A primer for Wallaby success at RWC 2011
Roar Guru
By LeftArmSpinner, 28 Oct 2009 LeftArmSpinner is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- robbie deans, Rugby Union, RWC 2011, wallabies
Australian Wallabies halfback Will Genia (bottom right) passes the ball during the team training session in Brisbane, Friday, Sept. 4, 2009. The Wallabies play South Africa in their Tri-Nations match at Suncorp Stadium tomorrow. AAP Image/Dave Hunt
As the countdown clicks over to less than two years until the 2011 RWC, rugby’s equivalent of the International Dateline, so do the current selections and playing strategies become closer to those for the 2011 tournament.
The significant changes already flagged through the touring squad selection have all but exhausted the list of players capable of being ready for 2011.
With the exception of a lock or two (such as Kimlin, Hocking and Caldwell), and Cameron Shepherd and maybe Lachlan McCaffrey of the Tahs, we are therefore looking at the Wallabies team that will attempt to wrest the RWC from the aging Springboks and from under the noses of the All Blacks at home.
Already, there are really only six contentious positions in the Wallabies starting team:
* Lock: a shortage means that Mumm’s Super 14 experience at 4/5 will be called upon to get the tour off on a good note.
* 7: I am not a huge fan of Pocock’s yet. He is over-muscled in the Popeye style, and tackles with his arms rather than shoulder, but he deserves the (investment) time to find his feet at this level.
* 8: Palu showed some 2008 form in the selection trial.
* 10: Giteau isn’t a 10, but is a Horan-like 12. If it hasn’t worked in over 20 games, let’s try something different, and this has been happening by osmosis recently with some good results.
* 11: Ioane is back from injury and would have been an automatic selection for the 2009 season at either 11, 13 or 14.
* 13: AAC, potentially a world class 13, adds bulk to match the All Black and European centres.
* 15: O’Connor at 15, more in the name of backline stability and show of faith and investment in the future than his performances. He is special in both the skills and attitude department, but may have been rushed into the 15 due to injuries. I would keep him there to show confidence in him and give him stability. There is no player who is significantly better on the bench, so unless you want to further reorganise the backline by moving AAC to 15 and Ioane to 13, I would leave O’Connor at 15.
One iteration of this would be to move O’connor to the bench bumping Cooper, AAC to 15, Ioane to 13 and Hynes into 11.
I chose against this to give the 2009 incumbents a chance to operate with Barnes at 10 and give Ioane some game time to ease him back in after his injury.
Less haste, more speed.
* Bench: Dunning is in good form, fit and keen to resume where he was this time last year. He can play both sides.
My patience with Chisholm has worn out. He was disgraceful in Wellington and shouldn’t be on the tour, except that so many locks have been injured. Chapman was very good in the final Wallabies trial and deserves a chance because he also brings some (though not a lot) height.
Smith is both short and long term tired and will be at his best if used in bursts (carrot) and with the “stick” of demotion.
Cooper gets the nod over Beale, but they remain as they were through their schoolboy days, peas out of the same pod, and hence, head-to-head at selection time.
Beale needs to drop some kg’s to regain his blistering speed and step.
Cross was in great form in the final Wallabies trial, setting up two tries by standing in the tackle to offload.
1. Robinson
2. PTN
3. Alexander
4. Mumm
5. Horwill
6. Elsom
7. Pocock
8. Palu
9. Genia
10. Barnes
11. Turner
12. Giteau
13. AAC
14. Ioane
15. O’Connor
16. Moore
17. Dunning
18. Chapman
19. Smith
20. Genia
21. Cooper
22. Cross
Now to playing strategies.
Overall, play a rounded, multi-tactic game that includes:
1. Excellence at set piece
2. Contest breakdown fiercely
3. Retain possession in 78 metres (outside own 22) before opponents’ tryline unless a kick will gain more than 30 metres, initally using forward plays (short passing and rolling mauls).
