An open letter to the Wallaby selectors
By ozxile, 30 Sep 2008 ozxile is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- NSW, props, Rugby Union, scrum, Spring Tour, wallabies
Your constituents are restless. Your most recent selections confused many of us, dismayed some of us, and made a few of us very, very unhappy.
The consensus coming out of the Tri-Nations was/is that things are looking up for our team. Selections for the spring tour were much anticipated. We expected a view (not just glimpses) of the bold vision for the path to 2011.
What happened?
Here at the pub we’d discussed the options thoughtfully, rigorously, heatedly, and ad nauseum. Nothing definitive, but we generally agreed that a variety of changes were obvious and there would be bolters – we’d speculated that some of them would be real surprises.
The 23rd has come and gone. We’re recovering, and the focus has changed from ‘who?’ to ‘why?’
What happened?
The most plausible and popular answer to ‘why?’ is the upcoming World Cup seeding. Plausible perhaps, but it is does not ring true.
That narrow objective would leave little or no room for experiment in the Tests and virtually doom 10-15 travelers to mid-week matches and bench duty.
However, if that is the case, then why all the usual suspects?
Perhaps you can answer a few questions and save us a lot of frustrating and pointless second-guessing.
We may not like the answers, but we’d like them nonetheless.
PROPS:
Dunning seems unlikely to start as long as Robinson and Baxter are healthy. He may be a good bloke to have along for a laugh, but if he is only going as a backup, we’d like to know why you didn’t select another bolter. We’d also like to know what the plan is to produce some world class props – if there is one.
HOOKER:
Polatu Nau has been at best a mixed bag all year. His throwing is atrocious and he knows it. It impacts the rest of his game and the defensive discussions of his ‘potential’ are wearing very thin. He and his number 8 mate Palu both appear to need a shrink more than match time at the Wallabies’ expense. Moore and Frier will fill the bill. Couldn’t you have found another bolter here or perhaps another prop?
SECOND ROW:
No one here would have been really surprised to see Sharpe stay home. He is up and down, but mostly down. Now at the tail end of his international run, he’s a high risk of being a no-show for any match. One clunker and you will bench him again. So, what would have been the risk of selecting another bolter with youth and everything to prove, such as Kimlin?
BREAKAWAYS:
The surprise here was your persistence with Waugh. On recent form, you cannot afford to start him, so he is at best a passenger. He cannot jump, pass, or create anything. He plays his heart out but really provides nothing in terms of options. If you only expect to get 20 minutes out of him as an impact player, haven’t you wasted another development opportunity here? Were there no options?
Number 8:
Generally speaking, we are rather disenchanted with Palu – particularly after the showing Brown made when he came in as a replacement. Brown was easily more effective and showed far more of the ‘ticker’ that is so often the subject of our discussions. As noted earlier, the bloke needs a shrink, not more match time. Even Baxter has shown more aggression (keep it up mate!) in recent matches. Palu has had his chances. We may not have many options, but Brown clearly showed that there are bona fide investment grade players out there looking for a run. Why didn’t you take a punt on Salvi or a dark horse that we weren’t looking at, such as Sydney Uni’s Davidson?
SCRUM HALF:
Cordingley? Why, why, why, why? With Burgess healthy, Sheehan on the bench and Cordingley on his way North anyway, why wasn’t this slot used for a bolter?
FLY HALF:
No real questions here. We think the rationale for not taking Beale is clear. Not everyone agrees with Cooper’s selection (this writer does) but we could argue (and have) about almost all of them.
IC/OC:
Bit of a conundrum this. We’d like to know how Horne rated but cannot really say the selections were a surprise. O’Connor was well received.
WINGS:
Same as for the centers. However, there would not have been much grousing here at the pub if you’d found a way to leave Tuquiri at home. It is difficult not to reflect on the performance of newcomers such as South Africa’s Nokwe and wonder what it would be like to have a real finisher in the up-and-coming mix instead of a closet nunber 8 loitering near the touch line.
FULLBACK:
This is a position we’d like to hear about. Since we do not seem to have a natural fullback in the mix, selecting Ashley-Cooper (presumable as a fullback), Turner, and Mitchell make sense to us. But we cannot see a master plan here. They all have better natural positions. What happened to Shepard? Still injured. No match time. Most of us don’t want to hear about Tuquiri as a fullback. So what is the plan? You have Fly halfs and Inside Centres to burn. Have you thought about Barnes as fullback?
We spend far more time thinking and arguing about these issues than we do watching the sport.
With that in mind, we’d greatly appreciate explanations for a lot more than we are given now. This is a serious request, so before you dismiss it, stop to consider who foots the bill.
Humour us with a little transparency. It will add value for us out here in the bush. Call it marketing or whatever makes it seem important to you.
