The Roar
The Roar

PeterK

Roar Guru

Joined March 2010

96.7k

Views

101

Published

22.3k

Comments

Published

Comments

Roar Guru
Roar Guru

Who wins the John Eales Medal?

As I cast back my mind over the last 12 months of internationals, quite aptly, the phrase “nobody is perfect” comes to mind. That phrase, of course, is synonymous with John Eales and for good reason. This then makes me think of the upcoming John Eales medal award.

not for presence at the breakdown which is what was being discussed

I would have had Jones at 6 and Wright at 7 though against the boks

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

you can drop your captain when he has proven ineffective time and again against the boks at the breakdown. You can list it as rotation or trialing a new player and you still have hooper on the bench. The egos are too fragile if a player can’t handle this.

It was a mistake making him captain, then retaining him as a starter when it is a detriment to the team compounds it. It is like Moore all over again.

It is not feeding a player to the wolves. You keep assuming Wright could not handle playing a test, if there is doubt then he should be dropped from the squad or announced as only there for learning.

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

yes you need 4 good lineout jumpers.

When wallabies go in with 3 i.e with Pooper the lineout struggles often. Also the pressure placed on the opposition lineout is non existent.

It is no surprise that this time with 4 targets the lineout was not an issue.

Michael Cheika once again misses the mark after Wallabies loss to back-up Boks

no he didn’t, please list them if you think he did.

He had no turnovers conceded, he did not miss 1 tackle.
He fumbled 1 ball back from the scrum , yes an important mistake but his only error, it ended up leading to a turnover but not directly from him.

Michael Cheika once again misses the mark after Wallabies loss to back-up Boks

it is not poor technique if a faster player burns you on the outside, if they are that much quicker they beast anyone given room.

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

Of course Wright should have started to secure the breakdown.

Hooper offered nothing in the game.

Sure you don’t have to have 5 lineout options but it doesn’t hurt.

Wright is a better lineout option than Naisarani so it does strengthen the lineout.

If Wright was found wanting then you could replace him with Hooper off the bench after 20 mins or whatever. However if Wright ended up being the answer at the breakdown you would only find out and use him for 15 mins if he was off the bench, and knowing Cheika it would be 5 mins.

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

it is a tradeoff, sometimes a more mobile 6 who is a jackal is acceptable.

The bottom line you must have a breakdown expert and currently that is wright.

Sometimes it means Hooper goes to the bench other times you have to opensides starting.

Hooper as I said often would be ineffective against the boks as he usually is and it happened again.

On form if it is the season then Naisarani is in better form than McCaffery

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

Samu weakens the lineout too much, Naisarani is a goodlineout option as shown against the boks

Michael Cheika once again misses the mark after Wallabies loss to back-up Boks

I never said it is.

However some players are well suited to perform the hybrid fb/wing role that is so necessary which is normally the 14 and the 11 for an outright winger.

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

he has played a fair bit on the wing for the brumbies

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

the scrum is sorted when the injured props come back, there were 3 props from the squad injured, Sio, AAA and Robertson.

Totally agree breakdown and why Hooper is not suitable to start against certain teams others yes if a breakdown expert is chosen at 6 or 8.

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

not in most recent form, Mccaffery had a poor game against Jagueres and form by definition is the latest form, and over the whole season Naisarani was better performed.

The breakdown is a different matter, in those terms Wright is far better than McCaffery

Personally I would have had McCaffery in the squad but that is not what I was making a point about.

By my reasoning there is a lot more than just form to consider.

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

no pair him with wright

Michael Cheika once again misses the mark after Wallabies loss to back-up Boks

people can have dreams, we know it won’t happen

I have more chance of coaching the wallabies than them winning under cheika.

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

It is not about fairness but what is good for the team.

Against Arg speed on the wings is paramount so Koroiebet and Banks as the fb/wing hybrid need to be the wingers.

Also Banks does not provide game management and is not a secondary playmaker, so JoC provides that from 15.

Also Folau performed significantly better against the boks over the last 4 years than Banks did so I don’t agree with your assessment.

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

very easy answer.

The game was at altitude. The opposition used a rush defence.
Foley kicked all of 3 times Janties 16 times.
Foley was very predictable with no game management, no variation and little vision.

Foley did the same thing over and over again.

Six talking points from Wallabies vs Springboks

I have no such expectations at all, I also have pointed out the form players were chosen yet in a couple of cases that was wrong.

The fact is there is a lack of talent coupled with poor or non existent coaching is a recipe for failure, and a t2 nation.

Michael Cheika once again misses the mark after Wallabies loss to back-up Boks

Latu gives away too many penalties and his line out throwing is far too poor, far less downside and risk by having Wright start than Latu.

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

disagree I would make a number of changes since the opposition have changed.

Argentina are mobile, fast and keep the ball alive and have a very good lineout and attack the breakdown very very well (if illegally).
Weakness against the maul and scrum.

So Wright to start however unlike against Boks Hooper needs to start as well for his speed. LSL to bench.

JoC to add a second playmaker at 15 , wasted on the bench. Hodge to bench, DHP dropped, Koroiebete to also start with Banks on the wings.

CLL to start agree , if not fit then Toomua at 10.

Also if the props are ok then Sio, AAA back in.

That is at a minimum.

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

also Wright unlike Pocock is a genuine lineout option

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

also add Wright to the starting backrow, so you do have a breakdown presence.

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

Horses for course, against more mobile forwards like AB’s and Arg LSL should not start at 6, he should be on the bench as a lock/6 utility impact player.

You don’t have to select exactly the same team for every opponent.

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

Against the more mobile Argentinians Lukhan should be on the bench and start someone like Jones or Wright at 6 , having 4 genuine lineout targets is all thats needed.

Banks needs to go to wing to add the much needed pace there with Koroibete on the other wing.

Foley was quite poor in game management once again and if he starts you need a second playmaker at 15 i.e JoC.

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

Bobwire – Agree it was the form from available players that started with the exception of Speight.
However it was the wrong game plan and the best players to counteract the bok should have been selected.

So many fans always want either the best player or the form player chosen for each position when if you ignore the best game plan is the wrong way to go since you get an unbalanced team not suited to the opposition.

A clear example of being owned at the breakdown Wright chosen ahead of an in form Hooper who was ineffectual is one example. another is JoC over DHP who is abysmal on the wing, also the bench needs impact players so Simmons should not have been there, and so on.

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are

Banks wasn’t very good at all.

He was solid and competent.

On his 8 carries he made 21 metres, 1 defender beaten. So his attack was lacklustre, either choosing not to attack at the right times or at the wrong places. He also has a turnover, missed a highball and gave away a dumb penalty.

The Wrap: Are the Wallabies cursed? Too right they are