CAMPO: Keep it simple stupid, and go back to our strengths
By David Campese, 13 Sep 2012 David Campese is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Berrick Barnes, Kurtley Beale, robbie deans, Rugby Union, The Rugby Championship, Tim Horan, wallabies
155 Have your say
Australian Rugby union head coach Robbie Deans. AAP Image/Paul Miller
Related coverage
I know I must sound like a broken record but can anyone tell me what Robbie Deans is doing with the Wallabies? What is he trying to achieve? I have no idea, and I don’t think he has either.
After kicking away any decent ball they got on the weekend, somehow Berrick Barnes has been kept in the team and moved to fullback to replace Kurtley Beale, who is one of the few attacking weapons in the backline.
And that has been our biggest problem over the years is that we need to have players who can put the opposition under pressure.
I believe an ex-Wallaby is mentoring Barnes. This player was a great runner with the ball and a great player, but what is the incessant kicking all about? Every time Barnes gets it, he hesitates then kicks.
I know, I know … the modern day players are bigger, stronger, faster, better than the players of my era. Yes, yes, I wouldn’t make it in this era, blah blah blah.
But really, the basic skills of some players are very poor and the vision is not quite there. Why?
What do they do at training?
Not that the Boks were any better. They just looked like a bunch of guys going out on the field having no idea about what to do.
In the first half there were 43 kicks! And half of those were ‘no idea’ kicks.
The game is about the Ball. If you don’t have it, you can’t score. Very simple.
And what’s with all those ridiculous cut out passes? The Boks were attacking the Wallaby line and they cut out three players and still couldn’t score. Please tell your kids not to use cut out passes as it doesn’t work.
They should just put the ball through the hands and run into space. This should be a thing you do everyday at training.
It’s obvious that Deans hasn’t got the players’ confidence. They’re not playing for him. They’re not playing for the love of the game either.
It’s a sad reality.
I don’t understand the Wallabies selections. Apart from the mysteries of the starting line-up, there are no impact players on the bench – apart from Beale, who is down in confidence.
So get players around him to give him the confidence he needs
Who is going to win the Wallabies the game when they’re behind on the scoreline? We need players on the bench who can make a impact, not defend.
Where have we gone wrong over the years? I must be missing something.
I get sick of talking week in, week out about the same thing. Am I expecting too much from the players? Perhaps I should be diplomatic and say everything is going well.
But I can’t. Australian rugby is a real mess right now.
I Tweeted a simple solution last week: three franchises, the ARU control them all, and set up a Rugby Academy where all the players come out of.
The Academy then supplies the three teams with players who are up to the standard. Not like how it is now, where the gap from club rugby to Super Rugby is huge.
Australian rugby has traditionally been at its strongest when you have just three teams.
We cannot sustain five teams. We have to get too many players from overseas to make it work, which makes our rugby base smaller and therefore weaker.
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- SPIRO: Beale and Folau brilliant, Mogg subbed (278)
- Deans: Should he stay or should he go? (242)
- I was dead-set wrong about Folau (237)
- What gives with Israel Folau? (184)
- Deans promises ball in hand rugby for Wallabies against Lions (183)
- Quade shouldn’t be fly half against the Lions (180)
- My Lion tamers for 2013 (167)
- Quade Cooper misses Wallaby squad selection (18)
- Wallabies squad announced: Folau in, no Quade Cooper – yet (206)
- Wallabies 2013 Lions Tour squad announcement: Live blog (170)
- Berrick Barnes inspirational in Tahs win over Brumbies (150)
- Picking Quade and Izzy is a no brainer (28)
- Cheetahs vs Reds: Super Rugby live scores, blog (177)
- Leinster win European Challenge Cup (5)
- Wallabies 2013 Lions Tour squad announcement: Live blog (170)
- Picking Quade and Izzy is a no brainer (28)
- Cheetahs vs Reds: Super Rugby live scores, blog (177)
- Waratahs vs Brumbies: Super Rugby live scores, blog (517)
- Wallaby backline options (68)
- An exciting weekend in Australian rugby (1)
- Western Force vs Sharks: Super Rugby live scores, blog (114)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Berrick Barnes, Kurtley Beale, robbie deans, Rugby Union, The Rugby Championship, Tim Horan, wallabies



September 13th 2012 @ 6:15am
Tipsy said | September 13th 2012 @ 6:15am | Report comment
Correct me if I’ve misinterpreted this, but Campo is saying that having less players (three teams instead of five) playing at super rugby level will give us more depth? I respectfully disagree. Would half of the guys that took the Brumbies from the basement to not-the-basement have gotten a run if we only had three teams? I don’t care if we have two super rugby teams near the bottom of the table each year if it means some extra candidates are thrown up for the Wallabies (this may be because I’m a Waratah supporter and the Wallabies are all I have to bring me rugby joy).
September 13th 2012 @ 8:40am
Tissot Time said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Agreed, being spoilt for choice and having too many options can be confusing.
September 13th 2012 @ 10:07pm
kid said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
Too many options is a good problem to have but you only have 15 on the field. Is placing some of our best players into teams that have no chance good for their development. I know they are professional and it shouldn’t effect how they train etc but really everyone knows if you are going well you’re going to put that little extra in at the gym or at training, its too easy to think it doesn’t matter when you are running last after half the season. when it comes time for a test match the boys are behind the eightball. Is this downside offset by the experiance gained by the other players… well thats one for the roarers
September 13th 2012 @ 9:27am
Harry said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Disagree – 3, maybe 4, SuperRugby teams.
Australian rugby is at its strongest when there are strong provincial teams – remember the great Wallaby sides of 84 and 91 were built on very strong QLD and NSW sides. Then the Brumbies rose to great heights in the late 90′s and early 00′s, not coincidentially the Walalbies were world champions again.
We have dliuted our strong teams and now have 5 mediocre teams featuring many players who frankly shouldn’t be playing representative/professional rugby. Blokes who don’t even have the basics – for professional rugby players their catching , passing, scrummaging and set piece skills are appalling, with little rugby nous.
Do you genuinely think that players like Cadyn Neville, Nick Phipps, Joe Tomane and Cooper Vuna are ready to play modern test match rugby? On the back of a hald decent SuperRugby season?
All these guys need to be playing in a 3rd tier comp and developing their games
September 13th 2012 @ 12:12pm
SkinnyKid said | September 13th 2012 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
oh my hat Harry.
