The season is finished and although it’s possibly a season better forgotten by Wallaby supporters, there were many positives to come from the Northern Hemisphere tour.
As an armchair critic like the rest, it’s easy for us to sit back and criticise selections, refereeing, coaching and the like. However, none of those tasks are easy, and in hindsight, changes perhaps need to be made in some areas.
I continue to be a critic of the scoring system and remain a strong advocate of a conversion being increased to 3 points whilst a penalty and field goal are reduced to 2.
This will see a significant change to the kicking game and the decision making process by a team. An increase in running rugby, I believe, will be the result.
However, I have already penned my thoughts on that subject, and in this blog, I would like to turn my attention to the Wallaby team as we build toward RWC in 2011.
Firstly, I’m assuming there are no impediments to positions.
By this, I mean there is nothing ‘contractual’ which would mean someone has to play a particular position. I mention this as I remain a little bewildered as to why Robbie Deans continues to use Giteau in the No. 10 jumper.
He does his most damage at 12 and with a playmaker such as Barnes, Cooper or even O’Connor at 10, then this frees him up to play his unpredictable game at 12.
Continuing with the backs, during the last test series, I don’t think we discovered a 13 to replace Mortlock. Whilst Digby Ioane played well, I still believe the impact Mortlock brings to this position is crucial to the attacking ‘go forward’ nature of the Wallabies.
I would much prefer to see Ioane on the wing in place of Mitchell, who I think needs to refocus and consider his contribution to the team in light of some mediocre performances of late. AAC at fullback has been sound without being spectacular but would get my nod over JOC at this point in time.
As an impact player, however, JOC seems to provide a little spark to the team when he comes on late in the game. Perhaps his skill and impact may see him promoted to a starting position with further Super 14 experience, but not at the moment.
Will Genia was the find of the tour and has cemented a place as the Wallaby half, with daylight coming second. However, Luke Burgess remains the likely bench warmer.
Within the forwards, we at last seem to have a dominating scrum. However, line-outs remain a point of contention.
We don’t seem to have much stock in the lock department. However, a fit Sharp will bring considerable stability to the lineout and we won’t lose anything in the tight or scrum. He also has considerable ‘go forward’ and this enforced rest I believe would give him the necessary edge once again.
To partner Sharp you would have to look at Horwill, as he again stood up to be counted against Wales.
The front row looks pretty set, but I think TPN brings a little more to hooker than Moore does.
However, Moore would only move to the bench and no further. The two Bens have cemented their places at this stage with Dunning and perhaps Cowan, who can play hooker, coming onto the bench.
Sekope Kepu would need to have a massive Super 14 season.
I think we have a pretty formidable back row in Elsom, Pocock and Palu, with George Smith a formidable impact player wherever and whenever needed in the back row.
So, if the RWC was next week, and considering all players are fit, my selection would be:
1. Benn Robinson
2. Tatafu Polota-Nau
3. Ben Alexander
4. James Horwill
5. Nathan Sharp
6. Rocky Elsom (C)
7. David Pocock
8. Whycliff Palu
9. Will Genia
10. Berrick Barnes
11. Peter Hines
12. Matt Giteau
13. Stirling Mortlock
14. Digby Ioane
15. Adam Ashley-Cooper
16. Stephen Moore
17. Matt Dunning
18. Dean Mumm
19. George Smith
20. Luke Burgess
21. Quade Cooper
22. James O’Connor
Waiting in the wings are the following (two forwards and two backs):
Sekope Kepu
Richard Brown
Kurtley Beale
Luke Morahan
I’m sure over the next two years the above could well change to some extent. There will be others who will have a massive Super 14 season and will come into contention, no doubt.
I put young Luke Morahan in that category.
Now go for it Roarers!
Dean Pantio
Guest
It's condescending, hope that helps ;)
Dean Pantio
Guest
"You see it that way, others see it as a spectacle." I see the problem, the difference between us is I played, hence I have an intimate understanding and appreciation of the game as opposed to sitting in the stands expecting to be entertained like it was a Harlem Globetrotters match.
Cattledog
Roar Guru
Your assertion of people not undersanding the rugby ethos is way off the mark. Quite frankly, if I've witnessed a great game of rugby, regardless of what's on the line, I really don't care who wins. Your condecending attitude also detracts from your posts...Repeat after me...childish!