4. Counter-attack from opponents’ kicks.
5. Attack from set pieces, particularly scrums, using backline moves creating overlaps and then support play
6. Maintain the 2008/09 high standards in defence.
7. Never give up!
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (2)
- Nathan Sharpe to retire at end of 2012 (2)
- Queensland ready for Super challenge (2)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (50)
- Foley excited about Samoan rugby challenge
- Force rugby coach praises his pack (2)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (62)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (26)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- robbie deans, Rugby Union, RWC 2011, wallabies
Bay35Pablo said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
You been hacking Deans’ lap top? Close to the team for Saturday ….
LeftArmSpinner said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Well Pablo, the lack of depth was helpful!!! I don’t think I got that close. Chisholm is still there and three changes to the backs???? We lost in Wellington because of the Forwards. O’connor didnt play that well, with some spectacular mistakes but he kept trying. More than I can say for Mitchell and Chisholm and others.
Dean Pantio said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:51am | Report comment
What is with the fascination with a quadrennial knock out tournament two years away? There are plenty of tests to be played between now and then.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
I know what you mean but the reality is that rugby and most sports go in four year cycles.
Rowdy said | October 30th 2009 @ 1:01am | Report comment
Agreed, Panto. I enjoy the RWC as much as most (being English, it’s generally from behind the sofa though); but I do resent the way in it overshadows the game. It’s as though every other match is just a trial for the next RWC.
I’d have thought that picking your best team for every game, getting used to winning in all situations and judging the right time to drop an older player for a youngster would be a better way to go, and let the RWC selection just take care of itself.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 28th 2009 @ 7:57am | Report comment
So just as I seek to fire up a debate on the likely Wallabies team for the future, Deans goes and announces it. So, lets have a chat, or is it always a debate on the Roar. Its a debate!!!!!! ROAR!
Overall, there have only been 4 changes to the team that capitulated in Wellington, three in the backs and one in the forwards. One of those is a player, Ioane, returning from injury. Further, the game was lost in the forwards and their pathetic effort and attitude was not addressed at the selections table. There was only one change to the pack, Palu for Smith.
Conversely, the backline has been reshuffled with changes at 11, 13, 14 and 15.
I chose to make two changes to the pack (Palu and Mumm in for Smith and Chisholm) and one to the backs (Ioane in for Mitchell).
Chisholm is the “stand out” (as in surprising rather than good) selection for me. He is like the year 7 kid who matured ahead of everyone else and gets selected in the 13A team simply for his size, and despite his lack of Ticker!!! Surely benchwarming Mumm must be able to match Chisholm’s paltry efforts in the second row while we wait for the real, young locks (Caldwell, Hocking, Kimlin, and maybe Thompson) to get healthy again.
Deans is the Wallabies backs coach so the backs changes have even more “message” in them.
He chose to reshuffle the backline, rather than tweak it. He made three changes in the personnel and one positional change. If this is the backline he thinks will take them to the RWC, I am surprised. Mitchell’s dropping is no surprise. He peaked in his first year of Wallabies rugby and has never come close again. Turner’s and O’Connor’s dropping is a blend of protecting them as they do their apprenticeship and a message that even bright young things need to perform consistently. Deans was obvioulsy very serious about this message because it forced a positional change for one o fthe best Wallabies backs, AAC.
Hynes will always give you 100%, is quick and plays like a 15. Cross is big and (HELP ME HERE????) In comes Ioane, among the first selected if he had been fit earlier in the season.
Here is the team chosen by Deans.
15. Adam Ashley-Cooper
14. Peter Hynes
13. Ryan Cross
12. Berrick Barnes
11. Digby Ioane
10. Matt Giteau
9. Will Genia
8. Wycliff Palu
7. David Pocock
6. Rocky Elsom
5. Mark Chisholm
4. James Horwill
3. Ben Alexander
2. Tatafu Polota-Nau
1. Benn Robinson
Reserves: 16.Stephen Moore, 17.Matt Dunning, 18.Dean Mumm, 19.George Smith, 20.Luke Burgess, 21.Drew Mitchell, 22.James O’Connor.
fox said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
A bit harsh. There is hardly any room for change in the forward pack given the lack of serious alternatives. And your XV only differs from Deans’ in the sacking of Chisolm for Mumm, who really is a provincial rugby 6 and not an international second rower (no bulk, not combatative in the rucks and not strong enough in the scrum or in the air). Admittedly Chisolm’s not brilliant, but your point of difference is hardly big enough to warrant complaint that not enough changes were made in the forwads. Sure the forwards played ordinary in Wellington, particularly later on, but the backs were given enough opportunities to do something. Unfortunately they(Giteau) either kicked away possession – and kicked poorly – or were uninventive with the ball in hand, shuffling the ball wide behind the advantage line.
