Five talking points from Wallabies vs Argentina

Connor Bennett Roar Guru

By Connor Bennett, Connor Bennett is a Roar Guru & Live Blogger

 , , ,

206 Have your say

Popular article! 5,947 reads

    The Wallabies have finally added a game to the win column after an undulating first half to their Rugby Championship campaign, firing home late to take a 45-20 win over Argentina in Canberra.

    While far from a perfect outing for the Australian side, they were able to get the job done, leaving Argentina at the bottom of the barrel without a win in the Championship.

    » QUIGLEY: Wallabies’ breakdown still an issue
    » What changes should Wallabies make for Argentina?
    » Vote on our DIY player ratings from the Test

    Here are five talking points from the 25-point Wallaby win.

    What’s the go with that first half?
    An absolute mess for the Wallabies and a frightening sign that they had learned nothing from their dealings with the All Blacks and South Africa in the past month.

    The opening 40 minutes were scrappy… let’s go with that.

    While Australia showed glimpses of what they would produce in the second half, especially the lead-up play that lead to Israel Folau’s first try of the night against all momentum, they were all over the shop.

    Argentina were able to dominate field position and possession for the majority of the opening stanza, creating four penalty shots on goal and a try that had them in the lead at the break.

    Said try was a beautiful passage of play from the Pumas, taking it from halfway to the tryline with a mix of expansive running rugby to get them inside the 22, then taking over with the forwards as they ground their way to the line.

    It was a simultaneous showing of wide attacking rugby and smart rolling progression closer to the paint that had them in the lead and on a roll.

    Australia’s issues at the breakdown looked to have continued as well, with Ned Hanigan quickly running out of lives and favour with the fans after another stumbling effort in the green and gold.

    The first half showcased the progression of Argentine rugby as they look to match it with the best sides in the world, as well as everything wrong with the Wallabies playing style in the modern era.

    What’s the go with that second half?
    And then we had the second 40 minutes that was somehow not even close to the first. As the old cliche goes, it was a game of two halves.

    I don’t even want to know what kind of spray the Wallabies copped from Michael Cheika at the break, but whatever it was it worked wonders as Australia bagged five tries and 35 points to just 7 in the second half.

    Sekope Kepu crossed over early in the stanza before Folau’s second had the Wallabies jumping away from the visitors.

    Argentina just had no response and found themselves down and in the same position they had put the Wallabies in just 20 minutes earlier.

    Even the scrum was a raging bull against one of the more highly rated packs in world rugby.

    That entire five-minute period from the 67th to 72nd-minute where Australia rolled the Pumas scrum time and time again was like nothing seen from the Wallabies eight for a long time.

    They won penalty after penalty, had the Pumas down a man thanks to a yellow card then finally rolled them back one more time to gift Will Genia a try and seal the game.

    That’s the kind of scrummaging the Wallabies have needed all year.

    The backline was firing and playing with confidence once they hit the front.

    Kurtley Beale had a quiet game relative to his recent form and that really held the backline from expanding and playing their natural game in the first half.

    Kurtley Beale shapes to pass during the opening game of the series between the Wallabies and the All Blacks at ANZ Stadium in Sydney, Saturday, Aug. 16, 2014. (Photo: Paul Barkley/LookPro)

    (Photo: PaulBarkley/LookPro)

    But that was thrown out the window in the second with more and more players putting their hand up to take control and create space out wide to utilise.

    It’s amazing what a bit of confidence will do.

    A wins a win, but no one is convinced just yet
    The fact that I had to write a point on the slightly ridiculous differences of both halves says a lot about the state of the Wallabies.

    It’s been the case throughout their entire Rugby Championship campaign.

    They’re a one-half team, not an 80-minute team.

    Look back to Sydney against the All Blacks when they were down 54-0, but lit up in the second half to score 34 unanswered points and reduce the deficit to a 20-point loss, a loss that was heading for astronomical proportions but they had an outstanding second half.

    Across to Dunedin where they shot out of the gates, scoring three tries in the opening 15 minutes and took a halftime lead before losing by six in a thriller. They had an outstanding first half.

    Against South Africa in Perth, they gave up a ten-point lead to hang on for an incredible draw. They played incredible for half the game.

    The point is, they’ve been playing really strong rugby against every opponent in every game, but far too sporadically.

    They’ve been so inconsistent that they’re switching form during a game, going from world beaters to painful strugglers.

    Once they can figure out how to play a full 80 minutes of quality, not even outstanding, just good enough rugby, instead of half games that cost them results time and time again, then Australia will become a world force again.

    Is this the best year of Folau’s Wallaby career?
    It needs to be made clear that this is in regards to international form, because anyone that played for the Waratahs this year should do their best to forget 2017 and never, ever bring it back into discussion.

    The three-code athletic miracle that is Israel Folau blasted into rugby with a flurry of outstanding performances, taking to his newest sport like a duck to water.

    He tore it up for the Tahs, back when they were worthy Super Rugby title contenders, and had a mesmerising debut series against the British and Irish Lions despite being on the losing side.

    Many look at Folau’s 2013 as one of the best debut years in rugby history and certainly his best season… until now.

    The 28-year-old had gone 11 Tests on the trot without scoring a single try in what was a horrid 2016 for himself and the Wallabies as a whole.

    Despite the aforementioned form of the Tahs this year, Folau hit back on the international stage with a bang and is yet to look back.

    He broke the drought with a pair of five-pointers against Fiji in Sydney during the June series, going on to score three consecutive doubles in the one month in further games against Italy and Scotland.

    He bagged tries in both of the All Blacks encounters before his fourth brace this year against the Pumas in this Test.

    In all, he went 11 games without a try, yet has now scored an incredible ten pies from seven games this year, becoming the first Australian to score four doubles in the one season.

    The man is a try-scoring machine and headed towards sitting somewhere on the all-time try scorers list if he keeps going with rugby for the years to come.

    Israel Folau Wallabies Australia Rugby Union 2017

    (Photo by Paul Kane/Getty Images)

    If Argentina can stop falling over, they can start winning key games
    The poor Pumas just can’t catch a break.

    Two weeks in a row they’ve taken an unlikely lead into halftime against a side expected to push past them without too much trouble.

    And two weeks in a row they’ve thrown it all away in the second half to fall to the result that was expected before the game.

    Much like Australia’s issues with playing one-half on and one-half off, the Pumas have proven that they can keep up with the top sides in world rugby but are just missing that final edge to take the game home.

    New Zealand were stunned last week, falling to a 22-15 deficit against Argentina despite being at home, but the Pumas let the foot off the gas and let the win slip away with 24 unanswered points coming against them.

    They fell in similar circumstances against the Wallabies.

    It’s as if they play their hearts out because they have nothing to lose, then when they actually find themselves in front, they don’t know what to do.