You’re using 84 and 91 a evidence to your point to 2012?
I challenge you, or anyone, to find another major sport that has changed so much since 91 till now…..
Also you say ”Do you genuinely think that players like Cadyn Neville, Nick Phipps, Joe Tomane and Cooper Vuna are ready to play modern test match rugby?”
Sounds a lot like what the old farts were saying about the 84 team before they left….just saying.
September 13th 2012 @ 2:34pm
Harry said | September 13th 2012 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
Very much so. My point being there is a massive difference between a lot of the very average SuperRugby played by Australian teams this year and test match rugby. We have guys playing SUperRugby who frankly shouldn’t be. Maybe in 5 years time the depth will ahve caught up and we’ll have competition for SuperRugby spots, but its sure as heck not the case now. The consequence is we have players not pushed to perform and improve.
September 13th 2012 @ 9:19pm
Banger said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:19pm | Report comment
Agree Harry, it took a number of years for Aussie Rugby to recover depth following the introduction of the Force. But as soon as some stability was acheived we go ahead and introduce the rebels, and overstretch the playing pool once again. Whether they were pressured into this by the SANZAR negotiations or not is missing the point, that being, that the expansion was at least 5 years too early in Australia.
This has cost Australian rugby, and the franchises in Melbourne, NSW and WA dearly as they clearly struggle to attract the level of talent needed to compete.
September 13th 2012 @ 2:42pm
Harry said | September 13th 2012 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
You and I have a different view of the 1984 team then. I can remember thinking before they left the coutnry that they were very well drilled, unified and were a real chance to be outstanding. They also had a bit of mongrel/challenger mentality that seems lacking in modern players.
September 13th 2012 @ 2:54pm
SkinnyKid said | September 13th 2012 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Its a well known fact that the back bone of the 84 team first came to national honours the were called ‘to raw’ etc by the old boys.
But again, I just dont see how you can compare 1984 and 2012. Christ, most of the current team weren’t even born yet.
I just find it a tad funny/ironic that you are trying to make a link between the two…and at the same time almost quoting what some of the old fells said about the 84 players you herald so much.
September 20th 2012 @ 7:38pm
James said | September 20th 2012 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
trudat
September 13th 2012 @ 2:26pm
yahyah said | September 13th 2012 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
yes all those players you mentioned except Cooper Vuna are ready for some test rugby exposure. when Genia and Beale made the team, the same question was being reiterated over and over. Joe Tomane is Samoan. and if there’s anything the Wallabies need right now; it’s another Digby Ioane. he will be a great addition to the team and just the kinda attacking player required.
September 13th 2012 @ 2:39pm
Harry said | September 13th 2012 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
I don;t think we are radically different in views – I’m NOT sayi9ng the players mentioned above will never be test players – the opposite in fact I think they all could be, and agree with you on Tomane. My point is that we shouldn’t be using the Wallabies as a development team, players should be selected only after they have improved their games at SR level. But because our SR teams are so weak and poorly coached in many cases players are hving to be picked when clearly theya re not ready. There’s no Australia A program for instance where many of these guys would benefit.
A classic example this year is Timani, who has improved enourmously in his last 2 games – but was slected as a “project” for 4 or 5 test matches beforehand. If we had 3 provinces, there would be far less of this, to Australian rugby’s benefit IMO.
September 13th 2012 @ 9:28am
cody said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:28am | Report comment
It’s pretty clear that Barnes is mentally not up to it after all his head knocks. He gets the ball, then as Campo correctly observes hesitates then kicks the ball away. This would seem to indicate that he does not want to take on the defence for fear of being injured and receiving another head knock. This may be warranted for him personally (self preservation) but it should not be part of the Wallaby psyche. We need to put in a mentally fit and physically superior attacking player to replace Barnes in his current condition. I think the writing is on the wall for Barnes and his game is getting worse and worse. We need players that can have a massive crack without hestitation and putting their bodies on the line.
September 13th 2012 @ 12:38pm
Frank The Tank said | September 13th 2012 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
I agree with Campo, we need fewer teams so that players get less bargaining power of which province to play for. Our skill level is horrible because they need to be around better players more often and then you will see their skills improve. Our talent is too spread out, and we are becoming too reliant on overseas players coming in to boost our teams.
We never needed 4 teams, let alone a 5th. Did we ever really lose any great talent overseas when we had 3 teams that came back to bite us? Maybe Steve Devine but he was never going to beat Gregan. The money is still so much better overseas, look at Luke Burgess, he still went to France, he’d be starting this week but the money was too good to be true and not to mention the lack of Public scrutiny our team gets at the moment.
You just have to see Genias post match interview with Kafer to know things aren’t right in the wallaby camp
September 13th 2012 @ 6:23am
Demers said | September 13th 2012 @ 6:23am | Report comment
Deans and Meyer are having a competition – who can include the most dropable players the longest. Meyer has once again chosen Morne Steyne. For somebody like you, Campo, who had Knox and Walker at Randwick, and Ella in the test team, Morne has got to make you smack your forehead. And when Barnes tried to thread a grubber through a closing backline in the opening minutes of the Boks test, I’m sure steam came out of your ears. You had the biggest, most accurate punt in the game. How about gently inquiring if you could teach Barnes and Quade how to kick a torpedo, and that it’s not necessary for a right-footed kicker to try a difficult kick like a banana when he’s close to the right-hand touchline. And if Tim Horan is going to teach Barnes anything, ask him to include the technique of running under a roofed ball on the tryline and scoring as Tim so often did.
September 13th 2012 @ 6:23am
moaman said | September 13th 2012 @ 6:23am | Report comment
Campo—You sound like a broken record.
What,precisely,are “our strengths”?
Are they currently? ie strengths.
ps. barnes wasn’t the only Wallaby kicking away possession.In fact other players kicked it more frequently.Some balance and some suggestions-please!
September 13th 2012 @ 1:01pm
Kuruki said | September 13th 2012 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
He may be a broken record but nobody in the top jobs are listening and that is the problem. His insights are bang on the money. The current crop of players are actually going backwards. They are not getting better, they are getting worse.
Genia Beale and Cooper all have attitude issues and they are all well below par.
Robinson is getting older and lazier.
Sharpe is having an extended retirement party.
Pocock has struggled with the weight of captaincy and seems to have come to a standstill in terms of developing his game.
Samo is probably, actually older then Sharpe.
