Two debutants named in first Wallabies line-up of the year

Thanks Browny. Good points all. Yep - would be great to have the luxury of more qualitative metrics to overlay the raw quantity. The downside, of course, is that this will involve another layer of subjectivity upon an already subjective process. And for those players who generally execute their mastery in the darkest of rugby places, their effort may still be overlooked regardless.

CB2, we definitely agree on the common stats situation as there are so many aspects of the game not covered by the usual ones we're privy too. It's the same with the footy; Champion Data compiles an incredible amount of information that they don't share with the public. You can buy a subscription to their services and that gets you the nitty gritty stuff like 'pressure acts', 'metres gained assists', and the huge level of detail where they rate a disposal/possession on contested/uncontested, long/medium/short/sideways/backwards distance, effective/non-effective and so on and so forth. I reckon there's the equivalent for rugby out there, maybe Opta goes into that level of detail. However short of that the best we can do is watch the game and combine that with the readily available Vodacom (or similar) numbers and then occasionally we get access to the great work ForceFan does with his ruck analysis. Everything is going to be subjective to a degree, even tries scored comes down to some subjective aspects from the guy holding the whistle at the time. At the same time it's really hard to discuss the game without any use of them because otherwise you're pretty much comparing 'gut feel' to 'gut feel' with no concrete data to back any claims. On the 'messy' turnover ball, sometimes you've got to look at the players around him. Perhaps George gets his hands on it and disrupts the ball a bit but it was Tui (as an example) who was then one who clean ripped it out of the pile of bodies afterwards... they might have decided that he was the one that actually got the turnover, not Smith. As I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a company out there doing high quality stuff with ruck involvements and other kinds of 'pressure acts' (slowing the ball in the ruck, disrupting a maul, sacking a lineout, etc) that we don't in the off the shelf stats packages.

Browny, I'm increasingly distrustful of publicly available stats. They are proffered as "clean" data. Whereas rugby is anything but. The numbers have a direct correlation to activity definitions often not provided ("ruck involvements", "dominant tackles" etc.) and are themselves the subjective judgements of those tabulating the stats. "Turnovers won" is a case in point. Hooper's pilfers generally occur due to his impressive speed to the ball rather than his resilience in heavy contact. The effort is obvious and the stat easily defineable. Hooper has been great this season (particularly the latter half) as the numbers rightly show. However, any number of times this season I've seen the Matt Todd's, G Smith's, Matt Hodgeson's latch onto a momentarily stray pill, beating the ruck by mere nano-seconds, before all of humanity piles on top of them. The turnover might not be clean in the sense that the 7 emerges victorious from the melee triumphantly clutching the pill aloft, commentators often minimise the contribution with "oh, the ball has come loose" and the proponents are typically the last to arise from the tangle of bodies, with play then two phases hence - so, easy to miss. But possession has changed because of a direct intervention at the breakdown. George Smith did this twice during the recent Blues match. Match stats says: 0. Same game, GS nailed 4-5 Blues with rib rattlers. Match stats says: 2. Might be a definition thing. But the stat sure as hell doesn't reflect the effort, quality and contribution.

Agree...terrible response to the ref's request to talk to his players....."but ref they don't listen to me". And now he is captain of the Wallabies for years to come. The coach will not make the change as Hooper is the first to be picked in his team, quickly followed by Beale - regardless of their current form of what is best for the team. This was twice as bad last year when he would also select Mumm and Skelton also. Hooper deserves his place in the team today and probably captain due to Pococks absence. Liam Gill is another that offers more in both play and leadership. He would be best to return and play for the Tahs

Yeah, Peter. I posted that before the bench was named and put the full team down the bottom of this thread as soon as it was named

Browny. I am not sure how good Meakes is but I'd like to see him get a run in the top team to find out. He gives real defensive starch in the middle of the field and is very good at rucking and mauling like a good 12 ideally should be. I just wanted to say that Meakes played (at least some) 13 for Gloucester when they won whatever European Cup it was. So he can cover both 12 and 13. But at the Force, Meakes and Lance are the only guys who can cover 12 with any quality so they have to leave 13 to Rona and Brache. Rona in fairness is a guy you want to develop at 13 with the downside being that Rona can't push for a big wing spot.

i did say poor captain not player, i said as a player he is in decline

except Timani is not on bench. I actually think Carter is selected to grind for 80 mins and Arnold will replace Coleman who won't be back to top match fitness to play 80 mins yet.

Bakkies, I get what you're saying in that you like a 7 to play tighter but you have to admit, for a bloke who doesn't win turnovers as you suggest he certainly seems to have a lot next to his name on the stat sheet... more than anyone else in Super Rugby for that matter. And he's the second rated dominant tackler in the comp, which certainly helps arrest a teams momentum and slow the ball down as the attacking player is driven backwards in contact.