    They start playing differently to try and preserve that lead, they try and play like a team that’s leading instead of playing like the team that got them in front to start with.

    There’s a sense of panic and rushed play around the Pumas and their performances over the past two weeks.

    If they can learn to close out games, they can cause some serious damage to top-flight sides.

    Have Your Say

    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (206)

    • September 17th 2017 @ 6:46am
      MH01 said | September 17th 2017 @ 6:46am | ! Report

      Hanigan Needs to be dropped from the team all together. He is not even SR standard

      • September 17th 2017 @ 9:55am
        joeys 78 said | September 17th 2017 @ 9:55am | ! Report

        A really useful profound comment. You can make your point without being insulting.

      • September 17th 2017 @ 10:43am
        Rob Malcolm said | September 17th 2017 @ 10:43am | ! Report

        Hannigan is a development player. Look I 100% agree he isn’t up to it yet, but Cheika is backing him. It’s a youth policy in the absence of a clear candidate. Fardy is 2x better, but he is heading to Europe. Next year Hannigan will be 50% better for having had this opportunity. By the World Cup he will be a special.

        So yes he’s a Tah. Well Cheika isn’t so blinkered. He’s promoted Uluese into the team with less than 1 SR match. And when you look at those he promotes it is clear he isn’t parochial.

        • Roar Guru

          September 17th 2017 @ 10:48am
          PeterK said | September 17th 2017 @ 10:48am | ! Report

          Correction Fardy IS IN Europe, he has already played for Leinster.
          ARU released him early so unavailable.

          Mumm 2.0 50% better means he is still isn’t better than Higgs, I also think Mumm 2.0 will never actually cut it.

          I could be wrong though, but should Wallabies wait until Mumm 2.0 can standout in super rugby first.

          • September 17th 2017 @ 11:13am
            Daveski said | September 17th 2017 @ 11:13am | ! Report

            Peter the whole Mumm 2,0 schtick is a bit old isn’t it?

            • Roar Guru

              September 17th 2017 @ 11:15am
              PeterK said | September 17th 2017 @ 11:15am | ! Report

              not at all, best shorthand way to encapsulate so much about him and his play and value and the way Cheika sees him

              • September 17th 2017 @ 1:07pm
                Reverse Wheel said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:07pm | ! Report

                Nah, it’s old. Move on.

              • Roar Guru

                September 17th 2017 @ 1:35pm
                eagleJack said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:35pm | ! Report

                Yeah agree move on PK. It’s disrespectful, just call him by his name. Unless you’d sit down for a beer with him and call him Mumm 2.0 all night?

              • Roar Guru

                September 17th 2017 @ 1:41pm
                PeterK said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:41pm | ! Report

                nah i’d probably call him Ned (as in flanders) or Dean after all I wouldn’t call Mumm by his surname if I was having a beer but Dean

              • September 17th 2017 @ 2:06pm
                George Maharris said | September 17th 2017 @ 2:06pm | ! Report

                eagle jack well said

                peterK I’ve met Hanigan and i’ve never met you but i reckon you wouldn’t dare say that to his face… so yes you should move on from your childish attempt to discredit him by choosing to use a ridiculous and petulant namesake sign off

              • September 17th 2017 @ 2:16pm
                Fionn said | September 17th 2017 @ 2:16pm | ! Report

                I think Ned Flanders is a nickname of affection as much as it is a criticism

                The fact is that Ned Flanders in the Simpsons is a really nice bloke, in fact, he is too nice. He lacks the ability to be domineering or enforce his will and thus gets pushed around by more aggressive and domineering characters. No one dislikes him though because he is a really nice bloke.

                This is sort of how I see Hanigan, he seems like an enthusiastic, good young man trying his heart out to do his best. However, he lacks the ability to dominate or enforce his will around the park and gets pushed around.

                If Hanigan hardens up then his strong fundamentals mean he will probably be a test class player. However, at present he lacks the strength and power to play international football.

                I get your point that it isn’t disrespectful, however, and perhaps I shouldn’t use it any longer for that reason.


              • September 17th 2017 @ 5:06pm
                Daveski said | September 17th 2017 @ 5:06pm | ! Report

                I actually found Ned Flanders quite amusing the first time and at least Fionn you don’t use it ad nauseum.

                Peter, shorthand huh? You realize it’s more keystrokes and more complicated than typing his name correctly. Triple if you used Ned.

                Although given your obsession if typing on a phone you probably only need to hit ‘m’ and ‘Mumm 2.0’ comes up predictively.

                Mate you put some thoughtful stuff on the Roar but this is hack.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 2:25pm
                Taylorman said | September 17th 2017 @ 2:25pm | ! Report

                Yes George its extremely disrespectful. And its been going on for weeks that same old tired agenda. But there you go.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 2:31pm
                Fionn said | September 17th 2017 @ 2:31pm | ! Report

                What agenda, Taylorman?

                Above comment should read ‘I get your point that it is disrespectful’ to call him Flanders.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 2:40pm
                Taylorman said | September 17th 2017 @ 2:40pm | ! Report

                The Mumm 2.0 agenda with daveski saying it was a bit old and George correctly raising concern.

                Now in following the thread down that was so obvious you couldnt even see that? My, master of comprehension huh? Im going to start insisting you show me your award with the little ribbons attached, as I have grave concerns.?

              • September 17th 2017 @ 2:44pm
                Fionn said | September 17th 2017 @ 2:44pm | ! Report

                That doesn’t answer my question. I’m not sure what you think Peter’s agenda is? Peter is a Waratahs fan, and like most Aussie rugby fans just wants the Wallabies to be as good as they can be.

                Is this the agenda you speak of?

              • September 17th 2017 @ 2:54pm
                Taylorman said | September 17th 2017 @ 2:54pm | ! Report

                No (oddly),
                He is considering Hanigan in the same way Mumm was considered…selected endlessly for no obvious reason. Again, obvious. It isnt his name, so its disrespectful to endlessly quote it in a put down manner.
                Cheika has an interest in wanting the best out of the Wallabies too. Do you think he refers to him as Mumm2.0 in teamtalks?

                But then youll have a spin on that too. (Now that you actually get it).

              • September 17th 2017 @ 3:00pm
                Fionn said | September 17th 2017 @ 3:00pm | ! Report

                No, I must admit you still haven’t made clear what you think Peter’s agenda was, unless you’re saying that his agenda was to draw comparisons between Mumm and Hanigan. ‘Agenda’ implies secret or underhanded motives. Peter is internationally trying to draw links between Mumm and Hanigan.

                The fact that Cheika believes that Mumm, Hanigan (or Skelton back when) is how to get the best out of the Wallabies does not make Michael Cheika right.

