Wallabies beat South Africa 30-13 in Tri Nations match at Suncorp Stadium

[GIGS20]

Saying he isn't getting enough game time to prove his worth is not an argument to drop Mumm. Because you're assuming he is going to be a world beater given the chance..

ummmm no, that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying Mumm playing like shit is a reason to drop mumm and we've got nothing to lose by trying some different options.

If you remember the June tests, Deans searched pretty hard for those options with more conservative selections.......which I would have done, a bunch of Wallaby fringe locks got their chance and pretty much all tanked worse than Mumm......they simply ran out of time to find somebody whose up to the task.

In any case Deans has started to look for a solution, he didn't use McCalman this week, rather he used Simmons. I didn't notice him much, which means there was a bit of good and a bit of bad about the debut. Bad in that he didn't set the game alight, coming off the bench at about 65 (I think) but good in that I didn't notice him like I notice Mumm (only by the mistakes, not by the good stuff)

[KenyaQuin]

No problem with Ma'afu, as far as props go, thought he put in a decent effort.

Same with Mumm..I thought he went pretty well..he took in a lot of ball and gained some good ground. Can't fault his game too much..in my mind anyhow.

My one issue was that there were a number of instances where a quick ball was available for the Aussies but rather than a quick wide ball, it was either a quick tight ball or a slow tight ball..hence a low try count.

Would have to check the stats..were there any scrums in this game?? Or lineouts? Will be interested to see how this year's tri-series overall stats (flyhalf passes/kicks) will compare to last year's.

[James]

I'd like to see Horwill back. He was always good for a try or two.

We have a couple of young guns in guys like Kane Douglas, Greg Peterson, Luke Jones and a handful of others with a lot of potential but none of them have the experience to dominate in the test arena. I don't think Rob Simmons will be good or another year or two.

[travelling_gerry]

7 Scrums for the game. Just 1 was a Wallaby feed.

http://www.thescore.com.au/matches/rugby/match3686.html

[jazza93]

ummmm no, that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying Mumm playing like shit is a reason to drop mumm and we've got nothing to lose by trying some different options.

If you remember the June tests, Deans searched pretty hard for those options with more conservative selections.......which I would have done, a bunch of Wallaby fringe locks got their chance and pretty much all tanked worse than Mumm......they simply ran out of time to find somebody whose up to the task.

In any case Deans has started to look for a solution, he didn't use McCalman this week, rather he used Simmons. I didn't notice him much, which means there was a bit of good and a bit of bad about the debut. Bad in that he didn't set the game alight, coming off the bench at about 65 (I think) but good in that I didn't notice him like I notice Mumm (only by the mistakes, not by the good stuff)

Sorry but your assuming too much.

We do have something to lose by dropping Mumm, because he is our 2nd best lock and bringing on some S14 quality flanker for him is going to hurt us. And i still don't see why anyone thinks he played crap other than a few drop balls, a lot of forwards knocked the ball on last night... So, he shouldn't be dropped, and McCalman wouldn't be the man to replace him anyway.

I will keep this short because quite simply arguing over wether McCalman should play lock is just silly. Simmons came on last night and according to you he played "good and bad" because you "didn't notice him much". Why not look at the facts or watch the game again to see how he actually played rather than assuming all this. He actually played ok for his short time on, what you'd expect from him anyway. I agree he didn't set the world on fire so maybe McCalman will get a few minutes of game time in the next two weeks to prove his worth. The coaches know their ability better than any of us so if these two reserve `back 5` players are hardly getting any game time, they must be a fair bit behind Sharpe and Mumm.

[KenyaQuin]

My one issue was that there were a number of instances where a quick ball was available for the Aussies but rather than a quick wide ball, it was either a quick tight ball or a slow tight ball..hence a low try count.

I think I need to revisit this statement.

There were a number of instances where the quick ball was available and where the Wallabies had numbers out wide but the ball was kept in close (fast/slow ball) with no advantage gained. This allowed the Boks to fan out, hence a lower try count than may have been.

This is probably symptomatic of a team lacking some brute strength in the backs and therefore confidence to use their backs as small forwards.

On another issue, thanks for the stats link TG. Wayne Smith has an interesting article in today's Australian pointing to the stat that both Coopers had only one kick each in the entire game which is an amazing stat for both a flyhalf and a fullback.

[Burgs]

I'm no fan of Mumm but think he played one of his stronger Test matches.
He is purely caretaking the position for Horwill anyway and isn't a starting standard Lock but credit where it is due.

I believe McCalman would definately be up for it and wouldn't disrupt the scrum however it won't happen.