Wallabies Spring Tour 2011 squad named

If he picks a 4-3 split you can almost guarantee a backrow of: 6. Higginbotham 7. Pocock 8. Samo 19. McCalman On a 5-2 split either Dennis comes in as additional 6/8 cover or Hodgson comes in as 7 cover. Given those options there is no reason he couldn't have taken a different 7 candidate as back up to Pocock

Given that Robbie hasn't done that before (that I can think of), its a big call. But let's see what happens. Our first clue will be if they name a 5-2 bench.

Mike, given Samo, McCalman, Dennis and Higginbotham are all covering 6/8 - you can almost guarantee that Hodgson is being looked at as specialist 7 cover.

It's a wasted opportunity because yes winning matches is important, but if you think travelling half-way around the world to play the Baa-Baas in an unranked test match and Wales right after a World Cup you need your head read. This is a thoroughly unimportant tour. Next year's June tests the Wallabies should want to win every game. Next year's Rugby Championship the Wallabies should want to win every game. These two matches they should be worried about not getting injured and screwing up the start of the Super Rugby season for themselves. Players that aren't good enough, and aren't going to make it to the Lions tour in 2013 (only 2 test seasons from now) are not worth picking. You can talk up Sharpe as one of the best locks in Australia all you want but (a) Horwill, Simmons and Wykes have all already had plenty of assistance from Sharpe during their careers, there's nothing more he can pass on; (b) it is more important for Australian rugby that Sam Wykes or Hugh Pyle or even Sitaleki Timani make the step up to international level than for Sharpe to rack up some more tests - he's not going to play the British and Irish Lions, move him on. Cowan, Ma'afu and Hodgson we are in agreement with - not good enough. Palmer, Longbottom, Holmes, Weeks, Hanson, Whittaker ... surely some of these front-rowers are available. I'd add A.Fainga'a to that list of not good enoughs too - surely Mitch Inman or Pat Dellit is a better prospect. For mine AAC is not as good as he was a few years ago, but I like him as versatile injury cover (especially in a 26 man squad). Dave Dennis meanwhile doesn't bring anything to the table that Ben McCalman doesn't also bring. There are plenty of better backrow options in my opinion.

I don't see how Deans can be criticised for that when Henry and De Villiers essentially do the same thing. The "enormous mental pressure" lies on Richie McCaw and Heinrich Brussow just as much as it does on David Pocock, and they all cope. If you are going to choose a fetcher like Robinson (on the strength of 1 season?) as a benchplayer for Pocock, then go ahead. But unless you are playing a 5-2 split, that means you are also asking Robinson to cover 6 and 8. And it is far far more likely that he will end up going on in at 6 or 8 than 7. Do you really think it is a good idea to play him out of position in this way? Because that is what you will bring about. I am not against playing a 5-2 split, nor against playing two fetchers, provided all the implications are considered. But its not as easy as just saying that, and it is certainly NOT grounds for accusing Deans of "stupidity and naivety". There are good grounds on which Deans can be criticised, but spurious grounds like this just take the focus off them.

Not really. This sort of thing is done all the time because in a 4-3 split there is only one bench player to cover 6,7 and 8. If the No 7 tends to play the full 80 minutes (as Pocock does) then the bench backrower should logically be someone who primarily covers 6 and 8. If one had to predict whether Pocock or any of the available No 8s in Australia is likely to last 80 minutes at test level, I know who I would always choose. We also need to remember that Robinson has had ONE good season. I think he is a very exciting prospect, but he is no more obvious a selection than many others - and I am no defender of Hodgson or McCalman. I would be happy enough to pick Robinson but more likely Wykes or Vaea.

Well Deans just will not learn from his failure to pick a frontrow that will compete. He has once again has left out our best tight head prop, Dan Palmer. He is the only tight head in the country that can give us dominance in the set piece and allow our exceptional backs the time and space to really shine.

Beau Robinson didn't seem to be a problem for the Reds or McKenzie. He was the form No.7 in Australia last year given Pocock's limited game time. It beggars belief that Hodgson, who had a pretty ordinary year in an underwhelming team was given a spot in front of him. It certainly wasnt based on merit and can only have been based on favoritism. To even consider even playing a 'serviceable' No.8 like McCalman at 7 ahead of Robinson just proves Deans is not even remotely interested in selecting players based on merit.

Maybe Justin, but if there's "absolutely nothing to be excited about in that squad", then what other option is there but to name 26 more?? Which Mr Roarr hasn't been able to do, by the way. I've got no problem debating contentious selections, but ridiculous comments deserve to be called out for what they are..

I think the most important role of having a genuine backup 7 is that it takes some of the enormous mental pressure off Pocock. With just Pocock as a specialist 7, he knows in the back of his mind that the Wallabies are 100% dependent on him staying fit to have any chance. This could either result in him hanging back a little to minimise injury (which can often result in the opposite happening) or picking up small stress related injuries (eg back spasms before Ireland game), knowing that if he gets injured and the Wallabies have to rely on an inexperienced joke of a 7 in McCalman. It also puts the rest of the team on a mental edge knowing that if Pocock goes down with no real backup, the Wallabies chances plummet. Just another example of the stupidity and naivety of Deans in understanding the Wallabies psychology. The team would also realise that their coach is a fool for putting Pocock and the team is such a position.

Why would that be a wasted opportunity? If you believe that "development" for some future tournament (be it the Lions tour in 2013 or the world cup in 2015) takes precedence over winning matches, then I suppose it makes some sense. I can agree with some of your points, although for a different reason: In the case of Cowan, Ma'afu and Hodgson, I think there are better players available in their respective positions and since I believe winning matches takes equal priority with development, I woudln't choose them for that reason. But Sharpe? He is surely among the best three locks in Australia, and one of the others is out injured. Why would you not take him on tour (a) to win matches and (b) to pass on his ethos, skills and general example to younger players? This is a guy who knows what its like to pack down against the best and he is not afraid of them. Surely his presence will help some of the younger ones who will be here in 2013 and 2015?

Any players in this tour squad and in next year's June tests and Four-Nations squads that won't make the 2013 Lions series team are a waste of a jersey and a wasted opportunity. That list includes: Cowan, Ma'afu, Sharpe, Hodgson, Samo Dennis & Ashley-Cooper I'm also not convinced on.

I too think Hooper looks something special - interested to see how he and Colby go this year.

Mike, I am thinking of Robinson as a tour member not neccesarily for the 22 (unless they play a five forward bench). Given they have Higginbothan, Samo, McCalman and Dennis there is already four men covering three spots for 6/8 in a matchday 22 without looking at Hodgson. Per the world cup there needs to be a second fetcher in the tour squad who can be brought in to the 22 if something happens to Pocock prior to kick off - that is the role I want for Robinson.

where's the edit button thingy gone?

doh, just I read this article .. explains a little. http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/11/07/oconnor-for-bigger-wallabies-tour-role/

Seems like a pretty solid calendar to of only named 1 first-five, how do others see the backs lining up if Barnes goes down? Who would be up to it, O'Conner? Would AAC then move to fullback or Turner and someone else takes a wing position. I dunno, seems like a wing short or a 10 short. How do others see it? One other thing, where do others see O'Conners role in the future? cheers

I'd love to know what the story is with Beau. Dropped from the Tahs after a season showing up Waugh (when ever he got a shot) and now cant get a decent crack in gold...just wonder if there is nothing else to the story. Stuart McGill anyone...?

why persist with these 'pet' projects that have shown time and time again, they are not internationals. blood some youngsters dingo!!!!

He will have to be exceptional because from what we saw of Gill towards the end of the Super XV season indicated he'll be really something