• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Tri Nations Game 3 New Zealand v Australia - Saturday 6 August 2011 - 3N2011

Status
Not open for further replies.

Viking

Mark Ella (57)
Not sure why their is such a massive uproar over the Hodgson/Beau debate. Hodgson is a GOOD player and is a probably the 2nd best pilferer in Aus behind Pocock, Beau is very physical and great at being disruptive at the breakdown. But they are both miles behind Pocock. Pocock is arguably the best 7 in the world and don't u want to best player in the world to be on the field for as long as possible. The bench 7 option should only get a maximum 10minutes in my opinion.

I guess its a good sign when you arguing over the back-ups and not the starters!

Im still very curious to why Samo or even Higgers is not STARTING over McCalman? Honestly I thought we would be arguing who should start Palu or Samo? But for some reason McCalman is still in the mix. Sure he's a workhorse but he lack the physical presence I love in an 8.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
oh fucking get over it guys. Stop being so bitter about it all. Reddy! made a legitimate argument based on the performance of one of the champion winning team's players, and then Slim (as always) looks for any opportunity to push his anti-Red barrow.

Try contributing something positive to the board slim. It might be worthwhile.

And maybe you should try reading through posts sometime instead of chiming in once in a while with your unfounded attacks towards me?

The fact you think we're being bitter about anything says it all...
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Not sure why their is such a massive uproar over the Hodgson/Beau debate. Hodgson is a GOOD player and is a probably the 2nd best pilferer in Aus behind Pocock, Beau is very physical and great at being disruptive at the breakdown. But they are both miles behind Pocock. Pocock is arguably the best 7 in the world and don't u want to best player in the world to be on the field for as long as possible. The bench 7 option should only get a maximum 10minutes in my opinion.

I guess its a good sign when you arguing over the back-ups and not the starters!

Im still very curious to why Samo or even Higgers is not STARTING over McCalman? Honestly I thought we would be arguing who should start Palu or Samo? But for some reason McCalman is still in the mix. Sure he's a workhorse but he lack the physical presence I love in an 8.

I'd prefer to see Samo either start (with McCalman on the bench) or on the bench in place of Higginbotham to show what impact he might have at test level.
 

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Not sure why their is such a massive uproar over the Hodgson/Beau debate. Hodgson is a GOOD player and is a probably the 2nd best pilferer in Aus behind Pocock, Beau is very physical and great at being disruptive at the breakdown. But they are both miles behind Pocock. Pocock is arguably the best 7 in the world and don't u want to best player in the world to be on the field for as long as possible. The bench 7 option should only get a maximum 10minutes in my opinion.

So true, I don't rate either (at Test rugby) and I can't split them, don't really care who gets the gig - just wish Smith could come back! They're only their for injury cover anyway.
 

Athilnaur

Arch Winning (36)
I want to see Samo and Beau get a decent shot as I rate their impact and want to se if they can bring it to the next level but I have no issue with Deans & co selecting their form team for this game. Expecting the SA tour to bring some opportunities tho.
 

DPK

Peter Sullivan (51)
oh fucking get over it guys. Stop being so bitter about it all. Reddy! made a legitimate argument based on the performance of one of the champion winning team's players, and then Slim (as always) looks for any opportunity to push his anti-Red barrow.

Try contributing something positive to the board slim. It might be worthwhile.

Maybe you should get over it?
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
So true, I don't rate either (at Test rugby) and I can't split them, don't really care who gets the gig - just wish Smith could come back! They're only their for injury cover anyway.

Now there's a player I'd be bending all the rules for to bring back if Pocock was to get injured before the RWC...
 

Bullrush

Geoff Shaw (53)
Like why isn't Beau even there as well...I don't get how Reds players - and good ones at that - can miss out a squad to play the All Blacks even though the Reds beat every single NZ Super Rugby team, bar the Hurricanes, and beat the Blues and Crusaders twice. Deans selections are so convoluted just like the way he talks. Get to the point mate.

And maybe you should try reading through posts sometime instead of chiming in once in a while with your unfounded attacks towards me?

