Wallaby World Cup Squad Announced

No Horwill, Higginbotham, JOC or Nic White. Two specialist scrum halves makes sense if Giteau is also seen as cover. Two hookers is a bit more of a risk, since even a slight injury would need a call up.

Forwards:

Hookers
Stephen Moore – (c) (96 Tests)
Tatafu Polota-Nau (53 Tests)

Props
Greg Holmes (17 Tests)
Sekope Kepu (56 Tests)
Scott Sio (9 Tests)
James Slipper (66 Tests)
Toby Smith (uncapped)

Locks
Kane Douglas (15 Tests)
Dean Mumm (36 Tests)
Rob Simmons (52 Tests)
Will Skelton (11 Tests)

Backrow
Scott Fardy (24 Tests)
Michael Hooper – VC (45 Tests)
Ben McCalman (40 Tests)
Sean McMahon (3 Tests)
Wycliff Palu (55 Tests)
David Pocock (50 Tests)

Backs:

Scrumhalves
Will Genia (59 Tests)
Nick Phipps (31 Tests)

Flyhalves
Quade Cooper (55 Tests)
Bernard Foley (17 Tests)

Inside backs
Kurtley Beale (52 Tests)
Matt Giteau (95 Tests)
Matt Toomua (25 Tests)

Outside backs
Adam Ashley-Cooper – VC (108 Tests)
Israel Folau (33 Tests)
Rob Horne (26 Tests)
Drew Mitchell (65 Tests)
Henry Speight (3 Tests)
Joe Tomane (15 Tests)
Tevita Kuridrani (24 Tests)

http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/08/21/wallabies-world-cup-squad-announced-cooper-genia-make-the-cut/

The joys of utility backs, otherwise I'd say it's a risk going with Cooper as the only fly-half cover. All of the inside backs might be better options right now. No Horwill or Higginbotham are big calls.

This is Horwill who captained Australia in the last Lions series.....not even making the squad.....quite a fall from grace.

If Moore picks up a light injury, and no one else is crocked, then I'm under the impression he would have to be replaced in order to have two fit hookers. That seems quite a risk - unless tournament rules are more flexible.

Interesting that the Wallabies have included an uncapped player. I doubt there will be too many in other squads.

Also I would have been tempted to bring White rather than Genia.

Not convinced about Cooper either.

Genia has actually said he was embarrassed to make the squad ahead of White.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/08/21/embarrassed-genia-vows-to-make-white-proud/

Can one of their props cover hooker? Only two in the squad would suggest so....or as you say they would have to call up a player straight away in the case of injury.

I wonder if Horwill's absence from the squad means he'll join Quins early. That would be a nice bonus.

It's an oddly shaped squad. Looks pretty good but could suffer badly with a couple of injuries in the wrong place. Lots of experience, though - they'll probably be fielding sides with an average of 50 caps each or so.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Can one of their props cover hooker? Only two in the squad would suggest so....or as you say they would have to call up a player straight away in the case of injury.

If a hooker is crocked within 48 hours of a game they would have to use a prop to cover hooker on the bench - as there is a delay between when a player is called up and when they can play.

Failure to have suitable Front row replacements on the bench could be catastrophic:

1.1.7          Compliance with Law 3.5

Compliance with the relevant World Rugby Laws and Regulations is critical in the conduct of the Tournament. Should Teams be found to be in breach of Law 3.5 (suitably trained and experienced players in the front row), the matter will be forwarded to the Tournament Disputes Committee for consideration.

In the absence of any mitigating circumstances this will result in:

->forfeiture of all Match points for that fixture (including bonus points)
->possible financial penalties

In terms of the provision of front row players to comply with Law 3.5, the necessary number of reserve front row players must be included in the Tournament Team to cover last minute injuries to front row players selected in the Match Team within the 48 hour replacement timeframe set out in Section 4.5

Have Leinster released Douglas from his contract, or has he broken it?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Can one of their props cover hooker? Only two in the squad would suggest so....or as you say they would have to call up a player straight away in the case of injury.

GF,

That's the first thing I noticed. Seems quite a big risk also only 2 No9s as well, think most squads will go with 3 each in those positions.

LondonTiger wrote:Have Leinster released Douglas from his contract, or has he broken it?