TPN has lost his explosiveness.
Palu is broken.
Barnes has forgotten how to play rugby.
AAC still doesn’t no whether he is arthur or martha
Mitchell is broken and unfit
Ioane has forgotten where the tryline is.
JOC spends more time on his brand then on the paddock.
Every single one of these players have gone backwards none of them have moved forward in recent years. WTF is going on with Australian rugby. The attitude confidence and Aussie swagger has vanished.
September 13th 2012 @ 1:08pm
mania said | September 13th 2012 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
wow Kuruki – not much i can argue with here. a bit sharp and short but pretty accurate
September 13th 2012 @ 2:45pm
moaman said | September 13th 2012 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Kuruki; ” His insights are bang on the money ” —-> I was asking what his “insights” are? Far as I could tell there weren’t any in the above article. You have pointed out some of the ailments……we hope our “experts” can provide some cures……
…..Not just harp on about the diseases. ” Please tell your kids not to use cut out passes as it doesn’t work. “—er….they do sometimes! EG when Cruden threw one to Jane and Corey went over in the corner on Saturday. Cut-out passes have their uses. Maybe not good in overlap situations……
September 20th 2012 @ 6:05pm
Crowmania said | September 20th 2012 @ 6:05pm | Report comment
LOL> Actually the basic idea of the running man carrying the ball is to draw the defence prior to offloading to a teammate running into space. The cutout pass actually hinders this by allowing the defenders to run laterally across the field and they are therefore not “drawn” into the play but free to cover and push the attack into the sidelines – you therefore end up with an attack occuring on the edges being covered by more than one defender. The Wallabies definitely use the cutout pass too frequently and in the wrong situations and i hesitate to say it but it looks like they lack a basic understanding of the dynamics of this great game. I agree with Campo. Sorry GURU. And your comment about not good in overlap situations? LOL. IMO that is one of the ONLY times to use them – to quickly put a man into overlap space before the cover comes over… again mate, just a basic misunderstanding of simple rugby dynamics.
September 13th 2012 @ 9:29pm
Banger said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:29pm | Report comment
Only criticism I have of your analysis is about Ioane, and in fairness I think he has only scored one this year including super rugby and that may have been in the first round. However, when was the last time he recieved the ball in a try scoring opportunity? I honestly can not remember him recieving the ball at the end of a backline at all this yea. They are so intent on using him to get over the advantage line that it has nullified his game massively. I have a feeling that he and shipperly might have a lot more space this weekend with the addition of mcabe to the backline. He is going to give the line directness, go forward and a viable dummy runner to open up space for the rest of the players.
September 14th 2012 @ 7:31am
mick-e said | September 14th 2012 @ 7:31am | Report comment
Just read this post. Where’s the nearest cliff?
September 13th 2012 @ 6:32am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 6:32am | Report comment
I’m not sure Deans hasn’t got the players’ support.
In addition it’s worth remembering that there is currently the worst injury epidemic I can remember. I’m indebted to jeznez for mentioning the following injured team:
1. Kepu
2. Moore
3. Palmer
4. Vickerman
5. Horwill
6. Elsom
7. Pocock
8. Palu
9. White
10. Lealiifano
11. Tomane
12. McCabe
13. O’Connor
14. Vuna
15. Mitchell
September 13th 2012 @ 7:00am
joeb said | September 13th 2012 @ 7:00am | Report comment
Vickerman has retired, Elsom is playing in France.
September 13th 2012 @ 7:17am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 7:17am | Report comment
You miss the point. Both were in contention to play this season but for injury.
In any case they would only have been two out of fifteen.
September 13th 2012 @ 2:34pm
yahyah said | September 13th 2012 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
seriously? i think you over exaggerate the importance of some of those players just to make the list bigger. Did you honestly think that after last year’s performances Rocky Elsom would be reselected? Or Cooper Vuna for that matter during his little stint against Wales? he was a last option and even with the poor stock available now, should never be reselected.
September 13th 2012 @ 7:18am
nickoldschool said | September 13th 2012 @ 7:18am | Report comment
@joeb “Elsom is playing in France”
For which team? last news i heard he failed the medical at Toulon. did he sign anywhere else?
September 13th 2012 @ 8:11am
joeb said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:11am | Report comment
Shhhhhiteeee, what happened there?! Campo’s article went awol for 30 minutes.
“For which team? last news i heard he failed the medical at Toulon. did he sign anywhere else?”
Read it on the Herald-Sun website, though can’t find the article now.
3 or 4 days ago, and he [Rocky] was incensing the ARU as he was approaching – according to the article – at the behest of his new team management other Wallabies to go join him and cause an exodus.
September 13th 2012 @ 8:46am
Atawhai Drive said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Isn’t he at Narbonne, a French second-division outfit?
September 13th 2012 @ 3:11pm
nickoldschool said | September 13th 2012 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
The link eith Narbonne was about a month ago, prior to the one with Toulon. I think his health is definitely of concern for sides (even failed Japan….if you’re not fit enough for japan, dunno in which league you can play…touch footy?)
September 16th 2012 @ 12:13pm
joeb said | September 16th 2012 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Would that be de Racing Club de Narbonne Méditerannée, AD?
Some interesting names there, a certain Monsiur Harrison, and a previous J. Valentine. No sign of an Elsom – ah, what is going on…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RC_Narbonne
Let’s not jump the start, but, erm…
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/a-rocky-start-under-cheika-20120915-25yzo.html
If Cheika does get the nod, and he does seem the man for the troublesome Tahs job, it also augers well for the Wallabies some time after the McKenzie era, which commencement of shouldn’t be too far away now. We may indeed end up with two ‘golden eras’ back to back…
September 16th 2012 @ 12:22pm
joeb said | September 16th 2012 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Bugger this, i’m going for lunch.
September 13th 2012 @ 12:15pm
SkinnyKid said | September 13th 2012 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
if the article is true it goes to show what sort of a bloke Rocky is.
September 13th 2012 @ 8:46am
Brett McKay said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Narbonne is the team I’ve seen mentioned, guys..
September 13th 2012 @ 8:45am
Brett McKay said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:45am | Report comment
KPM, sub in Timani for Vickerman, your point still stands..
September 13th 2012 @ 8:50am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Brett in all the assaults on Deans this season this is one point that is rarely made in defence of the Wallabies’ performance. Obviously a coach should be able to cope with some injuries, but this is an extraordinary plague, and that injured XV would give the current one a good run for their money.
