Rocky road ahead for Rocky...........

[Groucho]

Barb, whilst understanding your logic ('gradually getting to hopefully being a great Test player once more'), it must be asked where this sort of very uncertain and unpredictable mode of selection (in terms of 'when does the improvement curve start to fire, if it ever really does?') sits in terms of risk-reward calculus in what was (is still?) meant to be a crucial, breaking-through year for the Wallabies via both 3N and BC trophies and the RWC.

Surely waiting for players to come into 'previous best' form carries considerable risks, especially if that person is also captain. What if the arrival of that prior form takes say 4-5 (or more) crucial sequential Tests, and thus where team performance might have been better had clearly 'in form' player been picked in an important position? How long can waiting be afforded? We have now lost 2 from 3 2011 Tests.

My point being: is the risk and intrinsic uncertainty profile of these 'wait for form' approaches consistent with the ARU's stated goals for this year's team?

Surely the 'risk and intrinsic uncertainty profile' of a new captain (or untried six) is at least as high?

 

[Groucho]

reddy have a think about the englands history going into world cups or any sporting event for that matter
its porbably where we get our confdence from... but england go into every tournament cocky and crash and burn every time then look to sack coach and captain

That isn't true. They went into the 2007 RWC in a state of considerable decline, with the coach and team being pilloried from pillar to post in the press, in the pubs and online. Most England fans were confident they'd be knocked out in the quarters. I was there and had to put up with the incessant moan.

 

[RedsHappy]

barbarian: It's a tough one RH. Elsom is a proven class player at the top level, and that is something he has over all of his rivals. He was OK against Samoa and OK against South Africa so there weren't exactly any alarm bells ringing. He had an off game against the Blacks, but as I said before it was not as bad as people are making out....

Points taken. But, gee, I still think my point re how-long-do-you-ride-the-risk-before-you-take-a-different-one is a fair point when, by your own coding, RE rates just an OK,OK,Less-than-OK in three straight Tests. To start to win major games, all or most of our 'proven class players' are going to have to get above these ratings and for more than one game, I think you'd agree.

 

[RedsHappy]

Surely the 'risk and intrinsic uncertainty profile' of a new captain (or untried six) is at least as high?

Yeah, sure, change always brings a new set of risks. My point concerned what should be done when an existing player risk - experienced or otherwise - was perhaps simply not paying off, repetitively. And you can't have it both ways. Many posters here (incl me) applauded the 'risks' of bringing JO'C, QC (Quade Cooper), Genia, Slipper etc into the Wallabies when, on paper, the risks to victory associated with such inductions could have been considered high.

And, of course, if hypothetically say Horwill became captain, given he's already been a quite senior one at S15 level and has played multiple Tests, that risk would on paper be a lot less than that of promoting Higgers over Elsom say, where Higgers has played in few Tests, etc.

There simply comes a time when, rationally, new risks appear worth taking over old ones.

 

[Reddy!]

Barbarian - yeh his form might be okay and not atrocious as an individual player, but is his form as captain good enough?

 

[Reddy!]

I also want to call for calm on Higgers until we see him start a test match. Yes he has looked good in the closing minutes of test matches after the game has opened up. But I will reserve judgement until I see how he performs in the tighter, harder first 40. I am hoping he goes great but his quiet performances in the Reds big games this year gives me cause for concern.

See the problem now is that Higgers is starting at no.8 - not his preferred or best position. If he has an off game, you'll say, "Ha I was right na na na na, I FEEL VINDICATED MAWAHAHA". I think those in favour of Higgers just want him to have a fair trial at no.6 but he is unable to do that because we have an under performing captain and blindside there who can't be drop...which brings up the question, "do we even need Rocky?". And here we are.

 

[Scotty]

On the question of backrow balance, I feel we need to group our players into three areas:

High workrate, faster and wider ranging - Elsom, Higginbotham, McCalman
Bigger, and more impact in close - Palu, Samo, Horwill
On ballers - Pocock, Robinson, Hodgson

My view is that to achieve the right balance, we only pick one player from each of these categories (and we certainly don't have all three from one category in the 22).
eg:

Elsom, Samo, Pocock
Horwill, McCalman, Pocock

 

[Groucho]

Yeah, sure, change always brings a new set of risks. My point concerned what should be done when an existing player risk - experienced or otherwise - was perhaps simply not paying off, repetitively. And you can't have it both ways. Many posters here (incl me) applauded the 'risks' of bringing JO'C, QC (Quade Cooper), Genia, Slipper etc into the Wallabies when, on paper, the risks to victory associated with such inductions could have been considered high.

And, of course, if hypothetically say Horwill became captain, given he's already been a quite senior one at S15 level and has played multiple Tests, that risk would on paper be a lot less than that of promoting Higgers over Elsom say, where Higgers has played in few Tests, etc.

There simply comes a time when, rationally, new risks appear worth taking over old ones.

I don't see the problem with Elsom, so I don't see the need to take a risk. It's locally popular to say he's playing badly, but he played well in New Zealand. He's coming back off a long break, so some rustiness is to be expected. As for the captaincy, again I don't see a problem. None of the complaints we're making on here have been heard anywhere but on here. It certainly doesn't bother me that he's quiet and reserved. Many of the best leaders are. And I certainly can't point to any list of poor captaincy decisions he's made. All of these complaints seem highly subjective, and made from a great distance.

 

[Scotty]

In the past it has been fairly clear that he hasn't spoken and dealt well with the referee, particularly when you compare him to the likes of Smit and McCaw.

