MacQueen turned the Wallabies around in one pre-season

[Newter]

Your opinion is fatally flawed by looking at S14 stats from this year and Scrum stats from the last few years in internationals and other games.

Baxter was the best THP by far in Oz for workrate and the Tahs really suffered when he was out as Palmer doesn't have his workrate and Tilse is only adequate on the TH side. Baxter in addition has had no problems with any LHP in the world except Woodcock. The problem there as has been pointed out many times before is that Woodcock does not bind but engages with one hand on the ground, then he binds but has his shoulder under the TH allowing him to get dominance. Baxter recognised that and his flawed way of dealing with it was to try and go lower to stop Woodcock getting underneath, Baxter then gets done for going head below hips. The other issue which Joubert inconsistantly applied to Baxter was binding on the arm which he didn't, it was on the jersey at the shoulder. The issue there was this hadn't been policed in that way all year and no other prop in the comp has been penlised for it before or since.

In any event Ma'afu was not second or even third best THP in Oz. Fairbrother had the second best stats, followed by Weeks.

So Tony Woodcock has been outsmarting Baxter for years. That's pretty tough, but is it unfair?

Which stats are you looking at? Have you got a link? I'd be genuinely interested to see how often Baxter wins the hit in scrums at Test level.

As for work rate, I'd pick Ma'afu here hands down. G&GR's stats on Ma'afu have shown a consistently high work rate. In the last Bledisloe Test he even outperformed his loosehead in carries (5) and tackles (9).
This has been typical for him this season.
I suspect his clean out rate is just as high, and from the ones I've noticed he moves bodies very effectively. The one thing Baxter always lacked was decent impact at the ruck.

 

[da_grubster]

The difference is that none of the missing ABs are key players, with the possible exception of Sivi. In fact none of them may get a game when they are fit. The missing Wallabies are the backbone of the team.

Hore, Sivivatu and Williams are/were starting AB's when fully fit. granted, Mealamu has had probably his best year so that has negated any loss at hooker but Williams and Sivi would have kept out Donnelly and Rok.

You could conversely same the same about the Wobs to some extent. Can you really say a lot of the injured players would have played better than all of the 'fill in' ones?

While NZ were winning the tri nations, Weepu or Cowan were basically the only players who had over 10 caps on the bench.

The AB 22 will benefit hugely with the players mentioned if everyone is fully fit at the same time - which will be a miracle in itself!

 

[da_grubster]

All the problems you've picked out I agree with, and with the right coaching they'd be solved. Consistency, leadership, mental attitude, tactical preparation....these are controllables which, to date, Robbie Deans hasn't been good enough to master. The fact that he's ignored some of the basics laid down by MacQueen just makes it more puzzling.

The thing is, if the Wallabies were maxing out but just weren't talented enough I'd accept our mediocre results. But, as you say, we have more potential than that. I expect that potential to be realised every season, and if it were then we'd be world no 1 as often as the All Blacks.

I do not accept that the Australian side is as talented as you think it is. Id they were so talented, they would have beaten NZ at least once in the last 10 test matches.

Talent is only one piece of the puzzle and it doesnt mean that you will be the best in the world. Look at England in 2003 and NZ in 2007 as a case in point.

 

[Groucho]

Hore, Sivivatu and Williams are/were starting AB's when fully fit. granted, Mealamu has had probably his best year so that has negated any loss at hooker but Williams and Sivi would have kept out Donnelly and Rok.

You could conversely same the same about the Wobs to some extent. Can you really say a lot of the injured players would have played better than all of the 'fill in' ones?

While NZ were winning the tri nations, Weepu or Cowan were basically the only players who had over 10 caps on the bench.

The AB 22 will benefit hugely with the players mentioned if everyone is fully fit at the same time - which will be a miracle in itself!

Nau, Alexander, Horwill and Palu are definite starters, and are a direct answer to the deficiencies of the Wallabies of this year, which is a lack of power. Ioane would also start on the wing in place of JOC (James O'Connor).

 

[da_grubster]

Nau, Alexander, Horwill and Palu are definite starters, and are a direct answer to the deficiencies of the Wallabies of this year, which is a lack of power. Ioane would also start on the wing in place of JOC (James O'Connor).

There is no doubt the wobs have been hit hard with injuries this year. Harder than the AB's.

We went through a similar period last year and the benefit was that we had Franks, Donnelly, Read and Jane bedded in to the side come the start of this year which has obviously paid dividends.

As ever, an injury is an opportunity for others and it depends on how the replacements take the opportunity.

Aus will be a better side with more options going into the rwc because of this.

 

[Groucho]

There is no doubt the wobs have been hit hard with injuries this year. Harder than the AB's.

We went through a similar period last year and the benefit was that we had Franks, Donnelly, Read and Jane bedded in to the side come the start of this year which has obviously paid dividends.

As ever, an injury is an opportunity for others and it depends on how the replacements take the opportunity.

Aus will be a better side with more options going into the rwc because of this.

Good post, grubster. Strategically, the Wallabies must have benefited from this hard year.

