Injury could open Wallabies door for Hunt

Piru, I think you are raising something really important here......."do Aussie 10s need to play more club games and spend less time in academies?" and "the position is all about choices, making the right choice under pressure was the essence of good 10 play." I really worry about the academy situation, and the over coaching, or perhaps I should say, ill directed coaching ,that IMO exists therein. I was fortunate enough many years ago in Ulster to coach a really good schoolboy 10. He did not start as a really talented player, but his natural talents were honed by a lot of practice, and his weaknesses identified and patiently rectified...as he came up through the ranks. When we got him as a 1 st XV player, we had already a very good 10....and we managed to develop him further....I would say he was a world class player at that level. He went on to play for Irish Schoolboys, and toured Australia in 1980....he had a kick at the end of the game v Australia at Ballymore to win the game...did not get it though. This lad did not carry on in rugby after school to any extent...joined the Met. Police in London, and that was that. Point of relating this story is that then no academy structure existed, but a very good net work of schools coaches, virtually all teachers, developed the players....Many of the teachers were top players themselves, having been through great rugby nurseries...such as Loughborough College, St Lukes Exeter...etc. We had two current Irish internatiionals on our staff. Today the academies rule worldwide....and I don't think players have the flair, inventiveness, and decision making capabilities they once had.........unless one looks at NZ 's current crop of players.

Oh no!...then we'd just need to add Cooper and with SBW we'd have all the Prima donnas in the one side. Auckland truly will be the city of Latte's... despised for all eternity...again...?

Yes you're right there Soapit, Moore, Phipps, Folau, Mumm...all examples of players that just went on and on and on with mostly poor form, the coach waiting...and hoping...they come right. Dropping a player in that situation does two things...forces the player to look at themselves and the direction the game is taking them and it gives another an opportunity. Sure there's a risk of playing someone worse but if they were playing poorly anyway, at least you've gained someone else some experience.

I don't get why Gibson doesn't drop Folau, at least to the bench. His looks to be one of attitude because he's not playing on the edge as he used to, not hungry for the ball enough, seemingly more worried about his critics and not stuffing up. Missing a game or watching from the bench can be therapeutic and better in the long run, as it can focus his desire to play more. If he's 'formally' embarrassed then he can just get over that and move on. Get him carrying water, get some humility back. But currently his coach is saying you're doing well enough to start where his critics are thrashing him.

Nrl Laziness.....mmmm...do you ever watch Thurston play....I think it is hard to label NRL players as lazy.

But Rhys, Folau did go on to become the No 1 fullback in the world, IMO, before the last World Cup.....sure, he is a shadow of that now.....but I believe it was a very good move to grab him when the window of opportunity arose.

The backline I think will be picked 9. Phipps 10. Foley 11. Horne 12. Beale 13. Kurindrani 14. Speight 15. Folau 21. Powell 22. Cooper 23. Hodge/Hunt I would pick 9. Powell 10. Cooper 11. Naivalu 12. Meakes 13. Kerevi 14. Folau 15. Hunt/Hodge 21. Tuttle/Mason 22. Foley/Lance 23. Hodge/Perese

Soapit, the fact that he has been able to be played out of the game so easily represents the problem. All an opposition with a competent 9 and 10 needs to do is kick the ball to him when he is near the sideline and follow through with the kick chase. They know he will most likely attempt to kick back and it will go out after no more than 10 metres, for a big territorial gain and possession. When he does attempt to run it he always runs it wide around the opposition 13 and gets nailed when that player is any good. He can't do a decent up and under so can't make use of his aerial skills in attack and when he grubbers it he invariably bounces it off the opposition player. A truely great fullback like Campese or even a very good one like Beale or Haylett-Perty will find a way to get the ball moving in the right direction despite what the opposition do, Folau just can't work it out.

Yep fair call Soapit..

Delete duplicate comment

Time for a hooper bash, if you re-watch some of the internationals you see hoops sharking around the 12 channel. Whe gets one it is great, but the chaos as 2 players try to catch the ball, not helpful. If cheika had pushed hoops back into the ruck where he belongs, hodge would have a chance of shining. He is better at 13 but there is a log jam there. It is easier to get a start at 15 or 12

Word an the street is that it takes 5 years playing the position to be a world class fullback.that includes 15 years of rugby. Folau doesn't stand a chance of picking up the nuences of the game in a handful of years. This the stuff you learn playing club rugby, during an international is not the time!

