True LN.

I suppose if the term was bookended with 1. an expletive and 2. a hearty guffaw, fesitivities might by allowed to continue untroubled by Scott-Young Snr.

I suspect the holidays may be cancelled at the Scott-Young QLD headquarters if Angus ever dared to mutter the word “Waratah” over family Christmas dinner.

Look, it is an ambitious argument. Flawed of course. But refreshingly enterprising.
Incidentally, I loved Blue Hawaii.

Wilson – an outstanding Wallabies flanker: often overlooked and underrated.

But, no.

George William Smith stands, without peer, as Australia’s greatest ever backrower.

Perhaps you’re right and Poey’s injury plagued 2019 form was really just a continuation of his declining rugby capabilities. Hell, let’s check out Pocock’s 2018 test rugby performance (uninjured, but fresh back from hiatus within the retirement backwater of Japanese rugby):

John Eales Medal 2018

David Pocock- 262
Lukhan Tui- 139
Dane Haylett-Petty – 132
Scott Sio – 124
Marika Koroibete – 110
Will Genia – 101
Sean McMahon- 89
Michael Hooper – 80
Tatafu Polota-Nau- 77
Sekope Kepu- 73

Perhaps Pocock wasn’t at 100% capacity in 2019? Just a thought.

The absurdity of this line of argument is breathtaking:
Fiji – Pocock’s first match back from long term injury, Wales: second match back, England: 5th match back. And yes, he was recovering from a calf injury.

Simply repeating a falsehood continuously doesn’t make it so. I’ve actually laughed audibly at the suggestion he lacked a work ethic.

Rest soundly knowing it’s clearly just me, and the global rugby community who voted David Pocock a Top XV worldwide player of the decade, that disagrees.

Yes, attempt encapsulate an entire career with two singular examples in Pocock’s final, injury cursed season. Bravo sir.
You understand of course, 90% of attack begins at a ruck. Even discounting any skills Pocock executed in the line, as the Wallabies best ruck cleaner, he was also one of our most important attackers.
He was great at what he could do. A gee he could do lots.

You must have missed the try and the crunching tackle in amongst that lot then Rhys. It probably came into picture either side of your blinkers.
Pocock was a better in-tight runner than Hooper (running into props being a common issue with this mandate), had significant leg drive and and by the end of his career – post Japan – was a better passer and backline linker as well. That he was by the length of several carparks the Wallabies best ruck cleaner, opposition ball spoiler and forced turnover exponent adds to his tapestry of skills. No player that lacks a sense of positional play makes as many tackles or contests as much pill successfully. You are simply barking at the moon here.
Without exception, George Smith was Australia’s most complete and best ever openside flanker. But David Pocock was without question, Australia’s best player of the decade, and the only World XV worthy player of the last decade.

A great combination doesn’t have to reside in the first XV – especially when they hold the same jersey. Strong selections and substitutions can be an artistry:

Agreed MZ.

Even if critics blindly assert that breakdown acumen was David Pocock only skill, the “one trick” narrative even fails to understand or acknowledge the vast tapestry of capabilities both sides of a ruck, rugby’s most frequent and important battle front, in which Pocock was the finest exponent in the rugby playing world. Pocock’s time in Japan also actually added much to his skills quiver, particularly in carrying and backline linking, and he re-entered test rugby in 2018 in scintillating form; as evidenced by his landslide John Eales Medal win (accumulating almost double his next closest rival, LSL), whilst having played only around 2/3 of the voting period (i.e. sitting out the 2017 Northern tour).

Pocock’s injury crippled 2019 (the result of an ill-advised, early season, DJ-fueled, Michael Cheika-designed heavy sandhill-running session which hobbled a host of Wallabies), meant that with only 3 games of rugby playing for the Brumbies up to February, Pocock’s next competitive game of rugby in 2019 was the opening test match of the 2019 RWC against Fiji in late September. It’s frankly ludicrous to attempt to distill Pocock’s influence to a singular event – let alone on the back of this type of season.