 

[Groucho]

In the past it has been fairly clear that he hasn't spoken and dealt well with the referee, particularly when you compare him to the likes of Smit and McCaw.

I think that's his greatest weakness. But then look at Gregan: the referees hated him.

 

[Gnostic]

Bullshit Groucho. Gregan was the same as the other top half back at the time, Marshall who didn't even have the little C beside his name. The only ref Gov had any real issue with was Andre Watson.

 

[Scotty]

Gregan wasn't great with refs. Nor did he have the best record as captain. I would prefer to be looking for the next eales rather than the next gregan.

 

[Waylon]

Elsom is a taciturn private guy, some will see that as a a grump.

The interviews with him to me, have always shown to me he is a thoughtful guy who knows his shit.

He is still the best test 6 we have by quite a way as far as I care

He made errors on Saturday, but they were made trying to do stuff, like Cooper and a number of others. He also did a number of good things in that game as well

Yeah it was a tactic.........sure

The bloke is 10 yards behind play. he is on the wing in every wide angle because he drifts out there to conserve fuel. He's past it

I hate forwards who stand in the backline, hog it and run sideways.

The bloke is past it

he isn't up for the physical challenge

 

[Slim 293]

Yeah it was a tactic.........sure

The bloke is 10 yards behind play. he is on the wing in every wide angle because he drifts out there to conserve fuel. He's past it

I hate forwards who stand in the backline, hog it and run sideways.

The bloke is past it

he isn't up for the physical challenge

Then why are you so keen on Higginbotham? [/broken record]

 

[drewprint]

[/broken record]

Promise?

For the record, I like Rocky and think he should be there. I admit his performance's haven't quite been up to scratch yet, but I think he's a damn good player who needs to run into match fitness and nous again. He'll be back on his game soon enough I feel, which will leave Higgenbotham as a fantastic bench weapon to bring on late in games.

I would prefer the captaincy to go to someone like Horwill though, but that's out of our hands.

 

[Groucho]

Bullshit Groucho. Gregan was the same as the other top half back at the time, Marshall who didn't even have the little C beside his name. The only ref Gov had any real issue with was Andre Watson.

:

 

[Cutter]

On the question of backrow balance, I feel we need to group our players into three areas:

High workrate, faster and wider ranging - Elsom, Higginbotham, McCalman
Bigger, and more impact in close - Palu, Samo, Horwill
On ballers - Pocock, Robinson, Hodgson

My view is that to achieve the right balance, we only pick one player from each of these categories (and we certainly don't have all three from one category in the 22).
eg:

Elsom, Samo, Pocock
Horwill, McCalman, Pocock

I don't disagree with this Scotty. I'm becoming less and less convinced Rocky will "rediscover" (I wasn't a huge fan when he left for Leinster) his best form. An equivalent to Rocky, who hasn't received enough press is David Dennis. Good lineout option, strong ball runner and hard worker. He's also in form.

The best balance in a backrow, imo, would be: 6. Dennis, 7. Pocock, 8. Samo, 19. Higgers.

I think we'd get more from Higgers off the bench than from any other configuration.

Edit: This assumes, which I think is safe, that Palu won't have time to regain fitness and form (the latter being the difficult part for him).

 

[barbarian]

I would hesitate to put Horwill in the same class as Samo and Palu. Yes he is big and a fairly good ball runner, but he just doesn't have the destructive ability of the other two. Where I would use the word 'wrecking ball' to describe Palu/Samo, the word that comes to mind when I think of Kev is 'lumbering'. He is a undoubtedly a great lock but I don't think he has the pace or power to play in the back row.

 

[barbarian]

The bloke is 10 yards behind play. he is on the wing in every wide angle because he drifts out there to conserve fuel. He's past it

Did you even watch the game? Did you look at the stats?

The bloke got through the second highest amount of work of our forward pack. You are talking shit.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

On the question of backrow balance, I feel we need to group our players into three areas:

High workrate, faster and wider ranging - Elsom, Higginbotham, McCalman
Bigger, and more impact in close - Palu, Samo, Horwill
On ballers - Pocock, Robinson, Hodgson

My view is that to achieve the right balance, we only pick one player from each of these categories (and we certainly don't have all three from one category in the 22).
eg:

Elsom, Samo, Pocock
Horwill, McCalman, Pocock

Scotty, I take a very similar view to yours. Each spot in the back row requires a different sort of player and balance is important. Like you, I feel we need:

1, A fetcher, someone who is always at the breakdown, securing our ball or stealing theirs. They have the skills to link with the backs and the pace and/or smarts to always be at the right spot at a given time.

2, An enforcer, someone who often plays blindside and puts the hurt on in defence, carries the ball into contact, cleans out at ruck time and generally puts the shits up the opposition. These guys are often the biggest mongrels in a team (that's a term of endearment, BTW).

3, A perpetual motion machine, who is consistently carrying the ball up in attack and especially around the fringes, breaks or bends the line, spot tackles, provides a lineout option and covering field position for kicks and line breaks. In other words, your classical eight.

I feel we have a great fetcher in Pocock, with Robinson as his backup. Elsom is our best enforcer when fit and firing, though we are yet to see him at his best this season. We don't have a lot of quality backup in that position, unfortunately and it worries me. Higginbotham is potentially our best perpetual motion machine, thought it is obviously yet to be proven at test level. I don't see him as a natural 6, at least not in my conception of it anyway. Samo provides backup at 6/8 and can do either capably. That's why I like him on the bench.