Deans has the players, now for the team
Columnist
By Spiro Zavos, 28 May 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Al Baxter, Berrick Barnes, robbie deans, Rugby Union, Stirling Mortlock, wallabies
120 Have your say
Australian Wallabies Coach Robbie Deans, center, talks to players Matt Giteau, left, and Stirling Mortlock during the captain's run at Eden Park in Auckland, New Zealand, Friday, Aug. 1, 2008. Australia will play against New Zealand on Saturday. AP Photo/NZPA, Wayne Drought
Selecting teams, as Alan Jones a shrewd selector once said, is all about getting the shape of the side right. Robbie Deans now has the players for a winning Wallabies side. It is up to him to get the shape of his team right to fulfill this promise.
It is obvious from the 30-man squad picked for the opening four Tests of the season that he has turned his back on the class of 2003. George Smith has retired from Test rugby, and by their non-selection in the squad Al Baxter and Phil Waugh are being effectively retired from Test rugby.
The most significant omission here is Al Baxter. Baxter has been the Bill Young of Australian props, a wily campaigner who knows enough to get through most matches but never a prop to give the Wallabies a really strong front row.
Baxter had one great day against England when the Wallabies monstered their opponent’s scrum but he rarely held his own and became a master of dropping scrums. The sight of Baxter shaking his head when he was penalised for this was a sad one for Wallaby and Waratahs supporters.
Statistics reveal that the Waratahs (with Baxter as a prop) and the Brumbies (coached by Young) were responsible for a massive number of re-set scrums in the 2010 Super 14. One of the better scrums was Queensland with their young props Ben Daley and Laurie Weeks.
It is significant that the Queenland forwards have been coached by Alec Evans, the grand old master of forward play and the assistant Wallaby coach for the Grand Slam Wallabies of 1984. Deans has rewarded his work and the play of the two youngsters by putting them in the Wallaby squad.
Nathan Sharpe is the only survivor of the 2003 Wallaby side that played in the Rugby World Cup final. I have been a critic of Sharpe’s play, mainly on the grounds that he delivers less than his intense looks at opponents and agressive talk before the match to reporters might suggest.
But he has attributes the Wallaby pack desperately needs, size. When the Springboks are going to present a 208cm lineout jumper in Andries Bekker opposing sides are going to need all the height they have in their ranks to prevent the dominance of the South African lineout for years to come.
The case of Stirling Mortlock is interesting. He is currently out until next year with surgery done to his back. If he comes back with the form he showed a few years ago, a big ‘if’ of course, then there is a place for him in the centres for the Wallabies. The one outstanding aspect of the gifted backs who have come through Australian rugby this season is that none of them is physically intimidating.
My impression watching the All Blacks play the Wallabies at Wellington in the last Tri Nations tournament in 2009 was that the Wallabies backs looked very small compared with their All Black opponents. A fit Mortlock or, perhaps, Israel Folau, if he came across to rugby union in 2011, would change all this.
With the backs that Deans has he can tick Will Genia as the second best halfback in the world, after the incomparable Fourie du Preez. There are a number of candidates for the crucial number 10 jersey with Quade Cooper being the stand-out Australian player in this position this season.
Last year, though, Deans was keen to play Berrick Barnes at number 10, and he was made vice-captain before he was out of the northern tour through injury.
Will Deans re-assemble a Barnes/Giteau five-eighths combination? Or will he play a Cooper/Giteau combination, with Barnes as the back-up for both positions?
The problem with Cooper is that he has the worst tackling record in the Super 14 tournament. The chat is that Cooper and Beale will not be selected together in a run-on backline because of their defensive weaknesses.
Virtually every back in the squad has form good enough to warrant a place in the outer backs. Personally I think Rob Horne should be given a chance at outside centre, with Adam Ashley-Cooper at fullback and Drew Mitchell and Digby Ioane on the wings.
The pack is not so settled. Rocky Elsom is a certainty for the blind side flanker, and Nathan Sharpe presumably for one of the second row positions and Tatafu Polota-Nau as the hooker (provided his injuries clear up). But it is open for all the other positions, although when Benn Robinson comes back he is a certainty as one of the props.
It intriques me, therefore, that Stephen Hoiles is included in the Wallabies squad, rather than in the Australian Barbarians squad. I’ve always believed that Hoiles has the skills to be an outstanding number 7. As David Pocock fills out he could become a number 8 in the Toutai Kefu manner.
The main point as this stage, though, is developing a competitive Wallaby side for 2010 leading into the RWC nexy year. As John Mitchell notes, Australia seems to have more talent in its rugby ranks than New Zealand does right now.
When Robbie Deans picked his first Wallabies squad back in 2008 I suggested in The Roar that it was a case of ‘Great coach but no cattle.’ The cattle now seems to have come through. Can the coach shape his players into a great side?
