Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Australia player ratings vs Georgia

Australia's David Pocock takes a picture with fans after the win over Georgia in Shizuoka (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)

Having avoided the extreme weather that is set to play havoc with the World Cup this weekend, Australia finished off their pool stage campaign with a laboured and unconvincing 27-8 win over Georgia in the Shizuoka rain.

ADVERTISEMENT

Michael Cheika made a number of changes from the side that beat Uruguay, with the southern hemisphere side looking at close to full-strength despite a few notable omissions.

Check out the RugbyPass player ratings of all 23 of the Wallabies players below:

  1. Kurtley Beale5.5

The full-back had an early handling error in the admittedly difficult conditions in Shizuoka before unfortunately having to be replaced in the 13th minute for a head injury assessment which became a permanent replacement.

  1. Jordan Petaia5.5

An industrious display from the youngster who was effective chasing kicks and looked for work off of his wing. A couple of spills marred the performance in what was a game that the Wallabies repeatedly opted to keep it tight.

(Continue reading below…)

  1. James O’Connor5

A quiet game from O’Connor who didn’t have too many opportunities to link the midfield with the wings. His impact was limited to a handful of carries and support lines.

  1. Samu Kerevi6.5

The centre provided Australia with some punch outside of Matt Toomua and his leg drives in contact tended to tie in defenders. He showed good hands, too, although wasn’t able to make too many of the big gain line successes that he usually provides.

  1. Marika Koroibete7

The wing had a couple of noteworthy breaks, although he also spilt the ball under pressure and coughed up a couple of turnovers. His second half try was a great solo effort and put the nail in Georgia’s coffin.

https://twitter.com/RugbyPass/status/1182632860446015488?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

  1. Matt Toomua5.5

A mixed bag from Toomua, who didn’t really do too much wrong in attack but he wasn’t able to spark the Australian backline and provide incision. He was pinged for a high tackle and provided the space for Georgia’s second-half try with his shot out of the line. He was on target with three of his four kicks.

  1. Nic White6.5

One of Australia’s better performers in the backs, White was efficient with possession and controlled the tempo of the game nicely for his side. His darting try was the difference at the interval.

  1. Scott Sio7

He provided a solid foundation at the scrum for much of the game, although he was penalised once for losing his feet, something not too surprising given the conditions.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

They will have to be in fifth for their quarter final. #RugbyWorldCup #wallabies

A post shared by RugbyPass (@rugbypass) on

  1. Tolu Latu8

A very effective performance from the hooker who showcased his footwork, carrying and soft hands in the loose. He did cough up one turnover on a handling error, although he was excellent in the tight connecting on 15 of his 16 lineouts.

  1. Sekope Kepu8

Kepu really went after the Georgian scrum and came out on top at almost all of the set-pieces. He kept the squeeze on Mikheil Nariashvili throughout.

  1. Izack Rodda7.5

A reliable target for Latu at the lineout, he also popped up with three lineout steals and made a couple of big tackles that helped slow down Georgia. Australia won the physical battle on the gain line and Rodda was a contributor to that.

ADVERTISEMENT

https://twitter.com/RugbyPass/status/1182388663646334981?s=20

  1. Rory Arnold6.5

The lock helped deliver turnover ball for Australia through both defensive lineout pressure and a steal in the contact. Outside of those moments, it was a relatively quiet performance for Arnold.

  1. Jack Dempsey6

A solid if unspectacular performance from Dempsey, who went to work as a one-out carrier and on the pick and go. He didn’t make the highlight plays of his back row colleagues and had some handling errors, though he put in the hard yards.

  1. David Pocock7.5

A strong all-round showing from Pocock who was a limpet over the ball, providing an effective carrying outlet and making a number of dominant tackles on Georgia’s power carriers.

https://twitter.com/RugbyPass/status/1182592392937005056

  1. Isa Naisarani6

The No8 was a very positive contributor as a ball carrier and a lineout option, although his overall performance was hindered by a few handling errors and a yellow card for a high tackle.

Replacements

  1. Jordan Uelese6

The hooker kept up Australia’s dominance at the lineout and provided similar carrying ability to Lotu as a ball carrier.

