Reds 2019
- Thread starter RugbyReg
- Start date
Tomikin
David Codey (61)
Fourth if you count 2013 when the Great George Smith came back and was amazing.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Who knows how it may have panned out.
I thought Gill had a much better all-round 7 game than either Hooper or Pocock, and he was actually useful in the line out.
Pocock was a better fetcher, but not better at anything else. Hooper had better energy and wide running, but not by much and not better at much else. Each of those two brought (and bring) specific strengths to the game and I would choose them if they more or less matched the rest that Gill brought. In the line out at least they didn't.
Yes - Gill was third in the pecking order as set by the powers that be. This does not mean we can't disagree. IMO Gill would have resolved a lot of issues that came about by the double 7 Pooper arrangement. None of that, sadly, changes the pecking order as set at the time. (Or the WB performance restraints that resulted at the time.)
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Would McMahon even have been picked ahead of him at 7 by 16/17?
Finsbury Girl
Trevor Allan (34)
I'm with you mate.
Cheika is the rugby equivalent of Fearnley
It was run and won by the time Cheika got the coaching gig. Pocock was pretty much our best player and Hooper had recently become test captain.
I don't know in what universe after that point Gill gets opportunities to play ahead of those guys when they're available.
Finsbury Girl
Trevor Allan (34)
Because he is a better openside breakaway than Hooper. Unfortunately for him he didn't wear sky blue.
TSR
Andrew Slack (58)
You all realise you aren’t going to convince each other, don’t you?
Not that I mind - I truly don’t - but it will get a bit tiresome if it continues on for another 20 posts as this debate has tended to do in the past.
Plus, you want to keep some of your powder dry for when we are having the same discussion again in 6 months time.
Not that I mind - I truly don’t - but it will get a bit tiresome if it continues on for another 20 posts as this debate has tended to do in the past.
Plus, you want to keep some of your powder dry for when we are having the same discussion again in 6 months time.
So you're saying Cheika continued to pick Hooper above Gill because Hooper played for the Waratahs and not because he was the current Wallaby captain and the two previous coaches had also picked Hooper above Gill?
I reckon Gill was very unlucky. He could have easily been chosen ahead of Hooper or got a good run of tests due to injury to Hooper and Pocock and never looked back. The reality is he didn't.
Once it got a reasonable distance along (say late 2014 when Cheika took over), the battle was essentially over because you had two players (Pocock and Hooper) who were a past and current captain of the Wallabies who had both been incredibly consistent when playing for the Wallabies. No coach was going to start with a blank slate at that point in time and try and determine whether Gill could in fact be better than the other two.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Gill's best chance of starting for the Wallabies and pressing his claims for future honours was the match against Scotland on 23 November 2013.
Unfortunately the celebrations after the Irish match the week before turned out to be very very poor timing for him
Unfortunately the celebrations after the Irish match the week before turned out to be very very poor timing for him
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
I don't know if I have a poor memory but didn't Gill choose to captain the U20's instead of playing from the bench for a single Test, this gave Hooper the bench spot and he never got it back?
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
Speaking of two way streets and loyalty.
Why is it that a player not playing in Australia can sign a future contract and then earn a Wallaby spot but if you don't renew your Aussie contract and sign overseas you still get to play?
Surely if the promise to play for an Aussie team in the future is so important then any player quitting Australia and signing overseas you should lose their spot?
I hate this rule so much
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I find it amazing that I quote a single player to highlight an issue and those supporters of the status quo that has led us to near bankruptcy focus with laser like precision on the example and use all the small "buts" to try to destroy the example and lead the argument from the central points. In the past they have been successful. I no longer care. They are what they have always been, cheer leaders and little more, happy to ad nauseum discuss meaningless selections from a narrow selection base that are the Pro teams/Wallabies. Should I have used Beale as my chosen one example then, contracted from schoolboys, constantly in trouble and rarely delivering on his potential? Or how Ben Mowen was passed over year on year despite topping the stats for lineouts and metres and finally so the ARU can bring back Elsom from Ireland, in a fashion that he broke his promise to return to the Tahs who had consented to his early "hardship release".
No, the point that many are unable or unwilling to grasp is the system lacks integrity. It is flexible to allow them to sign whoever they want regardless of form or factors such as the longer term growth and good of Rugby in this country. As I have always argued each decision they have taken has long term costs, and now we see the yield of those decisions.
No, the point that many are unable or unwilling to grasp is the system lacks integrity. It is flexible to allow them to sign whoever they want regardless of form or factors such as the longer term growth and good of Rugby in this country. As I have always argued each decision they have taken has long term costs, and now we see the yield of those decisions.
TSR
Andrew Slack (58)
No, I don’t. If I am completely honest I personally feel guys could let comments go on a Reds thread praising Liam Gill without having to chip in. But, either way, my opinion is of no particular relevance if it worries you - it is a public forum.
My point was exactly what I typed - everything you guys are saying has been said 1000 times before and will do the rounds again in 6 months. And that is basically fine - but I personally do find it tiresome to read the same stuff over and over again when none of it is going to change the past (and I believe others do too). So, basically, I was appealing that at some point soon you all follow the forum rules and move on because Braveheart81 is about as likely to change his opinion as you are to change yours. So, for me personally, that is not really a discussion it is more two guys shouting into the wind.
TSR
Andrew Slack (58)
I think the broader problem Gnostic is also that we have fundamentally failed to establish the depth of player base which negates the need to cling on to particular players.
People can say what they like about league, but by the time the latest ‘Greatest player of all time’ retires or moves on, be
they Thurston, Lockyer, Smith, Slater or whomever, someone else has already, if not taken the mantel, at least put themselves in the frame to challenge for it. The out and out stars do still command special attention, but if terms cannot be met then league as a whole moves on, even if certain clubs go back to the pack for a while.
Unfortunately I feel that the code is now caught in an impossible corner where it can’t afford to go back to the start, but nor am I confident that it can afford not to. Instead the powers that be are inclined to pick favourites and then ride them to the finish come
hell or high water (unless, of course, you threaten the viability of the games remaining income streams).
It is one of the reasons (but only one) that I am pretty accepting of Thorns approach, whilst hoping like hell that it does indeed provide a long term dividend.