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? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- 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:
- Al Baxter, Berrick Barnes, robbie deans, Rugby Union, Stirling Mortlock, wallabies
Frank O'Keeffe said | May 28th 2010 @ 4:20am | Report comment
Spiro I enjoyed that article as a perceptive and balanced piece of work.
Respectfully, I disagree with a few points. The first one being that the Wallabies have the players, Deans just has to manage them correctly. Australia have a few problems. The main one, I believe, is five-eighth. Neither Barnes, Giteau or Cooper are in Carter’s league.
You are absolutely right Australia need to get their ‘shape’ correct, and that comes first and foremost from having a good playmaker. I think if Australia are to snatch a game against New Zealand this year they could do it with a guy who plays the game with shape – that being Berrick Barnes.
Territorial advantage is crucial against New Zealand and among other thing, Australia can’t win with Giteau kicking the ball to the NZ back three time and time again. They can’t play with shape if the form player of the competition, Quade Cooper, is kicking poorly either.
You make a great point about Nathan Sharpe. I’ve been a critic of his as well. But one of Australia’s biggest problems last year was a lack of a really commanding second rower. Around the ground I thought a few of the Wallaby forwards played quite well.
You just notice it when you have a commanding second rower – whether it’s a second rower latching onto a player as a ‘hammer’ providing that drive that only a second rower can give, or clearing out the rucks with one big huge powerful shove… you just notice them. Brad Thorn was poor in the line-out early last year, but you noticed him around the park.
Sharpe’s been playing well, and Australia need some experience there, especially if the line-out falls to pieces like it did last year. That said, Australia don’t have the cattle there either. Sharpe been in good form, but he’s not the workhorse a player like Bakkies Botha is.
I’d rather have Botha in the Australian team than Matfield, because while Matfield is the line-out king, you just notice Bakkies all around the park as the commanding player he is. Botha was a serious contender for best player in the world last year.
You make the excellent point that Australia is fielding a small, not so physical backline. This is where Australia doesn’t have the cattle either. Australia were dominated there last year – absolutely monstered. The Wallaby backline got pelted and opposition backs were able to force turnovers. Deans really needs to address that fact because it’s hurting Australia.
Mortlock – I love him. What a player in the mid 00s! Australia could use a guy of his size in the backline… that is if he was as good as he was in the mid 00s. It happens to courageous players – their bodies break down. It’s a shame he was at the pinnacle of his career when Australia were so poor in 2005-06.
I didn’t just like all of the obvious talents of Mortlock, I liked him because he had a great rugby sense – how to be a breakdown exponent, when to attach himself as a hammer or run as a support player, how to set up players once the break is made etc.
Mortlock was a player who knew the little things to do that makes a great player. He’s such an underappreciated player in Australia. But his time has passed. That said, my pick for Wallaby of the decade (over George Smith).
Generally I just don’t agree with the idea that Deans has the cattle this year. But what I liked about your article was your raised all the relevant points.
The only thing you brought up which I didn’t take to was the idea of Pocock at 8. You had similar ideas with George Smith, playing him at eight, and while Australia got away with it in one game last year in Brisbane (against South Africa), the small backrow was BADLY exposed in the next game against New Zealand. Deans seemed to accept the fact it wasn’t a good idea to have Pocock and Smith on at the same time.
Pocock’s such a natural openside flanker it would be silly to move him anywhere else. He stepped up there last year in Europe. Hopefully he can take the next step and do the same against the two best sides in the world this year.
In regard to Australia’s backrow concerns, Bob Dwyer (who follows European rugby closely) suggested Elsom might make a good eightman. He said he played well there when Heaslip was injured for a while. He suggests Elsom understands the small details about the position very well.
That said, Palu played pretty well in Europe last year – something not many were willing to concede. When he’s not injured I suspect he’ll make the side.
In summation, the selections of guys like Sharpe to me are like ‘well we just have to accept their the best players we have.’
Australia missed the boat in 2008 and 2009 though. New Zealand weren’t all that great against Australia in those years compared to what we saw from them in 2005-06.
I really thought Australia would snatch a game when Stephen Donald was playing five-eighth. Now I get the sense New Zealand are better off for having gone through a few trials, and I expect them to be better this year than they were in 2008-09.
New Zealand didn’t always play great against Australia in 2008-09. In 2008 the Wallabies had a more in form. Barnes was Australia’s best player, Mortlock could still contribute for most of the game, the forwards were picking up too (very noticeable in Brisbane)… but they blew it.
In 2009 the All Blacks were worse and the Wallabies were worser… people will never remember the fact that the Wallbies were ahead at half time in most of the last seven games, but lost because they played with no structure and no shape.