September 13th 2012 @ 8:59am
Brett McKay said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:59am | Report comment
yeah, and that’s a reasonable sign of the gradually growing depth that five teams is producing. I doubt four years ago even, that if an injured XV like this was unavailable that the Wallabies would be as a strong as they still are now (and I say that from a selection perspective, perhaps rather than current form).
All teams and all coaches have to deal with injuries though, this situation isn’t unique to Deans..
September 13th 2012 @ 9:03am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:03am | Report comment
Deans has had many injuries since he took over but never on this scale. In contrast Hansen has hardly any. Meyer has more, but still far fewer, and more depth to choose from anyway.
For me the nadir was a few of years ago when Drew Mitchell was wildly out of form, underperforming, but had to be played nonetheless because there was simply no reasonable alternative (to Mitchell’s credit, his form then improved).
September 13th 2012 @ 9:24am
Hoy said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Shouldn’t that injured XV give the current team a run for it’s money anyway? That injured team would mostly be the starting team for the nation. The current team is mostly the ones that are left available. You would hope first choice selections when fit give the available selections a run for their money, or what were they doing as first choice?
September 13th 2012 @ 9:27am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Hoy I’m trying not to overpraise the injured team but it is very strong. Almost two thirds look to be first choices.
September 13th 2012 @ 10:37am
Hoy said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:37am | Report comment
That is what I am saying. I might have the wrong end of the stick, but people are pointing out the injuries to players citing the injured team as showing depth, and saying that the injured team would push the current team. What I am saying is that 3/4 of the injured team are actually first choice starters. So until the current teams pushes the injured team, I am not sure how good our depth really is.
Having said that, I am of the thought that our selections are holidng back the current team. Pick the right people, and you have a different team dynamic altogether. Taps to 12 alters the make up and plan for a team surely? Horne dropped finally altered how we are able to run and play in the backs, as AAC there gives us someone who get through the line.
September 13th 2012 @ 10:48am
IronAwe said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:48am | Report comment
No ones mentioning the injuries because they aren’t the problem. If the Wallabies were playing well and hard and to an observable game plan, but still losing, we would be talking about the injuries. But this isn’t the case, the Wallabies are playing bad rugby, making stupid mistakes and playing with (seemingly) no direction. This is what we are lamenting. And it isn’t caused by injuries.
(Ed: Is it acceptable to start a sentence with ‘and’?)
September 13th 2012 @ 10:52am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:52am | Report comment
No IronAwe injuries are obviously a problem if half the available talent is wiped out. That’s quite obvious.
September 13th 2012 @ 11:01am
Jutsie said | September 13th 2012 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Kinda of agree with both of you, the issue atm is not only results but the style of rugby the wb’s are playing although if there werent so many injuries there is a possibility that the cohesion in the backline would be better and the defensive structures would also be more effective as the same guys would be playing next to each other week in week out.
Ofcourse that is a hypothetical because who knows who deans would select if all players were available.
September 13th 2012 @ 8:17pm
cody said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:17pm | Report comment
Deans has been in the job nearly 5 years and all these injured players have played and been available. Deans is a hoax and the players are all fed up with him, even the current injured ones. Stop defending and promoting poor coaching, selections, no game plans, lack of communication and poor use of bench. The list goes on with Deans and his carnival capers. The last 5 years are a lost period for the development of AUS rugby.
September 14th 2012 @ 1:04am
IronAwe said | September 14th 2012 @ 1:04am | Report comment
KP, You don’t seriously think we would be winning, whilst playing like this, if we had a full strength team do you? I didn’t mean to suggest that injuries aren’t a problem, but we have greater problems at the moment, causing greater concern, and that’s why no one is mentioning the injuries.
September 13th 2012 @ 9:17am
Ben.S said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:17am | Report comment
This ‘argument’ is borderline farce. KPM, you have taken Elsom to task on many occasions as keeping ‘promising’ players out of the Waratahs set-up, and yet his absence is a loss to Deans? Simply labelling injured players is an absolute nonsense as how many of these players are proven Test performers? White? Vuna? Tomane? Palmer? I could go on… Deans has injuries to deal with, which is unfortunate, but such is life.
September 13th 2012 @ 9:48am
frisky said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Spot on Kingmaker. That is quite a good team that you have selected. That was also my first reaction on reading the Broken Record’s comment about not picking impact players. There are quite a few sitting there injured. Had they been available, the results may well have been different.
I am an AB supporte, (WB second) but I am appalled by the constant vicious criticism of a coach who has had to make do with what is almost a second XV.
The poor barstard cannot state this without demoralising his his second XV, so he has to take this on the chin and keep smiling.
He deseves an Oscar
September 13th 2012 @ 9:53am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:53am | Report comment
frisky you’re right, and by leaving crucial factors out it’s easy to put the blame on a scapegoat.
September 13th 2012 @ 6:42am
AndyS said | September 13th 2012 @ 6:42am | Report comment
So I guess we can put Campo’s name behind the three teams being the Reds (currently successful), the Rebels (don’t want to interfere with that private equity) and the Force (opens up the other broadcast spot and provides that “national” look)? It does have a certain logic – allows the Academy to be located in Sydney and integrated with the Shute Shield comp as a defacto ARC, per the current ARU philosophy. With all that tradition, tribalism and without the distraction of the Waratahs, it should even be well supported and secure in its position as the premier club competition in the country.
September 13th 2012 @ 6:46am
joeb said | September 13th 2012 @ 6:46am | Report comment
“…Berrick Barnes has been kept in the team and moved to fullback to replace Kurtley Beale, who is one of the few attacking weapons in the backline.”
Must agree, while many are saying Beale is seriously out of form, he still remains our best FB and more than likely would shine against the Pumas on Saturday night. He returned to form in Bledisloe 2 after the earlier poor game, and as Marto explained in commentary during the Perth test v Boks, the reason Beale split the ball when he went up for it and the ball bounced off his chest is that he tried to take it front-on as opposed to side-on as FBs should.
“Apparently Tim Horan is mentoring Barnes. Tim was a great player, but what is the incessant kicking all about? Every time Barnes gets it, he hesitates then kicks.”
Barnes at 5/8th and IC seems preoccupied with avoiding the collision, hence his endless kicking away of good possession. Actually his kicking game reminds of Paul McLean. Maybe it’s a Qld thing because in league Berrick played a similar kicking game.
