The reason Simmons is there is because he is a better line out operator than all other locks in Australia and gets through a shit tonne or work every game. I in fact despised the bloke when he debuted for the Reds and lament the fact that I'm not his body shape as I could surely be a Wallaby if I was. But the fact of the matter is he serves a purpose.
....
Simmons isn't picked to be Eben Estebeth, Sam Carter is. Look at the good second row combinations and understand the roles required before you comment. Then direct your comments correctly. Something like the fact he gave away 4 penalties and we lost 2 line outs is shocking. Simmons needs to dominate the air and not make stupid decisions that cost us fucking tries like the one on Saturday.
I really don't agree with this thinking at all. I dislike the notion of players being picked to fulfil a "role" and then not being answerable to the rest of their performance when on the field.
Rob Simmons is apparently a good line out operator. I know little about that, so I won't contest it. He also gets through a lot of work, but so does Wycliff Palu, and yet people here are continually calling for his axing (not required now as he's concussed) because he doesn't make enough of an
impact.
For me, Rob Simmons should be a good line operator, get through a lot of work and still make that
impact when doing it. He's playing for the fucking Wallabies for christ's sake - surely there is a lock in Australia with that description.
If we start allowing player's to be weak in contact and general play in order to fulfil "special roles" then we're fucked. We'd have halfbacks that can't tackle but have mean passes. Props that waddle from scrum to scrum only to demolish them but do fuck all else. We'd have Jesse Mogg playing fullback and blasting the ball into outer space every time we kicked for touch.
To summarise, my problem with Rob Simmons and Sam Carter is that they both look like Tarzan and play like Jane. Rob calling a line out does not prevent him from smashing people in tackles and getting over the advantage line. What prevents him from doing these things is a lack of aggression and basic skills that is evident throughout all of Australian rugby.
What's the point of winning an opposition line out if when we win it our locks just flop over 5 metres behind the advantage line three phases later? What's the point of contesting a line out and losing it only to have our locks driven back in tackles? The fact is, the tight five are the engine room of all the whole team, and not just the set piece. I can understand the emphasis on wanting scrum parity (as to avoid yellow cards and penalty tries) but as long as we have a functioning line out (which we should be able to obtain under most callers) I would go for dominance in general play over aerial dominance when selecting forwards.
To finish, I'm not a huge fan of dirty play, but I honestly wouldn't mind seeing Hooper having to hold back Carter or Simmons from time to time as they try and rip someones head off for rubbing them the wrong way. They're playing for Australia! Where's the passion? At the moment, if one of them are pushed, I'd be more inclined to think that they'd go home and complain to their mother's about it instead of standing their ground. I want my locks to be the meanest guys on the field and our current ones are far from that.
P.S - cut the aggressive tone. The "mate's" and the "understand your roles before you comment" and "directly your comments correctly" aren't necessary. You are not the source of all knowledge on 2nd rowers and neither am I. Defend your argument but don't dismiss mine just because it conflicts with yours. It makes you look like a tool.
P.P.S - this stems from pure curiosity, would you actually have picked Simmons in the Waratahs 23 this year if chosen as the selector?