Justin said | May 28th 2010 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Frank – please dont put the words playmaker and Berrick Barnes together again. He kicks marginally better than the other two and has nothing on either of them in attack. Yes he is a better tackler but he never dominates the contact area with or without the ball.
soapit said | May 28th 2010 @ 10:21am | Report comment
completely agree justin. blinky barnes just doesnt play whats in front of him.
warrenexpatinnz said | May 28th 2010 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Sorry Frank but disagree in your first comment re Cooper, Barnes and Gitteau aren’t up to Carters standard. That is a very long bow to draw with only Barnes being considerable behind the ‘pack’. Yes Cooper still has to prove himself at the International level but to place Carter on a Pedastal after a very average Super 14, excluding the Bulls end of the round clash is going on past history and I for one question his ability to get back his consistent brillant form after that achillies injury.
On Botha’s front he is a liabilty, yes work rate high but after repeated indescretions is a marked man, whether it be right or wrong.
Sharpe is a solid player and will be treated as a gap filler obviously until Horwill and Caldwell are back.
With regards to Spiro’s comments on a smaller back line I beg the question that Ioanne, AAC and Mitchell are perhaps in the top seven of line breaks this year with the others two being Nonu, Smith, Fourie and Acklan.
Size is only important if you wish to smash and break holes that way as a step and pace is far more suited to todays game with Nonu being a very good example of this. Big man who has actually learnt to step his opponents far more often than not rather than the crash/bash approach he took last year and with that lost the ball in the tackle confrontation.
el gamba said | May 28th 2010 @ 10:11am | Report comment
Warren, I tend to agree with your comments about size. If you have a smaller quicker backline it simply means that you need to play a different style and control the game. Looking at speed and “footwork”, Australia has some of the best in the world (watch the likes of Cooper, Gits, Beale, Horne, Ioane and O’Connor) and SA and to a lesser extent NZ don’t compare (at least right now). The mobility and support play of the forwards is also a strength… so… if they are not as big as the Saffers why try to bash and crash them? There were some great images of the Bulls and Stormers gassed out trying to catch the elusive Reds and I submit that Deans will be playing to the Wallabies strengths rather than SA or NZ’s. Granted that we have to front up at set piece time and do the hard-work but I expect a quick, expansive gameplan played with initiative. At the Crusaders Deans loved this approach and he should have some great cattle to execute.
warrenexpatinnz said | May 28th 2010 @ 11:01am | Report comment
I would throw Corey Jane in as the best footwork player in NZ presently and for his size he sheds tackles with speed and great lines. With the Reds against the Bulls you are spot on EL G as any guy carrying a 100Kg plus when turned constantly and made to tackle at pace and repeatedly will suffer and the only failing the Reds really showed this year, excluding injuries, was themselves maintaining that pace for the full 80 minutes. I assume Link will have the conditioning coach working on a way to maintain that anoroebic requirement.
kingplaymaker said | May 28th 2010 @ 4:25am | Report comment
‘Robbie Deans now has the players for a winning Wallabies side.’
I’m afraid I don’t agree with this: Robbie Deans has more depth in certain positions where there are already good players, and has added a small number of good players in new positions.
Compared to last year, the new good players in weak positions are at 9 (Genia), 11 (Ioane), and Palu (8, and injured). These represent significant advances in quality on the players who occupied the positions before.
Many new players have also been added in positions where the Wallabies are already strong: 10, 12 (Cooper, Faaingaa) and 1,2,3 (Weeks, Faiingaa, Daley). However, these players simply add more DEPTH, not more quality across the team. Having 10 world-class props does not mean you have a world-class wing, and having 10 world-class fly-halves does not mean you have a world-class second-row.
There are still yawning gaps in the team. The outside backs are distinctly average: Hynes, Mitchell and Turner are nothing special at international level (compare Sivivatu, Habana to see the difference), while the second-row is not up to scratch. Who will compete in the line-out against Victor Matfield? Nathan Sharpe may fill the Botha/Thorn second row requirement of a a bulldozer for the loose, but there is not line-out complement next to him. Outside centre is also weak.
So until no 5, 13, 14 and 15 are filled with outstanding players instead of also-rans, Deans will not have the cattle to outperform New Zealand and South Africa whatever Mitchell says (his point was really that the Wallabies have more depth, not a better starting 15).
The additions of Palu, Genia and Ioane make the Wallabies 3 players out of 15 closer to having 15 good players. I would say now they are good, when Palu is fit, in the following positions: 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,12,11. That leaves them 4 players short of a team to match their southern hemisphere competitors, a significant shortfall.
Folau would if successful make a vast difference to the outside backs, as would Dan Vickerman in the second row. Deans should pray that either these two come good, or new players develop to fill these gaps.
