2nd Test Wallabies v France 8pmTuesday 13th July,

[Derpus]

Sure - but he has far more potential than that. And both his issues are capable of being addressed in the short term. It’s not like his left to right is terrible. And it’s improved from last year. It just needs to improve further.

His box kicking is a bit harder to judge IMO because he rarely does for the Reds but, when he does, I generally think it’s been okay. But Rennie clearly isn’t convinced.

Fix those two things and combine with a his already top shelf running game, his speed and his defence and you have top shelf half capable of matching anyone.

Box kicking is a key skill in all test 9s. Look how guys like Smith and Murray use it. Its an absolute weapon for them.

Tate wont be a top line test 9 until he learns it.

 

[Joe Blow]

Box kicking is a key skill in all test 9s. Look how guys like Smith and Murray use it. Its an absolute weapon for them.

Tate wont be a top line test 9 until he learns it.

Didn’t Gordon put one straight out last week and put a couple of others too deep? I thought Tates kicking was pretty good when he came on. Rennie seemed to think so.

 

[TSR]

Box kicking is a key skill in all test 9s. Look how guys like Smith and Murray use it. Its an absolute weapon for them.

Tate wont be a top line test 9 until he learns it.

Do you read posts before you reply?

 

[TSR]

Didn’t Gordon put one straight out last week and put a couple of others too deep? I thought Tates kicking was pretty good when he came on. Rennie seemed to think so.

Yeah - I thought I remembered Tate stuffing one, but I note Rennie said they were very happy with his kicking in the presser.

 

[Derpus]

Didn’t Gordon put one straight out last week and put a couple of others too deep? I thought Tates kicking was pretty good when he came on. Rennie seemed to think so.

Yep he was awful. Hes shown more competence in Super Rugby, so he gets another go. But another performance like last week and i think his test career will be over.

 

[Derpus]

Do you read posts before you reply?

Yes?

 

[liquor box]

Yeah - I thought I remembered Tate stuffing one, but I note Rennie said they were very happy with his kicking in the presser.

If an Australian team, either Wallabies or Super Rugby was able to make less than 5 poor kicks in a game it would be a vast improvement. Every kicker in the country is inconsistent and in reality we don't really select someone because they are a good kicker, it is that they are least worst.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I agree Tate played generally well, and was better overall, but some of his passing was still below par as was his box kick (or at least the one I remember). Rennie has been pretty clear on what Tate needs to improve on to start.

Gordon can feel lucky for sure, but I am not sure McDermott can feel that hard done by. He has every chance to take the starting gig, from both Gordon & Nic White IMO, if he addresses the two things holding him back.

TSR, have to disagree about the respective box kicking skills of Tate v Gordon.

Jake's box kicks were mostly considerably too long and put the receivers under no pressure. He also put one out on the full from outside the 22. Tate's were generally better directed and of better length. If there are X skills a No 9 should be judged by, Tate outshines Jake in X-1 of them. Jake is an exceptional support runner but otherwise is behind Tate imo.

 

[Derpus]

TSR, have to disagree about the respective box kicking skills of Tate v Gordon.

Jake's box kicks were mostly considerably too long and put the receivers under no pressure. He also put one out on the full from outside the 22. Tate's were generally better directed and of better length. If there are X skills a No 9 should be judged by, Tate outshines Jake in X-1 of them. Jake is an exceptional support runner but otherwise is behind Tate imo.

Pretty sure Tate had one, awful box kick. At least try.

 

[TSR]

I’m not so much defending Gordon. I thought he was poor - but I thought he was very good, when fit, during Super Rugby. And I don’t think it is always necessary to punt guys after 1 bad outing. I’m personally okay with him being retained.

I guess my position on McDermott is that I don’t mind that Rennie is being demanding on him - something Rennie himself admitted he is doing. You could easily start Tate now and he’d probably be a pretty fair test player and rack up a good number of tests. But my hope is that because Rennie is demanding better from him before giving him a start he will, hopefully, iron out the two deficiencies in his game and be an out and out star. He already has parts of his game which are at that level (IMO).

The best comparison I can think of is Nick Phipps. Nick had lots of good attributes. His tackling was good, support play very good and his fitness was, by all reports, outstanding. But the core role of his job - his passing - was never up to scratch for a professional 9. If it had have been he would have been up there with the best. Australian rugby has had a whole range of problems - but some of our issues over the last 10yrs come purely from players not reaching their potential. Imagine how different our results would have been of guys like Phipps, Cooper, Ashley-Cooper, Beale, Kerevi, Folau, Coleman, Higginbotham, TPN, Latu, Robinson et al all truly maximised their potential. That is not meant to be a slight on them. They are all great rugby players who have achieved plenty but, IMO, none of them have maximised their potential, due at least in part to deficiencies in their core skills.

I don’t want to be looking back in 10 yrs and saying the same about this group (and, for the record, I don’t feel I will be).

 

[dru]

TSR, have to disagree about the respective box kicking skills of Tate v Gordon.

Jake's box kicks were mostly considerably too long and put the receivers under no pressure. He also put one out on the full from outside the 22. Tate's were generally better directed and of better length. If there are X skills a No 9 should be judged by, Tate outshines Jake in X-1 of them. Jake is an exceptional support runner but otherwise is behind Tate imo.

I agree with you BR, but have you seen the recent article by Nick Bishop at the Roar? His analysis suggests otherwise. Though he did think Tate was better than Gordon on most criteria in the test.