The fact you think we're being bitter about anything says it all...

Slim's point (I think) was that just because you play in the team that beat 4 NZ Super Rugby teams, doesn't make you the best choice for the national team. Otherwise, just pick the Reds as the Wallaby squad.

Is Beau a good player? No doubt. Samo. Of course. Are they better than the incumbents? I guess that's the debate isn't it but I don't think that being in a team that beat the NZ Super teams should be a major part of that.
 

Bowside

Peter Johnson (47)
Cover, but not be a dominant force. Elsom covers 6/8. McCalman covers 8/6. So why not have a specialist on the bench?

Especially if they go with a 5/2 split. No need what so ever for hodgson if you have Higgers/Samo, McCalman and Robinson in the 22.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DPK

Bowside

Peter Johnson (47)
Slim's point (I think) was that just because you play in the team that beat 4 NZ Super Rugby teams, doesn't make you the best choice for the national team. Otherwise, just pick the Reds as the Wallaby squad.

Is Beau a good player? No doubt. Samo. Of course. Are they better than the incumbents? I guess that's the debate isn't it but I don't think that being in a team that beat the NZ Super teams should be a major part of that.

It doesn't make you the best, one need look no further than Pocock for evidence of that; but I would argue that good performances in the super rugby competition against the probable opposition does hold you in good stead for higher honors, thats what super rugby is there for - to trial wallaby prospects.
 

Bullrush

Geoff Shaw (53)
It doesn't make you the best, one need look no further than Pocock for evidence of that; but I would argue that good performances in the super rugby competition against the probable opposition does hold you in good stead for higher honors, thats what super rugby is there for - to trial wallaby prospects.

Agree.....the difficulty is measuring 2011 Super Rugby performances vs 2010 (or in some cases 2008) Test performances. Look at AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Vickerman.
 

Bowside

Peter Johnson (47)
Agree.....the difficulty is measuring 2011 Super Rugby performances vs 2010 (or in some cases 2008) Test performances. Look at AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Vickerman.

But when you are comparing Hodgson and Timani against Robinson and Samo, there is nothing really to compare. Super rugby is the be all and end all of it apart from the odd test, where the incumbents didnt play particularly well anyway.
 
A

antipodean

Guest
Why can't you compare their relative performances, especially where they played against each other?
 

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
Slim's point (I think) was that just because you play in the team that beat 4 NZ Super Rugby teams, doesn't make you the best choice for the national team. Otherwise, just pick the Reds as the Wallaby squad.

Is Beau a good player? No doubt. Samo. Of course. Are they better than the incumbents? I guess that's the debate isn't it but I don't think that being in a team that beat the NZ Super teams should be a major part of that.

This is no disrespect to the other sides but how the Reds players won it is more the point. They have proven to be blokes who are hard working, well grounded and extremely coachable. They are very good attributes for an international player me thinks. All players at this level have immense talent, that is why they are there.

As for who gets selected and who doesn't, we are kind of pissing into the wind complaining about selections when we don't really know what is going on at training. I am confident who is putting in there is getting selected.
 

Lee Grant

John Eales (66)
Like why isn't Beau even there as well...I don't get how Reds players - and good ones at that - can miss out a squad to play the All Blacks even though the Reds beat every single NZ Super Rugby team, bar the Hurricanes, and beat the Blues and Crusaders twice.

IMO Beau was the best 7 from Oz in Super Rugby by a country mile and also the best in the whole tournament. Schalk was superb on the openside, though wearing 6 on his back as SAffers do, but he didn't really play as an open side flanker.

The only reason I can think of as to why Hodgson is preferred is because Deans thinks he is better for test match rugby. Beau did a couple of clownish, trying too hard, things in his stint against Samoa; so maybe Deans marked him down for that. A bit strange though - I thought Hodgson was on the outer with Deans but he was preferred to Beau to start against Samoa and for the bench against the Boks.

Even ignoring Beale I count 4 options at 10 and up to 5 at 12.