He is getting there, and 3 is a big addition in quality, and he may well make it to something approaching those extra four by the World Cup.
One thing he does not need however is more props and fly-halves.
Mr Saunders said | May 28th 2010 @ 4:32am | Report comment
FYI Nathan Sharpe is a 5 lock and not a 4 lock.
Apelu Tielu said | May 28th 2010 @ 8:16am | Report comment
Samo is a better line-out option and can offer far more than any of the locks being picked. This is, by far, the Wallabies weakest position.
warrenexpatinnz said | May 28th 2010 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Not sure how Deans views Samo however I think if Sharpe misses his chance and doesn’t step up Samo would have to be a possible wild card.
Mr Saunders said | May 28th 2010 @ 5:58pm | Report comment
Samo is a better lineout technician than Sharpe?
mattamkII said | May 28th 2010 @ 6:10pm | Report comment
I was a massive Sharp bagger in recent years, but his form of last 12 months has been brilliant. Cant go past him right now.
Ben said | May 28th 2010 @ 4:34am | Report comment
I am not as concerned about the lack of size in the backs……I think speed is more important and also creativity. Defenses are so well set these days you need people to break them down and barging through is not the best. Horne and ioane are big enough and the speed of acc mitchel gist etc will cause a lot of problems…….be interesting to see horn and chambers in the center together.
Frank O'Keeffe said | May 28th 2010 @ 4:46am | Report comment
But as you say, defence are so well set these days. There will be moments where the Wallaby backs will get tackled and not get over the advantage line, and when that happens the small backline is going to be a problem. How are the Aussie backs going to contest for the ball? You can’t wait for the forwards to run back these backs, not with backs being the breakdown exponents they are these days.
It’s the reason why I don’t think James O’Connor, as amazingly talented as he is, will ever be a great Test player at 12. He’ll just get monstered. His defence is a tiny bit questionable too, which is understandable for a guy his size. I think this may be the reason why Deans tried him at 15, but he’s been exposed there once or twice at Test level.
That said, I agree with Spiro that the Wallaby backline would be good with Horne at 13, and Ioane and Mitchell on the wings. But who to play at 10 and 12 remains Australia’s biggest dilemma – important combination that.
Frank O'Keeffe said | May 28th 2010 @ 6:53am | Report comment
Sorry I meant to say:
“You can’t expect forwards to run back in time these days, not with backs being the breakdown exponents they are.”
You’d think I’d see that typo and could edit it during my 10 minute span…
el gamba said | May 28th 2010 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Frank, agreed that there will be times when the backs will get caught. This is where the balance of the overall team balance becomes important and perhaps more mobility from the forwards will assist in this regard. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.
Apelu Tielu said | May 28th 2010 @ 8:20am | Report comment
I think Chambers is a long-term 13. He has the size, skill, defence, and speed. The more he plays, the better he gets. It’s good to see him given the chance with the Barbarians so he can work his way up to the A team, which I think he will.
warrenexpatinnz said | May 28th 2010 @ 11:10am | Report comment
Chambers try were he followed through a chip kick by Cooper highlighted for me he awareness of positional play and that he could read the game a play out then he had the ability to finish the movement which was no mean feat considering he had two Crusader defenders either side of him. I also think he will be on the NH tour if not wearing the Green and Gold earlier.
AT do you get the feel, a positive one in my view, that the Wallaby back line is being set for a similar attacking game plan to that of a league side where the straight runners, with off load skills have backs coming in at angles to cut through a defensive line and then to have a support player left and right available. These moves were very noticable in the Reds and to a lesser extent the Force and seemed to unlock even the best defenses although not always resulting in a try.
Apelu Tielu said | May 28th 2010 @ 10:41pm | Report comment
Warren, I think the league’s way of attack is the way to attack the Boks rush defence. The Reds were very successful with the way QC takes the ball to the line and how people like Chambers seem to know where the ball would be, either through a kick or pass.
I’m not sure whether league practice basket ball skills where players not with the ball have keep an eye on the ball-carrier and the ball so they are not surprised when the ball is passed to them. League players seems to have that awareness, whereas I have often seen union players being surprised by a ball being passed to them. As a result, the ball is dropped or hit them on the head!
I didn’t get see much of the Force, but the Reds players showed that awareness, why their ball retention was also very good. It’s the best way to overcome a rush defence, or any defence for that matter.
Frank O'Keeffe said | May 28th 2010 @ 4:50am | Report comment
It’s interesting to see the Super 14 player of the year results.
Cooper came first. And while I don’t know how he’d go as a Test level player, nobody can deny he’s been in the best form out of the three five-eighth contenders.
I expected Genia to win and he came second by a point. With more experience he’ll only get better. I’d like to see him able to mix his game up with a bit of kicking ala Rob Howley.
