It seems every man and his dog have an opinion on whether the Australian Rugby Union should allow or encourage George Smith to play against the British and Irish Lions in June and July.
For every view that says Smith is a ‘must have’, there’s another that says the Wallabies will still be well served in David Pocock’s absence with the young guns, Liam Gill and Michael Hooper.
Certainly, Hooper did very well in the gold no.7 last year, and Gill similarly impressed plenty on the Spring Tour to Europe. Neither would let anyone down in 2013.
On the subject of Smith playing, you may well have noticed that I’ve remained somewhat quiet.
It’s not because I don’t have an opinion, it’s just that until the situation changes concerning his loan deal from Suntory, and until the ARU declare that he is eligible for selection – which they may not do, even if Smith’s Brumbies contract is extended – it’s all a pointless debate.
I have to say that some of the commentary and self-justification being used around the whole eligibility thing has been staggering for its arrogance.
Suggestions that ‘the ARU should just tell Suntory’ anything has been mind-blowing for its false importance and entitlement.
Remember, in all of this, Suntory owe Australian rugby no obligation whatsoever. They’d be well entitled to request Smith’s return at the end of the three months as was initially agreed.
Regardless, Smith or no Smith, ploughing through some numbers over the weekend tells me that the Wallabies will still be well served in the openside department.
Particularly, if we go by the numbers, we find that there really isn’t a lot between the three likely no.7 options, even if one of them remains only a hypothetical option at this stage.
In terms of attack, Gill, Hooper, and Smith are all making around seven runs per 80 minutes played, and around 37 metres for those seven runs. The young bucks are only managing one offload every third game, whereas Smith is getting nearly two offloads away every match.
For the sake of the exercise, I included David Pocock in my number-crunching, and this confirmed suspicions that he was being eased into proceedings in 2013, and that he doesn’t have the same running game of his counterparts. Pocock made fewer than six runs for 18 metres per 80 minutes, and with just the one offload.
Gill has a slight edge in terms of the number of rucks and mauls he attends, with his seven per 80 minutes leading Smith’s six and around five-and-a-half for Hooper.
Interestingly, none of the opensides are having much luck in the turnover and pilfer department this season, and that’s quite likely a reflection on the new breakdown interpretations favouring the attacking side.
Rugby Stats lists Smith’s four pilfers as equal second in Super Rugby, while Gill’s three has him equal fifth along with Reds team-mate Anthony Fainga’a and Rebels scrumhalf, Nick Phipps, would you believe.
The Chiefs’ no.7, Sam Cane, heads the list on six, and even that is just over one per game. Pocock hadn’t managed one turnover in 2013 by the time his knee buckled under him.
Where Gill holds a clear advantage is that he’s currently conceded only two penalties for the year, whereas Smith and Hooper are both pushing nearly one per game.
Though I would suggest Gill could find a less conspicuously colour headgear than his chosen white if he wants to remain out of the referees’ sight.
Hooper and Gill are both making more than 14 tackles per 80 minutes to Smith’s 11, but Hooper lets himself down massively by missing more than 17% of all tackles attempted. Smith and Gill are missing either side of one tackle per 80 minutes to Hooper’s three.
Rugby Stats has Hooper missing more tackles than any other player in Super Rugby this season. To provide some degree of context to that, Quade Cooper doesn’t feature in their top 20.
There’s certainly a lot of romance around George Smith’s comeback to Super Rugby, and the numbers clearly show that he’s more than holding his own with the young guns.
Claims of him being the form no.7 in Australia already are always going to be subjective though, and I can’t help but wonder if they’re there simply because all eyes are on him and him only.
However, for all that romance, the speed and intensity of Super Rugby might have just caught up with the great man. His general involvement against the Bulls on Saturday night quite minimal, save for the number of passes he gave at first receiver (something I think he’s always overdone).
The travel back from South Africa had an effect on the Brumbies as a whole, and perhaps it slowed Smith more than all others.
Hooper, similarly, seems to be taking his time finding his feet in a new team under a new coach.
