No luck at the back, so time to move Israel Folau to 13

Hi David, a nice team with good balance but apart from the unavailability of W.Genia, I would drop B.Foley from the team altogether and have a 6:2 bench. I do this for two reasons, (a) if Q.Cooper or S.Kerevi go down, either can be replaced by moving R.Hodge into their position and bringing T.Kuridrani on and (b) as T'Man succinctly says in one of his blogs above, the AB play a blitzkreig type of game aimed at exhausting the defence then surely another forward reserve is needed. I know I will be burned at the stake but I would start with S.Fardy at #6 and keep D.Mumm (lock/#6 reserve who can jump) and B.McCalman to cover for as many tired/outmuscled/injured forwards as possible. The major weakness is there is no cover for #7, so if D.Pocock is fit, then replace McCalman with Pocock. I just cannot fathom why a 5:3 bench is sacrosanct in a ferocious test match. Having B.Foley warming wood "just in case" is a waste when you are desperate for a fresh forward. If you are so out of luck as to lose 3 backs to injury, such as the Sydney Bledisloe cup match this year, then so be it and let M.Hooper play wing or outside centre, he would love it and wouldn't do a bad job of it.

Well said Taylorman, you have to be in the AB's face all game long or its all over, red rover. Maybe some attack flair might help also. I like your idea of the WB 5/8 Q.Cooper just concentrating on his opposite BB rather than the musical chair game the WB must play at every lost ball. Is it any wonder they leak points when all the players seem to be running around reading the coach team sheets thinking "now where do I go if X loses the ball at Y place??" They honestly look like chooks in the yard, all covering up for so-called frail defenders. Train, I think M.Cheika is wedded to B.Foley as the team "points man" and is very unlikely to drop him, despite his obvious loss of form. I could understand it if Foley was holding the position till a wounded player (L.Beale, M.Toomua or C.Lealiifano) comes back but none of them will be available for a long time. After the 1st two England tests, coach Cheika should have dropped Foley then but instead he has became besotted with the idea of a "ball player" at inside centre and nothing will change his mind. Obstinate is a word that comes to mind. :)

No Phipps or Mumm and Foley on the bench, perhaps dropped, is spot on for me. I don't mind if Folau moves to 13 or wing, but DHP should go to 15 in place of him. There needs to be changes there. If Folau is 13, then Kerevi at 12 is good as he does have experience and talent in the position. Unlike Foley. Kerevi and Folau in the centres is interesting and a damn sight better than Foley taking up space. Between Hodge and Cooper they can knock over the kicks.

Agree with comments above - you've all helped my flip flopping on the make up of the backline. 11. Hodge 12. Kerevi 13. Kuridrani 14. Folau 15. Haylett-Petty 21. Phipps or Frisby 22. Foley 23. Naivalu Works for me - gives us kicking, defense and the ability to shift it up a gear if needed.

The squad is very similar to what I would pick. Agree that Ben Mac wouldn't be in my group. I'd have Fardy starting and would keep Houston on the bench (assuming that his loan to Bath doesn't prevent it). I'd also keep Alaalatoa over Slipper who scrummaged poorly against the Boks in his last start - I see no reason to switch back to him for this match. Frisby is one I could question but I'd like to see him have another shot. Folau is the big risk defensively but could be switched with Kuridrani to tidy up the midfield. Or Hodge could be given a shot at 12. I keep changing my mind on our centres but could live with Naivalu coming off the bench and having SK/TK as the centres with Hodge/Folau the starting wings and then give Izzy a shot in midfield during the game for Tevita with Sefania coming on at that stage. Certainly I think Hodge, Kerevi, Kuridrani, Folau and Naivalu are the wingers, centres (including bench) and we should settle on a set up sooner rather than later with some experimentation later in games. I find it odd being this aligned in thinking with DL!

Kerevi's passing game is good enough to play 12. If you're talking about him having the distribution skills of a second playmaker then probably not but his strength are hard running, breaking tackles, drawing defenders and has soft hands to move the ball to the outside quickly. In my opinion Kerevi is a world class 12 now and may become the same at 13 but his defence of that channel would need to improve. It will be interesting to see if Cheika sticks with the Foley/Kerevi combination for the ABs game of will he bring Kurindrani back to strengthen the defence?

In fairness you need to look at this holistically and consider that the RWC squad was unbalanced with too many back row options and only 2 hookers. I think Cheika essentially shoe horned Palu in, but when he was ruled out he went to a better squad configuration. The original squad contained: Hooper Pocock McMahon Fardy McCalman Mumm Palu. Even if you say Mumm was a lock, that's still 6 players to fit into 4 game day spots. You'd need 3 injuries to fall short.

@ Fionn said " I think it is a matter of us not knowing what we had until it was gone. Hopefully Cheika realises it. " NOT REALLY> SH had his best season in Super in 2015. maybe becoz it was the world cup year that drove him to perform better, or maybe he had his purple patch. But he played just one test ( as i remember ) and was dropped from the world cup squad. funny thing was , when Palu and Skelton were injured at the world cup Cheika opted to take a 2nd rower and a hooker as replacements . i think that was the start of the Pocock Hooper combination also. SO it was not about ignorance , it was about preference .