Isn't it an IRB requirement that all players must be released from their contracts for international windows, which includes an extended training window around the RWC? That's why it's regarded as suspicious when Pacific Island players announce their sudden retirement from International rugby when joining a French side just before the RWC.

Poorfour wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Have Leinster released Douglas from his contract, or has he broken it?

Isn't it an IRB requirement that all players must be released from their contracts for international windows, which includes an extended training window around the RWC? That's why it's regarded as suspicious when Pacific Island players announce their sudden retirement from International rugby when joining a French side just before the RWC.

thing is the Aussie rules about selection stated that players based overseas had to have over a certain number of caps.

google shows me that Leinster released him from his contract and received undisclosed compensation.

Poorfour wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Have Leinster released Douglas from his contract, or has he broken it?

Isn't it an IRB requirement that all players must be released from their contracts for international windows, which includes an extended training window around the RWC? That's why it's regarded as suspicious when Pacific Island players announce their sudden retirement from International rugby when joining a French side just before the RWC.

Anybody in leinster who watched Kane Douglas fart around for a year will be gobsmacked he's in the Aus panel ahead of Horwill. And yes he was released by Leinster. Hope for Aus sake he shows some more effort and spirit than he did for us over the past year.

I can only think Cheika thinks he knows something about the rules which isn't apparent to me. Why risk having to send your captain home just because you didn't have a replacement already in the squad?

On other forums, it's been noted that Argentine also only named two hookers, so perhaps there is something we're missing

They could choose to replace one of the plethora of outside backs with a hooker should Moore get a short term injury. Nothing in the regs that states replacements must be like for like.

LondonTiger wrote:They could choose to replace one of the plethora of outside backs with a hooker should Moore get a short term injury. Nothing in the regs that states replacements must be like for like.

They would have to be injured, though. you can't send a fit player home to bring another in.

Wasn't there a rumour a while ago that Pocock had been training as a hooker, because they didn't know how to fit him and Hooper in

Lets be honest, most hookers don't actually hook the ball any more - the scrumhalf either feeds it into the second row or you do a timed 8 man push, with the push coming on just as the ball comes in.   The only real work a hooker has these days is throwing in.

With Australia's perceived weakness at the scrums, I would expect both England and Wales to really try and attack them there anyway, so having only 2 hookers seems to be a real risk.  

The rest of the squad looks pretty experienced though - certainly puts England 'to shame'.  I just feel that against either England or Wales, that experience is going to be critical.

Dumb question - what happens if one of the hookers gets a red card? Presumably he couldn't be replaced and Australia would need to play the next 1 or 2 games with only one hooker, plus ano as cover. Would be an issue if you had a hooker with the temperament of Hartley.

Didn't Kepu play age grade hooker? I thought I remember hearing about him a few seasons ago at hook?

nlpnlp wrote:Dumb question - what happens if one of the hookers gets a red card?  Presumably he couldn't be replaced and Australia would need to play the next 1 or 2 games with only one hooker, plus ano as cover.  Would be an issue if you had a hooker with the temperament of Hartley.

nip,

Not a dumb question quite a logical one really, in that instance I am guessing they would be allowed to call a replacement up into the squad as you have to have a full front row on the bench.

Mike Catt raised the hooker issue when he met the press yesterday, pointing out it was one of the main reasons they ruled out selecting Hartley.

I imagine a few coaches will want to get some clarity from World Rugby ahead of the tournament. So far WR has said that there is no problem with the composition of the Wallaby squad, they only require that sides have cover for all front row positions in their match day squad.

I think this almost certainly means that if either hooker is unfit for a game, they will have to be replaced, no matter what the prospects for recovery.

What isn't clear, is how much time Australia get to do this. If one of them does a Glenn McGrath (different sport, I know), and pulls up just before kick-off, then it would seem to go counter to other injury protocols if they could beam in a replacement within moments.

Do they forfeit that match? There would surely be hell to pay, not least from paying spectators and broadcasters. I suppose it could start, but any injury to the remaining hooker would cause a problem. The opposition would rightly be aggrieved if the referee went straight to unopposed scrums.

If World Rugby are satisfied with the initial composition of the Wallaby squad, then they ought to have a some clear views on the potential consequences of only having two designated hookers.

Surely they will have to go into each game with a recognised full front row contingent on the bench.

You cant go into a game hoping to go un contested in the scrum, surely not.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Surely they will have to go into each game with a recognised full front row contingent on the bench.

