Since Tony the Pom has been given the arse, it probably won’t matter.

IMO Jaco Peyper is the best referee now, and I hope he gets the Final. For mine, Joubert has tended just a smidgeon toward being “in awe” of the ABs. Perhaps Nigel Owens is second best, but Wayne Barnes impresses me with his willingness to take the final decision where a TMO has been invited to offer their opinion, as well as his generally accurate and decisive match handling. NZ’s Chris Pollock is another good ref.

None of the above give any cause for real concern unlike George Clancy or Roman Poite.

Australia have a big task against England at Twickenham with Poite refereeing. If the scrum goes down, Australia will be penalised no matter who’s at fault, so the WBs have a vested interest in making as sure as possible that scrums don’t go down. Foe England, though, they would love the scrum going down. This is the area of win or lose in this match, and with Poite as ref, the WBs better blow England off the park early or they will be penalised out of it.

You’re spot on pinpointing the 3 big game-changers for the Wallabies, and if all 3 do what they’re capable of, then it might be down to the Final, where these days any team is a chance once they’re there.

Pooper can be the potential killer-blow for the WBs, and the opposing coaches will be doing everything possible to stymie them. But can those stymying efforts succeed? I’m not so sure that they can. The Pooper form will need to rise and rise until a peak on Final day to triumph. Could be fascinating.

Folau, of course, is supreme under the high ball, but it’s his running in traffic, where he always seems to make 10m and still safely delivers the ball for recycling, that is so damaging. Out wide he can break the line, but the supports have to be there to finish the job. If he adds some runs closer to the ruck off a Genia/Phipps/Foley/Giteau short ball .. maybe even a bit like Digby Ioane, then that might be a decider.

Can the scrum hold up? It’s looking good so far, so the Ledesma tutoring is starting to pay off. The big test aganst England will tell us. I’m pretty confident, though, because we haven’t seem what we’re currentl;y seeing from a WBs scrum since McKenzie/Kearns/Daly in 1991.

Good point Grapeseed.
It’s the experienced men who should be organising our attack focus at the breakdown if pick and go is the best way. Since getting over the advantage line gives the go-forward ball necessary to unleash the wider attacks, we need more operational brainpower in the forwards.
In 1991, Phil Kearns was the pick and go master, and could bust defences with it.

No, not really. I don’t think James Horwill really put in to get in position to defend, and Carter stepped him with space you could have driven a bus through.

Maybe it’s the fush ‘n’ chups that stuck in your throat.

TWAS, there’s a difference between what is allowable, or “legal” in the prop playing hooker conundrum, and what is desirable.
If Cheika thought his prop playing hooker was going to cause damage to his team, and possibly result in a loss, then you wouldn’t think he’d do it. Spiro’s comments are all focused on reckless risky behaviour from MC, but that seems unlikely to me. He must have weighed the options closely.
Around the park, hookers or props may be faster or better over the ball or whatever. Either could be better at it. Any potential “legal” problem is only to do with scrums and scrum safety. Safety is about the players experience and capability for packing in the front row. While the hooker hooks, and the props do a lot of arm wrestling to gain advantage, the prime role of both is to pack low and horizontal and take the weight the opponent is giving them. These days the physical builds of hookers and props are identical – same weight, size, and shape.
I wasn’t meaning it was a great idea to have a prop throwing into the lineout, but pretty obviously, strategies can be developed to minimise the damage. probably throws to the front, short line-outs, etc…Is the replacement prop playing hooker going to be playing 80 minutes? Unlikely, though an injury can occur at any time. If the prop was throwing into lineouts for more than 20 mins, it could be limiting and might affect the result.
There is no rule, anyway, that hookers are the only players allowed to throw into the lineout.

For the WBs, Spiro, you keep banging away about the two hookers, but it isn’t going to change, the 31-man squad having been selected. I think we know what you think about it

Cheika and Ladesma seem to think a prop can play hooker. Ben Robinson managed a few ok line-out throws for the BaaBaas v Samoa last Saturday, and I don’t think it is logical to argue that a prop hooking in a scrum is at any greater risk vis-a-vis a hooker hooking. Hookers and props have the same build and their function in the scrum is essentially the same.
So, the trigger for any English or other team,’s QC involvement would have to be an on-field ref ruling that the replacement hooker, i.e. a prop playing hooker, is unsafe and so the scrums must from then on revert to non-contestable scrums. Logic says that could not happen, but I suppose it could. There is money riding on the match results via all the betting companies, so there could be incentive, notwithstanding that it would look awfully obvious.
The RWC would degenerate into a farce, however, because all teams and the RWC management know in advance of the situation, so to leave it to a referee during the match to force such a denouement would be at the extreme end of unprefessional management, and rather more look like a pre-planned assassination of the WBs.
The RWC is bigger than that I think, and the English are as well, so that almost certainly will not happen.
Funny we’ve got all those wingers, though.