                I think that, like Mumm, Hanigan is selected endlessly for no obvious reasons. A majority of Aussie rugby fans, and people with far more rugby brains than you or I (Scott Allen and Nick Bishop) think the same too.

              • Roar Guru

                September 17th 2017 @ 3:02pm
                PeterK said | September 17th 2017 @ 3:02pm | ! Report

                Taylorman – you are quite wrong

                Mumm 2.0 is quite apt and it isn’t a put down as such, he did play 57 tests.

                There are obvious reasons why he is selected.
                He is mobile, hard working and good in the lineout. All obvious and all attributes shared with Mumm.

                Also in common is they are both Tahs and a lot of people questioned why they kept other players out.

                They are both ineffective at clearing rucks, both lack physicality in contact, never make dominant tackles, don’t often get over the ad line in tight.

                Both are also nice guys, well spoken.

                Both also share very similar height and weight.

                Nothing disrespectful at all but great shorthand.
                1.96 m and 109 kg v 1.94m and 110 kg.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 3:08pm
                Taylorman said | September 17th 2017 @ 3:08pm | ! Report

                Yeah sure Pete, you go with that. (Btw Ill get Fionn to pop around with that long shovel when hes finished with it…if he ever does that is). 🙂

              • Roar Guru

                September 17th 2017 @ 3:18pm
                eagleJack said | September 17th 2017 @ 3:18pm | ! Report

                Just call him Ned or Hanigan PK. I might be critical of Cooper but I’d never refer to him as Blooper. Despite it being quite apt at times.

                Mumm was the most despised Wallaby on the Roar. I find it disrespectful to lump a new player straight into that box of hatred, simply because it makes “great shorthand”.

                We all know Hanigan’s shortcomings, and think he needs more time to develop away from the Wallabies. But he’s young and has the potential to be great in a couple of years time. He deserves to be called by his actual name.

              • Roar Guru

                September 17th 2017 @ 3:33pm
                PeterK said | September 17th 2017 @ 3:33pm | ! Report

                ej – of course Blooper is inappropriate since it highlights just 1 aspect.

                If you called Cooper – Spencer 2.0 then that would be quite apt.

                Very similar styles and games and strengths and weaknesses.

                Calling Hanigan Mumm2.0 may seem disrespectful to you, but I would conjecture that Ned Hanigan would not if he was asked.

                If someone said to him that you are being compared to Dean Mumm as a player and even knicknamed as Mumm 2.0 what do you think about that.

                I doubt very much he would see it as disrespect, he would probably say Mumm was a very good player, that he would be over joyed to play as many tests, he would probably also say that he wasn’t Mumm.

                I never hated Mumm. There were times I called out he had good games.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 8:37pm
                Fionn said | September 17th 2017 @ 8:37pm | ! Report

                PeterK did you hear on the TV yesterday they said that Hanigan’s mentor is Dean Mumm 😛 ?

              • Roar Guru

                September 17th 2017 @ 10:23pm
                PeterK said | September 17th 2017 @ 10:23pm | ! Report

                Fionn – No, hahahaha, if he is then Ned would take it as great praise to be called Mumm 2.0!

        • September 17th 2017 @ 11:44am
          Jameswm said | September 17th 2017 @ 11:44am | ! Report

          You don’t develop guys in the Wallabies. 4-5 guys could do his job better.

          • September 17th 2017 @ 1:06pm
            Reverse Wheel said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:06pm | ! Report

            Name them.

            • September 17th 2017 @ 1:37pm
              Rt said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:37pm | ! Report

              Guys who should be in the team ahead of Hannigan


              • September 17th 2017 @ 2:07pm
                George Maharris said | September 17th 2017 @ 2:07pm | ! Report

                you haven’t named anyone that plays his position

              • September 17th 2017 @ 2:12pm
                Jameswm said | September 17th 2017 @ 2:12pm | ! Report

                Off the top of my head

                None fall off tackles and clear outs like Ned. All are a better ball carrying option. 3/4 of them are similar in line outs

              • Roar Guru

                September 18th 2017 @ 12:47pm
                Train Without A Station said | September 18th 2017 @ 12:47pm | ! Report

                You mean Scott Higginbotham who has played half his career as a 6 doesn’t play in his position?

        • September 17th 2017 @ 10:18pm
          stagman said | September 17th 2017 @ 10:18pm | ! Report

          No Rob Malcolm, Hannigan is useless at best, particularly when there are better performing players having to play in NRC while he gets spoon fed by the ERU year after year.
          Cheika is simply following the rule set by his bosses to play Hannigan…………..not that Cheika is even clever enough to tie his own shoe laces!!!

    • September 17th 2017 @ 6:54am
      Concussed said | September 17th 2017 @ 6:54am | ! Report

      I still fail to see how the tmo could award the pumas first try. Clear obstruction.

      Good to see the forwards having a go. I have a bit of a man crush on Coleman.

      • September 17th 2017 @ 9:21am
        AJM said | September 17th 2017 @ 9:21am | ! Report

        Perhaps they took the ability of the particular obstructed player into account. Sorry Ned, couldn’t resist.

      • September 17th 2017 @ 10:27am
        Dave_S said | September 17th 2017 @ 10:27am | ! Report

        Yeah a question mark on that try, ironically they looked set to score anyway, just nearly bombed it with an unnecessary obstruction.

        Not sure about Phipps’s try, also.

        • Roar Guru

          September 17th 2017 @ 10:37am
          PeterK said | September 17th 2017 @ 10:37am | ! Report

          worst ref for any intl game this year.

          He missed so much, couldn’t manage or ref scrums, missed so many knock ons, obstructions time and again just called play on, no idea about rucks players playing the ball off their feet and so on.

          1st Puma try an obstruction yet awarded.
          Phipps try looked like he improved his position driving off a knee so should not have been awarded.
          Kerevi looked like he scored, 10 secs later he runs around and calls it held up after poor psoitioning, yet doesn’t go to tmo to check grounding before that , looked like a try
          The obvious knock on by Hanigan missed, try scored off scrum after that.

          The forward pass call against Pumas on a breakout , looked flat , certainly most of those are let go and if a try is scored then reviewed. Not saying a try would have been scored though.

          • September 17th 2017 @ 12:10pm
            soapit said | September 17th 2017 @ 12:10pm | ! Report

            thought the 1st pumas try was fair enough, player in front and although i normally like to be strict on these i dont think the obstructed player had muich chance. (as always reserve the right to be completely wrong pending closer 2nd look at the footage)

            id also add there was a very close pumas early in the 2nd half i thinkwhere foley ripped the ball out just as it was looking like it might catch a snick of the tryline and they didnt even take a look at it.

            certainly agree about their forward pass in the 1st half, this was a lot flatter than the standard ones you see let go happily not to mention the ones they video review (and not to mention foleys recent efforts!). im more confident that you that they would have scored from that. one thing argentina seem relatively handy at is executing on 2 on 1’s.

            luckily didnt make a difference. thought argentina have really gone backwards in the last 2 years. not playing at pace as a team anymore, just jogging and handing it sideways until someone feels like testing the line. not too challenging (but bit of a worry how often it managed to make ground last night).

            missed most of the second half i must admit. after a movie and cowboys eels semi pushing through a full second 40 beyond 1 am after what i saw in the first was too much.

