chisolm out> VAN THE MAN

[Scarfman]

Again with the ageism. There should be ONE question here: who is better, Van or Kane?

In open field - Kane. What with his sidestep. In scrums? Lineouts? Probably Van. In the cleanout, tackle, and workrate? Honestly, I'm not sure.

 

[liquor box]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rug...-chance-to-make-world-cup-20100925-15rij.html

WALLABIES coach Robbie Deans has left the door ajar for World Cup hopefuls, declaring Super 15 form will take preference over reputation

I wonder if this will actually happen? Was Van deserving on his form this year?

 

[TOCC]

Disagree TOCC, Chisholm, since the chat with the Brumbies coaching staff, has been a very effective, direct and hard working lock.

The lock out of form at the moment is Mumm

Mark Chisolm has played many many more games where he has been short of internatinoal quality then he has displaying international quality. We might as well give Mark Chisolm the nickname of 'false dawn'...


Regardless, Mark Chisolm isnt the person in question here, when we look toward Van Humphries vs Kane Douglas i think we need to look at what we are trying to achieve by selecting either. Kane Douglas has raw potential with a big future ahead of him, yet he is still far from been a refined package. Van Humphries is a journeymen, but what he does provide is maturity and experience of a varying degree.

I dont see either playing a part in 2011, we will have Horwill, Sharpe and Vickerman in 2011, with Simmons, Mumm and Chisolm providing the depth, we already have players involved in the system to provide succession planning, what we are lacking at lock is experience, if Sharpe goes down then we are relying on a lock pairing of players who are yet to establish themselves even at Super Rugby level.

Take Van for the maturity and experience factor, he is a quality lineout caller who will steady the ship.. Take Kane if you are after another young player who puts in his all, yet lacking the ability to control a lineout.

 

[Gagger]

You're right Scarfy, TOCC is clearly being ageist by favouring the 'mature' Van

 

[cyclopath]

TOCC, I like your optimism that we will have Sharpe, Horwill and Vickerman in 2011, with the other back-ups. Horwill and Vickerman are far from set in my mind, neither having done anything of note in about 2 years or more for various reasons, including injuries.
I am a Van-Fan, but really, if it comes down to him v Douglas, I would say Douglas, given he has the chance to be a fixture for years to come.
Maybe take Van for motivational speeches, and to hand out the jerseys...
"Number 1, here you go Fatcat, go roll a c**t; Number 2, Squeaky, get rolling; number 3, BA, there are c**ts a-waiting..."
Well, you get it.

 

[Slim 293]

Disagree TOCC, Chisholm, since the chat with the Brumbies coaching staff, has been a very effective, direct and hard working lock.

The lock out of form at the moment is Mumm

This.

Chisholm was hardly the best Wallaby in recent games but he was a definite improvement from Mumm.

His set piece work really helped out the Wallabies.

If he's out I'd be looking towards Douglas or Kimlin.

Van Humphries isn't test standard.

 

[TOCC]

well i guess i look at the spring tour and want to be able to see the Wallabies win rather then finishing another tour and saying "we lost, but at least we are developing towards something"...

Robbie needs to draw a line in the sand at some point, lets start picking players because they are the best available at that time and not purely on what they can become in the future

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Douglas certainly has potential, but the way that Humphries led that Reds pack this season I thought was exemplary. As I said, I would be considering it and frankly the only thing that has given me any pause is his age. Perhaps a spot off the bench to do the hard graft in the last 20-30 when Mumm or Sharpe are tiring is the way to go. The point about taking Douglas away on the EOYT as a development player is a good one, but I would want to see him in a mid-week game first before throwing him into a test. I don't think tours should be used purely as a way to develop the squad. We have five test matches to win and I want us to win all of them.

 

[Hawko]

Everyone is talking Douglas as the up and comer for development (why Deans chose Simmons on S14 form is one of the all-time mysteries). I am a Douglas fan and would love to take him on the EOYT for development purposes. But right now I would take Kimlin over both on potential. He's had a terrible injury run but has had a couple of Super seasons when he has looked like he could be anything. I'd take Kimlin for the Chisolm spot and Douglas over Simmons for dirt-tracker development (but its a close call and I wouldn't be overly concerned as long as one goes). I just think that on Super form Douglas was better.

 

[Bowside]

Just watched the shute shield game from the weekend and while I wasnt sold on Douglas earlier, I think that with chisolms injury they should definatly take Douglas. I like that he's got a bit of agression about him.

 

[tranquility]

Everyone is talking Douglas as the up and comer for development (why Deans chose Simmons on S14 form is one of the all-time mysteries). I am a Douglas fan and would love to take him on the EOYT for development purposes. But right now I would take Kimlin over both on potential. He's had a terrible injury run but has had a couple of Super seasons when he has looked like he could be anything. I'd take Kimlin for the Chisolm spot and Douglas over Simmons for dirt-tracker development (but its a close call and I wouldn't be overly concerned as long as one goes). I just think that on Super form Douglas was better.

