RugbyRebels

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

So, still chopping and changing for no rhyme or reason. I'm rather surprised Adam Coleman survived after his sorry display a couple of weekends ago.

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.

I think the real point of intrigue for the Boks is who will be replacing Strauss as captain starting next year, and if we'll start seeing that replacement groomed during the Rugby Champs.

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

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.

On the surface, sure. But it's also the manner in which Australia lost that deserves serious scrutiny. In short, they fucking suck shit. Long: they fucking suck shit, and have been a shitty shit dumpsterfire of a shit team that is sucking so much shit, that there must be a shit-shortage. In the last couple of weeks, there's been nothing encouraging about their performances, and the fact that they went into their last test match all fists and elbows, spending 80 minutes looking for a fight, is tantamount to an admission that they no longer know just what in the fuck it is that they're supposed to be doing. And they even managed to fuck that up, crying foul when they got roughed up in return.

South Africa have had a shit season too, but at least they have the excuse of going through a massive rebuild, and everyone knows it was going to be a tough season for them.

That's not to say Coetzee shouldn't be under scrutiny either. He's got a blueprint to work with on putting together a team that can compete with the All Blacks, and has selected the players that have shown they can do so, and he's coaching all that shit right out of them immediately.

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.

Let's put it this way: the Boks have been playing like a team on the verge of figuring out just what kind of team that they are, and have played brilliantly a few times this year (especially in the second half of their second test against Ireland). They're a bit pants, but I think we can agree there's plenty of potential to improve.

The Wallabies are playing like a team that's stumbling along from one disastrous outing to another.

Erm. Ok.

So I suppose Mtawarira's being groomed as the next Boks captain based on where he was standing during the anthems.

Lolstralia

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

rowan wrote: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?

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.

rowan wrote: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.

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.

"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.

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.

rowan wrote:"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.

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

"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

rowan wrote: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.

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

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