chisolm out> VAN THE MAN

[fatprop]

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.

My thought process is that with Chisholm out, the starting test locks will be will be Mumm, Sharpe or Simmons in some form of rotation.

So to me we are looking at units to play the two Aus A games which is essentially a development program for the next few years of test rugby. That is to see which kids have the ability to step and give them real pressure to perform in a hostile environment, not actually to pick the next best 15 for this game, or Baxter and Waugh would be around if fit as well.

I like Humphries as a S14 lock, but he just ain't a development player (and being over heard saying c*nt on TV doesn't make someone hard or an inspiration in the test arena) and it is too late in his development for him to be brought in as a test player instead of Mumm, Sharpe or Simmons.


I just don't see the ARU investing in Van

Let Simmons & Douglas start the A games with Dennis or Kimlin on the bench to cover 4/6.

 

[Lee Grant]

Have to agree about leaving Van out.

When the first squad of 2010 was announced a few of us deplored that there weren't enough hard heads in the squad, especially in the tight five. When we came to nominate which hard heads should have been in the squad instead of other healthy guys picked, the only name we could come up with was Van Humphries.

Since he wasn't included I put his name away as one to be considered in the future. If Chisholm is definitely out there is a chance he could be included in the tour group but I doubt that he should be now after a season of tests has floated under the rugby bridge since the first 2010 squad was chosen. And we all know of Deans' stubbornness by now.

I have a similar view to fatprop: that Mumm and Sharpe should tour as the premier locks and that Simmons and Douglas should be the dirt-trackers, with Douglas on the TH side where he usually plays. There will be no shortage of backups for the mid-week games, including Kimlin if he is judged to be match-fit enough to tour, and performance in them should decide which of Simmons and Douglas should be on the bench for the test matches.

Simmons should have precedence having been with a Wallabies matchday 22 before but Deans may decide that Douglas' mongrel is compelling.

Who would have thought of this scenario before Rd.1 of the 2010 Super14 with Mumm, Horwill, Sharpe, and Chisholm all fit and perhaps Kimlin ready during the season? And as a backup it looked like Will Caldwell was healthy again. Nobody was talking about Simmons IIRR and Douglas was virtually unknown outside of NSW and not a household name in it.

How the world turns. We may get some benefit from the situation and let's hope we crow when the tour ends that it was so. Right now it's difficult to see a silver lining with Horwill missing.

 

[Slim 293]

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.

I think it's not right to say that about Kimlin when he hasn't played any tests at lock, and was one of the standout Aussie locks last year in the Super 14. And in terms of height/weight he's bigger than Chisholm and Mumm.

Obviously he's another who has come from the backrow but I think he can best contribute to the Brumbies and Wallabies most by sticking with lock considering he's not going to get a chance at 6.

It's a shame that Kimlin hasn't got more test experience after not playing on the 2008 EOYT through injury and then getting injured again last year...

 

[#1 Tah]

They have fixed up Woollarah oval a bit since saturday.

 

[en_force_er]

And in terms of height/weight he's bigger than Chisholm and Mumm.

I refuse to believe this. Chisholm is a monster.

 

[Reddy!]

Is Douglas fit? Is he playing well in club rugby?

 

[fatprop]

Is Douglas fit? Is he playing well in club rugby?

Yep, he played very well against Uni in semi on Sunday

 

[TOCC]

i havent seen enough from Douglas to justify his selection in the wallaby squad, yes he might have potential, yet considering we are less then 12months out from the RWC, we need to stop selecting players based on potential and select them based on form

 

[fatprop]

Douglas was to me the Aus surprise of the S14, he went from the pro academy to playing near every game for the Tahs. He is a direct, hard working TH lock. No fuss, just straight up the middle, nose down bum up

 

[qwerty51]

i havent seen enough from Douglas to justify his selection in the wallaby squad, yes he might have potential, yet considering we are less then 12months out from the RWC, we need to stop selecting players based on potential and select them based on form

Yet you seem to be a fan of the Rebels?

 

[#1 Tah]

Douglas was to me the Aus surprise of the S14, he went from the pro academy to playing near every game for the Tahs. He is a direct, hard working TH lock. No fuss, just straight up the middle, nose down bum up

He did play every game and was just announced junior Waratah of the year

 

[qwerty51]

He did play every game and was just announced junior Waratah of the year

If his brother, Luke who plays for the Sharks is anything to go by he should play every game for the next 5 years. Luke hasn't missed a game in over 100 first-grade appearances.

 

[Lee Grant]

they have fixed up woollarah oval a bit since saturday.

Very funny that.

 

[Gnostic]

I don't think a player's potential should figure to a great deal in national selection. Certainly not more than actual demonstrated form. Examples like Jone Tawake and Rod Blake immediately spring to mind as player who had and have enormous potential but never really to date put it on the park.

As for Deans looking at the selection of the team over the past two years S14 form means little. Baxter was by far the best THP in Oz this year and Ma'afu probably 4th at best behind Baxter, Weeks, Palmer and maybe even Fairbrother. Giteau has been out of form for ages, and there are many more examples.

It is obvious that the selection of players by Deans et al is based on different criteria than demonstrated form in S14 and on that basis whilst I would like to see Van get a go he has no chance. I think Douglas will tour but he will not see any game time away from the mid week games.

 

[Sully]

I say take Van. He is the best of the rest. And Deans has stated that the experimenting is over.

 

[Ruggo]

We have spent enough time building the depth. Now it is time to start building a winning culture. Douglas is most certainly a future prospect but we need to focus on our present. Van for me please.

 

[TOCC]

Yet you seem to be a fan of the Rebels?

what has that got to do with anything?

 

[Gagger]

You forgot to mention Jay-c that he's also 2 years older than Nathan Sharpe and will by 36 in January - (and I simply don't believe that he's 3cm taller than Victor Matfield, despite what the stats say)

I'm sorry guys but even if I went with your version of how brilliant Van was throughout the 2010 S14 (I remember a workhorse who had a solid S14 and nice line in swearing, nothing more) this was still at S14 level, not international. By memory, I'm not sure he was finishing games for the Reds by the end? So the idea that he's gonna take his 35 year old frame that has never played international rugby - and start adding leadership value to a gameplan that is balls-out fast paced is borderline delusional.

And it's understandable that he wouldn't - all players (even those not past rugby retirement age) need a season or two to step up to international rugby. So how many seasons do you reckon Van has left? He stays for one or two and then we're straight back trying to find another lock replacement with zero caps. Two wasted years.

Madness.

 

[Hawko]

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.

I want it on the record. I am a Deans doubter and a Kane Douglas fan.

 

[qwerty51]

what has that got to do with anything?

You haven't watched a lot of him... Should be if you're a fan