  1. James Slipper6

Slipper struggled to provide the same platform at the scrum that Sio had initially before the contest evened up in subsequent scrums.

  1. Taniela Tupou7

The tighthead kept up the dominance in the scrum that Kepu had provided Australia with before him. He offered significant impact in the loose, too.

https://twitter.com/RugbyPass/status/1182587239311667200

  1. Rob Simmons6.5

Added another lineout option, was busy in the loose and brought fresh legs in the defensive line.

  1. Lukhan Salakaia-Loto6

Tackled and carried powerfully after being brought on.

  1. Will Genia7

The arrival of Genia brought an uptick in tempo, something which suited Australia as Georgia began to tire.

  1. Christian Leali’ifano6

Made a number of neat and incisive passes after coming on as the Wallabies looked a much more dangerous team with dual playmakers. He kicked out on the full from a restart, though.

  1. Dane Haylett-Petty6.5

It was generally a positive impact from Haylett-Petty after he replaced Beale, supporting play well and providing reliable at the back in the air. He did concede a couple of turnovers.

ADVERTISEMENT

WATCH: World Rugby reacts to shock All Blacks cancellation claim

Video Spacer

 

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

f
fl 1 minute ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"fl's idea, if I can speak for him to speed things up, was for it to be semifinalists first, Champions Cup (any that somehow didn't make a league semi), then Challenge's semi finalists (which would most certainly have been outside their league semi's you'd think), then perhaps the quarter finalists of each in the same manner. I don't think he was suggesting whoever next performed best in Europe but didn't make those knockouts (like those round of 16 losers), I doubt that would ever happen."


That's not quite my idea.

For a 20 team champions cup I'd have 4 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 4 from the previous years challenge cup. For a 16 team champions cup I'd have 3 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 1 from the previous years challenge cup.


"The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime."

If teams get a tough draw in the challenge cup quarters, they should have won more pool games and so got better seeding. My system is less about finding the best teams, and more about finding the teams who perform at the highest level in european competition.

50 Go to comments
f
fl 38 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Would I'd be think"

Would I'd be think.


"Well that's one starting point for an error in your reasoning. Do you think that in regards to who should have a say in how it's setup in the future as well? Ie you would care what they think or what might be more fair for their teams (not saying your model doesn't allow them a chance)?"

Did you even read what you're replying to? I wasn't arguing for excluding south africa, I was pointing out that the idea of quantifying someone's fractional share of european rugby is entirely nonsensical. You're the one who was trying to do that.


"Yes, I was thinking about an automatic qualifier for a tier 2 side"

What proportion of european rugby are they though? Got to make sure those fractions match up! 😂


"Ultimately what I think would be better for t2 leagues would be a third comp underneath the top two tournemnts where they play a fair chunk of games, like double those two. So half a dozen euro teams along with the 2 SA and bottom bunch of premiership and top14, some Championship and div 2 sides thrown in."

I don't know if Championship sides want to be commuting to Georgia every other week.


"my thought was just to create a middle ground now which can sustain it until that time has come, were I thought yours is more likely to result in the constant change/manipulation it has been victim to"

a middle ground between the current system and a much worse system?

50 Go to comments
f
fl 53 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Huh? You mean last in their (4 team) pools/regions? My idea was 6/5/4, 6 the max, for guarenteed spots, with a 20 team comp max, so upto 5 WCs (which you'd make/or would be theoretically impossible to go to one league (they'd likely be solely for its participants, say 'Wales', rather than URC specifically. Preferrably). I gave 3 WC ideas for a 18 team comp, so the max URC could have (with a member union or club/team, winning all of the 6N, and Champions and Challenge Cup) would be 9."


That's a lot of words to say that I was right. If (e.g.) Glasgow won the URC and Edinburgh finished 16th, but Scotland won the six nations, Edinburgh would qualify for the Champions Cup under your system.


"And the reason say another URC (for example) member would get the spot over the other team that won the Challenge Cup, would be because they were arguable better if they finished higher in the League."

They would be arguably worse if they didn't win the Challenge Cup.


