Wobbalies v Springboks I: How bad is Aussie really?

[Lizard]

Teams are out.

Cheika is sticking with the Cooper/Foley thing. Mumm starts at 6 for the first time since 2009, presumably to try to shore up the lineout, and for the first time this year they're playing the same locking combo twice in a row. (see http://rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtopic.p ... 100#p34981)

Aussie:
1. Scott Sio (20 Tests)
2. Stephen Moore (c) (107 Tests)
3. Sekope Kepu (68 Tests)
4. Kane Douglas (25 Tests)
5. Adam Coleman (2 Tests)
6. Dean Mumm (48 Tests)
7. Michael Hooper (56 Tests)
8. David Pocock (58 Tests)
9. Will Genia (68 Tests)
10. Quade Cooper (59 Tests)
11. Reece Hodge (1 Test)
12. Bernard Foley (32 Tests)
13. Samu Kerevi (3 Tests)
14. Dane Haylett-Petty (5 Tests)
15. Israel Folau (43 Tests)

RESERVES (ONE TO BE OMITTED)
Tatafu Polota-Nau (66 Tests)
James Slipper (79 Tests)
Allan Alaalatoa (2 Tests)
Rory Arnold (2 Tests)
Lopeti Timani*
Sean McMahon (9 Tests)
Nick Phipps (44 Tests)
Tevita Kuridrani (36 Tests)
Drew Mitchell (70 Tests)

SA
1. Tendai Mtawarira
2. Adriaan Strauss
3. Lourens Adriaanse
4. Eben Etzebeth
5. Lood de Jager
6. Francois Louw
7. Oupa Mohoje
8. Warren Whiteley
9. Faf de Klerk
10. Elton Jantjies
11. Francois Hougaard
12. Juan de Jongh
13. Jesse Kriel
14. Bryan Habana
15. Johan Goosen

RESERVES
16 Bongi Mbonambi
17 Steven Kitshoff
18 Trevor Nyakane
19 Franco Mostert
20 Pieter-Steph du Toit
21 Jaco Kriel
22 Morné Steyn
23 Lionel Mapoe

[Spy]

I'm looking forward to this match. The Wallabies have been poor, but the Boks haven't been impressive so far this year either. Although the Bok set-piece does look strong. I dunno. Australia tend to win this fixture at home. I wouldn't be surprised if they did so again.

[Lizard]

Allister Coetzee has asked for an official pre-match meeting with Nigel Owens. It would have been great trolling not to invite Cheika immediately but he's missed that chance. Still, it will give Cheika a chance to call the ref a cheating c*** to his face, rather than from the coach's box on live telly.

Has anyone got a gif of that?

http://www.espn.com.au/rugby/story/_/id ... igel-owens

[Lizard]

Is the amount of pressure being put on Aussie, as opposed to SA, fair?

Everyone's talking about the death of Aussie rugby but all they've had is one bad run against a couple of the world's best.

Look at it this way - which record is worst:
A RWC loss to Japan (then ranked 13th), defeat in the semi-finals, followed by losses to both of Ireland (7th) and Argentina (7th).

Or...

Undefeated RWC run until the final, then losses to the number 2 and number 1 sides in the world.

[Lizard]

Well both Cheika and Coetzee have 5 shit-to-middling Super franchises to pick from. Coetzee has the advantage of having one quite good one as well.

[Len]

Erm. Ok.

[Len]

Lolstralia

[rowan]

It's always 'Lolstralia' and 'Wobbalies' for a few years on, then the World Cup comes along and suddenly it's ''Wowstralia!' again.

[Len]

It's always 'Lolstralia' and 'Wobbalies' for a few years on, then the World Cup comes along and suddenly it's ''Wowstralia!' again.

Lucky Joubert gifted them the quarter eh?

[Len]

Kerevi ball in the wrong hand. I learnt that lesson when I was about 7. He should he subbed of that.

Cheika doing his nut in the box again. He really is a dickhead.

[Lizard]

It's always 'Lolstralia' and 'Wobbalies' for a few years on, then the World Cup comes along and suddenly it's ''Wowstralia!' again.

They haven't won it since 1999.

This game looks like it's from a lower league than the AB v Pumas.

[rowan]

Credit where it's due, lads. Australia reached the last final and finished third the tournament before that. They lost in extra-time of the 2003 final. & that's all quite apart from the two World Cups they collected in the 90s. They're the second most successful team in World Cup history and if they win the next one, hypothetically-speaking (but it's in their time zone), they'll be first-equal again.

As for last year's quarters, it certainly would've been interesting if Scotland had won that match because it would have meant a new RWC finalist for the first time since 95, and probably that team would've been Argentina. Still, it's in the history books now, and that's all that matters.

[rowan]

"This game looks like it's from a lower league than the AB v Pumas."

Set for a tight finish anyway, which is always preferable, regardless the quality.

[Spy]

FT 23-17. Australia the better team on the night, and break their 2016 duck. A much improved lineout and scrum. South Africa unimaginative, some very poor handling. Not a great standard of match.

[Lizard]

"This game looks like it's from a lower league than the AB v Pumas."

Set for a tight finish anyway, which is always preferable, regardless the quality.