What the award acknowledges is that David Pocock was Australia’s sole World XV worthy player between 2010 – 2020. So if Pocock is equine in nature, it is clearly as a thoroughbred.

Don’t think anyone doubts Hooper’s effort. Just his effectiveness and impact.
Even discounting his myopic aversion to goal kicking or the frankly embarrassing interactions with the ref, Hooper just didn’t play well this match.
His first major involvement was a knock on. Shortly thereafter, a terrible clean out attempt (high and over the back), resulted in a “holding on” penalty against the Wallabies allowing the Pumas to clear their red zone. He incurred some schoolboy penalties, transferred pressure by passing to players in worse positions behind the gainline. And with six tackles and four carries, Hooper should count himself lucky to have a “4” at the front of his score this match.
If “hard working” was the only key metric, no problem. But in both leadership of the team and execution of his own positional role, Michael Hooper was terrible on the weekend.

No, pilfers supports defensive breakdowns. As does forced turnovers. As does contested / slowed possessions. As does disrupted halfback distributions. All of which Liam Wright does immeasurably better than Ned Hanigan. Ned is a inferior tackler and ruck exponent than Wright – it’s an indefensible argument you are trying to make.
And Wright’s most recent (albeit brief) test outing against the All Blacks in the pressure cooker minutes of the last Bledisloe was about the best attacking cleanout display by a Wallaby since David Pocock last wore Gold. His abject ragdolling of Ardea Savea in one raw-boned cleanout on the All Blacks goal line alone was the catalyst for one Wallabies try in itself.
Hanigan has never displayed this capability.
Let’s just say our prespectives differ somewhat.

Sorry TWAS but Liam Wright is infinitely better, both sides of the breakdown, than Ned Hanigan is, or will ever be.
The bloke topped forced turnovers (not just pilfers but “holding on” forced penalties and forced ruck and maul penalties), across the Australian conference last super season and came second this Super AU season whilst largely playing at blindside. He made the second most tackles across the comp and proved a surprisingly good lineout target (at one point leading Super Rugby AU in lineout steals – a couple of which he has made in his few outings for the Wallabies this season). He is by some distance the most hard shouldered and efficient ruck cleaning backrower in the Wallabies squad and a far better linker. The big difference in test matches this season is that Wright is being handed junk time minutes at the death of matches, whilst Hanigan is afforded endless outings in which he is able to build into games and make up for early mistakes.

This is a slightly tough call on Wright, HiKa. The Wallabies right side ruck pillar (Taniela – who was completed unattached), first feigned a play a Webber, found himself off side, failed to retreat in time, and then didn’t bounce out once the halfback had cleared the breakdown. The AB ruck was a foot from the Gold try line and Vaai received the ball about two metres from it, moving. When Vaai stepped back inside, he should have run straight into the Wallabies right side ruck pillar.

Really nice piece NB. I’m so glad someone picked up on Wright’s cleanout work at the pointy end of this match. Albeit a very brief sortie, Wright’s effort was definitely the best ruck cleaning outing by an Aussie since Pocock last wore gold.

I’ve enjoyed your insights, commentary and opinions on all things rugby for many seasons, Brett. One of the key reasons for clicking on The Roar each week. Thank you.

Despite best efforts, I’m warming to Wrighty McReightFace BT.

I agree with all you’ve said PD.
Your example about the dramatic (and warranted) increase in Waratah numbers is also particularly poignant, as it says to players that they can make (or change) an impression quickly – keep pushing.
Great message for all Australian rugby players after the intractable, intransigent disaster that was Michael Cheika and his blinkered, non-representative test selection policy. It was hard to blame professional rugby players for not being consistent enough when they knew with mathmatical certainty that no matter what transpired on the pitch, they weren’t earning a Gold jersey from Cheika.
I hope the PONI is actually a whiteboard that gets cleaned every month and that the first, through to the last, are considered at the end. What a refreshing change that would be.