September 13th 2012 @ 11:57am
soapit said | September 13th 2012 @ 11:57am | Report comment
barnes problem lies in
i) he’s not big/strong enough to dominate straight collisions or break tackles when up against anyone but the smallest.
ii) he’s not quick enough to threaten even the slower players on the outside when theres a half gap (read got him in cover in bledisloe 1 when he had an open tryline) or to throw regular doubt into defenders minds when he is marked. he’s also not quick enough to stop defence from drifting off him.
he knows all of these things and knows theres only a very small chance he’ll be able get across the gain line, or set up someone outside him so the only option he’s confident of executing is the kick. so thats what he does.
September 13th 2012 @ 6:47am
WQ said | September 13th 2012 @ 6:47am | Report comment
Yawn……. Same dribble different day!
September 13th 2012 @ 6:56am
joeb said | September 13th 2012 @ 6:56am | Report comment
“Yawn……. Same dribble different day!”
Well then, let’s have your high-brow intellectual input to stimulate things.
September 13th 2012 @ 9:01am
Tissot Time said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:01am | Report comment
With you WQ. My old broken records usually turned into frisbees and got tossed.
September 13th 2012 @ 9:49am
WQ said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Some good advice there Tissot Time, pity Campo seems to keep missing it!
September 13th 2012 @ 2:49pm
Uncle Argyle said | September 13th 2012 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Please don’t tell me you tossed out the Best of Acker Bilk?
September 13th 2012 @ 8:27pm
Tisso Time said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
No Uncle that one is still going strong and always provides the mood for a nice Chateau Neuf Du Pape.
September 13th 2012 @ 10:03am
WQ said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:03am | Report comment
joeb, thank you for the invite to provide my ‘high-brow intellectual input’ I appreciate it.
For the present I will simply make a comment to support my initial thoughts. I have now been reading Campo’s articles for a little while and do not believe that he has offered to much up for debate outside of the modern day players have no skills, no commitment to the Jersey and above all no idea how to play the the good old traditional Australian Running Rugby.
Each of these statements have been shown to be basically unfounded by statistics provided by Roarers with lets say, a little less emotion attached to their opinions.
September 13th 2012 @ 11:58am
soapit said | September 13th 2012 @ 11:58am | Report comment
maybe you could try contributing something to give us an alternative. a little bit more difficult than just complaining about other peoples work admittedly.
September 13th 2012 @ 7:33pm
WQ said | September 13th 2012 @ 7:33pm | Report comment
soapit, I have offered my share of thoughts on the issues inside Australian Rugby.
Interestingly enough they don’t quite grab the headlines like Campo’s, not sure what that’s about?
September 13th 2012 @ 6:53am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 6:53am | Report comment
I think that more rather than fewer teams is the answer. If a single team were added in Western Sydney and another on the Gold Coast, in the states which respectively produce 41% and 31% of Australian players, you would see a radical increase in depth. More players would get chances and fewer would be lost to league as teenagers.
It’s simple in fact.
September 13th 2012 @ 8:31am
mania said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:31am | Report comment
KPM – after the abysmal super rugby that aus served up this season u want to weaken them further and add another couple of teams? isnt this a case of te same old sht being regurgitated and then force fed down the fans throat? aus dont deserve 7 teams, they should never have been allowed a 5th. with all the cannibilising that aus teams do to each other u want more infighting to weaken the over all aus performance in super?
and honestly what value and entertainment will new aus teams offer? will they suddenly become awesome, faster, stroner, entertaining and skillful? no it’ll be the same old rubbish that the force and rebels serve up and then teams like the tah’s getting lonely and joining them at the bottom of the table
September 13th 2012 @ 8:46am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:46am | Report comment
mania Australia deserve as many teams as they want as do New Zealand and South Africa and if the other nations object then they should leave and start their own competition.
Anyway you haven’t noticed the point of having more of them which is to give more opportunities to players and keep young players from going to leageu.
September 13th 2012 @ 8:52am
mania said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:52am | Report comment
sorry KPM – aus have not earnt the right to have more teams. what has aus done to justify having a 5th team let alone a 7th? you will ruin this comp if u just keep adding more and more SOS (same old sht) teams that cant consistently deliver.
your attitude of ” if the other nations object then they should leave and start their own competition” is oddly childish coming from u and not your usual well thought out retort. if this happened where would aus be without SA and NZ to play against?
your battle with league should be fought in marketting not within the super comp. super is not solely about aus. when SA tried to force the PE Kings on SANZAR they were told to pss off and sort out their own politics. how is aus’ fight with league any different? ie its an aus problem ARU sort it out without forcing your solutions on all of SANZAR
September 13th 2012 @ 8:57am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:57am | Report comment
mania the fate of rugby in Australia depends on its Super teams so they should do whatever necessary to ensure they get what they want, as should New Zealand and South Africa. If New Zealand suddenly wanted three more teams I would say let them have them. Same with South Africa.
September 13th 2012 @ 9:05am
mania said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:05am | Report comment
the fate of aus rugby maybe in the balance but why does sanzar have to fix it? ARU fkd it up thru a century of doing nothing and now sanzar has to come to the rescue? why isnt aru taking responsibilty and trying to fix it?
port elizabth was SA’s political hot potatoe and were told to sort it out. how is this any different? super rugby isnt your playing ground for experimenting and saving aus rugby. its a business that has to make a profit to survive. more aus teams would kill it off then all sanzar would be in strife. lets not kill the cow just to get more milk
September 13th 2012 @ 9:44am
cody said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:44am | Report comment
By spreading out the good Super players to prop up new teams will only dilute the successful franchises, plain and simple. Expansion has been the ruination of so many sporting teams and commercial businesses, it’s not the panacea. Contraction needs to be considered in many cases especially in the current economic climate.
September 13th 2012 @ 9:50am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:50am | Report comment
cody wrong, it has precisely the opposite effect in a case like Australia where the playing numbers in the country are too high for the number of team places to house them. That when more capacity is created the playing numbers don’t come through immediately does not mean they won’t.
September 13th 2012 @ 10:00am
cody said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:00am | Report comment
Playing numbers in Australia are a myth. Sure we may have lots of players wanting to play at the Super level, but realistically how many are truely up to it? Surely we can develop a winning National team picking from the cream of 4 franchises that are full to the brim of quality options. The reality is that we can’t even fill our existing franchises with top class players, if we could we would not need imports or calls to allow more imports which have been getting louder and louder. Expansion for the sake of expansion is dumb.
