Biffo
Ken Catchpole (46)
I have spent most of the last week in bed, in quite some pain from two discs in my lower back leaking fluid. Ouch. Getting better slowly.
I have spent a lot of the time reflecting on rugby matters. I have been reading the continuing criticism of Giteau and asked myself the age-old "why is it so?". There seem to be a few perceptions of Giteau - that he is a 12 and only a 12, of varying quality; that he is a competent but not great 10; that he is a crap 10; others. Why all the differing opinions?
I have formed a hypothesis, after much recalling and reflecting. It is that Giteau may (can?) be a great 10. The conditions for that to happen are two. The first is very obvious - reasonable ball from the forwards and good service from the 9. The second is far more contentious and hard for me to assess from my memory alone - it is that Giteau is an outstanding (perhaps great) 10 when he has runners to position.
If you look at his performances at 10 with the Force, you'll probably conclude as I did. He had a fair forward pack and a fair 9. He had a plethora of runners from whom to choose or who would choose for him by positioning themselves. Looked good then, didn't he?
With the Wallabies, the position has been very different. Our pack was OK last year and this year has developed into a weapon, although it is not yet the mighty unit it will be come 2011. Genia has provided good (but let's not get carried away and call it outstanding) service. The Genia/Giteau gig is still new and will improve.
However, the second condition doesn't apply at all. Our backs have been crap for years. The only runner Giteau has at his disposal is Ashley-Cooper. Ioane is not yet a runner in the sense of making a quarter break into a half break, a half break into a full break and a full break into a try. Think Jason Little, Dan Herbert, Stirling Mortlock, Nathan Grey. I am a huge Digby supporter but his great value at present is as a broken play runner, smashing holes from nothing and chasing. He isn't yet a player that a 10 (or 12) can look to position for the big break. As for the others (might I remind you that they are The Burglar, Hynes, Mitchell) ... pffffft. I love Hynes' relentless work rate and finishing but he is not a runner in the sense I use the word.
Suppose we had some runners. Let's say Shepherd, Horne and Morahan. Then Gits would be able to scheme and plot and position. Horne has a great football brain and would be scheming endlessly for position to be served by Giteau. The backline might improve a little (ha ha) and Gits might look very good indeed.
Improve some positional play and angles and get Rocky, Palu, Polota-Nau, Bam Bam and that lazy big bastard Horwill running onto passes from Gits and the (who?) 12 in phase play and we might have a very nice attack.
How does my hypothesis stand?
I am sure Robbie D has thought of all of that already. If you don't believe me, go watch a few Crusaders' games during his tenure.
BTW, did y'all notice that Dan Vickerman played a full 80 minutes yesterday? I bet Robbie D made a congratulatory ( ) call today.
I have spent a lot of the time reflecting on rugby matters. I have been reading the continuing criticism of Giteau and asked myself the age-old "why is it so?". There seem to be a few perceptions of Giteau - that he is a 12 and only a 12, of varying quality; that he is a competent but not great 10; that he is a crap 10; others. Why all the differing opinions?
I have formed a hypothesis, after much recalling and reflecting. It is that Giteau may (can?) be a great 10. The conditions for that to happen are two. The first is very obvious - reasonable ball from the forwards and good service from the 9. The second is far more contentious and hard for me to assess from my memory alone - it is that Giteau is an outstanding (perhaps great) 10 when he has runners to position.
If you look at his performances at 10 with the Force, you'll probably conclude as I did. He had a fair forward pack and a fair 9. He had a plethora of runners from whom to choose or who would choose for him by positioning themselves. Looked good then, didn't he?
With the Wallabies, the position has been very different. Our pack was OK last year and this year has developed into a weapon, although it is not yet the mighty unit it will be come 2011. Genia has provided good (but let's not get carried away and call it outstanding) service. The Genia/Giteau gig is still new and will improve.
However, the second condition doesn't apply at all. Our backs have been crap for years. The only runner Giteau has at his disposal is Ashley-Cooper. Ioane is not yet a runner in the sense of making a quarter break into a half break, a half break into a full break and a full break into a try. Think Jason Little, Dan Herbert, Stirling Mortlock, Nathan Grey. I am a huge Digby supporter but his great value at present is as a broken play runner, smashing holes from nothing and chasing. He isn't yet a player that a 10 (or 12) can look to position for the big break. As for the others (might I remind you that they are The Burglar, Hynes, Mitchell) ... pffffft. I love Hynes' relentless work rate and finishing but he is not a runner in the sense I use the word.
Suppose we had some runners. Let's say Shepherd, Horne and Morahan. Then Gits would be able to scheme and plot and position. Horne has a great football brain and would be scheming endlessly for position to be served by Giteau. The backline might improve a little (ha ha) and Gits might look very good indeed.
Improve some positional play and angles and get Rocky, Palu, Polota-Nau, Bam Bam and that lazy big bastard Horwill running onto passes from Gits and the (who?) 12 in phase play and we might have a very nice attack.
How does my hypothesis stand?
I am sure Robbie D has thought of all of that already. If you don't believe me, go watch a few Crusaders' games during his tenure.
BTW, did y'all notice that Dan Vickerman played a full 80 minutes yesterday? I bet Robbie D made a congratulatory ( ) call today.