Greg,
I’ve always had the impression that great lineouts are controlled by a great lineout caller/organiser, because there’s a lot of second-guessing and trying to outsmart your opponent. In tennis, for example, do you serve to the forehand twice in a row? Or do you only do that after you’ve mainly been switching between backhand and an occasional body serve? Point is, anything can work, as long as the opposition isn’t successfully guessing/knowing where the ball is going to go.
So, the lineout caller has a big job, and it seems some are very good at it and others not so good. Victor Matfield is a master, for example, but I think that maybe Rob Simmons is right up there as well. I don’t know who calls for NZ, but I suspect it’s Keiran Read, though maybe Whitelock took over with his Auckland run-on and that made a difference.
In Sydney, when the WB lineout performed mostly pretty well (though there was a bad period when the WBs lost the 3 on our throw that they lost), James Horwill and Dean Mumm were the locks, and I think Horwill was calling, but maybe it was Mumm. NZ didn’t have Whitelock. In Auckland, the WBs started Will Skelton, with Mumm on the bench. This probably limited the WBs ability to trick NZ on the WB throws, and so limited the options.
The bottom line is that Whitelock seems important for NZ, while playing 2 lock catching options with a good caller seems necessary for the WBs.

NZ play a lot better at home. What team doesn’t? Both NZ RWC victories were at Eden Park. Away, for them, has so far proved too hard.
They were closest in 1995, in South Africa, were conditions are similar but for the altitude advantage for the Boks. Losing to the WBs in Sydney in 2003 was unexpected going on form, but the 14-point turnaround was the game-breaker, and they just could not recover from that. There is a strong hint that they underrated the WBs as well, so the pricked arrogance, while chasing the game to attempt to comeback for a win, wouldn’t have helped.

RWC 2015 is in England, so NZ face an uphill battle again. Are they a team on the rise? Trying to defend their hilltop against the marauding armies is more like their current position, Milner-Skudder notwithstanding, but he isn’t going to do it by himself. So NZ are a chance, a big chance. They’re always a big chance, and the gold standard for opposing teams to display their form by beating them. Ireland missed by a whisker in November 2013. the WBs have recently beaten them in Sydney.

In 1995, NZ emerged as a team on the rise during the tournament it has been said in the commentary on this thread. I don’t remember it that way myself, because NZ always seems to be the team to beat. They just have found it too hard away from home so far. To win RWC 2015, they will need to finally win away, and be the first team to successfully defend the title. They might do it yet.

You’ve blown my cover, Allanthus. Yes, I think Australia can win, but have to probably win the Pool of Death to put themselves in the position to be able to do it.
The Irish may upset the applecart by winning Pool D, having beaten France to do so. That would mean NZ play France in QF2, which is a horror scenario for NZ at a RWC. The winner probably plays SA in the SF.
If Ireland do beat France and win Pool D, then Australia may have to play Ireland in a SF. The winner to play NZ or SA, and I think SA more likely.
So, WB v SA final. WBs win.

TWAS, I don’t think it’s a great idea, but a clarification on whether a prop can replace a hooker would clear the air.

If the lack of a 3rd hooker is against the RWC rules, then the RWC, after having been presented with the 31-player rosters from all participating countries, should contact those countries that have contravened the rules and get them to change their squads to fix it, or any other errors revealed. To allow an error to have a detrimental effect on the tournament would be counter-productive at best, and blatantly cynical at worst.
In Australia’s case, if Michael Cheika is told that he cannot play a prop as hooker if injury prevents 2 hookers being among the matchday 23, then surely the RWC would want Australia to be allowed to fix the problem now, by changing their squad with the addition of a 3rd hooker, and the exclusion of one of the existing 31 chosen.
If the RWC did not show that it was operating in the best interests of the tournament by potentially allowing such a controversy to occur,
it would be detrimental to the RWC tournament’s prestige itself. Good management and good communications is all that is required to put this issue to bed.