            • Roar Guru

              September 17th 2017 @ 12:13pm
              PeterK said | September 17th 2017 @ 12:13pm | ! Report

              the puma player wasn’t bound so offside at the ruck, not only obstructed but the try scorer ran into him so at best accidental offside

              • September 17th 2017 @ 12:53pm
                soapit said | September 17th 2017 @ 12:53pm | ! Report

                tough one. on close look theyre both involved in the ruck and hinnigans starts to make a move to get away but gets a small check as he pokes his head up on the edge of the ruck.

                happy enough either way. you shouldnt be counting on someone being able to disentangle themselves clear from within from a ruck in a hurry to become your pillar (do they still call it that?). definitely not too much of a bad call considering how much leeway they’ve given to clearing out people on ruck fringes on suspicion.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 2:25pm
                cuw said | September 17th 2017 @ 2:25pm | ! Report

                @ soapit

                auzzy first try – pass to Foley was forward simply becoz he was in front 🙂

                the next try off the scrum – the scrum shud have been argie ball becoz i think Hanigan it was who dropped the ball before argie knock on.

                if Phipps was not double movement i doubt what willbe , becoz he simply propelled forwards.

                the scrum that went to auzzy and the subsequent try was the one that broke the argies. untill then they were in it.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 4:12pm
                Stu said | September 17th 2017 @ 4:12pm | ! Report

                There are no double movements in union. Phipps is allowed to play the ball once before releasing. If he then doesnt release he is pinged for holding on.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 6:23pm
                soapit said | September 17th 2017 @ 6:23pm | ! Report

                in reality they dont ping you if you make one movement and dont then release unless someone is tugging at the ball. the penalty occurs on the second movement

              • September 17th 2017 @ 8:17pm
                cuw said | September 17th 2017 @ 8:17pm | ! Report

                there is a thing commonly referred to as crawling – once ur tackled the ball must be placed immediately in any direction.

                if ur body is still moving u may go ahead and place it over the line. this is commonly refered to as momentum.

                if there is no double movement as u say , then so many refs i have seen going to the tmo asking to check for same must be nucking futs !!!

          • September 17th 2017 @ 8:37pm
            Jerry said | September 17th 2017 @ 8:37pm | ! Report

            Yeah, those were some odd calls. I did think neither the Phipps or Puma tries should have been awarded and that replay seemed to show Kerevi had the ball on the line.

    • September 17th 2017 @ 7:11am
      Brizvegas said | September 17th 2017 @ 7:11am | ! Report

      2nd half was a huge plus and well done to the Wallabies. Argies competed well in 1st half and went to the drive through in the 2nd half. It was a messy affair in the 1st half and breakdowns are still an issue.

    • September 17th 2017 @ 7:40am
      Fox Molder said | September 17th 2017 @ 7:40am | ! Report

      If the Pumas could get out of their own way they would have scored another 2/3 tries. On numerous occasions they were hammering the Wallabies line and one of their own players got in the way. Wallabies also scored a try from a scrum awarded against Argentina from a Hanigan knock on.

      Scrappy performance with a flattering score line. Echoes of the Italy game.

      PS when was the last time the Wallabies beat a team ranked higher than them?

      • September 17th 2017 @ 9:34am
        Ed said | September 17th 2017 @ 9:34am | ! Report

        Against South Africa in Brisbane last year. After our win we swapped third and fourth with the Boks.

      • September 17th 2017 @ 9:38am
        Drongo said | September 17th 2017 @ 9:38am | ! Report

        You are full of it. A brilliant second half performance and you come up with that. Zero credibility. Wallabies have been third for most of the last 2 years. Pretty hard to beat someone’s above you. Just a nasty comment made for the sake of a pathetic attempted put down. Crawl back in your hole.

        • Roar Rookie

          September 17th 2017 @ 10:17am
          Paulo said | September 17th 2017 @ 10:17am | ! Report

          Putting on 3 tries at the end with an Argie in the bin, would suggest a score blow out. Although dominant in the 2nd half, they didn’t really convert that into points until the death. So I think ‘brilliant’ may be a little over stating it, although it was a strong performance. they need to convert that performance and dominance into points and put the game to bed a lot earlier. Which has been stated a number of times.

          And as for…
          “Just a nasty comment made for the sake of a pathetic attempted put down. Crawl back in your hole.”

          …the same could be said for your comment… “Just caught the last 5 minutes. So boring. One sided rubbish.” regarding the NZ/SA game.

          • September 17th 2017 @ 7:42pm
            Drongo said | September 17th 2017 @ 7:42pm | ! Report

            That was my honest impression after switching it on. Would yours have been any different? Difference is, I am happy to recognise the brilliance of the ABs and Kiwi players and do it I often. Fox only posts negative diatribes no matter how well we go.

        • September 17th 2017 @ 10:24am
          Dave_S said | September 17th 2017 @ 10:24am | ! Report

          Drongo do you talk to people like that in person? Why do you think it’s acceptable here?

          • September 17th 2017 @ 7:35pm
            Drongo said | September 17th 2017 @ 7:35pm | ! Report

            Fox Moulder has never posted a single positive comment about any Australian team or any Australian player. I dare him to find any such post and reproduce it here. Don’t get sucked in by the Fox. No matter what the result, he says that we were crap. Right or wrong, Fox?

        • September 17th 2017 @ 1:36pm
          Cliff (Bishkek) said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:36pm | ! Report

          Drongo, I think that Fox Mulder is 100% correct. It was not a convincing win based on the fact of a first 40 minutes that the ABs, England and the Boks would have made us pay. Although after reading the details of the Boks against the ABs – they showed their exact “level” – and it is ABs – by a surgical mile and all other teams are the “rest”.

          The Wallabies have problems, they have not gone away, they are not really improving, they are a stop/go team of – good points but a hell of a lot of stupidity – selections, Foley (limited capabilities), Folua (apart form good running – he is not an FB, he is a winger – his tackling and positioning as an FB is BS), Hanigan (not and will never be of sufficient standard – Cheika is blinkered), Phipps should not be there (someone spoke development – we need a No. 9 to be there and learn under Genia – not Phipps), Moore (great – but finished), and our Coach has no idea and lacks ability and smarts.

          The WBs will talk themselves up and come crashing down – Argentina at home, Bok at home and then the ABs!!