September 13th 2012 @ 10:06am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:06am | Report comment
No myth, pure numbers.
It takes time for the players to come through and replace already established figures. Look at the Waratahs. S.Timani had to go to three franchises to get a match.
Of course having teams in new areas, despite the long term benefits, means that they are away from the immediate sources of players which is NSW and QLD.
Hoardes of players are lost as teenagers to the NRL because there aren’t enough teams to house them, talented players such as Pyle and Neville can’t get a game because there aren’t enough teams. But the teams need to be local to the talent supply, that means more in NSW and QLD (having teams in Melbourne and Perth is a longer term investment).
September 13th 2012 @ 10:21am
cody said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:21am | Report comment
It took S.Timani that long as he was simply not up to standard previously and Pyle, Neville have been playing all year if i am not mistaken. Plus funding new franchises takes $$$ and lots of it. Commercial reality needs to come into this debate and stake holders will not be there as the playing strength is already clearly inadequate.
September 13th 2012 @ 10:30am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Pyle and Neville only played because there was a new franchise. That’s the whole point. You need the extra spaces for the talent available to get a chance. Timani didn’t play because they couldn’t identify talent properly.
You seem unable to understand that the playing strength of a team initially will come from foreign imports and NRL converts with the strongest rugby backgrounds like Tomane and Saffy. This ensures competitiveness until playing numbers come through.
September 13th 2012 @ 10:46am
cody said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:46am | Report comment
“This ensures competitiveness until playing numbers come through”- nothing is ensured, especially in professional sport. If as you say the new teams will be made up of foreign imports and NRL converts how will the existing rugby players get a spot as the imports and NRL players won’t just leave especially if they are successfull. In any event further expansion wont happen as the ARU could not get the ARC to work, with money being a major factor. You can theorise all you like. Can we please get back to reality.
September 13th 2012 @ 10:50am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:50am | Report comment
The team would be largely made of these groups, but there would be space for the likes of Pyle and Neville. When such players arrived they would replace probably the foreign imports: the club would decide who went. It’s quite simple.
September 13th 2012 @ 8:29pm
cody said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:29pm | Report comment
“Simple” lol, if that was the case smarter brains than you would be making it happen now.
September 13th 2012 @ 2:46pm
yahyah said | September 13th 2012 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
i’d have to agree with KPM here. Mania the problem is not the depth. the problem is that while we are introducing a 5th team, they decide to bring in players from elsewhere to fill them up. why were Mark Gerrard and Mortlock even in the Rebels team? if anything they should have been given a role in the golden oldies move: Expendables 2. Then they add JOC and KB and a couple Northerners (although i can’t argue with Gareth Delve). But if 5 teams were put in different states for better development, then why are they still punting for players already on the table? instead of looking for a loose forward within the grassroots level the Rebels are opting for Scott Higginbotham. or the Brumbies with Pocock and Waratahs with Hooper. i think there is too much of a concern over being a losing team instead of worrying about developing young’ns instead.
September 13th 2012 @ 8:49am
Brett McKay said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:49am | Report comment
KPM, with two more teams added tomorrow, we’d see a gradual increase in depth, not a radical increase. We’d certainly see a radical increase in playing numbers, but it would be a false assumption to run with that those extra two teams worth would be full of Test-quality players. Even with five teams now, we’re still only seeing a gradual increase in the depth behind the Wallabies.
For what it’s worth, I disagree with Campo’s suggetsion of less teams fixing the problems as well, but more teams is not a quick fix either..
September 13th 2012 @ 8:56am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Brett if those new teams were full of Australians they wouldn’t immediately be great, and so at the beginning imports and league converts would have to prop up the competitiveness of the teams. Then within 5 years many new players would come through, the Pyles and Nevilles who would only be getting chances with more opportunities and the Waerea-Hargeaves/Tomanes/Saffys who would get offered a place and so wouldn’t go to league.
So I agree the effect would be gradual and certainly for the first World Cup cycle after wouldn’t make much difference, perhaps a few players. But the one after I think the difference would be big. The problem of course is the impatience of the Australian media/public for immediate results from long-term decisions, hence the hullaballoo this season over the Rebels’ and Force’s competitiveness. Big structural changes take time to have an effect and it may be up to five years for it to be seen, but to fix problems of this nature takes time (a reason indeed why more patience could have been shown with a national competition).
Australia does have the playing numbers but it takes time for them to come through and that’s assuming there are the opportunities for them to come through.
Paul Cully in an interview with Wayne Smith said that Smith thought that while the extra team had dispersed the talent, it would in time generate more depth and I think that’s right. Perhaps a point that could be added is that if the Rebels had recruited better, fewer old and injured players, more forwards, and the Force had a higher import allowance, then neither would have to be that weak while the playing numbers came through either.
September 13th 2012 @ 9:02am
mania said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:02am | Report comment
KPM – aus’ lack of depth is due to sht grass roots systems. this solution is short sighted and doesnt address the cause just the symtoms. initially these teams would be stacked with imports and leagies. how will new players be found?
any kid with promise in rugby where would that kid go to upskill? no where because there isnt any support or lower tiers in aus domestic rugby
the reason they all go to league is because at an early age they have comps to play in right up to the reserves. what does rugby have? nothing for public school kids where the majority of cattle is supposed to come from.
September 13th 2012 @ 9:06am
Brett McKay said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:06am | Report comment
You make some valid points KPM, and I’m glad you’ve pulled back on the increases in depth, but at this point I’m going to disappoint you (again, probably) and say that I think Australia hase as many teams currently as they want, need, can handle, and can afford.
Now is a good time for consolidation. If in five years time, there’s five Australian sides in the top 10 of SR and three in the finals, then it might be time to look at growth, but not before.
Anyway, this thread isn’t about Super Rugby, we need to get back on message..
September 13th 2012 @ 9:15am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Brett indeed this is an old issue and even if the whole universe agreed that the ARU should do something, they would be certain not to do it. Personally I’m not sure rugby has time to slowly consolidate now the NRL has 1 billion and is plotting 18 teams.
The discussion I don’t feel has been too off message as the article originally argued that fewer teams should be put in place and I think by showing how more can increase depth, that point has been countered. But in any case it seems to be winding down.
