Drop 'em in the deep end

Sheek, You are absolutely right. The vast majority of these players had at least some international experience before their inclusion in the various world cup squads. Relatively few of them had the benefit of Super 12/14 or Australia A / Junior All Blacks systems as we know them today let alone today's rugby academies etc. With such preparation the deep end is no longer quite so deep. As we've seen many times before, making comparisons between generations is always difficult particularly given the rate of change that rugby has undergone in the last several years. I would guess that Lachlan Turner, with no tests under his belt, would be better prepared in some areas for a world cup than John Eales was after four tests. As you mentioned, John Eales had four tests under his belt before the 1991 world cup. Australia has played seven tests this year already. A guy like Lachlan Turner could have easily racked up similar numbers to Eales by now. As Sam Taulelei pointed out that would have required astute judement on behalf of the selectors. Tuqiri's forced layoff presented the opportunity and Turner's performances and maturity showed there was limited risk. Sam's further point that all of the mentioned cases require a bit deeper analysis is of course right. No two players' careers are the same. I put this list together to address the statements of David Campese and others that the world cup is no place for blooding youth. In an ideal world the succession plan Sheek mentioned would have taken care of this issue.

Jameswm, Who is Sam Hill? Only joking!!! (PS - my PC is kaput, must get a new one, so am not ignoring any emails you may have sent). Garth, I would have thought being thrown in the deep end, would mean being selected for the WC with no prior tests, or having played a couple of tests in the year of the WC. In your examples above, Micheal Jones fits the bill. John Eales also, who debuted in 1991, & had played in 4 tests leading into the WC. But many of your other examples debuted the previous one or two years - Horan, Kearns, Daly, Little, Fitzpatrick, Lomu, Leonard, Benazzi, etc. There are so mnay tests these days, even a guy selected for his first test of a WC year in June, will have played 20 tests by October (ha, ha, ha, ha - sorry, cyniscism doesn't become me). Having had time to refelect on the Wallaby squad, at least the selections were consistent. You can't throw in new guys like Polota-Nau or Turner, or throw out old hands like Gregan & Larkham, unless you had a succession plan in place. Which Australian rugby clearly hasn't had these past 3 years.

Matt, et al. Regretfully there's not much we can do about the RWC team as it stands now. Of course, injuries might allow some like Turner to be flown in, but I don't hold your breath. Following RWC the new OZ coach can look forward to Tri N, and Bledisloe contests without worrying about (overhyped?) RWC, and play the kids we know now PLUS some just finishing school today. Based on the few glimpse I've had of new boys, plus the return of proven players like Rathbone, it's going to be exciting with much silverware coming our way. Jools-USA

By running your eye down the list of cups it's interesting how in each world cup there are successively fewer 'rookie risks'. Yes there's more pressure on the game these days as Ben says, but I think we've also got to take into account how much the strength, size and skill of professional players has changed over the years. It's a lot more difficult to drop a 19 or 20 year old into a situation like a RWC; we all know how important defence is to the Wallaby game plan. Which in many ways is a pity. While Beale is obviously not there yet, there's still room for Turner's speed and rugby nous on the wing. It would be a pity to see these silky qualities lost in return for a bigger set of thighs and pecs and LT/Sailor style bulldozing runs.

I would agree that PN was unlucky. However would his injury risk profile had an impact on the selection Far more learned bloggers please feel free to comment

stillmissit where is the f***ing gamble with Polota-Nau? The guy has several tests under his belt, albeit as a replacement, as well as probably 15-25 S12-14 games, several as starting hooker for one of the stronger sides. He is used to playing with two of the props and one of the two locks, not to mention most of the backrowers. How could selecting PN have been seen as a gamble? He has more tests than Hardman I reckon!!! Disgrace Conolly.

ARUJ I would suggest to you that this squad has not been picked to win the World Cup for Australia rather to put up a good showing and minimise risk. This will make the coach and administrators look OK and then the old chestnut of "Not enough class players around" will be brought out to air. Hardman is barely a S14 hooker in my opinion let alone a Wallaby but good luck to him. Regarding Polatau Nao I think the front row in a world cup is not the place to take a gamble pity he was injured this year. If John Connolly wanted to minimise risk Jeremy Paul would have been an excellent back up hooker. My thoughts are if you were going to France to win a world cup why wouldn't you take the fastest winger in Australia? I would. We have little speed out wide Lote and Gerrard have both been caught from behind with the try line open this season. What else do you need to be shown as a coach? Also whenever Stirling has broken though there has been few players running off him and that is why the Staniforth try in Melbourne was unusual. I truly believe that if by some stroke of fortune we win the World Cup it will be down to some great work from the forwards feeding in decending order: Mortlock, Giteau, Latham and possibly Larkham. It will not be from our first choice wings of Gerrard and Lote.