      • September 17th 2017 @ 11:31am
        Vesi Tagoiaega said | September 17th 2017 @ 11:31am | ! Report

        At least MC didn’t blame ref for giving WB a scrum feed instead of Puma

    • September 17th 2017 @ 7:55am
      Red Block said | September 17th 2017 @ 7:55am | ! Report

      So the next game is at Jo’burg against the Boks. A game at altitude against a proud Springboks team coming off a humiliating defeat.

      Oh baby, this could get ugly unless the WBs pick up their work rate.

      In days of yore, if a player wasn’t performing for 80 minutes, wouldn’t the conversation go something like,
      ‘Hey mate, listen carefully, we (the selectors) don’t feel you are really putting in a consistent performance, we want you to back to your club (NRC) and when you show us that you are ready to play a whole game and then we’ll reassess your form but until then we are going to try someone else.’

      • September 17th 2017 @ 8:02am
        mikeylives said | September 17th 2017 @ 8:02am | ! Report

        Fitness doesn’t seem to be an issue. This puts us in as good a position as possible for a test at altitude.
        NB – we have had fitness issues in the past, which have been exposed there.

        I’m wary of the Boks as I thought they were physically quite dominant for good periods of the game last night despite going down heavily. AB counterattack just slaughtered them.

      • September 17th 2017 @ 8:25am
        Bruce said | September 17th 2017 @ 8:25am | ! Report

        A wins a win, well done. Dont think we can say a form line will come from it.

        I hope you arent suggesting accountability for individual performance. We dont do that. Selections are justified with 1 win every 6-7 tests. And we’ve promised some of these guys jobs for life anyway, just like the tahs business model.

        I dont get the hype around folau. Same as at the tahs, he only scores if theres noone between him and the line. To be fair, he doesnt seem to look for the spotlight himself. But anyway we all get excited when a try is scored and it was great to have some highlights from last night.

        • September 17th 2017 @ 11:54am
          Akari said | September 17th 2017 @ 11:54am | ! Report

          I dont get the hype around folau.

          I was watching the game from just to the left side of the TV end of the field and twice Folau received a kick just to the right of the goal post around about the 22 with Beale (immediately), a forward, TK and I think Hodgy to his left. Instead of attacking left, Folau went to the right with Polota-Nau to his right. I asked my mate why he did that? We were both dumbfounded. When it happened a 2nd time, I could only conclude that he is not street smart enough to be a 15. He should really be IMO on the wing with rugby smart players on his inside to set him for tries and he will score tons of them from that position. The hype about his game would be deservedly rewarded then. He could always fall back to support the FB when required from time to time during the game.

        • September 17th 2017 @ 1:06pm
          mikeylives said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:06pm | ! Report

          Compared to his opposite:
          Folau: 11 runs for 114m (best on ground)
          Bofelli: 9 runs for 20m

          Folau: 5 clean breaks (best on ground)
          Bofelli: 0 clean breaks

          Folau: 4 defenders beaten (equal best on ground)
          Bofelli: 1 defender beaten

          Folau: 2 tries (best on ground)
          Bofelli: 0

          Folau: 4 tackles 0 missed.
          Bofelli: 2 tackles 1 missed.

          Folau conceded 1 more turnover than his opposite, but one of these was a crucial (and difficult) attempted intercept to prevent a certain Arg try.
          He had a pretty good game. I get the hype.

          • September 17th 2017 @ 1:21pm
            Taylorman said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:21pm | ! Report

            Interest comparison with Ioane…
            181m from 12 carries, 11 defenders beaten, four clean breaks and one try.
            Fullback vs Wing for sure but similar.

            • September 17th 2017 @ 2:27pm
              cuw said | September 17th 2017 @ 2:27pm | ! Report

              and against the much higher ranked team 🙂

              also i think Beale is defacto full back.

              there was something said by commentary that there is a concios decision to keep Beale away from tackling line and his play is improved thus…..

          • September 17th 2017 @ 2:48pm
            Akari said | September 17th 2017 @ 2:48pm | ! Report

            Not a great comparison, mikeylives.

            Bofelli is still a baby in rugby terms and is either a centre or winger and only started his super rugby career in 2016. He was an U20s player in 2015. He also played on the wing for Los Pumas against the ABs last week and can kick penalty goals from 50m out. If I am right, he first played for Los Pumas this year.

            Folau IMHO can get even better on the wing with better people to set him up as the ABs are able to do with Rieko Ioane although I think Ioane is a better rugby player as he can create tries for himself and others in his team.

            • September 17th 2017 @ 3:53pm
              mikeylives said | September 17th 2017 @ 3:53pm | ! Report

              Not trying to compare them as players – Just showing opposite positions in that match. Folau had a very good game (but does so pretty much every week).

      • September 17th 2017 @ 9:57am
        Ed said | September 17th 2017 @ 9:57am | ! Report

        An advantage we and the ABs have is with the first two tests being Bledisloe encounters followed by the Boks and Pumas playing here. Our travel compared to RSA and ARG is small, which can have an effect on fatigue.

        Here is the abstract from a study, “The Effect of Altitude and Travel on Rugby Union Performance: Analysis of the 2012 Super Rugby Competition.”

        The aim of this study was to investigate whether playing rugby at altitude or after travel (domestic and international) disadvantaged teams. In a retrospective longitudinal study, all matches (N = 125) played in the 2012 Super Rugby Competition were analyzed for key performance indicators (KPI) from coded game data provided by OPTA sports data company. Matches were played in a home-away format in New Zealand, South Africa, and Australia.

        Teams based at sea level but playing at altitude (1,271-1,753 m) were more likely to miss tackles (mean ± 90% confidence interval, 1.4 ± 1.7) and score fewer points in the first half compared with games at sea level. In the second half of games, sea level teams at altitude were very likely to make fewer gain lines (-4.0 ± 2.7) compared with the second half of games at sea level. The decreased ability to break the defensive line, which may be the result of altitude-induced fatigue, could reduce the likelihood of scoring points and winning a game.

        Travel also had an effect on KPI, where international travel resulted in more missed tackles (1.7 ± 1.3) and less frequent gain lines (-3.0 ± 1.9) in the first half relative to matches at home; overall, away teams (domestic and international) scored 4 less points in the second half compared with home teams. In conclusion, playing away from home in another country, particularly at altitude, can have a detrimental effect on KPI, which may affect the overall performance and the chances of winning matches.

      • September 17th 2017 @ 9:58am
        joeys 78 said | September 17th 2017 @ 9:58am | ! Report

        No its not, the game is in Bloemfontein in the Free State, miles away from Joburg.