September 13th 2012 @ 9:30am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:30am | Report comment
One point has just occurred to me Brett for the very first time ever so although not to continue a discussion I’ll say it while I remember. Aside from competition from the NRL, could the very reason that the Australian player pool declined after professionalism be that they had fewer Super teams to house their talent than the other SANZAR countries?……..
September 13th 2012 @ 9:41am
Brett McKay said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:41am | Report comment
keep that thought, but you’ll have to explain it to me better than that another day on the right thread, I’m not sure I follow you..
September 13th 2012 @ 9:15am
Tissot Time said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:15am | Report comment
KPM, you say five years to see a change. The six year old Force will have a breakout year and be great,when?
September 13th 2012 @ 9:21am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:21am | Report comment
TT I would say the Force have already given chances to the likes of JOC and Pocock and that they probably need to be propped up more by foreign imports than they are at the moment.
However in the case I referred to, that of adding a team in Western Sydney and the Gold Coast the case is different from Perth or Melbourne. These are completely new rugby areas which will take much longer to produce home-grown talent as the game must first grow, although of course given their size it is well worth waiting. In NSW and QLD however, you have two rugby heartlands awash with talent unable to crack the Waratahs or Reds squads, who are therefore lost to league or fester in club rugby. So with much more available than in the new markets, it would take much less time to fill the teams with home-grown talent. NSW produces 41% of Australian rugby players and QLD 31%.
September 13th 2012 @ 9:59am
Sailosi said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:59am | Report comment
The performance of a national team is not entirely dependant on the playing depth of the nation in question. I agree with KPM, more teams are required not less, this is even more important in Australia whereby every promising player needs to be kept and held onto, good players can’t be let slip through the cracks because of a lack of opportunities.
I went through the Aussie super rugby squads of 2001, a successful Wallaby year and the depth with 3 teams was shocking.
September 13th 2012 @ 10:11am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:11am | Report comment
Sailosi at various times lists of NRL players who played for the Australian schoolboys or state level come up here and they are long, and of course all from NSW or QLD. Add to that the likes of Pyle and Neville who would never get games without an extra team, and within five years I think there would be a flood of new players.
The reason this hasn’t happened so fully in WA and Melbourne is that they are far from the source of these players. But the point of those teams (and a hypothetical Adelaide one) is different, to create totally new markets and players in the longer term.
I would say that if you founded a Western Sydney and Gold Coast team tomorrow, initially based on imports and NRL recruits with strong rugby backgrounds, within five years you would see many more players coming through and more depth in the game.
But that would take boldness and vision.
September 13th 2012 @ 10:25am
Sailosi said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Whenever i watch Leicester i cringe at the sight of Steve Mafi. To think he was let go from Australian rugby at age 20 because he “couldn’t put on weight” is astonishing. He is now in the top 3 no6″s in the world and is an athletic freak all at age 22.
September 13th 2012 @ 10:32am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Sailosi there is also clearly a problem with talent identification, as shown by the inability to perceive Timani’s talent.
September 13th 2012 @ 11:13am
Brett McKay said | September 13th 2012 @ 11:13am | Report comment
KPM, you’ve dragged me back in!! I don’t think Timani is as good an example for talent identification as you think.
The fact the two other sides gave him another chance after he was let go shows that teams (all three teams, in fact) certainly could see his obvious talent. But the fact that two sides let him go also shows that Timani clearly had trouble converting that evident talent into performance. At the end of the day, performance – not talent – is what earns selection, and in those early days at he Brumbies and Force, he simply wasn’t performing.
That has nothing to do with talent perception; clearly the talent was recognised..
September 13th 2012 @ 11:27am
Sailosi said | September 13th 2012 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Let’s not forget Brett that Timani was gone, he had signed with the NEC Green Rockets and was looking to join his older brother Sione in representing Tonga at the 2011 world cup. It was only realised by Deans not the waratahs what his upside was and the ARU negotiated for him to return to Australia after a season in Japan.
September 13th 2012 @ 11:32am
Brett McKay said | September 13th 2012 @ 11:32am | Report comment
of course Sailo, but that doesn’t change what I’ve said. His talent WAS recognised, it was his performance that let him down..
September 13th 2012 @ 8:25pm
cody said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:25pm | Report comment
Exactly Brett, it wasn’t poor talent identification (he had lots of interest and opportunities), it was sub standard performance, plain and simple, that was his problem.
September 13th 2012 @ 11:38pm
Short-Blind said | September 13th 2012 @ 11:38pm | Report comment
Brett/KPM an adjunct to your point discussion. In the coaching world Performance = Potential (talent) minus any interference ( or barrier). In Timani’s case I’m not sure what the barriers were in his way that prevented him performing at the top level ie to his full potential. It could be poor coaching (lots of talk about that amongst AUS S15 franchises), lack of fitness, lack of confidence, lack of game time/continuity, lack of experience, lack of belief or a combination of this and many other things. So, in support of Brett, it’s not that the S15 teams didn’t recognize Timani’s potential ( they did), rather they were unable to remove the barriers that were preventing him reaching this potential so he could maximize performance. RD to his credit (and I’m no longer a fan) has managed to grow Timani’s performance in recent tests (well for most of us except FOS). I’m in the camp that poor coaching and development systems are to blame for this – see Sailosi’s Mafi example.
September 14th 2012 @ 8:33am
Ben.S said | September 14th 2012 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Sailosi, I know you’re very passionate about Pacific rugby, but how is Mafi in the top 3 6s in world rugby when he’s not even the best 6 at the Tigers? He is a very good player, but he plays behind one of the most dominant packs in Europe and when he came to England he was nowhere near ready for European rugby. The Tigers developed him over time, so at that juncture Australian rugby wasn’t exactly losing out.
September 13th 2012 @ 12:32pm
Sailosi said | September 13th 2012 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
Brett, yes the talent was recognised but with limited pro spots available in Australia teams unfortunately and to the detriment of Aussie rugby look for immediate return on their investment. There is a fifth franchise now but when Timani was being shipped around there was 4. Tight forwards take time to mature and grow into their body, but with only 4 franchises it was hard to keep hold of a player who wasn’t providing immediate performance so what other option did he have? Move to an overseas club. Maybe if Australia had another 1 or 2 franchises players like Mafi and Timani would have been given more of a chance to develop. With limited franchises it basically means that if your 21-22 and not a world beater, organisations get impatient, they start looking elsewhere and the player does to.