As for the backline I agree that Cross is a poor alternative, but as I mentioned in the other forum I feel like Deans wants to ease Ioane back into rugby on the wing and then give him a crack at 13. Perhaps also (now that I think of it) he feels he missed some size in the outside channels in defence in Wellington and wants to sure these channels up. I don’t know, but I like the move of AAC back to XV and O’Connor to the bench to develop further in the mid week games etc. Hynes and Turner are my preferred wings and eventually I feel O’Connor might make one of those wings his. The backline looks much more threatening with these combinations (ex-Cross).
LeftArmSpinner said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
fox, Mumm is a provincial lock. and you are correct there are not many options, but surely Mumm over Chisholm.
Your point about the kicking is a good one (but Mitchell is also to blame but still gets a bench spot) and presumes that the players didint follow the coaches instructions. I agree that that is the lilkely situation. I’m not fussed about the changes in the backs, except that I just rate AAC at 13 now and he will get better and better. The problem in the backs that they dont play as backs. that stems from the 10 making the jsudgements about when to kick, pass and run and tghen advice/pressure from 15 when he sees opportunities and wants to chime into the back line. I dont see a real full back there at all. Sure, AAC can be that, and maybe the decision has been to give Ioane a game on the wing to get back into the swing and then move him to 13, leaving AAC to devleop as a real 15. After all, deans was a 15 himself. Cross did have a godo game in the trial.
the other thing is that Deans has pussy footed around Giteau leaving him with 10 on his back but progressively playing more and more 12. What a petulant kid Giteau must be.
Geez, by the U11′s the kids have lost the need to wear their favourite number.
fox said | October 28th 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
All good points lefty. No arguments from this corner, just a nodding of my head and a tut-tut for Gits. Still, he doesn;t pick himself!
sheek said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
Leftie,
At the risk of offending every rusted-on, diehard rugby fan, this current Wallabies oufit bores me to tears. They lack adventure, & I even query their resolve.
I can only hope things will improve by 2011.
Rickety Knees said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Ditto – Sheek
LeftArmSpinner said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
Sheek, there is no risk of offending anyone. What would be your side? I tried to be adventurous but there are few options. the front row is fine, with Dunning in reserve and in form and fit. the locks are a problem, and affected by lack of form (Horwill and Chisholm ) and injuries. The back row has one youngster still to prove himself and one out of form Palu.
The Halves are settled (but unproven) if Barnes is at 10. the wingers are essentially interchangeable (Turner, Hynes, Mitchell) becuase they contribute so little.
centre pairing (Giteau and Cross) is brand new, but, they have played together at the Force and previosuly showed good combination and share the fact that they are fruit of the lions of rugby League fathers. AAC just gets picked anywhere because he is a great rugby player, but is less suited to12 than 11, 13, 14 and 15.
And there is little left on the bench. More youngsters or out of formers.
So it comes down to the players, these players to take their chance. 7 games and for most 5 games to cement a place in Deans future squad. If they cant, we go back to more youngsters. Beale (he’s only 20, can you believe it), Cooper, McCaffrey, Thompson, Horne, (but he has just done his hammie), Kingi, Chapman, Noodles Kimlin, Hocking,
Brett McKay said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
“SLOW” is the word you’re looking for Leftie…
I’m also a little surprised at the backline changes, apart from Ioane coming in, there seems to be change for change’s sake there…
LeftArmSpinner said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Brett, yep, I agree.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
I have just read Beale’s comments “Robbie sees me as a 15.” This is very interesting. Turner has been tried there, Beale is “working towards it”, O’Connor has been tried there, (arguably out of position), AAC’s contribution at 13 has been sacrificed in the search for a 15. Cooper is also a possibilty. Interestingly, neither Mitchell or Hynes have been given a chance at 15, despite being still in the selection mix.