10 Cooper, JOC (James O'Connor), gits, barnes
12 gits, JOC (James O'Connor), barnes, McCabe, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) (could even throw fa'ainga in there as well - but not proven yet)

When I said that Oz had 3 players who could play 10 and 3 who could play 12, with Barnes healthy, (although it involved only 4 names) I meant players who would realistically be selected by Deans at 10 and 12, as I defined realism.

I therefore didn't think that Deans would play JOC (James O'Connor) in either position, nor AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) as a 12, nor that A.Finger would be considered, nor Beale as a 10. But I notice that Ant is in the squad for NZ and not Giteau; so I am surprised too.


Remember, there's a lot of factors to enter into this selection. Timani may have been training the house down. Deans may want Sharpe to have more rest, and may want Timani to have a go too. Vickerman may be back to match fitness, so maybe Timani was always going and the selection was Vickerman over Sharpe.

Sharpie will be devastated but shouldn't be surprised as Deans has dropped him before. Watching Vickerman against Samoa, for Uni against Norths and even for Northamption - he does shift bodies around, albeit from the side of the ruck sometimes.

I see it as Vickerman for Sharpe and maybe just as a comparison, because looking at the participation stats for his stint against the Boks, Sharpie was doing the work.

Timani is an odd choice because taking 4 locks is itself odd - unless someone has a niggle. In that case Samo made more sense to cover 6 or 8 as well if there are a couple of injuries between arriving in NZ and start of the game.

I didn't think that Timani made a strong case for himself against Samoa though at the stadium I was looking through my fingers and shaking my head half the time. Timani was snatching at ball like in his bad old days. Still he has outstanding attributes and has done much better this year than I thought possible. In hindsight it even makes Kane Douglas look better because it explains his demotions at the Tahs from time to time.

And DPK could be right: training the house down is highly regarded.
 

Swarley

Bob Loudon (25)
Sorry Gnostic, I misread your post. I must admit I've never seen Vickerman counter maul - not indeed any Wallaby team from 'that' era (not so long ago - but seems so far away).

Agreed Groucho, and it's not really that preposterous to suggest that our Connolly 2006-07 team was a completely different era from, less than 4 years after Connolly left.

1. Dunning vs. Robinson
2. Palu vs. Moore
3. Baxter vs. Kepu
4. Sharpe vs. Simmons
5. Vickerman vs. Horwill
6. Waugh vs. Elsom
7. Smith vs. Pocock
8. Lyons vs. Palu
9. Gregan vs. Genia
10. Larkham vs. Cooper
11. Tuqiri vs. Mitchell
12. Giteau vs. McCabe
13. Mortlock vs. Ashley-Cooper
14. Gerrard vs. Ioane
15. Latham vs. Beale
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
If Pocock is injured, Robinson would be a great starting option but Hodgson is a better bench option - he can cover the whole back three

So what is Higginbotham on the bench for if Hodgson is so good at covering all the loose positions?
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Agree.....the difficulty is measuring 2011 Super Rugby performances vs 2010 (or in some cases 2008) Test performances. Look at AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Vickerman.

I'll give it a shot.

Hodgson was one of the Force's best players this year and last. Beau was one of the Reds best players this year, and they really missed him when he was injured. Hodgson has done very little for the wallabies, with a few opportunities. Beau has done very little for the wallabies with half an opportunity. How are we ever going to know if Beau is better if he doesn't get that opportunity. In my mind, Hodgson has done nothing at test level to warrant automatic selection in the 22.

Timani was one of the Tahs most dynamic forwards for the last third of the super 15. Samo was arguably Australias best no. 8 over the Super 15 comp. Timani has done little for the wallabies, with only one shot at it. He is competing with Sharpe and Vickerman for the 4th lock spot. He shouldn't make it, not this year anyway. Samo has played two finals games this year, and more finals games in previous years as well as for the wallabies where he was effective. Surely we should be looking for a more affective number 8 rather than another lock option, and how are we doing to know what Samo offers at 8 without giving him a shot?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top