Australia Vs Argentina, September 13, Gold Coast

[Train Without a Station]

Not really. What proven test lock are we missing?

 

[Train Without a Station]

Chisholm, Mumm, Douglas and Timani are just previous revisions of the same problems.

 

[Pjmil]

Lets just sacrifice some height and get some strong players in there. These guys are basically being selected because their mummy and daddy were tall and they managed to reach 2 metres, not for any rugby ability.

 

[Train Without a Station]

FYI a strong part of SA's success in 2007 was the fact that their smallest back 5 player was 193cm and they had a strong line out and scrum.

 

[wamberal]

I never cease to be amazed at the manichean attitude to any constructive criticism of certain players.


Of course Skelton has some huge strengths, I have never suggested otherwise. He also has some very clear weaknesses.


Perhaps my posts need to have illustrations, or be couched in simpler terms. Perhaps I should adhere to the apparently fairly wide view that one is either totally in favour of a particular player, else one is totally against them. No nuanced opinions will be countenanced by a number of posters. Weird, in what is actually a sport with a lot of nuances and subtleties.


International second rowers need a well recognised set of skills. Skelton has some of them, in abundance. He is lacking in some of them.


Is that okay? Can we agree that he has some good points, and some not-so-good points?

I have said several times in various threads that his not so good points need to be worked on, and corrected. His strong points are not so outstanding that his weaknesses can be glossed over, particularly when they are so obvious to anybody who has ever played in the second row, and will be exploited to the full by our strongest opponents.

 

[Quick Hands]

I never cease to be amazed at the manichean attitude to any constructive criticism of certain players.


Of course Skelton has some huge strengths, I have never suggested otherwise. He also has some very clear weaknesses.


Perhaps my posts need to have illustrations, or be couched in simpler terms. Perhaps I should adhere to the apparently fairly wide view that one is either totally in favour of a particular player, else one is totally against them. No nuanced opinions will be countenanced by a number of posters. Weird, in what is actually a sport with a lot of nuances and subtleties.


International second rowers need a well recognised set of skills. Skelton has some of them, in abundance. He is lacking in some of them.


Is that okay? Can we agree that he has some good points, and some not-so-good points?

I have said several times in various threads that his not so good points need to be worked on, and corrected. His strong points are not so outstanding that his weaknesses can be glossed over, particularly when they are so obvious to anybody who has ever played in the second row, and will be exploited to the full by our strongest opponents.

Well said. And I'm glad I'm not the only person who still calls 4 and 5 second rowers.

 

[barbarian]

I never cease to be amazed at the manichean attitude to any constructive criticism of certain players.

Ah OK, so don't engage with the counter-points raised, just give a generally disparaging comment to those who disagree with you, then re-iterate your previous points.

We actually had a nice debate going about 'traditional roles' in modern rugby. Feel free to join in if you decide to come down from your high horse.
.

 

[boyo]

Jeez I 'd hate to pack behind Slipper, if he's got the shits. Locks will be fighting each other to get behind Kepu

Wrong-coloured jersey for camouflage.

 

[Ruggo]

I kind of think maybe Canboring deserves this one actually.

Extremely rude to our guests from Argentina but at least they could drop by their embassy

Nah, they bitch about not getting test rugby but when they have gotten it, they don't go and watch it. TBH, they don't even bother in decent numbers turning up to watch the Brumbies.

I wouldn't mind them trying Adelaide or take another test to Newcastle. Maybe Hobart given how well recieved the Tahs vs Rebels trial was received.

 

[BDA]

skelton's omission isn't that shocking. It reckon it has less to do with his game more to do with what the alternatives offer. Link seems to see Skelton as a bench option at this stage of his development, rather than a starting player. I agree. His workrate needs work and Link appears to be going for a high-workrate starting pack. After the Bledisloe I think Link thought the team could use Horwill's experience. Again I agree. Skelton will get his opportunities this year.

 

[chasmac]

The problem as Barbarian has posted above is one of balance.

Skelton doesn't fit because lets face it neither Simmons nor Carter have been fulfilling their primary role at the lineout as it is. To compound that failure they are also failing around the field, and barely holding the scrum.

Since that is the case try something different, because the issue with Simmons in particular has rarely been different with regards to the lack of general play impact and the stupid penalties and how many tests has he played to learn the craft at test level.