Cattledog
Roar Guru
You see it that way, others see it as a spectacle. No problem. That's easy to deal with. Sure, teams will initially give up two points rather than eight. However, when it includes a yellow card, they'll think twice. There's ways and means for everything. As I've said several times, change is inevitable, it's how change is imlemented and managed which is the concern.
Dean Pantio
Guest
How are you going to deal with it? The evidence is clear; a team defending will give up two points rather than eight. This isn't difficult to understand. Rugby, contrary to your assertion, is not about "running", it's about 15 men on either side competing for possession of the ball and attempting to score more points than the opposition.
Dean Pantio
Guest
No, I'm sick of people who don't understand the rugby ethos continually excusing poor performances by reference to how a team will be travelling come a quadrennial knock out tournament. They're called tests in rugby and friendlies in soccer. I'm sure you can work out why. Repeat after me: Each test is as important as the one that preceded it and the one that follows
Cattledog
Roar Guru
JB, interesting points. It seems my throw away line on the points system (for which I wrote an earlier blog and can be seen in the news articles at www.rugbyinc.com.au) is causing the most consternation. I thought my selection of Morahan would have caused the most anx!! On the scoring, my intention would be to use the yellow card for any repeat infringements to prevent the increase in such infringements. However, perhaps we have a 3 point conversion, leave the penalty at 3 points but reduce the FG to 2 points. I certainly wouldn't be against reducing it to 1 as you have outlined. The fact that league do this does not mean union can't follow suit. In any business, if there's a good system being used by someone else, then you would be crazy not to adopt it if available. At any rate, to see less shots for penalties or field goals would be a step in the right direction for my mind. My main idea is to change the decision making process for a team to make it worth their while in chancing their arm and keeping the ball in hand more.
Cattledog
Roar Guru
Sigh, another article about the World Cup almost two years away. Just how many soccer blow ins are posting here? Your attempt at humour is it DP?
Cattledog
Roar Guru
I won't go into detail concerning my post on changing the scoring system, suffice to say that there are ways and means of dealing with your so called 'law of unintended outcomes'. Like the introduction of any new system, there needs to be trials conducted and the best way to introduce it is then implemented, making sure unintended outcomes are negated! Perhaps just introducing the 8 point try and reducing field goals may have the desired effect. As I say, trial and error. At the moment, however, I think the vast majority would like to see more running rugby and less kicking for goal. Please yourself, of course your entitled to your opinion but once the problem of 'increased infringing' is effectively dealt with, you are left with a team making decisions based on scoring tries rather than kicking goals!
PastHisBest
Roar Guru
Correct DP. So many posters who want to fiddle with the scoring/points system fail to recognise this.
JB
Guest
C. Dog, Interesting points and there were certainly a number of positives from individuals in the tour. In hindsight a draw against Ireland may actually be a notable result (they were undefeated in 2009!) However the facts remain we had enough chances to win that match.... And no comment about the Scotland game (except we'd win by 30 points 9/10 times...) The scoring structure is always a fascinating discussion. Your suggestion about increasing conversions and decreasing penalties has merit. However I'd remind everyone that the margin between a converted try (or goal as they traditionally called it) and a penalty is 7-3=4. In league is is the same - 6-2 =4. Yet the emphasis in league is almost always to go for the try, not take the kick. That's probably partly due to the fact it is easier to score when you get in the red zone in league, or at least maintian the pressure by getting a line drop. There needs to be a major disincentive to give away penalties especially in the defensive areas - maybe you increase the penalty value to really discourage it. (10 points for a penalty might keep hands out of rucks and people onside! I'm being a little silly there... Or preferably discourage miscreants by more regular use of the yellow card? One scoring change I'd definitely suggest - stop field goals from 'accumulating' points to be a means of splitting a score - so 1 point not 3. I know it's copying league but it would be better if they are only used to break a deadlock or establish a buffer. Interested to read any thoughts on this.. JB
Dean Pantio
Guest
Sigh, another article about the World Cup almost two years away. Just how many soccer blow ins are posting here? "I continue to be a critic of the scoring system and remain a strong advocate of a conversion being increased to 3 points whilst a penalty and field goal are reduced to 2." I don't know how many times I have to point this out: Increasing the relative worth of a converted try will only mean that players will infringe MORE in an attempt to not give away
seveneight points rather thanthreetwo. It will worsen the current situation. It's called the law of unintended outcomes.