imply otherwise briefly a few posts back so sorry if you feel ive misrepresented you. also apologies if, like me, you also hadnt developed an opinion in the absence of meaningful numbers and i lumped you in with others with a certain opinion. re: your second sentence i have no interest in your thoughts about me personally.

Like you I didn't provide any stats, and I didn't dispute them. I don't think you need me to feel distracted, apologies that you struggle with simple things.

Indeed making a tackle does not. Making a pilfer does. These stats are compiled by opta. They provide them to ESPN among others. Except for the ruck stats where Force Fan from GAGR compiles these himself. Clearly you don't want things too closely as McMahon has a much inferior record of stealing ball at the ruck than Hooper. I think what you mean to say is "I just have my view and will not let things like independently compiled statistics and facts sway it". Of course it's no coincidence that NZ choose to target Pocock not Hooper. Pocock plays more over the ball than Hooper when both are selected because Hooper is a better dominant hitter, which sets up a pilfer. Likewise Pocock is better over the ball than Hooper, so they play to their strengths, and NZ negate the one that is best able to be negated. If they tried to negate Hooper's role they'd be obstructing defenders. Pocock has made exceptional numbers of pilfers since last year in some tests. Before last year he had never started a match with Hooper. When he has made these numbers, it's been alongside Hooper.

perhaps i should say "ineffectively contests for the ball at the breakdown" in defence - making a tackle does not count as offering a contest for the ball. I question where these statistics of yours come from. I simply just watch him...closely. When he does involve himself at the breakdown his hands are rarely close to the ball. It is a stark contrast to pocock, gill, hodgson, colby faingaa, McMahon etc. I'm not 100% on Cane pilfer stats, but he is hardly in the top 5 opensides in NZ rugby history. This is one of the few areas the wallabies are stronger than the ABs (Pocock v Cane). One very important role of Cane's, which was particularly evident in the last bledisloe was to spend a fair chunk of the game making sure Pocock was not able to get to the breakdown - including one time where he just pushed Pockock in the back as they both ran towards the tackle area - causing pocock to fall over just out of the referees line of sight (to barbara's point about how can a player possibly cheat on the field with so many sets of eyes) No coincidence that NZ chooses to target Pocock rather than Hooper.

The only guys you selected in their correct position are DHP and Genia...

Except he's not ineffective in defence, and he wins the ball from opposition rucks about on par with Cane and Louw. And he's not ineffective on attack. He has had a handful of ineffective involvements of around the 120 attacking rucks he has been involved in this tournament. And even then those ineffective involvements are often on the back of errors by other players at the ruck forcing his involvement to change to react to that situation. Hooper regularly contests the breakdown in defence and wins possession. Compiled statistics support this. Just because you ay something it does not make it true. If NZ put value on the scavenging role, then why is their first choice 7 a guy that makes a pilfer every 60 minutes, when Hooper makes one ever 66 minutes. Is 1 more pilfer over an entire test season a huge difference?

1) Hooper is ineffective at the breakdown in defence 2) he is ineffective at the breakdown in attack 3) he makes plenty of tackles 4) he gets off the line quickly in defence 5) he provides kick chases and some wide running capacity. Essentially this describes a centre. McCaw/George Smith/Pocock/David Wilson/Phil Waugh etc all the best number 7s contest the breakdown and win possession for their team. IMportantly they also help secure possession when in attack. By selecting "an extra half a back" as Chieka describes him, who rarely contests the breakdown it simply puts too much strain on the rest of the forward pack.. NZ is probably the only team in world rugby that could afford such a ploy but even they put value on the scavenger role.

But he's not a hybrid. He has the highest ruck involvement and close to the highest tackle count almost every game. That's basically what a 7 should have.

that all makes sense, the only question i have is why did you not discuss Hooper? For mine, his continual selection is the primary reason the pack has been unbalanced for so long. Chieka can toggle with our 2nd rowers and 6/8 combos all he likes but he won't find balance until he drops hooper. Tahs & Wallatahs are the only rugby teams in world rugby that think a hybrid back/forward in the 7 jersey is a valuable prospect.

rebel im not claiming anything. given the stats you offered were pretty useless to the discussion i havent an opinion on what some meaningful numbers might show. unless ur disputing the fact that the nature of the game (say where one team is running in a cricket score) will impact the number of cynical penalties given over 80 and a rate somehow taking account of this is necessary to approach a worthwhile comparison? i guess i am claiming that but its pretty self evident i would think and me providing those numbers wouldnt demonstrate their superior worth (my claim). i am relying on the common sense of others as the back up of my 'claim'. i think ive given you enough to understand so i wont be offering any more clarification thereby avoiding another never ending rebel distraction tangent .

no problem die hard

You claimed something then asked others to check. The number of infringements is correct, the ones given by someone about cynical times wasn't. So just like the original unfounded comment about ABs being cheats, some have nothing to back it up.

Locking Kerevi in at 12 takes away his ability to bust the line. The extra space out there is better for a bloke of his pace and fend off. At 12 he will be limited to a bash and crash center and he will not be the line busting machine he is destined to be. As for defense... it is not that bad at 13. Give him more time and let him evolve. Australian Rugby is better with a big line busting 13 who can run solid lines off a creative 10. Best examples are Lynagh and Herbert/Little, Berni and Mortlock and now cooper with Kerevi. Hodge can fit in at 12 and play bash and crash as he also has the ball skills to become the 2nd ball player and 2nd option as a clearance kicker. Plus, his defense is already rock solid.

Wow. Impressive.

Soapit - Sorry