In all honesty I would be prepared to concede the lineout as it stands (which we virtually have, it offers no competition to the opposition as its stands anyway) and select Skelton in any event and use him properly standing at 2 offering that short ball option that would have to be guarded. The select Horwill/Carter as the other lock and Higgers & McCalman in the backrow to balance. Replace McCalman with Fardy and move Higgers to 8 and the balance is pretty much maintained.

I could also opine about the lack of foresight in Australian Rugby with regard to player retention and selection of the medium term has directly led to this issue.

Good ideas. Solid thinking.
The injury to Palu creates the opportunity.

 

[ChargerWA]

I've got a solution to the lack of Skeltons "standard lock skill set".

Play him at 8.

Too soon?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I've got a solution to the lack of Skeltons "standard lock skill set".

Play him at 8.

Too soon?

I've got an even better idea -- play Luke Jones at 8.

 

[Hawko]

I never cease to be amazed at the manichean attitude to any constructive criticism of certain players.


Of course Skelton has some huge strengths, I have never suggested otherwise. He also has some very clear weaknesses.


Perhaps my posts need to have illustrations, or be couched in simpler terms. Perhaps I should adhere to the apparently fairly wide view that one is either totally in favour of a particular player, else one is totally against them. No nuanced opinions will be countenanced by a number of posters. Weird, in what is actually a sport with a lot of nuances and subtleties.


International second rowers need a well recognised set of skills. Skelton has some of them, in abundance. He is lacking in some of them.


Is that okay? Can we agree that he has some good points, and some not-so-good points?

I have said several times in various threads that his not so good points need to be worked on, and corrected. His strong points are not so outstanding that his weaknesses can be glossed over, particularly when they are so obvious to anybody who has ever played in the second row, and will be exploited to the full by our strongest opponents.

If you changed the name Skelton in this post to Simmons then the rest of the post would still exactly fit. But Simmons has had ~50 tests to work on his skillset and still has been totally unable to improve and to my eyes has gone backwards.

The team I posted a page or so back had a series of selections that covered the skills that Simmons is supposed to have, albeit some of those skills were covered by selections at 6 & 8. Simmons name doesn't appear in that team. The difference between us is that you insist that certain skills can only be covered by men wearing 4 or 5 on their back, which in this case is logically false (unless you want to argue that Simmons is way ahead of Skelton as a tight head lock scrummager, which I don't think either of us could prove or disprove).

I am just so totally over the braindead penalties Simmons gives away. A veteran lock should NEVER make those repeated mistakes. Every test Simmons grabs an opposing jumper in the air at least once, he never misses. It must be in his KPI's. Your answer to Simmons needing to be dropped for his performance is to claim Skelton's no good. I want to see if that works out in practise. I already know how Simmons will perform based on his test performances this year. This will be the easiest game of the RC; all the other ones will be harder, so why not try something this week?

 

[GaffaCHinO]

I've got an even better idea -- play Luke Jones at 8.

Dan Palmer is the man we need.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Dan Palmer is the man we need.

Well that was implicit in my post I think

 

[Hawko]

I've got an even better idea -- play Luke Jones at 8.

Jones should have been brought in to the squad as a back-up at 6 but playing him at 8 is not a stupid idea. He is one of the up and coming options at 8, along with Skelton. I expect Skelton will morph to 8 at the Tahs when Palu retires and long term I hope to the Wallabies.

But Jones is an option at 8, except he hasn't had any experience cleaning up shit scrum ball (Skelton has little either). They both have serious potential there, just no experience yet.

 

[Benaud]

I think a lot of the selections this week stem from the desire to have Higgers playing the "finisher" impact role, rather than starting and either playing more conservatively or exhausting himself after 30 mins.

So McCalman replaces Cliffy and Fardy keeps his spot. And with Higgers not starting, we still need a lineout caller, so Simmons is retained. My guess is both Carter and Simmons are on their final strike and will need a top quality game to remain in contention. Carter needs to lift his workrate and Simmons will probably be raked early if he gives away a penalty or 2.

The other 2 changes make sense. TPN had to start if fit. And the 2nd winger is only a fill-in for a week so better to stick with a fully fit winger rather than risk a guy with question marks over whether he's ready yet.

 

[Pfitzy]

8. McCalman

I don't doubt the work rate of these guys but there isn't a ball carrier *snip* among them

So you've never seen him play?

 

[Pfitzy]

And with Higgers not starting, we still need a lineout caller, so Simmons is retained. My guess is both Carter and Simmons are on their final strike and will need a top quality game to remain in contention.

Yes, but the obvious choice is Horwill, surely?