Drew Mitchell was up there and that’s great. He’s always been a talent that was nurtured the wrong way.
Interestingly Curtley Beale was up there, and Adam Ashley-Cooper wasn’t. After Australia has chopped and changed fullbacks in the last few years would it be a bad idea to replace Ashley-Cooper after he finally seemed to put his stamp on the fullback position? I’m not saying Beale would be a bad selection, but it would be a gutsy decision to pick him after all this time. I think I’d stay with Ashley-Cooper, he was an improved ‘good’ player last season.
Go_the_Wannabe's said | May 28th 2010 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Quite Frankly Frank…….if Barnes or Giteau gets a run at 10, then guess what? We will get the same aimless structure as last year with the same aimless losing results.
Coops must play 10 and must be given at least 3 games to settle in. Non negotiable!
Sharpe has been the form 5 all season and deserves his spot on form and nothing else.
Pocock is the next no. 7 and is not an 8, Waugh (like Mortlock) has reached his use by date.
Carter is no where near the force he was, but I agree the AB’s improved as the season progressed last year, hence we need to do something different. Hence Cooper is a must.
You know it makes sense.
inkosi said | May 28th 2010 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
Will kicks the ball as a last resort (rem Higgers try v the Bulls from Will’s kick) with the new law interpretations I don’t think it pays to continually kick the ball away.
Mr Saunders said | May 28th 2010 @ 4:59am | Report comment
A few random points to match the early lengthy posts:
‘Baxter had one great day against England when the Wallabies monstered their opponent’s scrum but he rarely held his own and became a master of dropping scrums.’
A moot point at this juncture in time, but the Australian scrum did by no means monster the English scrum. The Australian scrum certainly had the upper hand and was the better technical unit, but not to any extreme extent. The majority of Australian penalties came from typical arbitrary refereeing following yet another drop from Sheridan/Baxter.
‘Statistics reveal that the Waratahs (with Baxter as a prop) and the Brumbies (coached by Young) were responsible for a massive number of re-set scrums in the 2010 Super 14’
If opponents are aware that referees are anti-Baxter then obviously they will seek to dupe the referee. The NSW scrum has probably been the most consistent over the past two Super seasons – including Baxter. Tony Woodcock was dropping scrums all over the place last 3N but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a good prop.
‘Deans has rewarded his work and the play of the two youngsters by putting them in the Wallaby squad.’
Three Queensland forwards, no?
‘My impression watching the All Blacks play the Wallabies at Wellington in the last Tri Nations tournament in 2009 was that the Wallabies backs looked very small compared with their All Black opponents.’
Really? Jane, Muliaina, Rokocoko, Carter and Cowan aren’t exactly giants. Likewise, Mitchell, Turner, AAC and Barnes aren’t small by test standards.
‘It intriques me, therefore, that Stephen Hoiles is included in the Wallabies squad, rather than in the Australian Barbarians squad. I’ve always believed that Hoiles has the skills to be an outstanding number 7. As David Pocock fills out he could become a number 8 in the Toutai Kefu manner.’
Could Hoiles contest and steal the ball the way that Pocock does or the way that any other top test 7 does? Why waste the talent that Pocock has in snaffling down backs and stealing their ball simply so that he could carry the ball when players like Elsom and Palu should be undertaking that role? Is Hoiles powerful enough to withstand the collision at the ruck contest?
‘When Robbie Deans picked his first Wallabies squad back in 2008 I suggested in The Roar that it was a case of ‘Great coach but no cattle.’ The cattle now seems to have come through. Can the coach shape his players into a great side?’
I suppose this is as big a *potential* criticism of Deans that Spiro will ever make, but is it justified in this case? Are players like Cowan, Faingaa, Edmonds, Ma’afi, Mumm, Brown, Hodgson, Burgess and Valentine *cattle*? Can these players seriously attempt to usurp the current starters? If they can’t then Deans has the same players as last season.
Ian Noble said | May 28th 2010 @ 5:34am | Report comment
Spiro
As I have penned on another thread, the forthcoming test series between England and the Wallabies will be a real test of both coaches. There are many similarities in the challenge ahead of which the greatest is can they find the “X” factor of moulding together undoubted talents to form a successful team.
England are bringing a large playing squad of 44 and each player has been told they will get at least one game during the tour. The questions for Johnson are can he select the right combinations and can he provide a platform for the players to replicate their club form in the international arena? My initial concern is that taking such a large squad on tour creates issues that do not assist selection, whilst obviously it will allows Johnson and his coaching team to have more time with the elite players.
How will it pan out? Who knows but it provides an interesting backdrop to the series.
Who Needs Melon said | May 28th 2010 @ 6:14am | Report comment
Frank, I’m all for avoiding “kicking the ball to the NZ back three time and time again” but is Barnes the answer? That’s what he’s done for the Waratahs almost all season.