Well, I’m a fan.
Aside from “rewarding” named players for good form at semi-regular intervals, it also clearly says to RA / players / fans: “performance matters, keep working hard and/or pick up your game.” And the players transitioning in/out of the PONI list also allows observers to elicit some assumptions about the new paradigm moving forward.
It is exactly the type of tangible transparency Australian fans have been begging for throughout Michael Cheika’s embarrassingly overlong, appallingly parochial and clandestine trainwreck test coaching regime.
The other thing releasing the list now does is douse any rampant selection speculation that is misguided, and provide insights about what & how the new head coach thinks. Gigabytes of articles from journalists, analysts and The Great Unwashed (us), manufacture selection discussions which – through constant repetition and assertion – become false assumptions. Test 1 and we are then surprised / blindsided / outraged when those same assumptions (confirmed definitvely in our own minds), do not come to fruition. Instead, we now have actual insight from the source, and can redirect erroneous premises.
For example, whether he or we agree or not, naming JOC only as a 12 means that the player (and we) know who his key competitors for the jersey are (right now), can analyse their relative key strengths / weaknesses, in concert with broader conversations about the reflective strengths / weaknesses of possible 9-10-12 combinations from those also named. Given Rennie’s current modus operandi, I’d bet a dollar that the PONI list is released to the public in conjuction with Wallabies coaching calls direct to the players to discuss work-on’s, challenges and peripheral considerations for the remainder of the season.
This signifies a seismic, very positive progression from the Cheika years in which, for example, not even the attack coach knew the makeup of the backline on the day of a test match.
Consider Liam Wright. There’s never been a question of which jersey he covets (Jan ’20): “Michael does have one hand on the jersey, but I’m going to put all my energy into the Reds having a successful season and hopefully that translates to me having a good season and pushing for that jersey.” Now Dave Rennie has equally clearly indicated where he sees Wright challenging for a berth as well. Players know. Supporters know. And even without him discussing it, we can further deduce from the shape and characteristics of the 6’s & 8’s named, some of the qualities Rennie is aiming bring to the Wallabies loose forwards as a group (to varying degrees of accuracy). No need to distill from what happened at the Chiefs or Glasgow 1-5 seasons ago. No need to project our own favoured image of what the new coach values, how he will attribute capability importance or what this might mean for individual selections. Rennie has just given us his clearest indication with enough advanced warning to digest and adjust the discussion (prior to the next list and/or 1st test selection).
I don’t perceive DR is dogmatic or fixed in his approach. I don’t think his PONI lists are definitive or that he will be unable to change his mind, or change tack on selections / player positions later on. Purely from the outside looking in, he doesn’t strike me as that sort of bloke. As his Players of Interest lists emerge in future iterations, we can discern those thoughts as they, and he, develop.
Good exercise from a good coach.

I’ll endeavour to be less diplomatic next time Ken.

As long as Cheik believes he can somehow rewrite history and narrate his own legacy, as long as his siege warfare-like, knee-jerk retaliatory instinct compells him to keep lifting his obstinate mug over the parapet, he is going to get it shot off. And he will deserve every criticism, every sling and each arrow. The damage he has inflicted upon Australian rugby is incalculable. The bloke should take his medicine quietly. He wanted to be the sole boss and then be judged by his results? Well, he was. And he is. People will disect this stinking train crash for years, and he will always be the key protagonist. Cop it sweet Michael.
It may seem like a distant memory now as all the rats have fled the ship, but Cheika’s tragedy was, for the vast majority of his tenure, enthusiastically backed by strong RA factions, and the exclusive pipeline running from Moore Park to Fairfax HQ must have been a reinforced underground cable with the reliability of Commissioner Gordon’s secure bat phone to Bruce Wayne. The sky blue card carrying outsourced marketing team at rugbyheaven then, lit the embers of a coal-fired propaganda machine the likes of which Joseph Goebbells would have been envious; and may have coughed along undisturbed had Georgina Robinson not had the temerity to ask Michael Cheika an actual journalistic question on the back of an ever spiralling and wholly appalling season https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/106570902/michael-cheika-unconcerned-about-his-future-as-wallabies-fail-again
In turn, a huge section of the great unwashed continued to aggressively buy into the slow moving Cheika tragedy and believe there was some great – if imperceptible – Wallabies masterplan waiting to be unveilled which would conclusively illustrate the jaw-dropping extent of MC’s genius and leave all the nay-sayers stunned and silent. Just reading some of the Roar articles and commentry even during that putrid 2018 season reveals the extent of the Cheika illusion.
The more stories we hear about how this rugby disaster has come to pass, the more the rugby public understands the extent of the deception, weakness and factionalism at the top of this tree, the less likely it will be repeated (in the absence of opposition).
Cheika was just a rugby bloke woefully out of his depth, at the end of a rope far too long to hang, whose bloody-minded self-obsession and God complex made him believe his wild flailing and toddler-like gesticulations would somehow create a miracle team out of a poorly and parochially selected, horribly trained and coached test rugby squad. Potentially worse, somewhere along the line he may have known he was wrong – but his own self-interest and ego drove him to keep the gig just a little bit longer. I hope the latter isn’t correct.
M O’C’s insight was an important one, and one we needed to hear.
I’m glad he said it.