In Bled 1, Foley kicked for goal poorly and his field kicking had a charge-down and a few lacking distance. He looked a bit rattled, particularly with the charge-down, but the backline seems to function better with him at 10. He combined with Folau and Tomane brilliantly in the 1st try against the Pumas, and gave the basketball pop-pass to Kuridrani for that try under the sticks.
Toomua turned headless chook when QC went off and kicked the ball away to give NZ the opportunity to murder the WBs, when the obvious plan should have been to hold on to the ball as long as possible, and if kicking, then deep into touch ensuring no quick thow-in. You have to ask what Moore was doing as a captain at that point, and I have a nagging suspicion that the Jake-ball thing is very deeply ingrained into the Brumby players and they revert to type under intense pressure. Toomua has cruelled his chances at 10, and at 12 we need the defense, experience and cleverness of Giteau. I particularly say defense, because Giteau reads the play and makes the adjustments needed, like AAC and Rob Horne. Throw Drew Mitchell in there as well. Toomua tries to get in for a big hit, but often misses the bigger picture.
Foley is a good positional defender as well, and usually and regularly brings down wide attackers. The WB defense of Phipps/Foley/Giteau is very good at shutting down attacks.
QC’s goal-kicking was good, and if Foley can’t get that right, he is in danger of handing over to QC. Nick White is a good goal-kicker, however, and so it seems is Giteau, so there are covers.
White probably needs to go back to the bench to allow the defense of Phipps to feature. And we know he threw some poor passes, but Brett McKay argued that it was Foley’s fault for standing too deep.
They better practice and iron that out, though, because It has to be Phipps/Foley/Giteau for RWC.
My only doubt is about Kuridrani. I think that AAC may have to play 13 with Rob HOrne back if available. Drew Mitchell on the other wing.

No longer an MC fan, DaveyBoy. Sounds serious!
I think our defense suffered without Pooper from the start, and then Hooper got a head-knock and I don’t think he was as effective thereafter. Phipps and Giteau were missed as well, but perhaps the lack of experience without Giteau and Drew Mitchell was also a factor. Toomua was a liability, especially in the QC bin period.
The forward experiment with Skelton and Palu as run-ons has determined that they aren’t really up to it.

Hand-wringing may be good for the spleen, but it obfuscates what really happened, IMO, and similarly confuses what might happen next. Another thread vents about MC’s “mind games” by apparently a NZ fan, so MC has disturbed more than WB fan heads it seems!

These games turn on small things happening in the correct order in a complicated manner, and the Milner-Skudder step off the right past Dean Mumm to set up the Aaron Smith penalty try and the QC binning was the game-changer. No Phipps, Foley or Giteau to read the looming disaster, and Milner-Skudder was allowed way too much room. The game was pretty well lost at that point, but the WB game management in the binning period was very poor, and the captain, Moore along with Toomua have to shoulder the blame there. The WBs handled things well in 2 binning periods in Bled 1.

So, another Bled loss at Auckland, but not a RWC killer blow. Those who couldn’t handle the heat of the match will have their cards marked. Is the Bledisloe more important than the RWC? No, it’s not. But it would have been nice.

IMO eaglejack and Onya Byke have captured the essence of what has happened in the last 4 Wallaby test matches.
There is often a very rapid finger-pointing exercise to lay the blame at the feet of the “guilty” parties after a big loss, and this article is just another of that type of knee-jerk reaction.
In the case of this article, Michael Cheika has gone from hero to zero in 7 days, with his supporting cast of Quade Cooper, Wycliffe Palu, and Will Skelton. Taking a closer and more dispassionate look at what happened, we can see that Matt Toomua was the cause of trouble with poor kicking, and kicking at all probably when we had a man in the bin. QC didn’t play badly, except for the head-high tackle. Overall, the Wallaby defense was missing in action, partly caused by Hooper’s head-knock early on, but also the lack of Phipps and Giteau IMO.
The scrum was generally good, but NZ were much improved on their previous week, and that was to be expected. The lineout was poor, without being catastrophic, but showed that Will Skelton is too much of a liability in set-piece for top-level test matches to get a run-on spot. The defense was keeping NZ largely contained around the gainline until the lapses occurred, but the score blowout showed that there was a great lack of a plan and organization to cover for the man in the bin, yet the previous week the WBs had done well in that area, having to manage that scenario twice in Bled 1.
So, NZ upped the ante, the WBs didn’t start with Pooper, Hooper had a head-knock, and the forward selection changes didn’t really work. NZ are very happy that they have re-established the pecking order, but MC has found out some things he needed to know.
Will Skelton is a bench player only.
Matt Giteau has to be 12.
QC or Michael Foley can play 10.
Phipps must be the starting 9 and play 60 until out of gas. White on the bench.
Drew Mitchell/ Rob Horne and AAC are the best 3 wings, though Kuridrani may need to be dropped for AAC at 13.
Beale is the super-sub.
Horwill and Simmons are the best locks, with Mumm the next best.
Pooper must start in big matches.
Props/hookers as is .. though it is a bit worrying that Stephen Moore struggles at times in making decisive tackles and any real impact, and a few lineout throws have been poor as well. But he is a strong leader who deals with the referee and opposing captain well. In the time of the QC sinbinning, there was a lack of leadership and he MUST not let that happen again. I suspect that we need to play TPN for the last 30, but it would be better to have Pocock finish as the captain and not Hooper, IMO. Either way, the WBs need 30 from TPN.
The WBs are still a work in progress, but mind games are in the mind of the beholder, I think.