Ben, I agree with you. Players like Horne and Ioane and AAC ARE physical and are rarely pushed back in the tackle – far from it. Size matters not. Or not so much anyway.
Mr Saunders, we’ll have to agree to disagree on THAT day – I think the England scrum were well and truly MONSTERED!
I too find the selection of Hoiles oddish. I can’t see that he has a future in the Wallaby side. And I think it’s indicative of a lack of depth in most forward spots as others have indicated.
Mr Saunders said | May 28th 2010 @ 6:22am | Report comment
In light of that disagreement I hope England can do the honourable thing and monster your boys in the tight, WNM.
From an English perspective I’m not massively impressed with this squad. I agree about Hoiles too, but then perhaps it is a short term option.
Frank O'Keeffe said | May 28th 2010 @ 6:49am | Report comment
Who Needs Melon,
Barnes hasn’t been the form five-eighth this season, Cooper has.
But I’m a big believer in there being a huge difference between Super 14 and Test match rugby. People rave and rant over Genia and Cooper (and I am a fan of both – especially Genia), but both aren’t as proven at Test level as people make out.
Genia only played one really outstanding Test last year, the one against England, yet Spiro says in this article Genia is the second best halfback in the world. Genia still needs more experience and then we’ll see how good he really is.
The same applies to Cooper, people talk about how great he is, but he has deficiencies that will get exposed in the Test arena – the big arena.
You talk about ‘is Barnes really the answer?’ Honestly I don’t think the Wallabies have the answer from the three five-eighths. As I said, none of them are in Carter’s league, and Australia doesn’t have the mammoth dominant pack South Africa has that allows Morne Stern to dominate games (despite his own deficiencies). I don’t see any of them being the answer.
But if Australia are to grind out a win they’ll have to play smart, and Barnes is the best tactical player of the three. Territory is crucial.
In all seriousness Berrick hasn’t been as bad for the Tah’s as people make out. The Tah’s actually knew how to score tries this year.
Think of the year where the Tah’s went through something like 80+ set pieces without the ball reaching the wing once! Remember how inactive Tuqiri was on the wing? Now look at how much ball Drew Mitchell’s got this year and how many tries he scored.
I said it above, before he got injured in 2008, I thought Berrick Barnes was Australia’s best player. The number of tackles he made in the Sydney game in 2008 was Wilkinson-esque. His kicking from 12 compensated for Giteau’s poor kicking in that game as well.
Mark Ella ctually wrote an excellent piece on Barnes not too long ago where he talks about how Barnes isn’t a flashy player, but he kicks and passes well, and had a good head on his shoulders.
If I had to sum it up, I’d say Australians don’t rate Barnes ( this season) because he’s not as flashy as Giteau or Cooper. But you want player that win you games.
Grant Fox wasn’t as flashy as Franco Botica (Fox actually was never flashy) but he thought about the game very well, very tactically, and his wingers scored lots of tires. Barnes is the same.
Not every Australian five-eighth has to be Mark Ella or Stephen Larkham. Poor Michael Lynagh, a champion CHAMPION player, isn’t properly appreciated in Australia despite winning some games that Ella might not have won for Australia.
Who Needs Melon said | May 28th 2010 @ 7:12am | Report comment
I understand what you’re saying. I get the difference between Super 14 level and internationals. And I appreciate the ‘shape of the team’ thing too. I just think Cooper has done enough in the 10 jumper for the Reds to earn first crack at it for the Wallabies. Anyway – it will be interesting to see how it pans out.
I can’t speak for the rest of Australia but personally I’m a HUGE fan of Lynagh and rate him right up there with Ella and Larkham. As you say, a true champion.
Dexter William said | May 28th 2010 @ 8:11am | Report comment
As a player who has yet to be an incumbent at test. the only way is to play S14 the best he could – and Cooper has done that.
As far as I remember, Copper’s performances at test level has been above average, while Barnes played terribly when we got knocked out by England in the last WC.
If a form S14 player is not given Test opportunity at the position he is best in, how can anyone say that he can’t perform as well as in the test arena?
Cooper needs to be given test playing opportunities for him to gain that experience. If he is no good after several opportunities, there is no problem going back to status quo – even though status quo meaning no real magic in playmaking.
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | May 28th 2010 @ 8:40am | Report comment
That’s Cooper not Copper. The ‘Coppers’ were actually playing on the other team.
Frank O'Keeffe said | May 28th 2010 @ 11:04am | Report comment
Dexter,
Cooper’s Test performances were quite good, but there was the odd hickup.
There was the try Ireland scored (O’Driscoll) when they were 13-20 down last year. That cost Australia the Grand Slam. It was a well worked move, but Cooper needed to pick a player to tackle (just guess one) – he didn’t get any.