September 13th 2012 @ 8:33pm
cody said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
Sounds like a new Pacific Island SR team would solve all your concerns.
September 13th 2012 @ 9:47pm
Banger said | September 13th 2012 @ 9:47pm | Report comment
Rightly or wrongly Melbourne were introduced too soon. Australian super rugby teams had only reestablished themselves again following the introduction of the Force, and there was no time given for the teams to consolidate. Rebels introduced five years too early, regardless of the long term benefits to the game it is going to result in Australia underperforming in Super rugby for the forseeable future. Thats without even looking at the impact that this has had on the stability of the Force and their battle to consolidate themselves as a club.
September 13th 2012 @ 10:03pm
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:03pm | Report comment
No that’s not the case: the problem is that the Rebels recruited the oldest dirty dozen of Australian players available and hardly bothered recruiting anyone in the forwards.
The Rebels model and concept was fine, but the execution was flawed.
September 13th 2012 @ 10:13am
WQ said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:13am | Report comment
KPM, unfortunately I don’t think so.
A fundamental issue with more Teams in Australia is success. To grow and expand you must have success.
More Teams means further depleting of the already shallow pool of top notch players. This then leads to marginal Teams getting, not beaten, but flogged repeatedly. The fans dry up, even more importantly the Television audience drys up, then the money drys up.
Australian Rugby needs to focus on having 4 of its established 5 Super Rugby Franchises regularly looking like they could win the thing first.
September 13th 2012 @ 10:28am
Sailosi said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Then why not use one of Rugby’s greates strengths, the substantial player base it enjoys. I’ll tell you now my 7 and 9 year old nephews aren’t interested in watching glorified academy teams run around. They couldn’t care less about where a player comes from, they love rugby and want to watch the best.
September 13th 2012 @ 10:48am
kingplaymaker said | September 13th 2012 @ 10:48am | Report comment
WQ I don’t think you need success to grow and expand.
More teams doesn’t mean depleting other teams if the new teams are made of imports and NRL converts with strong rugby backgrounds, and if the bases of the team are those two groups then the team would be competitive.
Then the playing number would come through and these starting players would be replaced.
Teams need to be competitive for fans to watch: they don’t need to win the tournament.
September 13th 2012 @ 11:39am
WQ said | September 13th 2012 @ 11:39am | Report comment
We will have to agree to disagree re: the ingredients for expansion KPM, in my opinion nothing breeds expansion and growth like success.
I understand your opinion about just where you think you could get the additional players from. My response to that would be though to have a look at how successful that has been for the Rebels. So far not a great return and they are still a long way from the type of success that they need before looking like a winning Super Rugby Franchise.
To attract players to a Rugby Franchise you need one of three things 1 – Success, 2 – Success, 3 – Money
Unfortunately the money comes with success!
September 13th 2012 @ 1:59pm
Halleys Comet said | September 13th 2012 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
KPM I’ll end up cancelling my Fox sports if Aus teams don’t succeed in playing attractive, skilled rugby, yes it does need to be successful, unlike 2012 3 Aus Super teams. I support BMc’s assertion, time to pause the expansion of teams and consolidate, else the entertainment product (= happy fans) will dry up and implode..
September 13th 2012 @ 6:53am
joeb said | September 13th 2012 @ 6:53am | Report comment
“Believe me, I do get sick of talking about the same thing week-in, week-out. Am I expecting too much from the players? Perhaps I should be diplomatic and say everything is going well.”
Stephen Moore summed it up at the conclusion of Bledisloe 2: “We need a review of what we’re doing from top to bottom.”
September 13th 2012 @ 7:13am
AndyS said | September 13th 2012 @ 7:13am | Report comment
I assumed that “a review of what we’re doing from top to bottom” was the polite way of saying “to find out why our tactics make us look like we have our heads up our bums”…
September 13th 2012 @ 7:21am
joeb said | September 13th 2012 @ 7:21am | Report comment
He looked very dejected, that was plain to see.
Also this talk that Deans could be headed to the Waratahs may be valid as Cheika’s link to the Tahs looks ever more fragile, according to Brett Harris in The Australian today, though as if the incumbent Wallas coach has anything new to offer them other than more of the same that the national squad has endured for the past 4 and a bit years.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/rugby-union/michael-cheikas-link-to-waratahs-looking-fragile/story-e6frg7o6-1226472853774
September 13th 2012 @ 12:22pm
jeznez said | September 13th 2012 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Interesting Joeb – the SMH is running the exact opposite story saying Cheika has re-established himself as favourite.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/cheikas-blueprint-for-success-impresses-tahs-20120912-25srk.html
September 13th 2012 @ 12:30pm
Brett McKay said | September 13th 2012 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Jez, I made the comment on twitter earlier that the fact different people are telling different journos different things is probably a fair reflection of where this is all up to..
September 13th 2012 @ 3:17pm
jeznez said | September 13th 2012 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
Brett, the SMH report says that an announcement is due within the next week – can’t wait for it all to be sorted. Bit rough that Gaffney has pretty much finalised the squad when the coach is that near to being announced.
The conflicting stories doesn’t actually surprise me, I assume it is just two different board members. One who wants Cheika and one who doesn’t and each is talking to their preferred journo.
Board members in disagreement and airing their private opinions in the press seems like standard Waratah operating behaiviour to me!
September 13th 2012 @ 3:24pm
Jutsie said | September 13th 2012 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
THe most important question is either board member the infamous “radio”?
September 13th 2012 @ 8:32am
Andrew C (waikato) said | September 13th 2012 @ 8:32am | Report comment
I heartily agree with David Campese’s future solution for Aussie rugby >>> 3 Super 15 Franchises (actually the Jaapies need to drop to 4 , we in NZ can still cope with 5 ……….. so back to Super 12 again???
). The academy idea is first rate. Meanwhile YOU in OZ rugby have got some problems to sort through / deal with – meanwhile, get your best players back healthy & fit for next season and get the right attitude into them when they take on the touring Lions next year.
September 20th 2012 @ 6:23pm
Crowmania said | September 20th 2012 @ 6:23pm | Report comment
Nice Andrew.
The difference between NZ and OZ rugby really is that NZ has the Heartland championship which sits under and is a stepping stone to the Super Rugby and is a good development ground for second tier and up and coming players. OZ rugby has no such development vehicle, but badly needs one.