Like Smith on Saturday, I couldn’t believe how quiet Hooper was on Sunday afternoon against the Force. I noticed numerous times that Hooper looked to be off the pace. I wonder if he might be carrying injury or having some fitness concerns at the moment.
That leaves Gill. It surprised me just how close Gill and Hooper’s attacking numbers were, considering the perception exists that Hooper is more of a running player.
The fact that Gill runs just as much, for similar metres gained, and with similar offloading ability makes the ‘more rounded game’ pro-Gill argument difficult to counter; more so when you add his lineout ability to the mix (though I ignored kicks, for everyone’s benefit).
For mine, the fact that he hits more rucks, gives away less penalties, and misses fewer tackles is what puts Gill at the head of the Wallaby no.7 queue.
Yes, Smith would provide experience and ‘game smarts’ that Gill just won’t possess at 20 years of age, but if you put Gill in with the right back five candidates, that experience can come from other areas.
A Wallaby back five of, say, Timani, Horwill, McMeniman, Gill, and Palu if fit (or Mowen if not), is going to provide that perfect blend of size, skill, mobility, and a good degree of experience, too.
And five lineout jumpers.
And they all happen to be in decent form.
It’d be wonderful to have George Smith taking on the Lions, don’t get me wrong, but right under our noses we have a young punk openside who is already well on the way to possessing that same perfectly rounded game that Smith is so lauded for.
The Wallabies won’t be let down by playing Liam Gill in the Australian no.7 jersey. As it stands now he’s the best and fittest eligible openside in Australia and I honestly believe we’re doing him a massive disservice focussing on hypotheticals.
BetterRedThanDead
Guest
Argh. Disregard. Timani available for the Lions tour and forgot Kane Douglas. I am a goose.
BetterRedThanDead
Guest
Think we will be OK on the side and back Brett, so agree with you. Think the real concern is the locks.Timani's departure is a massive blow. Horwill in promising form, Mowanalso, but if we are relying on MaCalman as a sub, we are in trobs.
Worlds Biggest
Guest
Disagree with this piece Macca. Smith is a must for the Lions if an extension can be arranged. Be it 6,7 or 8 we need him simple as that.
scottmit
Roar Rookie
But he sure can push. He makes a big difference to the scrum.
Chivas
Guest
Good post. Don't disagree with any of your comments. I guess the fervour around Smitg has been somewhat over the top. Without doubt he is an international player and while longer in the tooth would have an important role if available for selection. He has the ability to contribute on and off the field although not as much as Dalton in the 87' AB side in terms of off field leadership and not as much as McCaw on the field, but could be a unifying figure in a fairly fresh faced Wallaby team with the world at their feet. I think Smiths greatest attribute is his honesty in all areas of his football. His second and not far behind is his knowledge and skill set. If I was to have a criticism is I don't think he has the impact at the breakdown he once did and while I wouldn't label him a seagull I find it an irritant to see him as a link all the time, because when he's linking he's not being Johnny on the spot at the breakdown. I'm not sure if it is necessarily his age and it's not his skills, but either his style or the style requested of him. Everyone complains McCaw is a cheat because of what he contributes at the breakdown. Pocock has been the first to threaten that. Personally right now I would have Pocock all day any day in an international. The contact zone is far more brutal in internationals and to get an upper hand there is pretty special. I am not in any way convinced Smith has that same impact. But guess what, Pocock isn't available for selection either. Gill is one to two seasons off for mine, but is definitely the future. To see him wander off overseas at this stage highlights to me the esteem the yellow jersey is held in. Both the top up and the communication appear to be lacking. I'm not game like many to point the bone at anyone because I truly don't know. Finally Hooper is good, but not great at the impact zone, but right now it would be him I'd be investing in, in preparation and everything else plan B.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
I see, and that's why on every single professional tour the problem of forging a cohesive defence in such a limited amount of time has always been mentioned by a) the people actually involved in the tours, and b) pundits and experts. They're right and your wrong. However, if you feel like considering another viewpoint then maybe you should read Henry's book about his views on defensive systems on the 2001 Lions tour. Or maybe see what Shaun Edwards has to say, or Phil Larder... Aside from that your logic is totally flawed.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
I see. I'm just going to leave that there then. Cheers.