Thanks.
Recommend this story.
Jim Beam Devil's Cut
As bourbon ages, a portion of liquid is lost from the barrel due to evaporation. This is known as the Angel's Share. When the bourbon is taken from the barrel, a certain amount is left trapped within the wood. It's that extracted liquid, and the rich flavours from deep within the barrel that are in Jim Beam's Devil's Cut.
Click here to learn more about Jim Beam's wicked new bourbon.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Reds back in contention, but Waratahs need a cleanout (287)
- What Hansen’s first squad means for the Wallabies (191)
- ‘Campo’ too generous: Lord’s dream XV contains just two current Wallabies (161)
- Will Cooper and Mitchell be back in time for Wallaby selection? (156)
- CAMPO: Will Deans change the style of the Wallabies play? (128)
- Tahs out. Brumbies win ugly. And Quade’s back! (124)
- Who should partner Horwill in the second row? (111)
- ARU boss O’Neill defends Aussie conference (2)
- Reds diplomatic over Hooper reprieve
- Horwill backs Cooper for Wallabies
- Great clubs don’t decline so Munster will be back
- CAMPO: Waratahs bore again, as South Africans thrive (8)
- Can the Brumbies win Super Rugby? (2)
- Who will be in the Wallabies’ backrow? (7)
- Great clubs don’t decline so Munster will be back (0)
- Can the Brumbies win Super Rugby? (2)
- Who will be in the Wallabies’ backrow? (7)
- When should a game plan change and who makes the call? (1)
- Six lessons Robbie Deans must learn (Part 1) (1)
- Reviewing the Super Rugby action from round 13 (6)
- Why Cooper must be left out of Wallabies (107)
- Explore:
- NSW, props, Rugby Union, scrum, Spring Tour, wallabies

September 30th 2008 @ 3:18am
Benjamin said | September 30th 2008 @ 3:18am | Report comment
The 1999, 2003 and 2007 World Cups proved that experience wins tight matches. Not bolters. I’m not a fan of Dunning, or Baxter for that matter, but frankly there aren’t any other options. Dunning and Baxter play in the best Australian S14 pack and both have played against all their potential European opponents. Bolters have been tried before – Sheperdson, whom got just as badly spanked as Dunning has in the past. Dunning may well be a good tourist, but as I have said on so many occasions, he can provide mentorship to the younger props. The loss of Elsom and Vickermann should not be met with the further removal of Australia’s most experienced players. This applies to Waugh and Sharpe. There were some pack improvements in the 3N so why risk that just to chance some young pup? Realistically England and Italy have the best packs in Europe. It is unlikely that untested players would make much of a dent on their respective packs. Players from a semi-pro competition and with no S14 contract, like Davidson – although I am aware he has one now, could not be risked against other number 8s like Parisse and Ryan Jones.
September 30th 2008 @ 5:49am
ozxile said | September 30th 2008 @ 5:49am | Report comment
Benjamin, this was not another post to rehash the selections. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and take responsibility for not writing clearly enough for absolutely everyone to understand. The post is about the ARU being a bit more forthcoming and transparent about what goes on with the Wallabies. I am not suggesting we get to review game plans. That said, there no good reasons for why the public knows so little about what goes on with the business of the Wallabies.
As for your comments – since you did not understand/read the post. I said Dunning will not start. Do you seriously think Dunning will start? The Wallabies have coaches. If he is there for mentoring pick someone for him to mentor. I did not name anyone – you did. I said Waugh was not a factor in the 3N and offers nothing. He will not start any test match. Would you start him in front of Smith or Pocock? Sharpe probably will start but on form he had more bad games than good. He will be dropped like a hot rock the first time he fails.Yes? And your point was?
Bolters starting in tests? Get a grip! Did I imply that bolters should be started in test matches? Where? You read what you want to read not what I wrote – OK, OK I wasn’t one hundred percent clear. The Wallabies have a solid starting 15 and decent subs. That makes up 22. Don’t get taking passengers along confused with giving new players valuable exposure.
So, now that we’ve (I hope) chewed and spit that out,perhaps we can get back to my point. Are you saying you would not like a bit more information about Wallabies selections, player depth rankings, prop development, what the different coaches are doing etc., from the ARU? Have a look at the ARU website before you reply that we are well served by their PR hacks.
September 30th 2008 @ 6:27am
Benjamin said | September 30th 2008 @ 6:27am | Report comment
I’m perplexed as to why you spent so long commentating on the make-up of the squad then?