        • September 17th 2017 @ 12:29pm
          HiKa said | September 17th 2017 @ 12:29pm | ! Report

          Not quite as high as Jo’burg (c.1750m) but still high enough (c.1400m) to cause fatigue issues for players who spend most of their lives around sea level.

      • September 17th 2017 @ 10:20am
        Ken Catchpole's Other Leg said | September 17th 2017 @ 10:20am | ! Report

        RB, the phrase ‘we (the selectors)’ is not relevant atm, because it seems that there is only one Wallaby selector.

        (Unless we count the Roar selection panel)

      • September 17th 2017 @ 1:37pm
        Cliff (Bishkek) said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:37pm | ! Report

        Red Block – we would have to find a complete NEW run on 15 – as we have a team where all the players cannot give a full and committed 80 mins.

    • September 17th 2017 @ 8:42am
      Mark said | September 17th 2017 @ 8:42am | ! Report

      Ned is dead weight. We have midgets in the back. We need timani at number 8 and mcmahon to number 6. We just do not have the penetration to go forward. The hookers are great both tpn and ulese. Number 10 is our archiles heel. We do not play well due to poor service from 10. We need to drop foley and replace with Beale. Reeve hodge then can play inside centre to give us kicking options. Banks needs to be full back and folau to the wing.

      • September 17th 2017 @ 9:07am
        Ken Catchpole's Other Leg said | September 17th 2017 @ 9:07am | ! Report

        Agree with most of that Mark.
        There were long periods last night where we had no creativity in possession attack (as opposed to counter attack). I love Kurtley but he is a good 15 for mine.
        Our best 10 is playing NRC.

        The ‘elastic band’ counter attack of (presumably) Mick Byrne is starting to develop. The elastic band is stretched and is ready to fire even when defending, so that as soon as the opposing attack makes a mistake the elastic flicks into fast pass sprint attack. (Like another team we know and love).

        Yet when we have possession we have little creativity still. Set piece offers a unique opportunity of space, yet we rarely use it. Why?
        Because we do not have a 10 with core-10 skills.
        We have had in our team one of the best high ball catchers in the world. Yet we still do not have a 10 who can cross kick to him.
        If we play like that next week we will be toast in SA.
        Rodda looks good.
        Dempsey looks ok.
        Ned looks nervous.

        • Roar Guru

          September 17th 2017 @ 10:45am
          PeterK said | September 17th 2017 @ 10:45am | ! Report

          Timani would be a better repalcement for Mumm 2.0 and Higgs from out of the squad but neither will happen , both on the outer with Cheika.

          A more realistic option is Dempsey. Dempsey would be an improvement on Mumm 2.0, not ideal or best soultion but still an improvement.

          • September 17th 2017 @ 1:44pm
            Cliff (Bishkek) said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:44pm | ! Report

            Peter where is RHP? Is he injured and if not injured why is he not considered as a No. 6? Cheers

            • Roar Guru

              September 17th 2017 @ 3:07pm
              PeterK said | September 17th 2017 @ 3:07pm | ! Report

              he had a shoulder op

        • September 17th 2017 @ 11:47am
          Jameswm said | September 17th 2017 @ 11:47am | ! Report

          Uelese looks good too. Very good.

          • September 17th 2017 @ 5:13pm
            Daveski said | September 17th 2017 @ 5:13pm | ! Report

            Yep – there’s plenty to load up on Cheika about selection wise but he overlooked Latu, Ready, Hanson, Tessman, Abel to come up with Ueleese and you’d have to say it’s the right call. Though I’m a fan of Chibba and Ready.

            • September 17th 2017 @ 5:18pm
              Fionn said | September 17th 2017 @ 5:18pm | ! Report

              Very happy to admit my mistake on this one.

              No longer am I going to be calling for Latu to be moved into the 23. Uelese will probably have a couple of speed bumps this year, but he looks excellent. Great selection there, Cheika.

      • Roar Guru

        September 17th 2017 @ 10:43am
        PeterK said | September 17th 2017 @ 10:43am | ! Report

        Beale is a worse 10 than a 12 and you would lose too much putting Beale at 10 unless you put Hunt at 12.

        Hodge is a very poor answer at 12, poor hands and slow hands.

        Beale lacks a long pass even more than Foley and would resort to sideways running too much.

        The answer is QC at 10 or failing that Lance.

        That said this was Foley’s best game of the year, it was credible a 6 or 7 /10.
        He did a try assist and a line break assist, only a few errors and poor decision making. He saved a try with the tackle on the tryline stealing the ball.

        Mumm 2.0 is set for life at least whilst Cheika is coach. Obvious Timani should be there or even better Higgs from out of the squad.

        • September 17th 2017 @ 11:19am
          Rob Malcolm said | September 17th 2017 @ 11:19am | ! Report

          QC? Ha ha ha, geez what a broken record…
          Honestly QC hasn’t played a good game since 2011. Back then he was, I am only too happy to add, an absolute genius. I still play the highlights reel of that year when I’m feeling down.
          And for the next 4 years I too had him in all my Wallaby teams.
          But he was and is a shadow of 2011. He always had his flaws, but since 2011 he lost his ability to step and take on the line. Now he stands deeeeep and relies on great passing, but any decent defence has him figured.
          So that QC is gone mate. GONE.
          Foley had an average game last night: missed a few tackles, poor restart
          But he makes things happen around him – he plays flat; with a fast, accurate pass; runs straight; backs up – Folau, Kurindrani and Beale all work well with him. His goal kicking last night was spot on – and there were a lot of hard ones.
          On the downside, when the forwards are going back or our 9 is having a poor game, sure he looks ordinary. His kicking is always weak. He’s small so despite being gutsy and technically OK, he is going to be busted a few times by a 100kg+ rampaging runner.
          So he’s not a great, but clearly he’s the best we’ve got at the moment.
          When QC puts together a decent SR season again then I’d be the first to have him, but until then give it a break.

          • September 17th 2017 @ 11:28am
            Fionn said | September 17th 2017 @ 11:28am | ! Report

            So you didn’t watch the 2013 EOYT when he played his best consistent rugby for the Wallabies?

            Neither did you watch him last year when he did pretty well.

            • Roar Guru

              September 17th 2017 @ 11:29am
              PeterK said | September 17th 2017 @ 11:29am | ! Report

              Foley has 1 good game and they ignore how poor he has been all year in intl’s and latter season of super rugby, how qc was better than him last year.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 11:42am
                Taylorman said | September 17th 2017 @ 11:42am | ! Report

                Who’s they? Cos they certainly havent been inoring it, in fact hundreds of em have been shouting from the rooftops after every single match. Geez.

                QC is gone, how many times does he have to be brought up? Its so obvious Cheika wont start him, and now wont even select him that its getting silly. Hes too much of a risk and his so called good matches were average at best, and Cooper isnt of any value off average. Hes either gotta make stunning plays or passes or hes ineffective.

