What's with Sandy running Jenna who everyone knows her back isin’t right and running her starting 5 when its not needed. Carla wasn’t having her best game but continued to run her, for what?
This happened against Japan in the Asia series last year, starting 5 were not playing well and the subs had to produce without a lot of court time during earlier games.
I just don’t get it.

I'd be interested to hear her philosophy about it too.
On the one hand she'd be keen to get to know the strengths, weaknesses & tendencies of the players that are most likely to be in our "real" 12. On the other hand she probably also wants to assess the newer players like Seekamp & Magbegor to see if they're likely to stick.
In this tournament the opposition is pretty bad, so the fringe players would get better competition in the training sessions than they do in these blowouts, so maybe Sandy figures this is more just a chemistry exercise.
O'Hea started but played < 15 min and didn't look hampered. It does seem totally unnecessary to risk her so I can only assume that the injury was overstated and Jenna was keen to play. I mean this is the biggest event on Australia's sporting calendar you know! ;)

On this I caint say very much ... was enjoying the first quarter and a half when channel seven turned out to be c...s , sayen that the opals were way too good for canada and went to air rifles or something....
Wonder what we'll see tonite.....

$20 IS A RIP OFF. ALL SHOULD BE FREE AND PAID FOR USING ADVERTISING.

Showed all the game against england , enjoyed it . Opals class act.

Didn't really notice her at this game , but Cambage 17mins were pretty good and Griffin impressive.

For the amount of court time Kunek nailed it. Why take 12 if your only playing 10?

If you only give players time when the game is well and truly won, you won't know how well they perform in a must win situation

Here is a novel idea, why not start a completely different starting 5 and see what they can do.

IMO it's still Mitchell's spot to lose - it's unfortunate for Griffin and Whitcomb as if they were Australian from birth they'd be locks to make the side.

I'd take Mitchell.

Mitchell pretty good .. but Griffin wow , very very good .. I'd pick Cambage first then Griffin second...

Whitcomb didn't make this side, why would you think she would make another, if they don’t take Griffin as their ne naturalised player they would take Mitchel over whitcomb blindfolded,
And to the poster who suggested Mitchel was a liability on defence you have obviously never watched her play

With Mitchell having an Australian mother, doesn't that exempt from the one naturalised player rule?

In turn, does that mean we can take both Mitchell and Griffin?

With Leilani's mother being indigenous she is as Australian as any athlete.

I always thought it was strange that BA never at least challenged and requested an exception to the ruling in Leilani's case.

My conspiracy theory mind says that Joyce wanted Burton in the team and didn't want extra competition in the form of Griffin. Although that is just a crazy Alex Jones type theory with zero substance.

Agree on Mitchell. I think the PGs for Worlds should be Mitchell, Mansfield and Wallace.

How can Australia be playing New Zealand in the Semi Final when they both finish top of their respected pools?