Then there was the next week against Scotland where the threw that cut-out pass that drifted a mile forward. A simple through the hands would have given Australia a try. As it happened that mistake (among other HUGE mistakes) cost Australia their first loss against Scotland since 1982 (unforgivable really).
However, the thing I liked about Cooper at inside centre was he kept the opposition guessing. He was excellent at attacking the advantage line, and has a good vision.
I don’t want to be too harsh on Cooper because he did play well in Europe most of the time, but against sides like New Zealand I think they’d expose him. New Zealand are great at exposing weaknesses. He just feels to me like a player who should be made to work a bit harder to make the Test side at five-eighth.
As far as Barnes playing bad in the World Cup semi-final (forget who said that), that’s incredibly harsh on Barnes because every single Wallaby (except Mortlock) played below themselves that day. It was like a ripple effect that went through the whole side. The front-row were monstered, the second-rowers looked exhausted, the backrow didn’t play as one, Gregan got terrible ball all day and started to run sideways. How’s Barnes going to do anything with that?
I agree with what ohtani’s jacket said in another thread, it used to be the only criticism of Barnes was that he was injury prone. Why people are doubting him after he’s been such an effective Test player these last two years is beyond me.
Go_the_Wannabe's said | May 28th 2010 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Come on Frank, there’s only one way to find out if Cooper is up to it…….give him a decent run at 10.
Personally I think Deans will start Barnes and bring Cooper off the bench after 20. That way Barnes gets the side off to a solid reliable start and weathers the initial storm. Then he’ll bring Coops on for the razzle dazzle!
Short-Blind. said | May 28th 2010 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Melon I went to junior school with ML on the Gold Coast in the 70′s. Even back then his class and obvious sporting talent stood out. Dominated in cricket with bat and ball + began to show and develop his freakish rugby skills (albeit in League at that time). I still have not seen anyone who could kick a rugby ball better – punt, drop and place. Most of all the guy was just a gentleman and humble to boot….as you said underrated overall by many.
sheek said | May 28th 2010 @ 7:45am | Report comment
Frank,
We only ever saw Ella & Lynagh play 10 & 12 just 5 times, but crucially 4 times on the GS tour of 1984. The thing about Ella is that he needed a robust 12 who could kick tactically well, & also take the heat off Ella in defence, although Ella could tackle when he had to.
This is why Ella worked so well with Hawker, & would have probably done even better with Lynagh. Of course, the dream 10/12 combo of Ella & Wally Lewis never happened.
Coming back to the present, I would personally have Cooper & Barnes as my 10 & 12 combo. I think they played well together for Qld with limited opportunities. I also think Barnes can have a calming influence over Cooper, helping him avoiding his excesses without inhibiting him.
I know Barnes hasn’t set the world on fire for NSW, but I believe that’s a fault of the strategy & tactics set by the coaching staff. From the start of the season, the backline should have been set around Barnes, but it wasn’t. Also, Barnes took time to mesh with his new team mates.
I agree the test cauldron is a step up from super rugby. Being a star at super level doesn’t necessarily ensure the same will happen at test level. This is where the power of the mind separates the best from the rest.
Apelu Tielu said | May 28th 2010 @ 8:29am | Report comment
Sheek, QC played better without Barnes. I suspect their is a chemistry problem there, and if you were the coach you need to consider that, even if, on talents, they’d form a better 10/12 combo. But i think a better combo in those two positions is a right/left kicker. And that means QC/MG, or Barnes/MG. I’d like QC to play, so I’d go with the QC/MG combo at 10 & 12.
max power said | May 28th 2010 @ 9:58am | Report comment
I agree with something being off with the Cooper/Barnes combination. I think Giteau’s speed and attacking instincts means he’d be far better at taking advantages of the gaps and space in the defensive line that Cooper is capable of creating than Barnes would be. Cooper benefits from players outside him running into space to help him create indecision in the opposition defense which again Giteau is better at than Barnes.
Nashi said | May 28th 2010 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
Genia has said as much, and I suspect he would know. He intimated that both wanted to control the game and since their tactical approach is so different conflict is bound to happen.
Mals said | May 28th 2010 @ 9:31am | Report comment
I agree Sheek with the Cooper/Barnes combo. Have Giteau on the bench as a utility player.
Brett McKay said | May 28th 2010 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Sheek, I must agree. While I think we will see Cooper-Giteau for the June Tests, I won’t at all be surprised – and in fact I expect – to see Barnes-Giteau reinstalled come TNs time..
Cattledog said | May 28th 2010 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
Brett, your comments are always insightful but you dropped the ball this time. The TNs make up will depend ENTIRELY on how combinations perform, barring injury. If Cooper-Giteau works a treat in the June tests, give me a solid logical reason why you would then change this.
