The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Picking a better Wallaby forward pack

Roar Guru
21st May, 2009
7
2695 Reads
Australia's Wallabies react after their 19-14 loss to New Zealand's All Blacks during their Bledisloe Cup match in Hong Kong Saturday, Nov. 1, 2008. AP Photo/Kin Cheung

Australia's Wallabies react after their 19-14 loss to New Zealand's All Blacks during their Bledisloe Cup match in Hong Kong Saturday, Nov. 1, 2008. AP Photo/Kin Cheung

I was pleased with some of the risky choices taken by Deans and the other selectors with the Wallaby squad. I do, however, question not so much the more controversial decisions, but rather some of the less controversial ones, particularly in regards to his forward choices.

Some potential chances to develop players were missed in exchange for keeping experience in the ranks and I don’t feel this was a necessity.

The general squad makeup isn’t bad, and I fully understand that the ARU was probably pressured to only name a squad of 29 not only because of the injury crisis to some of last year’s key players, but also because of the situation of the economy.

The key issue in choosing a smaller squad for me is that there is no Australia A program this year.

Without this program the middle tier of players are going to be sent back to the club ranks and so a terrific option for development has been missed. Wouldn’t it make more sense to name a larger squad of, say, 35?

This would allow the coaching staff to get a better look at the players right on the edge of making the team. Now, there are obviously a few players who missed out on Wallaby squad spots to keep blokes like Sharpe and Waugh around.

I’m not saying those two shouldn’t stay, I’m just saying that even with those two, there is surely room for more.

Advertisement

I have many issues with the frontrow.

Obviously Robinson and Alexander pick themselves. Both are young enough to have at least a couple more World Cups in them.

Choosing Cowan is a decision I agree with. He has been a decent scrummager and terrific in the loose for at least two seasons now. I think with a better pack around him, he may even get a chance to improve his scrummaging.

Only time will tell.

So what is the problem with these propping choices?

Well, these men are all loose-heads and the only tight head chosen was Baxter. Baxter is a good player but I doubt his ability to run out for 80 minutes every week.

We will be able to squeeze another World Cup out of old Al, but we can’t lean on his as our one and only. There aren’t many good tightheads in Australia, but Shepherdson has had a decent season and I do think he deserves at least the occasional Wallaby bench spot.

Advertisement

I don’t think the time between now and the Tri-Nations is anywhere near long enough to convert any of these three Loose-Heads into Tight-heads. Even though the front row situation may sound a bit dire, I am extremely happy Fairbrother’s sudden declaration of his “Aussie” eligibility didn’t play out as he wished.

This would only serve to cheapen the green and gold just as similar selection choices have cheapened the Azzuri blue.

I do agree with our Hooker selections of Moore and Polota-Nau, but I think a third hooker is needed.

We simply cannot just wait for Frier to fix himself up. Even before injury, he wasn’t exactly menacing this year and he is surely out of form.

I think Edmonds would have been a terrific extra option at 16. If we start now, he could be a awesome option come World Cup time.

Onto the Second-Row.

A lot of their issues are linked to the Back-Row seeing as we have not one but TWO Lock/Blind-Siders in our squad.

Advertisement

I am not disappointed with the selection of either Sharpe or Horwill. Sharpe has done some good work this year, as has Horwill.

The issue is that Horwill has not had much game time of late and should not be rushed back into international starting duty. This issue would have been clearly rectifiable if three specialist locks were named.

Mumm and Kimlin are not purely locks and thus are not exactly the biggest in the size department.

I put it forward that these two men should not be starting at 4 or 5, but rather play there as impact men off the bench. So the obvious option to fix this would have been the injured Chisolm.

Seeing as Chisolm is out, I think giving a fresh face like Adam Bynes a go would be a terrific idea.

The Loose-Forwards is something everyone always seems to have a different opinion about. I consider Mumm and Kimlin our best options at 6. I could easily see one starting at 6 then getting moved into lock to make room for the other as a 65th minute substitution.

We have, however, missed the chance to develop another purely specialist Blind-Side Flanker. I think Higginbotham should have filled this whole. He wouldn’t necessarily get a lot of game time, but he is a good player, even with his fluctuating form.

Advertisement

If Cooper gets a shot based on early season form why shouldn’t Higginbotham be afforded the same luxury?

As far as the rest of the loose trio goes, the Open-Side flank is shored up by either of our two options of Smith and Pocock. Waugh would, of course, be deputy to Brown, who is a cut about Palu right now anyway.

Clearly there are a staggering amount of injuries in the Wallaby forward ranks. This should have been viewed as an option to reach out to the blokes on the cusp of selection.

Experience is important, but so is development. We have space for both in our Wallaby Squad.

My Wallaby forwards:
Benn Robinson, Ben Alexander, Al Baxter, Pek Cowan, Guy Shepherdson, Stephen Moore, Tatafu Polota-Nau, Huia Edmonds, Nathan Sharpe, Adam Bynes, James Horwill, Peter Kimlin, Dean Mumm, Scott Higginbotham, Matt Hodgson, George Smith, David Pocock, Richard Brown, Wycliff Paul, Phil Waugh.

close