HighTackle
Guest
History supports that? No it doesnt. The Lions have only lost one tour in Australia. They have won 15 from 20 games against Australia. Over history they have dominated the Wallabies. The 2001 series was the very first tour loss and tbh it shouldnt have been imo. Also all the club teams do not play with the same defensive pattern but international teams seem to do just fine with less time and defensive patterns change from game to game and even during games. I accept that the defensive patterns between teams are different but I see no reason why the best of the best can not gell in defense over 9 weeks of training and playing together. 2010 they aved 29 points and 3 tries per game. 2011 they aved 27 per game and 3 tries.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
Jean, my feeling is that Euan Murray and Laidlaw won't tour. If I was a gambling man I'd wager that Youngs and Care will tour with Phillips. If Halfpenny and Owen Farrell tour (and also Jon Sexton), then I don't think Laidlaw's place kicking will be necessary, and Care and Youngs have both had very good games against SH sides in recent seasons.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
I see. Well, the relevance of the fact that the Lions teams have conceded tries off set-pieces during the last 3 tours is that it highlights how difficult it is to arrange a defensive pattern around 4 nations and players who are used to different systems in such a short space of time. It's notoriously difficult to score off of set-pieces, hence the relevance. Who played 12 years ago, and who will play in the summer is utterly irrelevant, however, and you miss the point entirely. The fact remains that to win a Lions tour is still the most difficult thing to do in world rugby, and history supports that. To suggest that the Lions defence might be the strongest the Australians face this year is clearly wildly optimistic. So what about Australia's attack in 2010? Explain that to me in detail please.
Dexter William
Roar Guru
Robbie Deans had no 7s against the Irish in the RWC!!! The mind Boggles!!!
Malo
Guest
Exactly Gill is so overrated if he was that good the reds would be more impressive, they are playing average teams and just fluking wins. I won a fortune on the force game. GS and the brumbies are just cruising against great teams.
Malo
Guest
Mckibben rocks, scores tonnes of points and some could say won them the game.
HighTackle
Guest
The Lions have about 4-5 weeks together and 6 games before the first test. They have plenty of time to gell in defence and much more than most international teams.
Malo
Guest
Crash ball 2 great analysis, end of story sums it up beautifully, everyone hopes the young guns Gill and Hooper deliver, but it is different with a tough pack and think they need guidance. GS knows where to attack and defend the young guns are learning.
HighTackle
Guest
So the team from 12 years ago is relevant to this team? Im surprised about that becuz imo it doesnt even in the slightest. Not only are the opposition completely different but the Lions will be too unless BOD plays and Im pretty sure he has changed a bit over 12 years. I will never understand why people think that the past dictates what will happen now when its proven that that is not the case at all. The Lions defence will def not be the worst defence that Aust plays in 2013 and I wouldnt be surprised if its the best. Also Gill hasnt been in the "stunted" attack and in 2012 neither was JOC, Cooper, Genia, Horwill, Mitchell or a few others. In 2011 that stunted attack put 5 tries on SA and 3 on NZ. Australias attack was not fantastic last year becuz of injury and Hooper was the 7 and arguably Australias best attacker, so I strongly disagree with all you said there.
HighTackle
Guest
Whos HY? Im not sure who this HY is but I think I like the cut of his jib. He sounds like a real go-getter.
bennalong
Guest
'Air' to the throne indeed. The possibilties Brett ........???????? Really though, George is a phenomenon. To play out of his skin after 'stepping off the plane" from Japan is a measure of his greatness. He has returned to help his old team, not to challenge the ARU's elgibilityrules, and in saying that I believe he IS the very player needed by Australian Rugby. And in his case, given his stature, I don't think there's much risk of setting a precedent. Remember, he was dumped by Robbie Deans. He didn't just take off for the bucks. This is an opportunity to see him off in the manner he desrved a la Sharpie!
Ben.S
Roar Guru
Not a criticism, Brett, but Gill only featured in two Tests off the bench in Europe, and played all of 40 odd minutes. Hooper was there for all 4 and was very good against England. Just don't think it's apples and apples.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
Edit: on each of the past 3 tours.