I think there is also quite a gap in the backrow, mobility of the forwards, cohesion, a settled game plan and accuracy. Overall on paper, man for man, the AB’s are quite a bit stronger, but the game is not played on paper. I think it could be closer than many are predicting as EJ will have them up for this one.

Not only, with lumbering forwards, you need someone to get to the rucks and make tackles on the fringes. McReight is the only option for mine.

He would look even slower against the ABs

I’d have Phillips over Jed at lock

Petaia can also break tackles and allows Kerevi to play in his natural position.
EJ will also like the fact that CG and Kerevi have now met although moving in a spot.

With regards to Aaron. No mate, I have my eyes and have been watching him since he ran out for Auckland before transferring to the Highlanders. Ask pretty much anyone else that has an unbiased view. I’m not into this prove it to me by stats. Its all too hard mate, you don’t even believe that sides can have first fives who are defensively weak and win, so if you don’t mind I am parking it.

And be as slow as treacle across the park.

If you watch the debate, Kirwan did exactly that and Wilson deflected.

Hey West 😊 No never seen QC play against the AB’s… haven’t watched much rugby at all. it’s new to me which is why I appreciate your in depth insights so much into the game of rugby, especially when they are couched as you the way you do 😛 . Also I wasn’t aware that you were representing the opinions of the majority of AB supporters 👍 But be all that as it may, none of it changes what I stated.
You appear to think QC is clueless and doesn’t understand the team dynamic on defence, that’s fine. It is not an opinion I share. And you implied that first fives in NZ are more involved in the defnsive structures of the inside backs and as I state that is not true either. Plenty of AB first fives (as pointed out and you wilfully ignore) have been poor defenders and those teams didn’t suffer greatly for it. The inside backs work to structures and first fives have been the target of attack plenty of times in the past and will be in the future (because they are seen as weaker defenders) and made little in the way of progress down thos channels. The defensive structures in and around the first five typically cater for shortcomings in the first five being great tacklers. there are a myriad of ways in which this is achieved, but someone with your indepth rugby knowledge knows this already. If you have played any rugby at a decent level, which I am sure you have and watched teams outside the current AB’s, you would know that plenty of teams have first fives who aren’t strong defenders and those teams don’t fail as a result. Anyway I have provided examples of that and so I will leave it there.
As yet we haven’t seen what QC 2.0 looks like. If he doesn’t work I am sure EJ will hook him and put Carter Gordon in. I just wouldn’t be so quick to write him off in such a scathing manner as you are. In games he has played against the AB’s he has struggled not because of defence but because he lacked the confidence, hence kicks out on the full etc. It wasn’t so much his defence which let him down but everything else… in your view it appears that it was because unlike all the other first fives playing he wasn’t organising the defence… ok. Happy to agree to disagree.
As for DMac being charged down about 4 or five times in relatively short succession, I am surprised you don’t remember it as we struggled until he was repositioned at fullback and since then he adjusted and stood a little deeper, which then limited our penetration in the later games. And as a lifetime Waikato and chiefs supporter I rate DMac very highly and am quite well aware of the teams strength and weakenesses across the squad. The point I was making all teams have players with weaknesses and a first five who isn’t a great tackler is for me not the biggest. If it were some of the great first fives of the game wouldn’t be so highly regarded. Here is another one, Nick White is a better tackler than Aaron Smith and I don’t think that is a problem for the AB’s.

But less scuttlebutt in my opinion than most of the other comments which lack any substance like Hooper causing the downfall of EM and undermining him. It maybe unfair to suggest they had any kind of relationship, however it is known that Di Patson was bought into the Wallabies due to them previously working together (whatever that relationship was at minimum it was clear he liked working with her), and that appears to be the way that Beale and co. saw it (that she was foisted upon them) which was what appeared to cause the angst.

I think you will find many faces will have large smiles on them if that happens. But there has been nothing to date showing that that is anywhere close to inevitable.

West, while I frequently agree with you, may I suggest you leave the condescension at the door. I know a little more about the game than you may think. I’m also sure your opinion is important to you, but you will tend to find much of the organisation around defence happens in the midfield (which is one of the things that made Smith so invaluable) as that is where the space tends to be, or run through at training by defence coaches to imbed the structures. The loose forwards typically cover the inside lines around the first five.
Growing up and living in NZ and playing all my rugby there, I have also been around and played a decade or three. The ABs have had plenty of first fives that weren’t strong on defence. Pretty sure as good as Mehrts was, he wasn’t planning and organising the defence, nor was Grant Fox before him and nor is DMac or RM (although vastly better defenders) whatever you may believe. They play to structures, where everyone knows what they are doing. They call the shots in many areas including positioning to kick (although there have been a few instances this season where DMac being too flat meant he was getting charged down… about 3 times in a row against the reds, which put the Chiefs under unnecessary pressure), but they sure aren’t calling the shots on defence in the middle and out wide, which is where defensive organisation is imperative. And yes I understand about communication and talking it up between all players on defence and understanding space and reading where the attack is aiming up. but thanks for your insight. Perhaps a little less of the condescension next time.
And finally to your point. You are entitled to your opinion and when the ABs win as they likely will, you can blow up your own tyres and tell yourself and anyone else who will listen that you are correct in all matters rugby. After all it’s an opinion site. Truth and fact have little import here much of the time.
And my point is as much as a flake Quade can be defending, as a professional player of well over a decade, I’m pretty sure he knows the defensive structures, suggesting he is hidden at the back in my opinion won’t happen. But that is just my opinion and it has no more weight than yours or anyone else’s.