I think Gordon is a sensational 9 - his lead at the Tahs has been sensational. I'm not convinced he outshines Tate but I do think his leadership has potential inside an inexperienced 10. He is yet to prove it though.

 

[Derpus]

I’m not so much defending Gordon. I thought he was poor - but I thought he was very good, when fit, during Super Rugby. And I don’t think it is always necessary to punt guys after 1 bad outing. I’m personally okay with him being retained.

I guess my position on McDermott is that I don’t mind that Rennie is being demanding on him - something Rennie himself admitted he is doing. You could easily start Tate now and he’d probably be a pretty fair test player and rack up a good number of tests. But my hope is that because Rennie is demanding better from him before giving him a start he will, hopefully, iron out the two deficiencies in his game and be an out and out star. He already has parts of his game which are at that level (IMO).

The best comparison I can think of is Nick Phipps. Nick had lots of good attributes. His tackling was good, support play very good and his fitness was, by all reports, outstanding. But the core role of his job - his passing - was never up to scratch for a professional 9. If it had have been he would have been up there with the best. Australian rugby has had a whole range of problems - but some of our issues over the last 10yrs come purely from players not reaching their potential. Imagine how different our results would have been of guys like Phipps, Cooper, Ashley-Cooper, Beale, Kerevi, Folau, Coleman, Higginbotham, TPN, Latu, Robinson et al all truly maximised their potential. That is not meant to be a slight on them. They are all great rugby players who have achieved plenty but, IMO, none of them have maximised their potential, due at least in part to deficiencies in their core skills.

I don’t want to be looking back in 10 yrs and saying the same about this group (and, for the record, I don’t feel I will be).

Phipps passing was better than both McDermott and Gordon. Bloke got ragged on for being a Tah, but he could play. Never had the running game of Genia though.

 

[Joe Blow]

Phipps could not hit the side of a barn a lot of the time. His passing got better but it was never that good. Man had a big motor and great running skills though. He was better than Gordon.

 

[TSR]

Phipps passing was better than both McDermott and Gordon. Bloke got ragged on for being a Tah, but he could play. Never had the running game of Genia though.

Disagree. Phipps passing was well below the standard of both Gordon & McDermott. Getting ragged on because he was a Tah? Maybe that was true for some supporters but he got ragged on when he was at the Rebels - so that doesn’t stack up.

He got ragged on because his passing was poor and it was the number one core skill of his job. Plain & simple.

The great majority of rugby supporters don’t give too shits which super rugby team a player comes from - there is just a small section that makes a lot of noise.

 

[TSR]

Phipps could not hit the side of a barn a lot of the time. His passing got better but it was never that good. Man had a big motor and great running skills though. He was better than Gordon.

For all of the time that they were both at the Tahs that was true - although there was one year I think it was line ball.

But I don’t recall Phipps ever playing as well for the Tahs in his time there as Gordon did this year.

 

[Up the Guts]

Disagree. Phipps passing was well below the standard of both Gordon & McDermott. Getting ragged on because he was a Tah? Maybe that was true for some supporters but he got ragged on when he was at the Rebels - so that doesn’t stack up.

He got ragged on because his passing was poor and it was the number one core skill of his job. Plain & simple.

The great majority of rugby supporters don’t give too shits which super rugby team a player comes from - there is just a small section that makes a lot of noise.

It seems to me the super parochial are a larger proportion than they were though. Agree they make a lot of noise, pretty hilarious watching those same clowns on the front page banging the drum day in and day out about how Hooper and Koroibete are the Achilles heel of Australian rugby. They definitely won’t be happy Hooper has been selected again as captain rather than being fired into the sun.

 

[Derpus]

It seems to me the super parochial are a larger proportion than they were though. Agree they make a lot of noise, pretty hilarious watching those same clowns on the front page banging the drum day in and day out about how Hooper and Koroibete are the Achilles heel of Australian rugby. They definitely won’t be happy Hooper has been selected again as captain rather than being fired into the sun.

Can you just imagine how good we could be if we dropped those two slogs. Numba one i reckon.

 

[TSR]

It seems to me the super parochial are a larger proportion than they were though. Agree they make a lot of noise, pretty hilarious watching those same clowns on the front page banging the drum day in and day out about how Hooper and Koroibete are the Achilles heel of Australian rugby. They definitely won’t be happy Hooper has been selected again as captain rather than being fired into the sun.

Rugby is better off for the parochialism and passion though. I just don’t think it spills over anywhere as much as is it is made out to.

I think the assumption that the criticism of Hooper is always because he is a Tah is probably flawed too — although there is definitely some of that, especially for fans of Pocock & Gill (and even Hodgson for a while). There is a portion of the community who I don’t think have ever forgiven Hooper for his perceived roll in the demise of McKenzie. His other sins appear to include not being a traditional ‘on the ball’ 7, the fact we had to play two 7s because we couldn’t find enough other decent backrowers to force a choice between them, playing in the wide channel, being quicker than your average forward and having long hair.

I also suspect he cops plenty simply because he has been the captain in the period when the Wallabies have been relatively poor.

Despite all those obvious shortcomings I think there are plenty of non-NSW fans who rate Hooper immensely.

 

[cyclopath]

Now we're re-visiting the Hooper v Pocock / Gill etc discussion, which is always great to re-animate, can I assume we'll move on to Quade v Foley and how that has any bearing on next Tuesday's Test match?
FFS.

 

[TSR]

Sorry Cyclo. That wasn’t my intent at all to take the conversation there - it was just the way the conversation rolled out.

But point taken and I’ll leave it there.