Wallabies defeat wasn’t about winning or losing. It was about discovery

Agree with everything except Frost. He's had plenty of chances. Maybe Neville should get a shot alongside Skelton, or they can shift Holloway to lock. He looked way more comfortable there for the Tahs.

Swinton and McMahon the most promising for mine. Should never have let McMahon go.

His best involvement was being on the ball when Nawaqanitawase took the quick tap.

“It would have been easy if I come in, pared everything back and played a really simple game, but that’s not going to win us a World Cup.” In all fairness, it seems like the Wallabies couldn’t win a meat tray with the current approach, never mind a world cup. You’ve got a team struggling to get the basics right and even hold basic discipline together and collect yellow cards like they’re going out of fashion. Get the simple stuff done right, then the complex will follow.

The benefits of the Junior Gold Cup, implemented in 2014 were only just starting to be seen with the 2019 U20s

Not specifically having a go at you Phil but some of this is just what people say without considering the true issues. Aus 20s in 2019 came 2nd. In 2023, the next JWC after covid they finished 5th and only lost to the team that came 2nd. The reality is the Aus 20s are now probably around a top 4 team (potentially better than 5th but not 2nd either). Yet the Wallabies sit at 8th and have been sitting outside the top 4 for a while. So let's just ignore your comments about anything from national U20 level down. No doubt we could improve but it seems this isn't the issue. We are potentially worse at senior level than our 20s, so that's where the decline in performance is occuring. More high level rugby is definitely a factor. For those players who aren't in the best 23 at a Super Rugby team, that are no doubt going to be getting better prepared for Super Rugby by playing against other fringe Super Rugby players, and a handful of the best club players from each state, as opposed to playing club rugby where the majority of the opposition are club players, not SR contracted players. So something like an NRC is needed. More Super B fixtures is a critical part that can improve this (perhaps a Super Rugby AU cup/side comp similar to what the Prem does with the Premiership Cup. But also Aus A games to give those players that regularly play Super Rugby, but not test rugby a chance to play against test teams and train with the best other players. Ensuring we have good coaches at Super Rugby level is also critical.

Got to love this public crucifixion of Tom Wright. NOT. Look, Tom made two errors in this test, one was a knock-on while fielding a low kick (Hang him! Hang him NOW!), and the other was a pass back to Carter Gordon who wasn't expecting it, but should have been! Tom's strength is creating attacking opportunities, and with time he and Gordon could be amazing. And what about the other upsides? Like, the fact that his positional play was outstanding. Like, the fact that he didn't miss a tackle, or drop a high ball? His touches when hard on attack are always class, and he is great at organising his back field. He's also a main reason behind the Brums excellent season, particularly their attacking improvement. He set up Toole for a bunch of tries and tended to make Lolesio look much better than he really is with some incredible runs and slick passing to get the backline working. So... yes, he makes mistakes like any player does (Hooper anyone??? Even Kerevi and Koirebete screwed up, for goodness sake), but for me his +ves more than make up for any -ves. With all this public pressure and some returning players Tom may be dropped, but I think that would be a huge shame.

No, injury stopped him playing a fair bit. Thought his name should be out there as part of the conversation though.

Exactly. By age 14 the aim should be for them to be instinctive rugby players.

I suppose he would be next up. Kinda forgot him. Did he spend much time at 13 this year?

This sounds familiar, that's exactly what Eddie was saying in his last period as England coach. Meanwhile England kept loosing to sometimes inferior opposition considering the riches in talent at his disposal, in the end it didn't wash and the RFU got rid. In the end that English team had not identity, where overcoached and couldn't think on their feet and where like robots playing exactly what Eddie wanted. For example in good attacking positions where they needed to put the ball through hands and run for tries they would kick the ball and squander position and try opportunities. In the end Eddie's style was almost like a hybrid Boks style which is pretty much have very dominant forwards and try to physically impose and dominate the opposition through physicality and the trys would come that was the expectation except that they didn't come. It looked like they were under instruction to kick at every attacking opportunity instead of playing what's in front and heads up rugby and score tries. I do fear what he is trying to do with this wallaby side, the problem he has is that in Australia he doesn't have the players to play a total physical game which he could to a greater extent with England because Australia just doesn't have enough players to play that physical style and dominate the opposition physically, I also noted the same tendencies of kicking the ball away in good attacking positions. Australia needs to stick to their dna which is playing running rugby and put the ball through the hnads and score trys instead of getting bogged down trying to play a physical game when they don't have enough of those players in union as almost all of them are in the NRL. Personally I can only see the Wallabies having a disastrous world cup and falling to make it beyond the quarters or falling to make them. Eddie will surely be gone after that, I would love to be proven wrong but somehow I'm not sure I will.

Kellaway at 15 ,otherwise Carter Gordon. 2 playmakers and can tackle. Also seems adaptable. Foketi at 13. McDermott at 9. Would like to see Wilkin at 7, see what he's got. Mcreight on the bench

100 %. Kerevi is a 12 and a fine one at that, not a centre. And don’t start me on the 6/2 bench. That is just daft. 2 of the bench forwards never got a run , so Hodge should have been there as cover for the midfield and fullback. Eddie is learning on the fly but I think his idea of a large immobile forward pack will mean they continue to struggle. So I’d add no more starting both Skelton and Arnold. They put that team out against the AB’s and the AB’s play like they did against the Bok, they will get pumped in Melbourne.

Scrum and line out ok, but mobility is an issue for mine. Starting Skelton and Arnold is wrong and if they play against the AB’s they will be cannon fodder. Faessler is dynamic and provides mobility and more impact than Poreki for mine. If Bell can scrummage well he is also a starter for mine. I don’t think Holloway cuts it, but too late now to test other combinations, like Uru at 8 and Valentini at 6. I think the idea of having the biggest most immobile forward pack is a disaster in the making.

I wish they had given Uru a go at 8 and move Valentini to the blind. I know it’s a bit out there, but it’s a more balanced backrow.

True, Matt is more mobile than Richie For the Bled (omg) we will need a LOT of mobility!

I’d have Matt and Skelton starting, not Skelton and Arnold. With Matt you get more mobility. Skelton, Arnold work if you are playing in the middle of the field.

He’s a winger and can get by with scant rugby knowledge. The best wingers play what is in front of them and go looking for the ball… this is exactly what Marky Mark does. Good rugby knowledge and ability to read the game however is vital in positions like first five, centre and fullback… two of those are fine.

not sure. matt p can of course (not suggesting he is the answer tho)

Very good post. Don’t have to agree with it although I tend to, but more importantly it was one of the most entertaining posts I have read from start to finish. Good job Tooly.