A tight finish is usually good, but if you don't really care who wins, the quality of the match is important. And this was a fairly shit match.

[Len]

Maybe now they'll STFU. Shit game. We should do SA.

[rowan]

"As for last year's quarters, it certainly would've been interesting if Scotland had won that match because it would have meant a new RWC finalist for the first time since 95, and probably that team would've been Argentina. Still, it's in the history books now, and that's all that matters."

Woulda, shoulda, coulda! Interesting theme, perhaps shoulda coulda woulda start a new thread for this but let's see how much discussion it generates: The World Cup's almost upsets & how they might have changed the course of rugby history. You can expand into the non-RWC arena as well, if you wish, but that could turn into a project of Russian literature proportions (if perhaps lacking some of the finesse)...

1987: France 20 Scotland 20. A win for the latter woulda seen them face Fiji in the 1/4s and France play NZ, meaning we'd probably have ended up with a Trans-Tasman final. NB: Ditto Blanco's late winner against the co-hosts in the Sydney semi (I wuz there)

1991: Lynagh's late winner against Ireland in the 1/4s, just when it looked like the co-hosts had snatched it. A win woulda seen the Irish into the semis (a feat they still haven't managed), & likely an England v NZ final (which woulda been crummy).

1995: Hosts SA survived a late scare in their rain-sodden semi with France when Benazzi drove to the line and claimed he scored. Had referee Bevan agreed with him, it woulda been an NZ - France final and Clint Eastwood woulda never made a film about it. NB: Ditto an All Blacks victory in that dramatic extra-time final.

1999: What goes around comes around and this time it was SA on the receiving end of an extra-time loss. Had they not lost to the Wallabies in the semis, they quite likely woulda become the first double champions & back-to-back winners.

2003: The Irish almost fought back for an unlikely victory over hosts Australia, which woulda put them into a more winnable 1/4 against Scotland, while the Wallabies woulda played France and, surviving that, England in the semis. NB: Ireland themselves were lucky to survive Argentina in the group stages, while Scotland were almost stunned by Fiji. Either result woulda prevented what remains the only 1/4 lineup featuring all 8 founding members of the IRB/World Rugby.

2007: Two upsets that woulda rivalled Japan's over the Boks last year almost occurred with Georgia taking Ireland down to the wire and Tonga giving subsequent champs SA an almighty scare. Might that have encouraged the powers-that-be to add the Lelos to the 6 Nations and the Islands to SANZAR?

2011: Lambie's disallowed try against Australia probably prevented SA reaching the semis, while in the semis themselves Warburton's equally controversial send-off probably denied Wales a first-ever appearance in the final, while in the final itself hosts NZ went unpunished for their offside infringements in the narrow win over France. NB: France woulda been just the 5th nation to lift the trophy, in what was their 3rd attempt in the final.

Update: Copied to General Rugby forum

[Lizard]

It's also wrong. There weren't 8 founding IRB members, there were three.

[rowan]

"What relevance does all that have with the game last night being shit? The test match still fucking sucked."

Er, reference to the title of the thread...

"There weren't 8 founding IRB members, there were three."

Sure, and England wasn't one of them, and France didn't actually become one until 1978. But this description was taken directly from World Rugby's own official wiki page: "(16) The eight "foundation unions" have two votes each: Australia, England, France, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, and Wales." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Rugby

So, splitting hairs, really, and I'm not sure why this appears to have irked you...

[rowan]

"They suck right now."

Really? That's not what I read after the game. When was the last time England beat the Boks? If they'd done so today we'd be celebrating them.

I know it's all harmless fun, and there don't appear to be any Aussies on this forum anyway (nor Saffas, for that matter), but I just like to keep things in perspective a little is all.

[rowan]

Not live. I've watched some of the videos. They obviously had a horror series against England and I expressed my concern about their teams' performance in Super Rugby. But I've been following this game for an awfully long time and I'd say write them off at your peril. It was still less than a year ago that they knocked England out of their own World Cup and went all the way to the final, but the only comment about that on here seems to be about their lucky escape against Scotland. Anyway, a win over the Boks is a win over the 2nd most successful team in international rugby, so they'll be happy with that today.

[Mr Mwenda]

Pretty brainless all round to be honest. I hope the pumas do the aussies over both legs.

[rowan]

I just find it remarkable that anyone would ridicule the Wallabies less than a year after they reached the World Cup final, especially as they have just recorded a win over the world's second most successful rugby playing nation (historically-speaking). Had any 6 Nations team achieved either of these feats we'd be singing their praises right now. The Wallabies are the most unfairly maligned team in international rugby because they are inevitably compared to their closest rivals New Zealand. But everyone comes off looking bad against the All Blacks, because it's New Zealand's national game. It's not the national game in Australia, and it's actually relatively minor away from the East Coast (where it plays 2nd fiddle to league). In my view, Australia punches well above its weight in union, and has done since the end of the 70s - including at the present. & undoubtedly the main reason for that is their close association and regular contact with New Zealand rugby at all levels.

[scuzzaman]

Now you're just confusing the issue with facts and shit ...

[rowan]

& ranked 3rd in the World...