That’s a very pertinent observation, and possibly explains Foley’s current mental position, which appears to look like a man lacking confidence. He did give the final pass to 2 Wallaby tries in Mendoza, however, though his goal-kicking was the worst I think I’ve ever seen. That has to be a confidence killer, and the very fact that he was practicing so long just before kick-off reveals that lack of confidence. While it was a good move to put Giteau on as the kicker, I suspect that lack of confidence in his kicking by Michael Cheika would have had a further derogatory effect on his confidence, and probably contributed to his poor match.
So, who was at fault? Phipps or Foley? What comes first, the chicken or the egg?
When a 10 is standing too deep, and buggering things up, I can never understand why that can’t be fixed on field by a word from the players around him, and if necessary, the captain. Foley has been, and can be again, a really good and potentially great player, but his head space needs careful management by MC at this moment, and MC is meant to be very good at man-management. Foley for the bench this week for sure. Putting him out of the 23 may kill him completely in the short term and limit Wallaby RWC options. At his best, Foley is first choice 10 IMO.
Another thing that shows Foley’s mental state and lack of confidence is his kicking – both restarts and field kicking were below par. His field kicking reverted to that ineffective pop-gun kick with no distance, and his point of striking was too low to the ground, meaning that it was a lot harder to get the ball over the onrushing defenders trying to charge it down. This is a Foley flaw which he HAS to correct, but seems to be more prominent when he’s out-of-sorts. That he attempts exit kicks with that low contact-point style indicates that he is a manufactured 10, and not someone who has played a lot of junior rugby at 10, because you quickly learn that the higher the contact point when kicking, the less chance of a charge-down, and with the Foley style, a charge-down looks about 50-50.
When he takes on the defence with pace and step, he looks good. He can do it. He has to.

I thought Andy Stewart played for Northern Suburbs, not Sydney Uni. Peter Carson also has an unblemished record against the ABs, I believe .. 2 wins from 2 starts I think.

I think the big thing to emerge from the match was the Wallabies winning despite the poor play of their 9 and 10. NZ started nervously with a dropped kick-receive ball by Retallick, and a number of their attacking opportunities were butchered by bad passes and dropped balls. They were similarly nervous last year in Sydney when the result was 12-12. In Auckland in 2014, as Spiro said, the WBs were killed, and the ABs played with ruthless precision from the start.

They could very well do that again in 2015 next week, but there are a number of elements of the WBs play and mental preparedness and commitment that have improved since then. The WBs scrum was superior, and the counter of the Woodcock boring-in tactic was decisive and effective, neutering Woodcock’s main weapon. It was probably illegal to do it anyway, and Woodcock has been penalized many times in the past for doing just that, but not in this match. No go forward from their scrum meant that the ABs had more attacking defense to deal with from set-plays off their scrum.

The WBs lineout faltered twice at a bad time deep on attack in the ABs half, but that was the first match the new lineout, so it operated pretty well, and could be expected to be improved in Auckland, though the ABs will have developed countering tactics as well, so it could be a stale-mate. The WBs butchered some opportunities on attack as well, particularly at the start, with the Moore knock-on, and the bad Phipps pass to Mumm later on. Failure to finish the job after the Pocock charge was another lost opportunity, so the missed chances from both teams in the first half just about even out.

In the second half, the chances were taken by both sides, and obviously for the WBs, Milner-Skudder is the main danger. Hooper got him once with a big tackle, but he was mostly too elusive to allow a big hit to occur. Giteau defended brilliantly against him in his initial break early in the first half, by trailing on the inside, waiting for the trade-mark inside step to elude Drew Mitchell covering any outside break, and taking him down as soon as he executed the inside step putting him in Giteau’s path. Giteau’s experience was pure gold in this match.

So, the ABs won’t be so nervous, but neither will the WBs, Eden Park or not. This is most unlikely to be a repeat of the 2014 result, and on balance, I suspect that the WBs have the more improvement in them.