Bit ridiculous to be knocking Simmonds at this stage isn't it? I mean Douglas had more game time in the super 14 and was probably more likely to get picked at that stage. But I mean Simmonds has played a reasonable part in this years 3N and hasn't looked out of place at all. He is also the more accomplished junior footballer having made every side in the development pathway, which means nothing of course - but it is a bit rich to say that Douglas now deserves his spot because he had a good game in the Shute Shield.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

With a RWC around the corner, I do not think we can afford the luxuary of "development" positions on the EOYT.

We are highly critical of the NH teams when they send second string teams on tour down under, and we are proposing to send players for development "On Top".

There has been enough experimenting this year already. From the EOYT we need to develop stability and the confidence that comes from belting those NH teams good and proper. Like it or not, the Rugby world is on a 4 year cycle, culminating in about 360 days time.

We can use the Men in Gold as a development tool after that.

A good performance in a S15 series will provide the opportunity for Fringe Wallabies to get noticed for the next level step up. Let's not rush player development prematurely. We do it far too often with unimpressive results.

 

[Scarfman]

I reckon there's an interesting correlation here. I reckon most of the Deans lovers are with Kane, and the Deans doubters are with Van. A few exceptions, of course, but not a bad rule of thumb.

Shows that the big schism (as opposed to the Big Chisholm), is between development vs experience.

 

[Scotty]

Outside of Nathan Sharpe, the locks are essentially babies. Mumm has been around the block granted, but Simmons is a baby.
And if Horwill gets a gig (will he be fit?) then we have 2 young locks. Van's experience might be invaluable in guiding these youngens along.

Having said that, Sharpe will be going, so Kane Douglas come on down.

Horwill will be 26 next year. Hardly a baby.

 

[RugbyReg]

I'm with Deans. Tour form won't mean much. S15 form will/should have a big say. So. Take Douglas. Let him get some more high level coaching, experience touring life, get to know the likes of Sharpe, Pocock, Rocky et al. If Van produces another cracking year next year (as he did this year) then he should be picked for the RWC.

This tour will benefit Douglas ( and I guess Kimlin) more than it would Van

 

[RugbyReg]

Horwill will be 26 next year. Hardly a baby.

And the Reds captain. And he's been around the wallaby squad since 2007.

 

[fatprop]

I don't understand this, what does bringing in a lock with maybe one season left in him, who has never been more than a solid club man add to the program? Why invest in him?

I reckon Kimlin, Douglas & Dennis would all be ahead of Van.

 

[Scotty]

I reckon there's an interesting correlation here. I reckon most of the Deans lovers are with Kane, and the Deans doubters are with Van. A few exceptions, of course, but not a bad rule of thumb.

Shows that the big schism (as opposed to the Big Chisholm), is between development vs experience.

Don't be so black and white, Scarfman. There is also another group that sit (or sway) on the fence in between the lovers and doubters. I consider myself one of them - ie that there are some mitigating circumstances that have affected the wallaby win rate in the last few seasons but that also Deans does do some strange things with a) selection and b) bench use during games.

I invite all 'fence swayers' to agree with my post to demonstrate to the Scarf Knitter that we are actually out there.

 

[RugbyReg]

I don't understand this, what does bringing in a lock with maybe one season left in him, who has never been more than a solid club man add to the program? Why invest in him?

I reckon Kimlin, Douglas & Dennis would all be ahead of Van.

In terms of potential? Maybe. I acknowledge Kimlins POTENTIAL but wouldn't consider him a test lock candidate at the moment. Likewise, and I am a Dennis fan, but I don't see him as a test lock. A bench player or 6 option sure, but not a test lock. I'd have Van well above both of them as a potential test lock at the moment. Douglas about the same level but as for my post above, he's probably more worthwhile a selection for this tour than Van.

But let's remember Kurt has had just one season of S14. Van's first year saw him win rookie of the year from all the aussie teams. And he's played Aussie a. He's an unfashionable lock and played behind the like of sharpe, Harrison and sharpe. Also I remember lachie turner and co playing with him at the western rams and saying the team thought he was amazing and the best lock in Australia.

He was an inspiration for the red this year and a real hard nose forward leader. They are some qualities this wallaby team lacks. And not qualtities I see in the likes of Dennis and Kimlin.

 

[jay-c]

spot on rugby reg> i think van brings inspiration, aggression and experience to a young team. at a time when we seem to be consistently failing in the final quarters of games we need players tat have a big heart to be there,also if something was to happen to sharpe i think we would be dreadfully exposed come lineout time.
deans hes said hes taking the best team onto the paddock to win and i dont wanna hear development excuses come november
i truly believe that at international level there is less than a few percent in it between the top players and it comes down to who turns up on the day, this is when a teams mental attitude and experience come in... i dont see any advatage of taking anther lock over van because he has better with a sidestep or is a better runner around the park... look at the rest of the team ffs- its full of goose stepping sidestepping agile buggers we need van there to control the line out, hit hard and run straight-
the other thing i like about him is that HE IS ACTUALLY A LOCK>from wiki> height 2.03 m (6 ft 8 in) Weight 116 kg (18 st 4 lb).... hes not a 6 that can play lock
also think of the attitude he will bring to the team, he knows hes got a season left in him that will determine weather hes spent his whole career as a s14 quality player... or for just one season just one world cup- he was a wallaby!