So, the spine of the team is still to be finalised in Deans mind. What an opportunity it is for someone to step up!!!!!
fox said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Cameron Sheperd is also there – and until his untimely injury was our form XV.
kingplaymaker said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
The point of that I think is that there is no real full-back available to the Wallabies. O’Connor, AAC, Beale all centres. Turner a not very good wing.
TommyM said | October 28th 2009 @ 5:01pm | Report comment
Mitchell has been given INUMERABLE chances at 15 and proved to be completely POO every time!! (albeit mostly at the Force)
kingplaymaker said | October 28th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Leftarm I have a question for you. You say this is more or less the team for the 2011 World Cup, which it surely is. However, there will be some more players by then and I’d like to ask what you think their impact will be:
Two probables:
Mark Gasnier-As he has said he wants to play for the Wallabies, Queensland want him and Mckenzie is now at Queensland, this seems inevitable.
Dan Vickerman-either next year or the one after it seems likely he’ll return.
Two hypotheticals:
Will Chambers-Depending on his level of talent and how he adapts to the game.
Ratu Nasiganaiyavi-Depending on his level of talent and development.
What affect do you think these players might have on the team if some of them make it?
reds fan said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Good questions. I am currently spending my days getting about with all digits crossed and making a daily offering of a burnt gilbert to the rugby gods, in the hope that Link can convince Vickerman to sign for the Reds. If we added Gaz as well…?? hmmm… that would be nice. Will Chambers will be closely watched I imagine. Has a rugby background, so we’ll see how he goes. I tried assessing him while he played for the Melb Storm but it seemed he was the most expensive decoy runner in the game.
Harry said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
Stop getting me excited Reds Fan re Vickerman to Queensland!
Agree on your comments on Chambers. We’ll see how he goes next year. As an aside, we constantly hear (and believe) how superior league players are to Union, but watch Folau – supposedly a superstar – get completely dissed by Chambers in the first try of the league semi final, yete when exactly the same thing happened v South Africa in Perth, we all castigated Cross and AAC as second rate/hopeless. Yet not a word when Folau shows himself to be equally limited.
kingplaymaker said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Harry I don’t think league players are superior to union players. Some are good, some less so. A player like Hayne is good but then so is Sivivatu. Thurston is good but so is Giteau. The top level is probably similar.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
KPM, good point. Gasnier could slot in at 11, 13 or 14 and should be if he has really mastered the code switch. Link says he is coming along and he seems to be getting game time, unlike Tahu. So a big yes there. Vicks is a must, assuming that he is in form. Big, nasty and good at step piece. He could almost be the missing link in 18 months time. would he pass up an opportunity to play in the RWC, I just cant believe he would.
Chambers, probably wont get a look if Gasnier, Ioane, Cross and AAC are in line for 13.
Nasi: dont even bother with him. he wont make the tahs on a regular basis. I’d go for the other Randwick wingers, Cummins and Fainifo. Proven at s14 and will only get better.
kingplaymaker said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Leftarm let’s assume for a moment that Australia then have a good 13 and second row. As far as I can see that leaves them deficient in the following positions:
11, 15, One second row.
Where on earth do they find three real talents to fill those three? (AAC is a centre as you say, not a full-back).
I suggested Mcmenniman and Hunt for two of them, but have no idea where to find a really talented wing.
stillmissit said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
Kingy – unless he is injured again Cameron Shepherd will be the Wallaby full back for the RWC. Can’t see anyone else with the talent and ability that he has.
Harry said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:37am | Report comment
McMenniman promised much for both Qld and Australai but never actually delivered on his vast potential, he made his decision to take the easy money ion Japan and turn his back on Australian rugby and competing at the highest level.
kingplaymaker said | October 28th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Yes but the Wallabies are in such desperate straits that they need vast potential instead of average players. O’Neill should call him up and offer him some more money before it’s too late.
