2010 Wallabies End of Year Tour (EOYT)

[Red Rooster]

It might be worth taking stock of Dean's "blooding" program and look at a few interesting questions

I am a big fan of Slipper and I fully support his inclusion but it seems odd to me that for a player that seems to a Deans favourite and in the team every week that he is yet to actually start a test. He played 40 mins in one game otherwise 10-15min cameo's (good one's at that) In other words we don't really know where he is at as a test player at all.

Hodgson is the same - always thereabouts but does not actually really play much - Simmons, Fainga'a the same, Daley as well, What about Cummins and Shepherd. For all the froth and bubble the young guns from last year (Morahan, Kingi, To'omua, Dennis) where only cobbled back into camp at the end of the domestic season. Morahan seems to have got in on his sevens contribution's and the others are in purgatory (despite Kingi's "contract" with Deans) The reality is that regardless of the spin its the same bunch every week (Gits, Mumm, Brown. Maafu etc)

We can talk all day about the new caps etc but the reality is that they are destined to play in two mid week games (against two good clubs who will be using alot of their fringe players as the good ones are in test squads or being saved for games that matter) and the cost of flying our fringe guys there in business class and having them flying in and out of camps and hotels - You would think that a decent International A program could have been retained for the same price and more games actually played and their contributions more meaningful

 

[vidiot]

Humphries had a good Super 14, and will be a handy midweeker and Sharpe backup. Don't see the other locks managing that - as in filling that role - and I maybe would have left Mumm behind to take Douglas.

Slipper is a very promising youngster who has had a series of opportunities to scrummage against international props late in games - when they're a bit tired. Nice complement to scrum training with 'smash em'. Maybe that's been part of the plan all along.

 

[Slim 293]

Humphries had a good Super 14, and will be a handy midweeker and Sharpe backup. Don't see the other locks managing that - as in filling that role - and I maybe would have left Mumm behind to take Douglas.

Slipper is a very promising youngster who has had a series of opportunities to scrummage against international props late in games - when they're a bit tired. Nice complement to scrum training with 'smash em'. Maybe that's been part of the plan all along.

I'm going to take a moment and rain on Van's parade here...

At the tender young age of 34 he's only just put in his first quality season of Super rugby...

Now, if we take players like Chisholm and Mumm who has both had a number of quality seasons of Super rugby but have never really stepped up to test level... why do so many Van fanboys think he's going to somehow step up and be better than some of these other guys based on one season at the end of his career?

I'm not saying he won't... I just think some of the Reds fans maybe need to adjust their expectations after the strong push to include him into the test team based on a motivation speech...

 

[RugbyReg]

I'm going to take a moment and rain on Van's parade here...

At the tender young age of 34 he's only just put in his first quality season of Super rugby...

Now, if we take players like Chisholm and Mumm who has both had a number of quality seasons of Super rugby but have never really stepped up to test level... why do so many Van fanboys think he's going to somehow step up and be better than some of these other guys based on one season at the end of his career?

I'm not saying he won't... I just think some of the Reds fans maybe need to adjust their expectations after the strong push to include him into the test team based on a motivation speech...

bullshit. He wan Aussie Rookie of the year in his first year. At the Tahs of all places. As I mentioned previously back in 2007, during the ARC, he was the form lock and I remember Lachie Turner for one saying he should have been in the RWC squad. I don't think anyone thinks he'll be in the test team, and I haven't seen many people call for it. His last 3 years have been very good for the Reds, this year excellent, and not just because he showed a bit of passion in a speech. But because he was aggressive around the field, he lead the line out, he made tackles, he hit the rucks. You say he's only had one good year (which is clearly wrong) but so has Douglas. Look at the S14 stats for the year though - on a per game basis Van made more tackles, less missed tackles, ran the ball more, made more metres per run, hit more rucks (both defensibility and on attack) and made less errors than Kane.