^ You definatley are a " DEREK "

FULL TEAM ANNOUNCED. 4 debutantes, no Timani. 1 Robertson 2 Polota-Nau 3 Ala'alatoa 4 Carter 5 Coleman 6 Hanigan* 7 Hooper (c) 8 Higginbotham 9 Genia 10 Foley 11 Speight 12 Hunt* 13 Kuridrani 14 Haylett-Petty 15 Folau 16 Moore 17 Smith 18 Kepu 19 Arnold 20 Hardwick* 21 Powell* 22 Cooper 23 Hodge

Waxhead I think we are doing okay for 6s. It is 8s we lack. RHP played lock last year (first proper fullish year of super rugby) and has been playing 6 this year. He may have some 8 before as well but hasn't been there this year I don't think. Wessels wants him for 6 but could just be because if RHP plays 6 you can go a luxuriously tall lineout. RHP has more to learn but he's on the Coleman trajectory of maturing and harnessing his natural mongrel. For the doubters he did play Aus 20s so even someone in NSW and Qld likes him. From there it is about him stepping up to adult rugby and he's getting better each season just like a young guy is supposed to. He's about 118kg and tall and angry. And he will be better next year and better still in 2019. Whether he gets 6 over someone else is a question for later (because McMahon is a good 6) but he will be a good test level hard nut in the near future. Not sure if he is too slow for tests but in Super Rugby he matches up with the best forwards going around. If they could put him back into lock he and Coleman could hurt some people and that'd free up 6 for someone like McMahon then suddenly the forward pack has some real drive. Timani has a future at 6. So could Higgers but someone has to play 8. Hodgo is actually a good 6 and a pretty good 8 if required. Hardwick could play 6 but he's smaller than you'd want there but then he's a similar size to Samu and McMahon. I know you said "at the moment" but I want to put in a plug for Gus Cottrel who should be back next year - if the Force stays. If he stays on paddock he will put pressure on 6 too. He's about 6foot4 and a tough physical presence. I am sure Qlders always rated him but as TWAS pointed out once the Qld squad went with two other guys to fill the position which allowed the Force to pick him up.

Naisarani isn't eligible for another 12-18 months so just forget about him for a while and let him continue to progress and improve. Then we'll start talking about the big fella... Meakes should be in there now ahead of Horne. If it needs to be a designated 13, English or Rona. I'm ok with Hardwick being in the squad but I think Fainga'a or Alcock could have got a shot ahead of him as well as Fardy instead of Dempsey. Two 6s, 7s and 8s (plus Timani can play 6 with Higgers at 8). Pretty good spread in body types, and all currently fit...

Thanks TWAS. Where can FF's qualified stats be viewed?

I hope it's not Horne. The only thing justifying his spot in the squad is that he knows the Wallaby systems and plays. He should purely be a backup 13 if Kuridrani gets injured and will miss tests, not on the bench. Would much rather any of Hodge, Naivalu and probably even Koroibete ahead of Horne in the 23 jumper (not to mention the other unlucky centre candidates like Rona, English, Meakes, etc).

I suspect there's a couple under that cloud that Cheika may have had locked in the 23 so he's waiting to see how it all transpires...

reverse wheel. The Force pack have been pretty good. Haven't been outdone even playing a bit injury depleted. Some inconsistent (poor) moments but they have done well.

Paul D, as noted the big missing component from all these stats is ruck involvement. Unless ForceFan is going to chime in with some of his numbers that he generates (because none of the freely available stats sources seem to do that) we'll have to go without. Timani's minutes are low due to suspension and injury where he missed full games for the most part. If you multiply Timani's stats to match Hanigan for minutes this is what we get. Timani* / Hanigan carries: 100.2 / 51 line breaks: 0 / 6 offloads: 6.3 / 3 tackle breaks: 0 / 6 TC's: 10.4 / 5 TW: 2.1 / 2 tackles made: 91.9 / 84 tackle miss: 4.2 / 8 handle errors: 27.1 / 9 pens: 2.1 / 4 lineout w: 6.3 / 28 lineout s: 0 / 1 Carries/Handling Error: 3.7 / 5.7 So the first thing that jumps out is that timani appears to do more work (twice the carries,more tackles inc less misses) while Hanigan is clearly the better lineout target and runner out wide (linebreaks). The staggering thing there is Timani's handling errors... not sure how much of that is 'first game back jitters' when coming back from injury and suspension... although it in reality it is closer when you consider the ration of carries to handling errors (3.7 and 5.7 respectively). Some of that may also be due to the nature of where those carries happen, Timani's tend to be in tight while Hanigan's are generally out a bit wider. Anyway... food for thought. I think Carter, Coleman and Higgers are good enough lineout targets to have Timani at 6 given the extra grunt he adds and Hanigan may have been a better bench option to come on when the game is a little looser towards the end.

'Matt Hodgson and David Pocock are the only players that have greater ruck involvements than Hooper with any regularity.' Ruck involvement is irrelevant for a 7. It's about the tackle and breakdown unless they are playing for the ABs they can't put their hands in a ruck.

Finally someone who thinks the same as me! Thanks Fin.