The potential Wallabies for the upcoming three-Test series against England have been announced, with Michael Cheika continuing the infuriating habit of selecting a squad.
What happened to picking a team? When was it decided that rather than the 23 blokes you’re going to actually play, you select an extra 16 people to come along on camp?
Okay, so there’s obviously an argument to be made for bringing along a couple of extras – rugby’s a physical game, and injuries are inevitable.
» WALLABIES SQUAD FOR ENGLAND TEST
» WE HAVE 39 WALLABIES, BUT WHO MAKES YOUR XV?
But why the hell does there need to be 39 people in camp? Are they expecting the entire starting XV to break down in the next ten or so days?
Frustratingly, Cheika himself admitted at the squad unveiling that he didn’t need all the extra mouths to feed, saying, “We’ve been working with an initial squad of 60 players we identified, which has been reduced to 39 for this camp. We’ll trim that number down to 30 for each Test, so competition for spots is everything.”
So nine guys are picked just to be surplus to requirements, before an extra seven per Test will also be cut.
We’ll give Cheika the extra seven – again, there’s no telling who the injury curse could strike down – but what about the nine guys who ultimately have no purpose?
Nine guys who could spend this time recuperating and realigning ahead of the second half of the Super Rugby season, a competition in which none of Australia’s five provinces are performing particularly well, and two are stinking the joint right up.
This tells us that plenty of Australian players aren’t in form at the moment, so why give them the easy let-down of naming them in an extended squad? It’s not as though performance in camp is going to take precedence over form or past experience.
Maybe Australian rugby would benefit from a bit of tough love at the top. The nation’s head coach sending the message that only 30 – 26 if we count the four guys selected who play overseas (although James Horwill’s selection is another kettle of fish) – are good enough to even get a tracksuit, let alone a Wallabies jersey.
But no, it’s important that they head to Caloundra so the Wallabies can “focus on building depth within the squad”. I’d argue 30 decent players is plenty of depth within a squad.
As for the idea Cheika wants to “build on the identity we’ve worked hard on establishing”, how about ensuring people earn the right to be there before you worry about indoctrinating them into an identity you’re yet to fully establish?
Are you actually going to play Joe Powell to play a match , with his four games and 50 minutes of Super Rugby experience? What about Leroy Houston? Dragged all the way back from the UK – granted, he’s also signed with the Reds – is he going to start ahead of the embarrassment of back-row riches we already have?
It just feels like the kind of ‘everyone’s a winner’ attitude that has become so prevalent in this day and age – give as many people as possible a big cuddle by way of selection, even if you have no intention of playing them.
Sam
Guest
It doesn't matter if a coach is coaching a club side, a super rugby side or a test side- no coach will say the only want the best 23. It's like a job interview process... Throw a wide net to get the best players. It's also strategic. Why give your opponent your starting line up a weeks beforehand?
Bakkies
Guest
Opposed training and there is a hellish schedule this year so he may need the majority of the 39
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Anybody who says they can determine the best 30 players without fault in that is simply talking out of their a--. Every game has variables. Which comparable players have played the exact same opponents? Where those opponents exactly the same when they played them? Are they surrounded by exactly the same team? The only true way to know how players measure up is against each other. What if a player in a poor performing teams looks a lot better in the right environment. Cheika isn't picking an All-Australian Team. He's picking a team to play their own season. Super Rugby teams train with wider squads before their first competition game also.
Machooka
Roar Guru
Warren... while everyone is entitled to opinion, I'm just a little curious about this one. As it's just the start of the Test window for the Wallaby for important Tests against England, and then later Bleds, NRC etc, I would think it makes perfect sense to have an expanded squad at the very beginning of such a campaign. Firstly, those on the fringe get a taste of the Wallaby environment, it's cultural aspirations, and how the whole thing works. Hence, should there be an injury later on in the season, and they get a call-up, they are already on the front foot to slot in. Secondly, this larger squad gives the coaching staff initially more opportunity, at this next level, to evaluate the form, skill and suitability of fringe players. Let alone for those incumbents who maybe struggling for form, fitness but have been loyal servants in the recent past. Likewise those players who are now based overseas, and how they are currently travelling regards 'real' form. Lastly... I'm of the belief that the larger the initial squad, the better it is for all concerned. Everyone gets a crack to impress. And while some won't while others will... they've at least been shown respect that they are very close to National selection. So if they don't succeed this time... go away and work on your weaknesses, and who knows what the future may bring after that work.
Stray Gator
Guest
And your evidence for this is, what? Only coming second at the World Cup? Risible. Just like the article itself. I do love armchair experts prognosticating on matters in which they have no experience, especially when they arrive at conclusions unsupported by either evidence or results.
Boonzie
Guest
Cheika picks a squad for apposed training... not new. Also means fringe players are learning the system and means everyone puts in... sensible coaching / man management 101.
pete and paul
Roar Rookie
I really think Aussie rugby is not at any cross roads, they haven't even got there yet....what is SKELTON going to bring to the pack..a big lumbering lock who doesn't do lineouts and runs out of puff after a 50m run...come on people...Cheika is clutching at straws,. there is a paucity of good players in Australia and as Marto said on 360...1 or 2 or 3 injuries and hey presto....humpty dumpty will fall off the wall....but having said that...I still want them to beat England and just shove it up EJ...
cuw
Guest
Horwill was good for Harlequins, He was good last year though not selected for rwc. form is temporary but class is permanent - we say in cricket . surely it applies to rugger as well. horwill is a class player from auzzy. may not figure among the top 6 in the world but in auzzy he shud be among the top 4.
PeterK
Roar Guru
What I do know is that the culture was toxic before cheika. He improved the attitude and culture of the team enormously. He used extended squads last year , it helped build this bond. No good reason to junk it.
Die hard
Roar Rookie
I have to agree with the premise of this article. There are better ways to become inclusive than these types of camp. It might be money better spent elsewhere and is another example of waste. The trickle down effect so to speak is not a good economy. The prestige of Wallaby is a little diminished by marginal selections and others are disrupted or dispirited by overseas ringins.
chracol
Guest
Good point. It's a scenario out of the NFL. The AB's will probably have a squad of 32 for Wales. I think it reflects uncertainty in the Australian unit but I don't see how a large squad helps with the limited build-up. We'll soon find out. Bringing Horwill back is a gamble. He must be playing very well now because he couldn't make the RWC squad. Hopefully he'll go a lot better than he went against the Lions on the last overseas tour.
cuw
Guest
" What about Leroy Houston? Dragged all the way back from the UK – granted, he’s also signed with the Reds – is he going to start ahead of the embarrassment of back-row riches we already have? " err if u had that , then an everyday 7 would not be masquerading as an 8 for the wallabies :D however if we go by last year form HIgginbotham was the best 8 in auzzy . if we go by super rgeer , then Mccalmann is the best 8 atm (since i have seen very little of either Houston or Higginbotham in Europe). i believe Cheika will not put Pocock at 8 against the english - he would have learnt a lesson after the world cup final. u cant put a makeshift player up against a world class player in a particular position . READ showed him that (and he wasnt 100% fit even) :P