Kane's a good player, but just remember he started the year in the Academy program. He could do with having his first professional off-season. Personally I thought his form trailled off towards the end of the Super season, which can happen with those young guys. And tah fans can't on the one hand call for the selection of Waugh/Baxter et al on the basis of picking the best team and then argue that Douglas should've been selected over Van because of age.

 

[fatprop]

The funny thing about Van is that he has always been a solid standard S14 lock, a bit light, who had good ball skills (that he showed in the ARC) and effective at lineout; but more of a "loose" lock than a serious tight test forward.

He moves to the Reds, swears on TV, and he is converted into a hard man tight forward?

My only real comment is, if he is only there for the mid week games, Why invest in him?

He is 35 and highly unlikely to be around as a future test player, so why "invest" in a player who isn't going to be around to play future tests?

They aren't a real "Aus A" game; who would be the next best 22 players. If that was what they were selecting, Vans your man - as would be many of the discarded old heads; but the mid week games are pure development now so why invest?

 

[TOCC]

My only real comment is, if he is only there for the mid week games, Why invest in him?

He is 35 and highly unlikely to be around as a future test player, so why "invest" in a player who isn't going to be around to play

Simple really, there are 14 other players on the field at the same time..
Look at the broader picture, it's not just about one player, by taking Van your investing in the development of Mumm and Simmons

 

[fatprop]

Mumm ain't a development unit, he is an out of form test player

 

[RugbyReg]

Mumm ain't a development unit, he is an out of form test player

see now the complete bias is coming in. If this year has proven anything, its proven (once again) that Mumm aint up to test footy. He is shaping to be the next Mark Chisholm in my eyes.

Now as for this insistance that QLD supporters only like Van because he swears on tv, get over it. We've made out case numerously. Anyone who watched him this year saw his abilities and it was more than just swearing. He actually has a bit of mongrel about him. Something Mumm could learn.

 

[en_force_er]

I am still chuckling to myself that all this talk of Pat O'Connor came to nothing.

I had him tipped as a Rebels signing months ago but didn't hear anything about it, then there was suddenly all this attention, the Tahs signing and it all came to nothing.

Poor bloke, from zero to hero and back again in a week.

 

[RugbyReg]

did anyone really believe he'd tour though?

 

[Red Rooster]

I am still chuckling to myself that all this talk of Pat O'Connor came to nothing.

I had him tipped as a Rebels signing months ago but didn't hear anything about it, then there was suddenly all this attention, the Tahs signing and it all came to nothing.

Poor bloke, from zero to hero and back again in a week.

The Force let him go which must say something given their situation and lack of size up front

 

[Brumbies Guy]

I'm going to take a moment and rain on Van's parade here...

At the tender young age of 34 he's only just put in his first quality season of Super rugby...

Now, if we take players like Chisholm and Mumm who has both had a number of quality seasons of Super rugby but have never really stepped up to test level... why do so many Van fanboys think he's going to somehow step up and be better than some of these other guys based on one season at the end of his career?

I'm not saying he won't... I just think some of the Reds fans maybe need to adjust their expectations after the strong push to include him into the test team based on a motivation speech...

No it's not, it's just the first time he is being rewarded for it, he has always been solid.

Many complain when a players is picked on his name or potential rather than his form, now that a player is picked on form, you'll find the same ones wanting a different player picked in his place because of their name or potential... can't always win but I'm happy to see Van there

 

[Gagger]

see now the complete bias is coming in. If this year has proven anything, its proven (once again) that Mumm aint up to test footy. He is shaping to be the next Mark Chisholm in my eyes.

Now as for this insistance that QLD supporters only like Van because he swears on tv, get over it. We've made out case numerously. Anyone who watched him this year saw his abilities and it was more than just swearing. He actually has a bit of mongrel about him. Something Mumm could learn.