"It won't diminish desire to win the Challenge Cup, because that team may still be competing for that seed, and if theyre automatic qual anyway, it still might make them treat it more seriously"

This doesn't make sense. Giving more incentives to do well in the Challenge Cup will make people take it more seriously. My system does that and yours doesn't. Under my system, teams will "compete for the seed" by winning the Challenge Cup, under yours they won't. If a team is automatically qualified anyway why on earth would that make them treat it more seriously?


"I'm promoting the idea of a scheme that never needs to be changed again"

So am I. I'm suggesting that places could be allocated according to a UEFA style points sytem, or according to a system where each league gets 1/4 of the spots, and the remaining 1/4 go to the best performing teams from the previous season in european competition.


"Yours will promote outcry as soon as England (or any other participant) fluctates. Were as it's hard to argue about a the basis of an equal share."

Currently there is an equal share, and you are arguing against it. My system would give each side the opportunity to achieve an equal share, but with more places given to sides and leagues that perform well. This wouldn't promote outcry, it would promote teams to take european competition more seriously. Teams that lose out because they did poorly the previous year wouldn't have any grounds to complain, they would be incentivised to try harder this time around.


"This new system should not be based on the assumption of last years results/performances continuing."

That's not the assumption I'm making. I don't think the teams that perform better should be given places in the competition because they will be the best performing teams next year, but because sport should be based on merit, and teams should be rewarded for performing well.


"I'm specifically promoting my idea because I think it will do exactly what you want, increase european rugyb's importance."

how?


"I won't say I've done anything compressive"

Compressive.

50 Go to comments
J
JW 57 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Generally disagree with what? The possibility that they would get whitewashed, or the idea they shouldn't gain access until they're good enough?


I think the first is a fairly irrelevant view, decide on the second and then worry about the first. Personally I'd have had them in a third lvl comp with all the bottom dwellers of the leagues. I liked the idea of those league clubs resting their best players, and so being able to lift their standards in the league, though, so not against the idea that T2 sides go straight into Challenge Cup, but that will be a higher level with smaller comps and I think a bit too much for them (not having followed any of their games/performances mind you).

Because I don't think that having the possibility of a team finishing outside the quarter finals to qualify automatically will be a good idea. I'd rather have a team finishing 5th in their domestic league.

fl's idea, if I can speak for him to speed things up, was for it to be semifinalists first, Champions Cup (any that somehow didn't make a league semi), then Challenge's semi finalists (which would most certainly have been outside their league semi's you'd think), then perhaps the quarter finalists of each in the same manner. I don't think he was suggesting whoever next performed best in Europe but didn't make those knockouts (like those round of 16 losers), I doubt that would ever happen.


The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime.

50 Go to comments
J
JW 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Well I was mainly referring to my thinking about the split, which was essentially each /3 rounded up, but reliant on WCs to add buffer.


You may have been going for just a 16 team league ranking cup?


But yes, those were just ideas for how to select WCs, all very arbitrary but I think more interesting in ways than just going down a list (say like fl's) of who is next in line. Indeed in my reply to you I hinted at say the 'URC' WC spot actually being given to the Ireland pool and taken away from the Welsh pool.


It's easy to think that is excluding, and making it even harder on, a poor performing country, but this is all in context of a 18 or 20 team comp where URC (at least to those teams in the URC) got 6 places, which Wales has one side lingering around, and you'd expect should make. Imagine the spice in that 6N game with Italy, or any other of the URC members though! Everyone talks about SA joining the 6N, so not sure it will be a problem, but it would be a fairly minor one imo.


But that's a structure of the leagues were instead of thinking how to get in at the top, I started from the bottom and thought that it best those teams doing qualify for anything. Then I thought the two comps should be identical in structure. So that's were an even split comes in with creating numbers, and the 'UEFA' model you suggest using in some manner, I thought could be used for the WC's (5 in my 20 team comp) instead of those ideas of mine you pointed out.


I see Jones has waded in like his normal self when it comes to SH teams. One thing I really like about his idea is the name change to the two competitions, to Cup and Shield. Oh, and home and away matches.

50 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Ireland centre Bundee Aki ends speculation with decision over future Ireland centre Bundee Aki ends speculation with decision over future
Search