Quite frankly, I predict you may see a number of combinations in the June tests to see what does and doesn’t work. If anybody thinks the Genia-Cooper combination hasn’t been the most exciting thing to emerge since the orbital engine, then their ‘dreamin’! Who accompanies these playmakers will be exciting to watch over the coming months.
Rusty said | May 28th 2010 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Stone the crows – a balanced view on the wallaby talent! There I was thinking this would be dissolve into another lovefest about the second and third comings
Justin said | May 28th 2010 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Barnes is as good a passer of the ball as Gits and not in the same league as Cooper. And I mean nowhere bloody near it. His technique of planting the outside foot and sending and under spinning pass is horrendous and almost as bad as his “show and go” dummy which never fools anyone.
As I stated above Barnes can tackle and that is probably his best asset although it hardly puts the fear of death into opposition sides. If your 5/8s best game was when he made a stack of tackles then you are in trouble. How many other good games has Barnes played? He did well v Wales in the RWC at short notice but has done little else IMO. His winning record is not good.
Berricks a born hooker. Yes thats right a hooker. Number 9….in League!
jiggles said | May 28th 2010 @ 8:51am | Report comment
“But if Australia are to grind out a win they’ll have to play smart, and Barnes is the best tactical player of the three. Territory is crucial.”
Australia has tried this tactic of “grinding out a win” for the past 3 years, and the fact is we cannot match South Africa (and to a lesser extent NZ) at there physical upfront forward dominated game.
Look at how the reds beat the Stormers and Bulls this year, very different to how the Brumbies and Waratahs went about it (trying to “grind out wins”). they ran the big packs off there feet, they hit every ruck so fast and placed such an emphasis on fast ball all the time that really the tight 5 of the big teams was taken out of the game.
Australia, i think, would be stupid to revert to trying to beat the Boks at there own game. fast ball at the breakdown is the name of the game for the wallabies.
Justin said | May 28th 2010 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Agree and we need to pick the right team to do that best.
Go_the_Wannabe's said | May 28th 2010 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
Hallelujah to that brother!
If we pick the same combos as last year we will get the same results!
Vive le difference!
tipsy said | May 28th 2010 @ 11:09am | Report comment
The differance is Michael Lynagh gad Tim Horan outside him. This is a luxury Barnes does not have.
Hombre said | May 28th 2010 @ 6:39am | Report comment
For a start isn’t Mitchell on the ARU payroll and in a role where, for the last 4-5 seasons, he’s meant to be developing players – he’s hardly going to say anything different – the other factor is the kiwis don’t over-hype and start shouting from the rooftops every new kid that laces up his boots – I’d argue there’s far more depth and quality in the NZ ranks than there will ever be in Australian rugby … one classic example – last year they were struggling in the second row and haul out Donnally
we had this same thing last year – the press took far too much out of the weak games leading into the tri-nations (esp the babas game), Dean’s spouted about how it was going to be the most competitive tri-nations ever and then went on to win 1 game … the kiwis will look at that squad and won’t lose too much sleep – the NZ pack won’t be dominated by whatever combination comes out the mix, will still feel confident of ruling the breakdown and they now won’t have to contend with the one player who the feared the most in the backline – Mortlock …
Frank O'Keeffe said | May 28th 2010 @ 7:01am | Report comment
Can I say this about Cooper? He’s got a load of talent and there’s no reason why he can’t develope into a great Test player.
Brett Papworth was so incredibly talented people expected him to be in the Wallabies by 1983/84, but he had to wait a few years more until his first cap because his defence was atrocious.
People said Papworth was the best broken field runner they’d ever seen, and that he had more flair than any other player… but he had deficiencies, he worked on them, and Australia benefitted from him tremendously… and then he went to league!
Cooper… if he works on his tackling and kicking and learns to control games when things are going against the grain, then he’ll be an absolute gem.
Actually it’s interesting that I mention Papworth because after Cooper scored his famous try against Italy, people were comparing his GAPING side-step to that of Brett Papworth. I think there’s a very apt parallel between them.
Brett McKay said | May 28th 2010 @ 9:24am | Report comment
and Frank, as it turned out, Pappy’s biggest deficiencies were both knees. Maybe Quade needs a check-up before we keep running with this comparison..
Apelu Tielu said | May 28th 2010 @ 7:23am | Report comment
Spiro, the worry is lock; we are very weak there. But i think tall lossies can help in the line-out and aggression.
JohnP said | May 28th 2010 @ 7:00pm | Report comment
Again why does everyone ignore the relatively young Mark Chisholm? He is 115 kgs strong at teh breakdown, and did you see his try against the reds? Close to 50 caps as well….
Chis and Sharpe, or Chis and Horwill when he gets back