Noddy, I think we're going to need stats

 

[Lance Free]

You can't play the likes of Leicester and Munster with a whole bunch of wet behind the ears youngsters and have a chance of actually winning it. I think we'll seriously struggle against their forward packs anyway with what we've got but without some experienced Super 14 blokes like Van H, Brown and Hodgson (and yes, Le Fuse should have been there also) it just wouldn't happen. Leicester cleaned up the 2nd string Bokke last year and we all know what Munster can do.

 

[fatprop]

see now the complete bias is coming in. If this year has proven anything, its proven (once again) that Mumm aint up to test footy. He is shaping to be the next Mark Chisholm in my eyes.

No, I disagree with "bias", I have said for a while Mumm is struggling and if we had better depth he wouldn't be there. But Chisholm has really come on and gets through a lot of the grunt work, he has improved markedly from a blindside seagull into a solid tight forward.

Now as for this insistance that QLD supporters only like Van because he swears on tv, get over it. We've made out case numerously. Anyone who watched him this year saw his abilities and it was more than just swearing. He actually has a bit of mongrel about him. Something Mumm could learn.

It is a characterure, go back through the threads and see who generally brings it up as a reason to select him.

For the last few years the Aus A program hasn't been a form team, it has been a development step for younger players and a way for established players to get more advanced game time on their way back to the test program.

I said in the post if the selections were made to be a form 15 Van's case is pretty solid, but when did the structure of the Aus A program change to selecting the team on form? Because the rest of the "A" team really hasn't been. There seems to be an aversion to picking specialists for a start (like Weekes & Baxter - the two from THP's in this year's S14 have been ignored and/or played as a LHP) and "smokeys" continue to be picked over form options (like Phipps despite Stannard showing so much more form/talent in the 7s program and the Shute Shield)

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Van's been pretty good for a couple of S15 seasons now and his game will suit the mid-week games against the club sides. I think we'll need his hardness against Leicester in particular, who are known for being very handy in the set piece.

 

[Jnor]

The more I think about some of these selections I can only really come to one of two conclusions:

1) Robbie is actually crazy and likes to ignore specialists, experience and form or some combination of these in a number of cases
OR
2) There is a lot more in selection that comes down to attitude, application and determination - personal attributes of the players involved, than we generally give credit for and are obviously not privy to. A kind of favouritism I guess.

It seems that option 2 is much more likely to be the reality.

 

[Richo]

While it's fun to argue about the fringe selections, the big question for me is who Robbie will pick as his starting 15. That's what's going to matter in terms of winning the games that count and, sadly, I suspect we'll see some timid choices instead of tough ones, like sending Gits to the bench.

 

[fatprop]

While it's fun to argue about the fringe selections, the big question for me is who Robbie will pick as his starting 15. That's what's going to matter in terms of winning the games that count and, sadly, I suspect we'll see some timid choices instead of tough ones, like sending Gits to the bench.

1. Robinson
2. Moore
3. Alexander
4. Sharpe
5. Chisholm
6. Elsom
7. Pocock
8. McCalman
9. Genia
10. Cooper
11. Mitchell
12. Barnes
13. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
14. Hynes
15. Beale

Reserves:
16. Fainga'a
17. Slipper
18. Mumm
19. Hodgson
20. Burgess
21. Giteau
22. O'Connor/Turner/McCabe

My concern is back up for AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) at 13 on the bench

 

[Lee Grant]

The disturbing thing for me is not the names of the players in the squad, but the quality of the players in the likely Oz A team, or dirt trackers, if you will.

The quality, relative to the quality of the test team, is worse than that of 9 years ago when Waugh captained Oz A who beat the Lions in Gosford. Looking forward we could argue that we will have better candidates when there are more Oz professional players in the Super pool to chose from. There will be more Oz players running around the park every week when our 5th Super team is introduced and more still when the excess foreigners eventually disappear.

Then we have to take pause with the argument remembering that we had just 3 Super teams in 2001; so are 5 teams going to make a difference?

When we look back at the situation, sideways and around the corners, and we sit down and turn on the TV and watch the Currie Cup and the ITM, we see the answer to our problems. But let's not go there again folks.