                He may have been marginally better once, that was it. As bad as Foley can be, hes still a better option than Cooper…and Cheika and I both agree on that.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 1:12pm
                Reverse Wheel said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:12pm | ! Report

                This. This is true.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 1:22pm
                George Maharris said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:22pm | ! Report

                yes Foley seems to have these one off good games all the time…

                fact is Foley having a bad game is the one off, not the other way around.

              • Roar Guru

                September 17th 2017 @ 1:24pm
                eagleJack said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:24pm | ! Report

                Yep, Tman. Always takes a Kiwi to point out the obvious.

                Foley has his faults. So does Cooper. Yet his fans only remember the positives and the longer he is out, the greater the myth grows.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 1:33pm
                Fionn said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:33pm | ! Report

                Eaglejack, I don’t only remember the positives, and I honestly think that you try and objectively evaluate both of them and just have a different option to me.

                However, it is a bit of a myth that Foley is much more reliable than Quade (the “Iceman”). I do not see this at all. I would have thought that Jono Lance should be the Iceman. He is the solid guy who won’t make spectacular plays, but won’t let the team down.

                Taylorman once had an argument with TWAS in which he argued that even though QC had a better tackle completion rate than Foley, Foley was a better tackler because his technique was better. I would have thought it obvious to everyone outside of Taylorman that that logic is just spurious nonsense and lacking all logic. They’re both poor defenders, and there isn’t much to seperate them here, although statistics say Foley is slightly worse.

                Foley and Quade both make some really really poor errors. The difference, in my mind, is that Quade is much better at setting up his backline, much better at running a backline and has a much better tactical kicking game.

                Foley’s lows are as low as Quade, but his highs are rarer and they’re not as high. He is a better kicker off the tee (although I prefer Lance to either) and a better support player.

                Question is, do we want a 10 with a better tactical kicking game and who runs his backline, or do we want a 10 who will run the ball himself far more but struggles to set up his dangerous outside backs in Folau, TK and Beale? I’d much prefer a 10 who sets up the rest of his backline rather than goes it himself like Foley does.

                Foley’s two shocking attempted cut out passes in Bledisloe 1 and the Springboks tests that both went forward by meters (but weren’t called) should be red flags. How can you carry a 10 who cannot pass long?

                Anyway, unlike most people in this debate, Eaglejack, I truly believe you’re objective in this and not blinded by bias. I must admit I just don’t get Foley. I bought into the ‘Iceman’ myth from the WC, but was greatly disillusioned in the England series, and he hasn’t seem to have gotten much better in the 20+ tests since then. Each to their own anyway.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 1:56pm
                Taylorman said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:56pm | ! Report

                Yes something called confirmation bias I believe someone called it.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 6:26pm
                soapit said | September 17th 2017 @ 6:26pm | ! Report

                tman its harder to argue confirmation bias when the stats are backing it up.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 6:37pm
                Taylorman said | September 17th 2017 @ 6:37pm | ! Report

                What stats? There are no stats. Foley is the 10 of choice by the coach. He just got man of the match. So if hes not getting dropped when according to some hes not playing well, he certainly aint going anywhere now.

                So what stats are important here?

              • September 17th 2017 @ 6:44pm
                Fionn said | September 17th 2017 @ 6:44pm | ! Report

                I love how you talk about a totally subjective Man of the Match award as being meaningful in any way whatsoever…

                Yet at the same time all other subjective opinions that are critical of his performance in any way, saying that he had a mixed bag, are just bias.

                Do you comprehend how often you contradict yourself?

              • September 17th 2017 @ 6:56pm
                Taylorman said | September 17th 2017 @ 6:56pm | ! Report

                No Fionn, I dont see it that way. For instance your interpretation of the last two matches were different to mine. I said he was one of the main reasons they drew the test. Because…he actually was.

                So Im not ignoring them, Im not agreeing with your argument. So you cant argue Im ignoring things outside the man of the match because they are things you believe, not me.

                Man of the match or not…I dont care. But like it or not, Foley is there to stay. Cooper will not start at 10 as per Peterks little list so although it might be fun to discuss the merits of Cooper playing. He aint going to be. So why bother.

                By doing that you miss out on discussing what improvements Foley can make next test. How can he build on what most think was an ok performance. Because thats whos playing.

                But no. Stuck with the tape. He shouldnt be there. Same old pointless rubbish. ‘He got MOTM but so what?’ You say.

                Well. He’ll be playing, so theres merit in discussing what could be given thats the case.

                But no. Foley dhouldnt be there, blah blah.

                You contribute zero in that respect to the next match.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 7:06pm
                Fionn said | September 17th 2017 @ 7:06pm | ! Report

                Why bother discussing it?

                Because if Cheika doesn’t turn a page soon then I foresee big changes in either the coaching staff or how much authority Cheika has. Cheika has run an autocracy since he took over. It worked well in 2015, but it is harder and harder to justify giving him free reign when results are what they are.

                And because I think we have a talented group of players, and a dangerous backline. And it is nice to think of ways that the team might be able to rediscover its 2013 form, and I just can’t ever see it happening under Foley, he is too limited. It probably wouldn’t happen under Cooper either, as he isn’t playing as well as he was in 2013 by a long way, but it is nonetheless possible.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 7:23pm
                Taylorman said | September 17th 2017 @ 7:23pm | ! Report

                And thats fine, you can dwell on that. Id prefer to look at whats in front of me, look at the positives, including what Foley could bring to the next game.

                But you will never have that discussion, because you never get off first base. With each test you keep dredging up why Foley should go. And you have missed what hes either done, or could have done with each subsequent test.

                Perhaps thats a difference between Wallaby fans and AB fans,

                We trust our coach, obviously for good reason. We have our moans and favourites but we dont stay on constant crusades of what should be, but rather focus on what could be. We dont create Mumm 2.0s and constantly refer to it until hes either dropped or actually becomes a good player.

                We look forward, we dont look back. Perhaps the relative results puts us on different analysis planes in that respect.

                But from where I sit in some eyes Foley can do no good, no matter how well he plays, and thats just stupid and pointless. I think hes good enough for the position in terms of the Wallabies relative strengths so should be supported.

                I think hes had the worst deal from fans since Dean Mumm, although I tended to agree with that one. I dont with Foley. I think hes the best Oz have, for now.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 7:39pm
                Fionn said | September 17th 2017 @ 7:39pm | ! Report

                Yeah, mate, All Black fans are just the best fans in the world. It must be really hard following a team that loses, on average, once a year, and has won every single major tournament since 2010.

                All Black fans were not nearly so positive back in 1998-2003 or 2007-08.

                Absolutely disagree on Foley being the best. As Mark Ella said, he is an inferior 10 to Beale, and I also think he is inferior to Quade and very possibly also inferior to Jono Lance.