I was comparing Hunt and Folau's AFL stints to illustrate the difference in how the two work with space, ability read the play from close and afar, and react accordingly. I don't see anything wrong with that or the conclusions I drew from it. I still believe Izzy is a natural footballer. I'd add to that by saying there are different types of footballers and each have merit. At each end of the scale you've got the purely reactive 'see ball, get ball', very instinctive type, often these guys have the physical attributes and reflexes where they excel 'in the moment'. You've also got the counter to that, the 'thinking mans footballer', where their strengths are their work rate and 'football iq', not necessarily their speed, strength or ability. I'd like to throw Liam Pilven from the bulldogs up as an example there, he's an old dog (pun intended), hardly a top level physical specimen, but he reads the play so well and works as hard as anyone and as a result can massively shape a game (like the final series last year). As for your comments on athletic/aerobic ability, it's hardly fair to compare union and AFL. It took Hunt years to get to the point where he could run out a match, he pretty much only got there just before he switched codes. Outside of key position players, nearly everyone runs 12-17km per match. Even Hooper would struggle. On the flip side, Hunt has admitted it's taken him a couple of years to get the strength back after switching back to union. Your 'kick and giggle' description is laughable at best. I'd be pretty stoked if all the guys playing SR in Australia have as much as the footy guys, let alone had half the level of ball skills. How often do we see EASY catches dropped from kick returns, box kicks or bombs? Or players completely miss the drop zone by metres? I shudder every time. My footy mates laugh. If union had access to the A talent pool you wouldn't recognise Australian rugby. I'm a diehard rugby fan, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss the premier football code in Australia, particularly considering the dire straits rugby is in while we watch it dissolve into a cult/niche sport. For what it's worth, Sheedy wasn't really a coach at GWS. He was more of a 'director of coaching', guiding and mentoring his assistant coaches. He there as a leader, to be the public spokesperson, and generate as much press as possible for the Giants. He did a great job at it too. Having one of the greats of the game in Sheedy combined with signing one of the most recognisable names in rugby league, a western Sydney boy nonetheless, meant the Giants got their fair share of media coverage. They didn't even really sign Izzy as a player as much has an advertising tool. If Hunt went to GWS he wouldn't Have been require after the second or third year, they've got more depth than any team in the competition. Other clubs probably would have been happy to have him, but not at his salary. He might have been offered a couple hundred grand at best which I dare say might not have been enough to keep him from going back to rugby or league.

not sure this weekend will be conclusive as to dhp's abilities tho

i dont think theres much point arguing over the word mistake. my point was only that i would have saveas issue on a different level to hunts

its not so simple tho rhys. folau has been identified as a key threat as oppositions have focused on shutting him down to shut down the wallabies as a whole. not to say he cant do better or that no better options exist

Soapit, put it this way, Folau has scored 20 tries in his international career and 10 of them were in 2013. That means that he has averaged three a season for the last three seasons while playing virtually every game. Reece Hodge scored four tries last season in nine games, Samu Kerevi three in eight games, Dane Haylett-Petty four in thirteen games, Kuridrani four in 14 .... and Tevita has a habit of scoring his at the death and winning us the game. Nick Cummins scored six tries in his 15 Wallabies games, statistically a better strike rate than Folau, but he was let go because the ARU didn't want to stump up a competitive top up. I know that scoring tries isn't all that there is to it, but for a bloke who is paid a gazillion to be a try scoring prodigy Folau has made a pretty poor effort. And a lot of those those other players are more versatile than Folau, with better defence, better kicking games, ability to play multiple positions. Folau was exciting to begin with but has become just plain overrated.

Be condescending and disingenuous, I couldn't give a rats. Just get around to making a point and back it up with some facts.

Be condescending and disingenuous, I couldn't give a rats. Just get around to making a point and back it up with some facts.

That is patently obvious.