In real terms Garth's examples are of players with a few tests. They were not debutantes. Also, players like Beale and Turner did play in the Australian A scenario....I leave that for those who wish to look into that collection of performances!! In regard to Cockbain's selection sending the wrong message, I fail to see how! The WC is not a place for the new and untried. I applaud Cockbains selection as an additional tough uncompromising player. I don't expect any up and comer will have tossed his boots away in disgust. If the money is right and the carrot of 2011 is strong enough they will stay in the game for their well earned shot The squad is the squad, selected with one purpose in mind....attempt to win.

I think to an extent every comment has ignored the obvious point. The WC WOULD be a tough place to initiate someone, I agree. By why in Sam Hill weren't the younger guys given a go in the other games. If you are worried Lachie Turner can't handle test rugby, stick him in against games we are supposed to win comfortably, like Fiji and Wales. If h handles that, move it up a notch to TriNations rugby. The thing about Turner is every time they step him up to another level, he almost sems to stand out more. As for Polota-Nau's omission, that is truly shameful. Hardman is no more than a plodder, Polota-Nau is a world beater - even now. And I'm looking right at you Ewen when I say he wasn't given nearly enough of a go in S14. The whole set piece issue with him - he is at least as good as any other hooker in the country (or was till Moore got so many goes) in the scrum and his lineout throwing is usually good nut needs match practice. How does he get that practice getting splinters in his bum? When you compare them around the field it is a joke.

Ben and Spiro good points both of you. The coaching staff are not rewarded for bringing in new talent and bringing in new talent isnt always easy to establish. We tend to look back on the Phil Kearns' of this world and think it was obvious but Phil K particularly struggled in his early days. Therefore the big V when he stuck it up the AB's as it was such a relief to get that monkey off his back. I would have picked Turner and left Gerrard at home. Gerrard is a great S14 and club player but is too slow at wing for the Wallabies. After this WC: We need to give Lachlan Turner, Berrick Barnes and the other youngsters the time to prove what they have.I believe that Berrick Barnes is the natural successor to Larkham if he doesnt go back to league. We also need to bring Clyde Rathbone into the centres to add some punch and speed off the bench. At 26 yrs of age his speed won't last and by all accounts from my SA mate he was fantastic in the centres.

Except for John Eales, all the new World Cup stars mentioned by Garth are backs or loose forwards. This suggests that a player like Lachlan Turner could have been, should ave been, selected for the 2007 Wallabies World Cup campaign. Blooding young players isn't always immediately successful. George Gregan had a terrible tournament in 1995 and would not have been a Wallaby regular some years, if ever, if Steve Merrick, his successor, had not given away big time rugby in 1996 on the grounds that he did not want to be a professional rugby player. Of course, the All Black selectors have done what the Wallaby selectors should have done and have selected Brendon Leonard in their World Cup squad after one season of Super 14.

Lke, Your point is good, specially about English forwards aging, but now 3 years later Ashton keeps on playing vintage (read tired), backs against other teams young 'uns. Witness Robinson, Cohen, et al. Lots of citicism of Muscle's omissions, but Ashton is really living in the past. Jools-USA

I'm not quite sure why - but you haven't mentioned England's 2003 win? And how the battle hardened/weary old boys managed to win. Then retired and left a gaping hole in English rugby. Perhaps this is one of the best examples in recent years of the need to continuely blood younger players rather than throw everything at one world cup and hope for the best. If England hadn't won the WC then the team since 2003 would just be a rubbish team, rather than current world champions (who aren't very good anymore).

Part of the problem is coaching has (professionally not necessarily on the field) become a tougher gig. McKenzie has been warned that further poor performance will not be tolerated. Nucifora is axed (and may be again!) because the players weren't happy, and Queensland's coaching ranks since Connolly left have been a bloodbath. When your job is on the line in just about every game, it is oh-so-tempting to pick the proven performer over the potential star. That way, if things don't work out the proven performer must have been wrong, not the coach, as he has proven his ability in the past. If the potential star fails to perform, the coach gets it in the neck for picking someone too inexperienced/too young/not skilled enough etc. The current climate of holding coaches too accountable (and this is true in just about every sport) breeds such conservatism. Even with such conservatism, it is amazing Turner couldn't get a run. Particularly when Gerrard and Mitchell have been so flat.