 

[Scarfman]

Just going back to the "eyeballing" issue, from history, you would have to say that neither Robbie or John Mitchell agree. Seems to be their MO.

 

[Hawko]

So Tony Woodcock has been outsmarting Baxter for years. That's pretty tough, but is it unfair?

Which stats are you looking at? Have you got a link? I'd be genuinely interested to see how often Baxter wins the hit in scrums at Test level.

As for work rate, I'd pick Ma'afu here hands down. G&GR's stats on Ma'afu have shown a consistently high work rate. In the last Bledisloe Test he even outperformed his loosehead in carries (5) and tackles (9).
This has been typical for him this season.
I suspect his clean out rate is just as high, and from the ones I've noticed he moves bodies very effectively. The one thing Baxter always lacked was decent impact at the ruck.

I would take issue with both the statements highlighted in red. Maafu had one test where he only made two tackles. IMO he is very inconsistent - good one week, awful the next. Baxters value to the Tahs especially is his tight play, he does a mountain of work close to the ruck. And its highly effective.

Baxter has people make comments like these for years. Seems like if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Gnostic, Bruce, I agree but in today's society where everyone is a winner, we have forgotten how to be honest and critical, and probably the recipient often does not know what to do with that knowledge. Not everyone has the skills to make the top level, however we have breed a generation of youngsters who have been "nurtured" all their lives to believe that it is their right to represent their nation.

Giving some of these poor sausages the honest truth and a fair dinkum assessment of what they may need to do to get to the top can be devastating in these politically correct days where everyone is a winner.

 

[Gnostic]

Gnostic, Bruce, I agree but in today's society where everyone is a winner, we have forgotten how to be honest and critical, and probably the recipient often does not know what to do with that knowledge. Not everyone has the skills to make the top level, however we have breed a generation of youngsters who have been "nurtured" all their lives to believe that it is their right to represent their nation.

Giving some of these poor sausages the honest truth and a fair dinkum assessment of what they may need to do to get to the top can be devastating in these politically correct days where everyone is a winner.

Quite correct Jarse. This is what separates the good people managers from the rest. A good manager will coach the player/person and won't say outright 'you just aren't good enough' but phrase it "you need to improve outcomes in X, Y, Z areas. These are the outcomes we need. Can you improve in those areas? If you can meet those bench marks you are in with a shot but be aware that the bench marks are fluid and another individual may well exceed them by the time you meet them.' In brutal words the manager is saying you aren't good enough, but if you apply yourself you may well prove me wrong, but you still need to be better than the current bench mark who can still improve.' If the poor darlings can't accept that be prepared for a life of disappointment and not just as a pro Rugby player.

 

[Gnostic]

So Tony Woodcock has been outsmarting Baxter for years. That's pretty tough, but is it unfair?

Which stats are you looking at? Have you got a link? I'd be genuinely interested to see how often Baxter wins the hit in scrums at Test level.

As for work rate, I'd pick Ma'afu here hands down. G&GR's stats on Ma'afu have shown a consistently high work rate. In the last Bledisloe Test he even outperformed his loosehead in carries (5) and tackles (9).
This has been typical for him this season.
I suspect his clean out rate is just as high, and from the ones I've noticed he moves bodies very effectively. The one thing Baxter always lacked was decent impact at the ruck.

Its not unfair that Woodcock ha gotten the better of Baxter. But it points out the flaw in your arguments regarding Baxter.

The stats I referred to were on the Super14.com site but the Stats pages seem to have been abbreviated since the end of the tournament. The only stats I can located now for scrummaging etc. are those at the Roar where Spiro basically bags both the Tahs and the Brumbies for having the worst scrum stats in the comp.

As for Ma'afu's carries just like Brown you can have a massive workrate and zero impact. No use carrying if you don't go forward. Against SA he got the ball 2 metres from the line and ended up 5 metres from it. It is indicative of his "impact".

I have questioned his fitness all year and after seeing the massive improvement in Shepherdson after he left the Brumbies outfit I have to question what their training regimen is?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

In many professions and workplaces, there is a process used to assess, promote, demote, hire and fire workers.

Rugby is a professional game with the Training oval, gymnasium, and playing field as the workplace.

The Coach (in workplace parlance) is no more than the players Supervisor.

In my workplace like many around the country, employees are regularly interviewed, counselled, and reported on. Non-performers are given the chance to lift their game, and there must be a documented history of failing to meet agreed objectives before they are shown the door.

Professional, and semi-pro, rugby players deserve most of the same workplace protections as the rest of us. Honest feedback on their performance, and improvement targets. The pool of professional rugby players is a very small one, with most of those involved in the industry well known to all within the group. Their relationship with the profession will be a long one. Many very average players become extremely successful and committed coaches, managers, administrators, referees or volunteers long after their playing days. The same small group of people have a very long industrial workplace relationship. Honesty between people in this workplace should be a hallmark.

Players deserve to know what they have done to be demoted. The days of finding out that you are selected/not selected by reading the paper, or listening to the news should have been left in the last century. A face to face meeting or phone call at the very minimum. There should be no real surprises.