I agree that the coach should always have the final say. I also agree that it would have been nice to think MC was drawing slightly more from the accumulated rugby IP of the Wallabies brains trust that was assembled around him. Though, ultimately, he is responsible for team performance, so he gets to decide what he wishes.

The overwhelming issue is that, having had almost complete autonomy for the vast majority of his Wallabies coaching tenure, at no point has Micheal Cheika accepted responsibilty – or been held to any modicum of account (until it was far, far, far too late) – for his performance, the team’s performance or the results. Even Cheika’s apparent self-reflection omits any admission of his vast tapestry of shortcomings. He postulates he should have resigned in 2018 for example: but not because of his failed selections, paper thin one-speed gameplans, or navigating his disasterously picked, woefully planned Wallabies to the most catastrophic season in Australian professional history, but rather, because he had “lost the confidence” of RA. Disregarding the plethora of Wallabies failures leading up to the implementation of the selection panel, all subsequent Wallabies failures are then ascribed to his lack of total control.

And as suspected, the selection panel was effectively RA’s way of covering their backsides in regards to MC’s continued selection catastrophies. It did have the effect of culling the most obvious outliers – there had to be some noticable change post-implementation. But it really just provided the facade of governance, whilst continuing to rubber stamp Cheika’s way. That one of the triumvirate of national selectors couldn’t discern MC’s game plan, (a fairly essential component of then selecting the team to execute said plan I would have hoped), is a complete indictment of the process. No wonder they could provide only scant input.

“What’s the plan Cheik?”

“It’s a secret.”

“How do we select the team then?”

“You don’t. We drink this coffee. Eat those biscuits. And then you blokes go back and tell Raelene it was a robust discussion.”

“GeeRob and Cully said they can’t keep shielding us if Hanigan stays. And it’s Foley or Phipps. You can’t have both.”

“Country Boy is gone. But Phippsy gets a swan song at Bankwest against the Samoans – no arguments. Now bugger off and get me some more Tim Tams.”

Just. Go. Away.

Brilliant.

One of the problems with having single players viable for two potential positions in these exercises is that it actually dilutes the votes for these players. It is not an even playing field. Players who are only selectable in one category then, already have a statistical advantage.

George Smith for example got 54% of the vote for the O/S position, and then another 27% for the B/S position meaning more than 80% of voters wanted GS in the starting line up somewhere (assuming, of course, no one voted for him to be on both sides of the scrum at the same time).

Similarly, David Pocock’s 35% vote for O/S is then augmented by the 10% he received at 8 meaning 45% of voters wanted him in the starting side.

In this instance, even if both players had only been available for selection in the 7 jersey, George Smith was always going to be the runaway winner and Pocock was always going to be the comfortable 2nd. However, in previous exercises, splitting the vote for individual players has skewed their votes to the extent that their likely starting selection was replaced by being left out of the team altogether.

Much like Rennie’s new Wallabies coaching regime, I hope we select the best players in their key positions moving forward.