You cant go into a game hoping to go un contested in the scrum, surely not.

No it is against the laws of the game. You must have a full replacement front row on the bench.

They just won't be taking a third reserve hooker.

Wales may well make a similar call and just take Owens and Baldwin keeping the third hooker spot open for fielding a different player. A third tighthead prop maybe? Or an extra back for the Uruguay and Fiji games.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Surely they will have to go into each game with a recognised full front row contingent on the bench.

You cant go into a game hoping to go un contested in the scrum, surely not.

I wouldn't put it past the Aussies to be honest. They would do anything to get an edge (similarly to how they acted over the Hooper ban).

Still, World Rugby are generally pretty impotent in matters like this and rarely punish a top side.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Surely they will have to go into each game with a recognised full front row contingent on the bench.

You cant go into a game hoping to go un contested in the scrum, surely not.

I haven't read anyone who really has a handle on this.

On one hand, some are arguing that, if a player can only be sent home for a tournament-ending injury (not sure if that's the case) then the rules might be ambiguous, with the Wallaby position perhaps being that they would at least be allowed an immediate temporary replacement, and may not have to send the injured player back.

Another view is that, at a stretch, Australia could name a prop as reserve hooker (as they've named five props, that would mean fielding them all in a match day squad), which would buy time for a replacement.

Of course, both hookers might make it through the whole tournament, and it may never become an issue. If the worst does happen, though, I don't want some farce where no-one seems to know the rules.

maestegmafia wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Surely they will have to go into each game with a recognised full front row contingent on the bench.

You cant go into a game hoping to go un contested in the scrum, surely not.

No it is against the laws of the game. You must have a full replacement front row on the bench.

They just won't be taking a third reserve hooker.

Wales may well make a similar call and just take Owens and Baldwin keeping the third hooker spot open for fielding a different player. A third tighthead prop maybe? Or an extra back for the Uruguay and Fiji games.

I doubt that very much Maes, we will take 3 hookers of that I am sure.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Surely they will have to go into each game with a recognised full front row contingent on the bench.

You cant go into a game hoping to go un contested in the scrum, surely not.

No it is against the laws of the game. You must have a full replacement front row on the bench.

They just won't be taking a third reserve hooker.

Wales may well make a similar call and just take Owens and Baldwin keeping the third hooker spot open for fielding a different player. A third tighthead prop maybe? Or an extra back for the Uruguay and Fiji games.

I doubt that very much Maes, we will take 3 hookers of that I am sure.

Why?

Rugby Fan wrote:
Of course, both hookers might make it through the whole tournament, and it may never become an issue. If the worst does happen, though, I don't want some farce where no-one seems to know the rules.

The rules are very clear, if you fail to have adequate cover (either on the bench or on the field) for the entire front row you will forfeit match points gained and face a hefty fine.

Allied to the 48hr rule this means having just two hookers is a risk. Should one of those be crocked withing 48 hours of a game yo cannot play a new addition to the squad. Now you could props on the bench but if called on the nominated hooker replacement would have to come onto the field and play in fully contested scrums.

maestegmafia wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Surely they will have to go into each game with a recognised full front row contingent on the bench.

You cant go into a game hoping to go un contested in the scrum, surely not.

No it is against the laws of the game. You must have a full replacement front row on the bench.

They just won't be taking a third reserve hooker.

Wales may well make a similar call and just take Owens and Baldwin keeping the third hooker spot open for fielding a different player. A third tighthead prop maybe? Or an extra back for the Uruguay and Fiji games.

I doubt that very much Maes, we will take 3 hookers of that I am sure.

Why?

Its such a specialist position I think it would be a big ask to go through whole tournament (or as far as we get) with just 2. If we were to go one light in the front row then I would imagine it would be at tight head with James or Jenkins being used as emergency cover, I think that will depend on how confident they are over Lee and Francis.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Surely they will have to go into each game with a recognised full front row contingent on the bench.

You cant go into a game hoping to go un contested in the scrum, surely not.

No it is against the laws of the game. You must have a full replacement front row on the bench.

They just won't be taking a third reserve hooker.

Wales may well make a similar call and just take Owens and Baldwin keeping the third hooker spot open for fielding a different player. A third tighthead prop maybe? Or an extra back for the Uruguay and Fiji games.

I doubt that very much Maes, we will take 3 hookers of that I am sure.

Why?