Hammer said | October 28th 2009 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
McMenniman – was a walking sick note – his body couldn’t handle the S14 – esp the way he played … moving to Japan will prolong his career – if he stayed he wouldn’t have last to 2011 … and anyway he was no lock ….
kingplaymaker said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Reds I think Vickerman in the second row and Gasnier at 13 would make a significant improvement to the team.
If O’Neill were really bold he could make a last minute play to keep Mcmenniman and to get Karmichael Hunt to abandon his absurd idea of playing AFL. He could pay for them with the money from Tuqiri and Tahu’s demise.
Those four players would make the Wallabies a great team.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
McMeniman played like he was leaving and we don’t need hunt. bad egg and “well left”, as the cricketers would say!!!!
kingplaymaker said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Leftarm if anyone is needed, it’s a real full-back, not another centre out of position. Whether that’s Hunt or not, someone is required. At least Hunt has talent as a full-back.
Mcmenniman has talent, however he played recently.
Hammer said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
.. and the small matter that he’s a kiwi with a mercenary streak wouldn’t worry … league players don’t adapt well – esp at the highest level
kingplaymaker said | October 28th 2009 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
He’s a huge mercenary of course but it doesn’t matter as he has a lot of talent. It’s a separate question if league players succeed: I think they do, but then it is a matter of opinion.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:15pm | Report comment
Yea, but put Ioane or Gasnier at 13 and then AAC at 15, if you cant find another 15. If you have a world class 15, then put AAC at 13. simple.
stillmissit said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
kingy – Vickerman’s day in international rugby is almost certainly over 3 shoulder reconstructions will do that to you. McMenniman was a big loss and I thought he could have made a great No 8.
I will chain myself to the gates of the oval rather than let Gasnier play for the Wallabies!
kingplaymaker said | October 28th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Stillmissit a second row can somehow plough on after endless injuries and many years though: look at Simon Shaw and Brad Thorn. I think Vickerman could make it to the World Cup, and with Mcmenniman in the second row would be a formidable unit.
stillmissit said | October 28th 2009 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
Kingy – the story I hear, on good authority, is that he is very happy in the UK and Sarah has just had their first child (a boy). The last thing on his mind is international rugby.
Stil,l I dont know what he is thinking and he could be there in 2011.
kingplaymaker said | October 28th 2009 @ 2:07pm | Report comment
Stillmissit if he was just studying I would think he wouldn’t be interested, but the fact he is playing rugby for Northampton too makes me think otherwise.
Besides, the lure of a last World Cup is very strong. O’Neill would surely be willing to offer him a lot more money than he would before now too.
Knives Out said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:04pm | Report comment
Erm… Vickerman isn’t playing for Northampton. Not for a while, anyhow.
kingplaymaker said | October 28th 2009 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
Hammer he was a funny lock in his way, but with him, Vickerman and Elsom together I can’t imagine the pack being destroyed as they were by South Africa and New Zealand this year.
LeftArmSpinner said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
if only because they would be screaming at ‘em!!!
Hoy said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
I had written a massive rant then decided against it, but I can’t resist.
So here goes:
WTF? Why has he kept Giteau at 10 after all the talk of shifiting him? What to give him a chance? Isn’t 6 failings in one year chance enough to show what he could do? The only good things Gits did all year were in broken play, were we know he can play well anyway, and would do so from 12. Barnes has a better set piece pass. End of story. He should be 10. I think the game in Tokyo is the perfect time to switch. That makes the first game of the NH tour. Why would they swap after that game then? That to me would be more destabilising than swapping before that game and keeping Barnes at 10 for the rest of his life. Better now, so he has time to train, slot in from scratch on the tour. It makes no sense to me at all keeping Gits for that game. Is there some undercurrent saying Gits will stay at 10 after all?
For all the talk of the locks left out like Kimlin, Caldwell et al, how injured are they? They haven’t been seen all year, though have been oft mentioned. Where exactly are they? Are they being looked at at all, or just written off? That is a serious question. Can someone let me know the condition of the injured locks (except Sharpe). I said on another thread, why are we taking one true lock, and 4 lock/flankers? Surely we have more true locks available in Australia that can play a bit better or offer more than a flanker convert?