I don’t expect Quade to organise defence anymore than Richie or DMac do. I think Kerevi and Foketi can do that as well as Reiko and whomever is partnering him in the midfield. The back three for the Wallabies need to be organised for sure, but with Kellaway back I think that is likely.

I think if the Wallabies can field a side with Tupou, AAA, Porecki, Faessler, Bell, Slipper in the front row and they scrummage an play with accuracy they can match the ABs. A second row of Skelton/ Phillips and Arnold / Frost should provide them the mobility and physical presence needed for the set piece and grunt at ruck and maul. The backrow whoever they pick will not be as good as wht the ABs can pick.

They can put up a midfiled and outside backs which can hold their own (Koroibete, Mary Mark, Kellaway), which with Quade at first five can help ignite. My only concern is their ability to exit as they are missing a heavy boot for mine, but if they can stop trying to use the box kick to exit, they would do vastly better.

I personally don’t see this as the blowout everyone is predicting. I think if the Wallaby selections are right; they can bed in a gameplan everyone understands and have the right attitude they are a better side than they have shown to date.

I don’t know any of the details. I know there was a lot of conjecture, but what I am more curious about is how it all became about Hooper getting rid of said coach.. and the only other name ever mentioned is Beale.

I appreciate Link trying to bring discipline, but he didn’t seem too interested when it was Quade bagging and undermining the coach. One could conclude it was karma, if you believe in such things.

But yes I think he was an interesting coach and personality and a sad loss to Australian rugby. I don’t necessarily think under the circumstances he was a great fit for the Wallabies coach, but certainly he was an important component of rugby in Australia and losing him was hugely disappointing and brought some balance to the political and often partisan landscape which is Australian rugby, if for no other reason than the fact that he was so well respected in Queensland.

But I am pretty sure he has left the building and doesn’t appear to be interested in returning any time soon, which I must say is totally understandable. People would want him to bring about change and being a change agent in a highly political environment is massively draining even if his heart were in it.

So it is conjecture and not fact?

Christy, is it possible to write about new real things which could be game changers with regards the game in Australia. Not to detract from your current articles which are fine and create debate; but there is very little in the way of positives about current thinking and how the powers that be see an inclusive game where growth as well as fan engagement are paramount. Many thanks in advance with respect to anything you are able to do in this space.

Maybe not, depending on who is is centralised under. But yes if it is selected by the pwoerbrokers in Sydney, that would achieve with no consideration of all the states then yes that would be a fail. The fact that WA is building nicely and adding players like BPA is testament to the fact that it can be done if their is the will. Pulling it all together is what is missing, but with the right people and the right structures rugby in Australia can again be something that rugby fans can get behind. Add to that, that Perth has the sevens there for the next couple of years, there is a glimmer of hope that the game is gaining a foothold there, although with the media coverage on this site, you wouldn’t know it.

Did he? What was the dress code? I have never heard that. I know a lot of stories some true some conspiracy are floating about, but first I heard that Hooper said stuff it and didn’t follow a dresscode.

Dreadful dress sense. Were his jeans also making a statement.

Architect… How exactly did said architect work to achieve that? I didn’t think he commanded anyone’s respect, but suddenly was afforded this power to individually sack the coach or were there others who also didn’t support McKenzie using his girlfriend at the time to deal directly with player issues,. You know it’s funny how unacceptable that is but Quade’s public comments against Deans is considered perfectly acceptable.

I thought McKenzie had inserted his office girl and close friend into a position of some import, a conflict arose whenBeale resented her direct approach to him and then it got messy and public least that is what I heard.

How was Hooper involved… was it that he didn’t support McKenzie who was going out on a limb to support his girlfriend, like Slipper and multiple others didn’t in the fall out. Anyway I thought the affair was between McKenzie and someone else and Beale got in the middle of it. I’m confused. So Ewen had an affair with Beale and Michael Hooper had him sacked, even though he had the support of everyone else. I never knew Hooper had that power. To be fair I don’t even know if Ewen had an affair with or just empowered the girl to a senior position, but it is probably as true as Hooper had him sacked.

And as has been explained to you before, Rennie doesn’t set the gameplan or make the selections. Eddie has far better cattle at his disposal.. that you can credit or discredit Rennie for as you see fit, not for a gameplan nobody understands including the coach or selections like starting two lumbering locks and picking a 6/2 bench and finding himself short on backs with one onjury and not even playing two of the forwards. Nor is Rennie the one talking it up in the media and hence opening himself up for criticism.
So, no Rennie is not responsible for a team getting badly beaten and looking for the most part clueless. And if you think they weren’t badly beaten by an Argentinian side also finding their feet ask yourself how many tries the Argentinians scored against the run of play like Marky Marks.

It’s South Africa’s national sport..