I think it’ interesting to have a lively forum of debate. However, the commentary quite often tends to stray into the territory of “I know best, and this/that will happen”. Good to have an opinion expressed, but I think Michael Cheika has to be accepted as the major judge of what is going on, because he’s closest to the action.
So MK chooses a team. Surely no-one imagines that he hasn’t chosen a team that he thinks will have a chance of victory, do they? Since the ABs are the opponents, the Rugby Championship is on the line, and it is Bledisloe 1 2015, surely MK will have picked a team with tactics that he thinks could win. He sounded quietly confident of a strong showing last night on TV, without any big-noting. The team is different, the players like MK and he seems to have a way of getting players to deliver their best. Will that happen, and will it be good enough? Who knows?
Armchair critics, however, probably should do themselves a service by trying to work out why MK has chosen the players that he has, rather than jump straight in and make raw comments that tend toward mere noise, and add little to the debate.

No kick applied any pressure on the receivers. Too deep, not high enough. Easy takes with no WB within cooee, and an easy kick to touch on halfway or beyond. At a minimum it has to be contested ball, to give yourself a chance to get it back. The ABs do that a lot with Reid and now Retallick fielding Carter’s kicks. It’s a game-changer if you can do that. Look at the pressure the Highlanders applied with their stategy of kicking high but deep as well to the corner to inhibit the response and pin down the Waratahs in their 22 in the SR15 SF. An easy exit is pressure relieved without pain. The exiters take heart and use their saved energies for the next phase at halfway.
The one that didn’t go 10 was at least an attempt at contesting the ball.

But gee, Harry, QC is just looking awful on the field at the moment, and now he’s become a bit petulant as well with the high shot and yellow card followed by the Twitter stuff. His restarts were about as bad as anyone could do, and that is such a big part of the game nowadays, with the ABs specialising in the area. Reclaiming the ball is a fantastic way of bouncing straight back after the opponent scores, and is a huge confidence-builder.
It has to be QC or Bernard Foley, though, unless injuries prevent that occurring.
Foley does pretty well at restarts, though not as good as Dan Carter, but he’s our only option based on that alone. His goalkicking was atrocious, but it’s never looked that bad before. He had a slow start to the season with goal-kicking, but by the end on the Super Rugby season was kicking pretty well. I’m betting that he’ll get the kicking form back, because he knows that he’s got to be good enough there for himself and the team. Foley defends well and straightens the attacking line, making the WBs attack look more potent.
QC is all about the miracle, and he is down on confidence and low on miracles, and a long way short of his 2011 form. He had too few matches with the Reds this year through injury, and the Reds were not helping him by being very poor as well, so QC hasn’t been able to build his confidence going into the tests. Maybe the game against the USA can help, but BF is the man to play the ABs, and looks like the man for the big RWC matches as well.

Great summary, Brett.
Ditto on the goal-kicking, scrums and clean-outs, though the latter was vastly improved in Mendoza, as was the WBs generally. The 1st hit-out v the Boks cleared a fair bit of the rust from the system.
Foley’s restarts were pretty good, though not Dan Carter quality, but a fantastic improvement on QC’s efforts the week before. QC was petulant in his high shot on Cordera, and again on Twitter. Things aren’t playing out for him on the field – too lateral, too deep, even some bad passes creeping in. Somehow he needs to get his 2011 form back quickly if he is to be able to contribute to the WBs RWC campaign. The QC situation is a dark spot for the WBs and needs fixing.

last year the Boks chanced their arm to get to 24 points against the ABs in Joburg. The ABs came back, but a Lambie penalty at the death secured a win 27-25. The Boks may try that again, but need to play that way all the time, probably, to learn how to win that way, if they want to challenge the ABs.
Interestingly, previous RWCs have tended to be pretty dour struggles at the business end of the tournament, so maybe the Bok way suits RWC after all?
Fascinating to watch the build up and prospects of teams wax and wane..

Good analysis kezablonde.
I think you’re right about the goal-kicking and confidence. One of the major areas of weakness for the Wallabies was restarts. The restarts were very poor. No pressure on the receivers at all. The ABs make it a feature of their game, and go about retrieving the ball with good plans and good execution. The Waratahs, with Foley doing the restarts, have done reasonably well also. I did not understand what the intention of Cooper was when he took a restart kick.
On the taking of the up-and-unders, Ashley-Cooper and Genia both did well as well as Folau. I think only QC dropped one. Apart from the AAC try, QC had a below par match. He’s played a lot better than that, so let’s see how he goes this week, if selected, which I think he will be, to give him another chance.
The cleanouts were badly executed, making turnovers relatively easy work for the Boks. That was rustiness IMO, and will be better this week.