                The problem is that people like you don’t want to actually analyse things or look at stats, keep trusting your gut feel (rather like Cheika). I used to believe in Foley and was one of his big supporters, up until the England series and Bledisloe Cup in 2016. It’s much easier to simply accuse everyone else who can see the deficiencies in his game as being biased, isn’t it Tman?

                Anyway, we can agree to disagree, we won’t find common ground.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 8:05pm
                soapit said | September 17th 2017 @ 8:05pm | ! Report

                tman i know it got lost in there with all the other talk but the stats that say foley is a worse defnder. anyway im but a bit part player in this exchange so will exit

              • September 17th 2017 @ 8:14pm
                Taylorman said | September 17th 2017 @ 8:14pm | ! Report

                Well I didnt say we were the best I said we were different and understandably, have different views.

                Also understand you dont like Foley but that doesnt mean I havent done the analysis. I have, and I just derive a different result from you, because the things I find important in a player differ from yours.

                And unfortunately, whether you or Mark Ella like it or not, that happens to be the same conclusion as the Wallabies coach, the person the ARU has officially chosen to make such decisions. So you might see yourself as smarter than Cheika in that respect, where I don’t.

          • Roar Guru

            September 17th 2017 @ 11:28am
            PeterK said | September 17th 2017 @ 11:28am | ! Report

            against boks at altitude having good general play kickers is a must.
            QC is far better at that than Foley.

            I agree he isn’t as good as he was, he never regained his pace after the knee reconstruction. I agree Foley is a better runner and support runner.

            QC though makes far better use of the players outside him. Foley has to have a playmaker at 12 sine he himself is not a playmaker.

            QC at 10 allows Beale to be at 15 which is a far better structure for his general kicking , returning kicks, choosing when to chime into attack and so on.

            • September 17th 2017 @ 1:22pm
              mikeylives said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:22pm | ! Report

              But QC has had a terrible year with the Reds. He is not in good form.

              • September 17th 2017 @ 2:12pm
                Taylorman said | September 17th 2017 @ 2:12pm | ! Report

                (Psst…Never let a fact get in the way of a good argument)

              • September 17th 2017 @ 2:31pm
                cuw said | September 17th 2017 @ 2:31pm | ! Report

                apparently he is not enjoying rugger – as per the coach.

              • Roar Guru

                September 18th 2017 @ 12:50pm
                Train Without A Station said | September 18th 2017 @ 12:50pm | ! Report

                Except he didn’t have a “terrible year”.

                He certainly didn’t have a great year but he directed the team around well enough in attack to see them score plenty of tries. They average 3.5 tries a game when Cooper played (including games vs the Crusaders and Chiefs) but only 1.3 tries per game in the 3 he missed.

              • September 18th 2017 @ 4:14pm
                enoughisenough said | September 18th 2017 @ 4:14pm | ! Report

                Oh yes, and Foley has been so great this year, right? All of those missed tackles, missed touch finders, intercepts, poor place kicking when the pressure was on, general poor decision making, lack of impact, inability to get his backline going, for both the Tahs and Wallatahs was someone other than Foley wasn’t it?

          • September 17th 2017 @ 11:51am
            Taylorman said | September 17th 2017 @ 11:51am | ! Report

            Totally agree, those who keep trying to resurrect him is really amusing. In sixty plus tests hes not been favoured to start in at least five years, and has ne er sorted his head highs out.

            All that behind, according to most, a very poor Foley.

            • September 18th 2017 @ 4:15pm
              enoughisenough said | September 18th 2017 @ 4:15pm | ! Report

              Yeah right Taylorman, and your boy Foley has been so deserving of his starts hasn’t he?

          • September 17th 2017 @ 1:18pm
            mikeylives said | September 17th 2017 @ 1:18pm | ! Report

            The voice of reason – EXACTLY THIS! +1

        • September 17th 2017 @ 6:38pm
          Ed said | September 17th 2017 @ 6:38pm | ! Report


          Was having Foley and Beale defending in the frointline against the ABs in Dunedin an anomaly as Foley and Beale have been more on the wings/out back in the past two tests, so back to musical chairs in defence.
          And Cheika has said he wants to take Hunt to Argentina where he can see having Hunt and Beale in the XV. Would he have Hunt at 12, Folau 14 and Beale 15? Only it could occur.

          • Roar Guru

            September 17th 2017 @ 7:01pm
            PeterK said | September 17th 2017 @ 7:01pm | ! Report

            Beale and Foley tackling in the frontline perhaps is only to be used against NZ since they are so fast on counterattack on turnovers.

            So yes back to more musical chairs it seems.

            Cheika says he would make the numbers work somehow.

            So either Folau has to be moved to wing (or 13) and Cheika has been well against that publicly or Beale to 10 or Beale to wing. He does mention that spots are opening up with DHP being injured so perhaps Beale a hybrid wing /fb like DHP was.

          • Roar Guru

            September 17th 2017 @ 7:14pm
            PeterK said | September 17th 2017 @ 7:14pm | ! Report

            I forgot to add Folau really plays more wing now than F/B anyway or at least a roaming wing.

            Why he retains the number 15 on his jersey I don’t know. Cheika has said numbers on jerseys don’t mean much in the backs.

            So if Beale is moved to f/b i.e plays it more often than Folau like DHP does and he is happy t wear the number 14 instead it could well happen.

            • September 17th 2017 @ 9:55pm
              Ed said | September 17th 2017 @ 9:55pm | ! Report


              If that is the case, the team will continue with the current system for the next two tests then slip back to the Dunedin system for Brisbane. By then we could then have Hunt in the lineup, so less shuffling.

      • September 17th 2017 @ 11:30am
        HarryT said | September 17th 2017 @ 11:30am | ! Report

        Didn’t you notice our midget back row run rings around the monster Argies’ back row in the second half? Their boppers were gassed after 50 minutes, whereas ours could play two games in a row and still not raise a sweat. They out scrummed them too.

        • September 17th 2017 @ 11:49am
          Jameswm said | September 17th 2017 @ 11:49am | ! Report

          Yeah scrum was impressive

          • Roar Guru

            September 17th 2017 @ 11:52am
            PeterK said | September 17th 2017 @ 11:52am | ! Report

            from the get go, the pumas kept pulling back, ref warned them yet ignored it time and again

            • September 17th 2017 @ 2:33pm
              cuw said | September 17th 2017 @ 2:33pm | ! Report

              LOL the same thing auzzy did in the very first test v NZ 🙂

              the argie style is catching on

              • September 17th 2017 @ 6:28pm
                soapit said | September 17th 2017 @ 6:28pm | ! Report

                dont worry cuw. we havent forgotten about nz

    , , ,