Nanai, I think it is obvious (not ludicrous) that Genia is still affected by his injury. My objection was to your 'ludicrous' judgment. Many players have struggled recently with niggling injuries to the detriment of their game, including Elsom for example, and TPN.
Deans clearly feels Genia is crucial to his game plan, which is increasingly based on wide fast ball, in which Genia has a superb understanding with Cooper. IMO, that is why he played him despite the obvious injury cloud. This wasn't stupidity on Deans' part, but a calculated risk.
Nonetheless I agree that Burgess should probably be the first choice now, based simply on form. We'll see how Genia goes after a break.
The idea that we are weak in the halfback department is risible. As 'a man who self-professedly knows what he's talking about in this department', you have some obvious weaknesses in your analysis. ;-)
Right. Well, thanks for getting nasty for no apparent reason!
I wrote that statement with a hint of sarcasm hence why I wrote 'self-professedly'.
What I'm saying is incredibly simple.
Playing Genia out of form is stupid.
Playing Genia out of form with an injury is stupider.
I for one don't believe Deans falls into category 2, but if he does (and you all seem rather convinced) then I'll stick to my guns - Deans is stupid.
Regardless, the overarching point is that Burgess should've been handed the 9 shirt for at least one of the three tests.
I agree Genia is important for Deans's expansive style of game - but we've played relentlessly with width and had scintillating first halves in the last 3 tests, and had lacklustre second halves - only brought back to life a bit by the injection of Burgess. The style of game immediately changes when the pivot is changed. Burgess plays more "towards the tryline" as I said before, and I believe this is the approach we should take - a more measured, balanced one that involves a good amount of go-forward mixed in with tearing things up out wide at key moments. IMHO, and I know it's been successful in bits, but I think the current expansive approach is very hit and miss, and it's easy to focus on the times where it's worked.
Of course, Burgess is also been prone to brain explosions and running away from his support and such in the past. And yeah, maybe his long pass isn't the best in the world - but I think it's at least on a par with Genia's current pass.
Halfbacks are the triggermen of any team's attack, and their decision making, especially at test level, is utterly crucial. Genia's overuse of Cooper (whether coached or not - but I've suggested it's a bail-out, which I genuinely think it is. Chuck it to Cooper when nothing's on and he might just spark something) is what I'm most critical of right now - and sure, maybe it's because he's carrying an injury that's made him lose confidence in his running game.
But these aren't issues we should be having when we have a scrumhalf in the squad who is playing well.
Secondly, I maintain my point that we're weak in the halfback stocks. You're confusing talent with form. Genia has had a very average tri-nations. Behind him and (the previously inconsistent) Burgess the cupboard is pretty bare.
That's all I'm saying, put the vitriol away.
EDIT: and as for the "didn't Burgess get dropped for Josh Holmes?" I think that was more about giving Josh Holmes game time than punishing an out-of-form Burgess. He was playing well. And yes, Genia had an outstanding S14.