Cross is no good in my eyes. He crabs like a league back, runs upright, makes bad decisions in defence. So why switch a solid player in AAC back to 15? The poor bloke has been playing well enough at 13, to almost cement that as his place, and he is swapped back again. Poor choice again. I know we don’t have much choice at the moment at 15, but I think that is a bad decision. Probably better to keep ruining O’Connor (see below) at 15, than ruin both O’Connor and AAC.
Smith, played out of position is dropped from his usual position? Odd. He is an intriguing player Smith. For so long he has dominated his spot, yet not once has he shown what I would call passion. He wins, he is the same, he loses, he is the same. He just goes about his job. It is a little annoying. As for Pocock, I for one don’t like the way young players are tagged as “the next captain”, ala Michael Clarke. What has he done to be hailed as the next captain?
Palu has had more chances to fire than I have had hot dinners. I don’t think he has it in him either. A bloke that big needs to be a destructive force. He drifts in and out like a rolly polly in a western movie. If he doesn’t fire in this game, then I would put him out to pasture.
I could go on forever, but I think Australian rugby is suffering from somthing that I think began with everyones favourite coach, Eddie Jones; The loss of the specialist player. During Eddie’s era (thank god he is gone) we had all these Lock/Flanker prototype players that were all the same size, same ilk. Chisolm vs McMenimum vs Mumm vs (anyone else I can’t think of now) are all perfect examples. Pick one position, and develop the player’s skills as needed. If you don’t make it, you don’t make it. We also have all these wing/fullbacks who developed under his tenure, like MItchell, who are effectively useless, and now we don’t have a viable 15 alternative.
For too long we have had bad selections across the board, switching players between positions under the false assumption it would create more depth in all positions? And it did, only the depth was pretty murky and poor quality.
Take O’Connor for example. Why is he playing 15 at national level, and 12 at club level? I like how he plays 12, and feel he could make a fist of that, however 15 is a different kettle of fish. Why was he slotted in there? That is ruining his development at 12, where lots of people see his future. What benefit is there of running him at 15? Bench him, and bring him on for petulent Gits (at 12) with 15 to go, and make him learn his role there. If 15 is his future, fine, play him there, but I think we all know he won’t end up at 15.
Why can’t poor old AAC cement a spot? It is f-ing up his development, and he was the only one this year who played well in all games, FROM 13!!!!!! Not 15!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
End rant.
To be honest, I don’t think this team can possibly win in Tokyo. Massive, heart attack surprise if it does. I had massive hope for change, but can’t see it happening sadly.
kingplaymaker said | October 28th 2009 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
Hoy Barnes is 12 and is 23 years old: when is O’Connor going to replace him, in 7 years time? And being paid 600,000 a year to be a reserve? That’s 4,000,000!!! What a waste of ARU money!
Hoy said | October 28th 2009 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
You will see above that I said he would hopefully replace Gits at 12, because Barnes should be our 10. Giteau is 27. O’Connor is what? 19? Pretty sure he can learn his trade for 3 years, and still kick off his career as a 23 or 24 year old, who has had the benefit of learning his position inside and out, money not withstanding.
Indeed, there is nothing to say he won’t surpass anyone skills wise at 12, in a year or so, but I don’t think he will while he is getting shuffled around to 15.
If he was to be a better 12 than Barnes/Gits (unlikely while he plays 15) then why should he have to wait anyway? If he beats Gits all ends up, why wait that long?
kingplaymaker said | October 28th 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
Hoy you assume Giteau will simply fall apart at 30: I think 32 is a more likely estimate. So that means paying O’Connor 600,000 for 5 years, so 3,000,000.
That could pay for Vickerman and Mcmenniman, which would have a much more direct influence on the team than a reserve like O’Connor.
Or it could help to pay for a national compeition.
Can Australian rugby afford to throw away 3,000,000?