I think Dunning will rotate, just as he did during the 3N. When he isn’t playing I would imagine that he would be able to advise Robinson on the scrummaging of specific European players and the abilities of the packs as a whole. Deans wouldn’t be able to impart that knowledge simply because he has had no exposure to European rugby in years. Likewise Jim Williams direct experiences with Munster means that he may not have come across certain players. It would be beyond naive to jettison such an experienced player prior to such a demanding tour. It would be even more naive to pack the squad with junior or ‘bolter’s with no such experience to act as a bulwark. Why would you bring bolters who wouldn’t start? Where would they garner experience from – experienced players? No, because you theoretically dropped them all. It’s an illogical scenario.
It is patently obvious what my point is given that I began my paragraph with it. Experience is vital. Australia has an appalling away record and an obvious problem with mental strength, the pack has also just lots its two enforcers. To that extent it is vital that Deans has retained experienced players. Incidentally, I very much doubt that Waugh won’t start at least one test given the length of the tour.
I don’t really know what you’re point is. You’re a bit all over the place. What has prop development to do with Deans’ selectorial policies? Frankly I don’t think it has anything to do with the public why Deans chooses who he does. You can’t have a coach saying that player A was chosen over player B for x amount of reasons. Furthermore I know full well what the coaches are doing simply through examining their job titles. If you were to investigate any other national website then you would find that the protocol is exactly the same as the ARU site.
September 30th 2008 @ 8:56am
ozxile said | September 30th 2008 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Benjamin, have a look at the Jeeves and Wooster “Telegram” episode ( Just a guess, but I’m beginning to suspect that Bertie’s response to the telegram would make perfectly good sense to you.
September 30th 2008 @ 9:09am
Nick (KIA) said | September 30th 2008 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Original post = ARU/Deans, why haven’t you selected a bunch of untried, inexperienced players to replace experienced pros and a few new players who have made a decent fist of things this season, and generally improved Aus performance, as recognised by most observers, especially in the forwards.
Answer = because that would be a dumb way to continue improving the team.
You can’t just chuck out all your experienced players and start again and expect them to win anything. And if you don’t win, then you’ll chuck out the team +/- coach and start again. Then you won’t win anything… repeat ad nauseum. See England since 2003. Compare Springboks, Crusaders, and lesser extent Wales and All Blacks. And Wallabies in about 2 years IF continue current plan.
September 30th 2008 @ 9:10am
stillmissit said | September 30th 2008 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Ozxile – this is a great post and opens up the idea that the selectors should have some original thoughts about this squad and not just put their collective heads down and say ‘We need to win all the tests therefore we have to take the squad as it is with one or two yuongsters’ that must be the only reason for such a squad so lacking in development potential.
You would also think that we would have learnt from the past with Eddie constantly picking the ‘best’ squad of players and relying on seasoned players only and bringing in youngsters only to have them sit on the bench or go North for a contract.
It seems that taking a risk should always be a part of the Wallabies due to the shortage of player numbers yet we remain steadfastly stuck with a conservative mould until it totally goes belly up and the squad is rebuilt from almost scratch.
I too would like to know what these guys were thinking about when they put this group of names together. The following question is does this squad mean that it will be too late to blood and bed new talent before the next world cup?
September 30th 2008 @ 9:14am
stillmissit said | September 30th 2008 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Nick your extreme statement doesnt prove anything. Look at what NZ and SA are doing with the youngsters in their squads. Why are we so different?
September 30th 2008 @ 9:26am
Central North said | September 30th 2008 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Wow. Never thought I’d say this, but I agree 100% with Benjamin. And Nick (KIA) for that matter too. Well said, Gents.
ozxile, it is all well and good to demand more transparency from inside the Wallabies. I hate to tell you this, but the it shouldn’t be up to the organisation to offer up reams and reams of information when it comes to team selections and everything else that goes on within the team environment. The Wallaby selectors make their decisions then it’s the coach’s job to spread that message to the world. No more, no less. End of story.
Perhaps you should be railing about the media’s lack of ability to get said information out of ARU officials when the chance is there. After all, the “fourth estate” is supposed to provide the checks and balances in these situations, no?
September 30th 2008 @ 9:32am
ozxile said | September 30th 2008 @ 9:32am | Report comment
I guess Bertie Wooster had friends too.
September 30th 2008 @ 9:48am
Hoy said | September 30th 2008 @ 9:48am | Report comment
I must admit I am a little disappointed that the same names keep coming through. I wouldn’t mind blooding some youngsters, sooner rather than later.
When people ask “Who would you replace that player with?” I often think that as the national team, there must be selectors who are looking outside the square for the next good player. Surely the selectors don’t rest on their laurels all year do they? They must have a full time job hunting/looking for good players. There must be potential players worth having a look at.
I am thinking that people are sick of the same old failures getting picked. Have we got pretty close to exactly the same front row now, that was monstered three years ago in England? Just about.