Its such a specialist position I think it would be a big ask to go through whole tournament (or as far as we get) with just 2.  If we were to go one light in the front row then I would imagine it would be at tight head with James or Jenkins being used as emergency cover, I think that will depend on how confident they are over Lee and Francis.

Neither Jenkins or James have played tighthead in years, certainly not since the changes in the scrum laws.

That is not an option.

I'd be happier with either of them if Andrews or even Jarvis are the options.

bedfordwelsh wrote:I'd be happier with either of them if Andrews or even Jarvis are the options.

We put I our best performance this year with Jarvis at tighthead against Ireland in Cardiff in the six nations.

We also lost Jenkins at halftime, covered by Rob Evans.



James and Jenkins have not played tighthead in four years. They will not play tighthead at the RWC. It would be crazy to suggest that they could perform better than even Andrews.

maestegmafia wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:I'd be happier with either of them if Andrews or even Jarvis are the options.

We put I our best performance this year with Jarvis at tighthead against Ireland in Cardiff in the six nations.

We also lost Jenkins at halftime, covered by Rob Evans.



James and Jenkins have not played tighthead in four years. They will not play tighthead at the RWC. It would be crazy to suggest that they could perform better than even Andrews.

Maes,

God knows what Gatland sees him in but Andrews can't even hold his own at Regional level and if I had to take a punt I would as I mentioned play Jenkins or James over Andrews. Jarvis doesn't fill me with confidence either, every player has one good game in them and Jarvis' must have been against Ireland.

Yes, I can see a third hooker co-incidentally taking a "holiday" in England this autumn - I'm guessing within spitting distance of his colleagues' hotel.

I wonder if Horwill is getting the two fingers because he committed himself to an English club this year...

bedfordwelsh wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:I'd be happier with either of them if Andrews or even Jarvis are the options.

We put I our best performance this year with Jarvis at tighthead against Ireland in Cardiff in the six nations.

We also lost Jenkins at halftime, covered by Rob Evans.



James and Jenkins have not played tighthead in four years. They will not play tighthead at the RWC. It would be crazy to suggest that they could perform better than even Andrews.

Maes,

God knows what Gatland sees him in but Andrews can't even hold his own at Regional level and if I had to take a punt I would as I mentioned play Jenkins or James over Andrews.  Jarvis doesn't fill me with confidence either, every player has one good game in them and Jarvis' must have been against Ireland.

But beds mate I doubt that Jenkins or James would not be any better than Andrews or Jarvis as they do not have any experience of playing tighthead prop with the new rules in place.

They certainly couldn't be any worse than Andrews at least.

bedfordwelsh wrote:They certainly couldn't be any worse than Andrews at least.

Of course they would be. They have no experience of playing that position in the modern game.

If the choices were James Jenkins or Andrews then the first two would get my vote all the time Andrews is just so out of his depth at Regional level let alone this level.

I would even consider going un contested if he was the only real option.

bedfordwelsh wrote:If the choices were James Jenkins or Andrews then the first two would get my vote all the time Andrews is just so out of his depth at Regional level let alone this level.

I would even consider going un contested if he was the only real option.  

I don't think under the current laws of the game that Wales would even be allowed to field a loose head prop without any experience of the current laws.

You certainly can't create a situation where you force in contested scrums. We would be fined.

Scrum coach Ledesma has said that The Wallabies will play one of their props as a makeshift hooker if necessary - probably Sio - so he doesn't see it as a selection risk.

Effectively, then, he's saying they have three potential hookers, which is what other teams will likely be doing.

www.theroar.com.au/2015/08/26/ledesma-scoffs-at-two-hookers-concern/

Rugby Fan wrote:Scrum coach Ledesma has said that The Wallabies will play one of their props as a makeshift hooker if necessary - probably Sio - so he doesn't see it as a selection risk.

Effectively, then, he's saying they have three potential hookers, which is what other teams will likely be doing.

www.theroar.com.au/2015/08/26/ledesma-scoffs-at-two-hookers-concern/

Interesting but quite odd that they won't actually say which of the props it is.

Smacks of the Lions tour when Stuart Hogg was surprised to hear that he would be playing at 10 for some of the time.

Polota-Nau really is currently sharing the honour with George North of being the Most Concussed Man in World Rugby at the moment, so I'm not sure that Ledesma has quite got the tone of his responses right here.