It's not exactly that simple because players shuffle for a variety of reasons in all sides. That being said I agree with your general premise.

Cooper is fast enough to manage Barrett one on one. He just doesn't like doing it. If his only job on D is that, then he will be allowing others to cover off elsewhere, but if others have to cover his role of defending his own man for the entirety of the match then you can see how the Avalanche can start. This rubbish of covering for others must mean someone is under and someone is over employed elsewhere. If I have 10 on my back, my man is 10. Simple. If someone else has to tackle my man, I'd better be covering either his, or someone else's, because two on one will always result in overlap. Sometimes the simplest concepts get overlooked in this game.

Yes we are saying the same thing. Planning for the twenty minute onslaught requires two things...fronting up initially, and slowing down the game so the tempo doesn't tire them out. That is the plan. You can't run around like chooks to exhaustion then get to the twenty minutes and go 'right here it comes boys' The onslaught is a result of the defending team tiring, not the ABs turning it up. It just appears as though the ABs have stepped it up, when really the opposition have started slowing down and that occurs at different times for each defender, as one by one their fitness levels, or the amount of work they have done, or both, start to drop off. The effect of tiring means the ABs are able to break through where previously they weren't, doing the same things. And because all 15 All Blacks are pushing through right across the board, no one is spared. They start to drop off first physically, then when the tries come, finally mentally. From the start the ABs are first and formost about breaking the back of the side at some point in the second half, using the subs to drive the final stakes in at the end.

You're not a fan because the facts provided don't support your narrative. The current system becomes irrelevant when the player has been doing the business four seasons in a row.

@ TAYLORMAN like i said before to u , NZ play high-tempo for 20 minutes. the balance 60 they match the opposition. against the saffers the last 20 - i think they scored 5 trys after the 60th minute. against the argies it was the 2nd 1/4 from 20 -40 minutes ; they scored 3 trys ( i think) and immediately after the break. happened during the 4 nations , against Wales and even the England tour in 2015. what the opposition need to see and plan for is that 20-minute onslaught. AND try not give them a big lead. the biggest problem i c , if the discipline of auzzy - they are the worst i think in the penalty count. and if OWENS is there as suggested by someone, few will go to the bin for sure.

trip him before he gathers pace. no one will catch B arrett if he has a 5meter start :)

Cooper on Barrett? How the hell will Cooper keep up?

Nice analysis Taylorman. But geez, ease up on the advice! That's the best game plan Cheika could implement all year! I'm pretty sure he's a poster on this site.

Yeah not saying it's easy, but it is imperative. ABs hold all the cards and it's simply a matter of taking some of those away before you can have a chance of playing your own. 'Simply' the key word there as its anything but. The constant fever pitch onslaughts have two purposes, one to break the gain line and from there, score, but primarily force the opposition to play and play until they drop, hopefully we'll within the first sixty. I think the key difference there is the priority order. Most sides haul the ball up endlessly with the primary aim of making the gain line and the breakthrough. Tiring the opposition out becomes a bonus if it comes, where for the ABs it's the ultimate goal, the clincher if the opposition doesn't crack from the repetition. The difference there is one side is having a crack, then having a scrum, lineout, having another crack, going through the motions. The ABs are constantly pulling the opposition back into the game by stretching them constantly, off the rucks, lineouts, scrums, kicks etc. The Bok game was relentless activity. Although the Boks were able to stem the rapid AB 400 meters in carries in the first half their tolerance for it was burning up quickly. A means to an end. Come the last ten minutes and on come the subs, and regardless of who the Boks sub, at least seven players must still play the full 80, and they're the ones providing the gaps somewhere, because they're largely spent. On the AB side, those knowing they will be subbed are doing most of the damage before they go off. So Oz need to both defend, and slow it down at the same time, and that best negates the two pronged gameplan of breaking through early, and tiring out the side. Obviously saying that is one thing, doing it another. This AB side have been perfecting this game with every match and are getting better and better at it. Everyone's getting drawn into it, sometimes without even really knowing it until it hits at sixty.

If you need to fit Foley in for goal kicking, he could play fullback... kind of suits his running game. Dhp would be a little unlucky to be displaced though.

@ Train Without A Station TBH , i am not a fan of comparing super rugger stats over the years and hypothesizing on test performances.. the current super system means , no team plays the same teams over and over in different years. when it was more of a round-robbin system, the opposition was consistent. the test scene is more apt, mainly becoz other than during the world cup , the top teams more or less play each other - so the opposition is more consistent.

Luke Morahan can play winger, outside centre and fullback...and he has pace. Perfect for the bench role because he is so versatile, but a pity Cheika has not given him a start on the wing considering our dearth of pacey wingers.