AndyS said | October 28th 2009 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Assuming Giteau hangs around post-2011…
Hoy said | October 28th 2009 @ 5:00pm | Report comment
You assume Gits will be better at 30 than O’Connor could be at 23. I assume O’Connor would be bloody good if he learnt how to play one position. Lots of assumptions.
I do agree with you that ARU can’t afford to pay a player that much to sit on the bench, however they paid Lote a fair bit for not much for a long time didn’t they? I see where you are coming from, but what do you want me to say? The ARU has signed the bloke, to an expensive contract for someone of his age and experience. Does that mean they have to play him even if he is no good in that particular position? Stupid example, but what if they were shy of props, and they had him there? Slot him in? Of course not. So why do they feel the need to play him in a different position? Or anyone for that matter?
The ARU signed him probably more to stop him floating to another country than for his talent. Not that he won’t be good, but he is young. So he should be serving an apprenticeship in the position the Wallabies want him to play in, and I can almost guarantee that spot won’t be 15. I don’t think…
kingplaymaker said | October 29th 2009 @ 1:00am | Report comment
Hoy I agree and I think it’s absurd he’s playing full-back, as by no stretch of the imagination is he a full-back. Then to spend all that money: it would be ok if they had lots of it, but they don’t.
Knives Out said | October 28th 2009 @ 9:06pm | Report comment
You’re very interested in Australian rugby union for an English rugby fan, kingplaymaker. Where are you from in England?
LeftArmSpinner said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:26pm | Report comment
Hoy, i think your rant is pretty much spot on, except the locks. the only true lock left at home is Thompson and he is still finding his feet at s14. all the others are genuinely injured. The idea of Oconnor at 12 is good, but I suspect that there has been a truce with Giteau letting him wear the 10 shirt. Gits is a Git, and needs, ideally to be saved from his own ego. anyway, there will be injuries and spots will open up.
put simply, it is a case of having to balance competing forces? If not AAC at 15, and I agree he is a potentailly great 13, then who? Beale, Cooper or Turner or lazy Mitchell. YOu could take another shot on a youngster and put Beale there, but probably progressively off the bench. I would also like to see Ioane at 13.
so an alternate backline:,
9. Genia
10. Barnes
11. Ioane
12. O’Connor
13. AAC
14. Hynes
15. Beale/Cooper
peteez said | October 29th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
Here’s one out of left field, and while everyone is changing the numbers on players backs for fun.
What about Barnes at 15 !!! All the best 15′s over the last 20-30 years were tall, could kick a loooooong way, could play positionally and tackle effectively as well as back up line breaks by other backs….Gould, Larkham, Latham, Burke.
I reckon Barnes could fit in really well there, leaving JOC to slot into 12
stillmissit said | October 29th 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
peteez – agree I think Barnes would make a great full back but that aint gonna fix our 5/8 problem.
This problem has been with us since Stephen Larkham and Barnes is the best I have seen since then. As Larkham was a fullback prior to 5/8 maybe a good full back can make it at 5/8??? Now that is a long bow to pull.
Bay35Pablo said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
Bit sad to see Turner dropped, but he wasn’t having the needed impact. Playing average in a bad team hurts. I can’t fault picking Hynes and Ionau, or AAC at fullback. Agreed we need a specialist full back and AAC at 13, but we suddenly have a shortage. Bring back Hewat!!!!
Our real problem seems to be the 2nd row and No 8. That seems to be the reason we are getting whacked in the rucks. We performed against the Boks, but I think because they played the style we could counter, not the style that had been winning. The ABs weren’t so obliging, and we didn’t front up.
All the injuries to the locks haven’t helped. it is amazing what losing a couple of key players does to a team. Vicks and latham being who I am talking about.
kingplaymaker said | October 28th 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Bay number 8 is a problem which there will be a yes or no answer to very shortly: either Palu will perform and show that he can use his undoubted talent at this level or he’ll fail for good.
Second row is a real problem: I say bring back Vickerman and stop Mcmenniman from leaving, and then you can have a great pair.
But wing and full-back are huge problems too. Ioane is great for one wing, but the other? And full-back? Where are really talented players to be found to fill these positions..?