It's ironic when you consider that under Bob Dwyer many unproven players were introduced to the Wallabies - David Campese, Tony Daly, Phil Kearns etc and in NZ we bemoaned the fact that All Black selectors weren't bold enough to take a gamble on youth. Now the tables have turned, Bob always believed that if you were good enough, then you were old enough. I agree that John's selection erred on the side of caution, but it's hard to be too critical given the circumstances he got the job in the first place. Eddie wasted two years on not developing talent in Australian rugby and John's been given the job of winning the world cup with less than two years to prepare. Matt Cockbain's selection sends all the wrong messages and reminds me of Laurie Mains decision to pick Mike Brewer in the All Blacks in 1993 against England ahead of Liam Barry. What really angered the NZ public was that Mike Brewer wasn't even a member of the touring squad, he was in the UK on business. Lachlan Turner in my opinion should have been selected as the only uncapped player.

Sam I think your opening statement says it all. In Australia we lack these criteria. We seen to lack astute judgement in the key area of being able to pick a player who could most probably step up and then backing them until they prove they cannot make it. Since Bob Dywer we seem to have been unable or, more likely, unwilling to pick the players then take the risk on them until they are a proven performer through 10 Wallaby appearances for 10 mins. I think this is poor management and is reflected in our results over the last few years. There seems to be a lot of whinging about lack of player depth but the coaches won't give the young players any reasonable time on the park to prove themselves and gain some confidence. Drop them in the deep end once you believe they can handle it but don't abandon them like we did with Pat Howard after one match at 5/8 against the All Blacks I think at the House Of Pain.

Garth You make the point that the exanmples you offer weren't garden variety players. I am sure that there are some debutants around the same time as each who were forgettable. However we don't really know who will step up and fulfil their promise and who will sink (I am looking at you Huxley) until we try them. Unfortunately we have such a conservative selection in the RWC squad that its hard to see any up and comers having a real chance. I agree with you that some of the younger players could have been given a shot, at least in the pool matches. (Does anyone really think we will run our full strength team in every match? So forging combinations against, say Fiji, is not that crucial to overlook younger players.) I can forgive not picking Beale. He is young and hasn't really come into his full development. He needs another year or so of toughening in provincal/ARC/club rugby before he is ready for internationals. On the other hand, I can't see any reason not to pick Polota-Nau (unless he was still injured) and Turner. I also think that some others like Horwill, Mumm, Wallace-Harrison and Cross could have been chosen but their selection was not as compelling. That said, if Palu or Lyons break down (which seems likely at least one won't make the squad) I will be absolutely disgusted if Connolly calls up Cockbain. He was a great toiler for Australia but overlooking the next crop of talent for a semi-retired player would be inexcusable.

Agree with you Sam but i guess the point Garth's making is that all those decisions you've mentioned can only be made if there is a genuine desire to include youngsters. In the case of Connolly and Co this year that just isn't the case as evidenced by the call up of Matt Cockbain. If Connolly was AB coach in 95 would he have picked Lomu or would he have tried to find a more safe alternative?

Selection is a combination of astute judgement, opportunity and risk. All those examples (and I'm sure there are others that aren't mentioned) in isolation display a level of foresight by those coaches that isn't evident in the selection of some world cup squads for France. But history is more than just facts and figures, the real truth lies in the stories surrounding those selections. For example in 1987 Jock Hobbs was the incumbent no.7 for New Zealand but had to retire before the world cup due to concussions he received, while you could argue that Michael Jones would have been selected anyway on pure form, Hobbs retirement certainly made the decision easier. Same goes for a young Sean Fitzpatrick, it was only due to the injury suffered by All Black captain Andy Dalton that he got his chance to cement the position. Jonah Lomu only made the 1995 team by the skin of his teeth, he had failed to pass the exacting fitness camps that Laurie Mains had made part of the selection process and on the advice of Peter Thorburn, sent Jonah to play sevens rugby to improve his fitness, the rest is rugby folklore. We will never know why talented youngsters like Lachlan and Kurtley weren't selected for Australia this year but it's never as black and white as you might think.

You can add Josh Kronfeld to the the list - he debuted in 1995. Also, Carter wasn't really given an opportunity to flourish in 2003 (unfortunately).