Wallabies 2020

[barbarian]

For all the talk of halfbacks, it's clear that each candidate has pros and cons.

It's one spot that will be a genuine battle in Super Rugby next year. Powell may be a neck in front at the moment, but a lot can change with McDermott, Gordon, Sorovi, Ruru etc. getting more game time to develop.

I genuinely couldn't pick who will be wearing the 9 jersey in our first game next year.
.

 

[Adam84]

Halfback is probably the position most up in the air for a player to snatch in 2020, Nic White will be considered for the Rugby Championship but might not be available for all the test matches against Ireland. So any young half who plays with some form is in with a real shot to give themselves sun runs on the board with the new coach.

 

[Up the Guts]

Yeah I would love to be able to emulate Itoje but I don't think we can, he's just such an incredible athlete. In saying that, we've seen him be negated before and ineffective. I think the stars aligned last night and I think that if the Wallabies were offered Retallick or Itoje, I'd take Retallick.

Yeah, he engages in McCaw like skullduggery at the breakdown and in the maul. He's feasting on the gate being completely disregarded.

 

[RedsHappy]

One of the serious quirks associated with RA’s still not fully explained* decision to appoint a ‘Director of Rugby’ (at no doubt considerable $ cost) is that of which HC candidates of high calibre would be willing to have that position hovering over them and then having to report to that person/position.

I don’t think the national DOR role - over the head of a national HC - is at all common in the T1 nations.

It’d be hard to see EJ (Eddie Jones) liking this structure, for example.

And thus RA’s DOR position may mean the only HC candidates to emerge will be those OK with such reporting lines and perhaps also already knowing and liking Johnson.

Time will tell. But there will be bound to be issues given this organisational design.

(* other than the need to ‘contain and control’ M Cheika, a now redundant purpose.)

 

[fatprop]

One of the serious quirks associated with RA’s still not fully explained* decision to appoint a ‘Director of Rugby’ (at no doubt considerable $ cost) is that of which HC candidates of high calibre would be willing to have that position hovering over them and then having to report to that person/position.

I don’t think the national DOR role - over the head of a national HC - is at all common in the T1 nations.

It’d be hard to see EJ (Eddie Jones) liking this structure, for example.

And thus RA’s DOR position may mean the only HC candidates to emerge will be those OK with such reporting lines and perhaps also already knowing and liking Johnson.

Time will tell. But there will be bound to be issues given this organisational design.

(* other than the need to ‘contain and control’ M Cheika, a now redundant purpose.)

The DOR type position is growing in places like pro soccer in europe, they create the culture and the structures and the manager in their model runs the team to comply with that agreed culture & style

The idea is to get away from the clean slate approach that loses all the current IP we see every time a new coach is employed in most rugby systems.

The variants highlight the successful whether they have a designated DOR or not. No Crusaders, Sarensens or Munster coach is going to fiddle with what makes them who they are. They coach to the system

Penny tried and failed

 

[fatprop]

For all the talk of halfbacks, it's clear that each candidate has pros and cons.

It's one spot that will be a genuine battle in Super Rugby next year. Powell may be a neck in front at the moment, but a lot can change with McDermott, Gordon, Sorovi, Ruru etc. getting more game time to develop.

I genuinely couldn't pick who will be wearing the 9 jersey in our first game next year.
.

Michael Ruru is off the Bayonne.

 

[Brumby Runner]

For all the talk of halfbacks, it's clear that each candidate has pros and cons.

It's one spot that will be a genuine battle in Super Rugby next year. Powell may be a neck in front at the moment, but a lot can change with McDermott, Gordon, Sorovi, Ruru etc. getting more game time to develop.

I genuinely couldn't pick who will be wearing the 9 jersey in our first game next year.
.

I'm not sure Sorovi will get the game time to become a genuine contender for the Wallabies. And, in any case, I have a suspicion we have already seen his ceiling, which is pretty much as a backup at Super level.

A couple of years ago, many people including me, had Jake Gordon as the next Wallaby No 9. He just had to get past the roadblock that was Nick Phipps. Gordon had more opportunities in 2019, but didn't progress as most of us would have liked. His one distinctive asset is his pace combined with his inclination to back up line breaks. Over the course of Super season 2019, he was behind Joe Powell in the competition for a Wallaby spot. He might come to the fore again next year without the shadow of Phipps hanging over him.

Ruru is not in the mix.

Right now, I would say the No 9 spot for the July tests is between Powell and McDermott. For all his abilities, McDermott might still be a bit green to get the top job.

 

[fatprop]

Gordon has a very effective kicking game from the base as well, if the RWC is anything to go on, it will be a core skill going forward for all 9s as teams box kick deathmatch

Every 9 should be spending the off season drilling this crap 8 hours a day

 

[barbarian]

In the interests of clearing these threads up a bit, let's keep this one to player discussion.

I'll start a new thread on the coach search, and move a few of these posts over there.

 

[Viking]

I have never been a fan of Itoje. But last night he gave a master class in lock play. Great energy, skill and the pace of a backrower. By comparison, both Whitelock and Retallick looked like left overs from a bye-gone era. I wonder if he is indicative the future for locks. The necessary lineout and scrumming skills of a lock combined with the ability to play an up tempo game in the fashion of a back rower. Maybe the old lock version typified by John Eales is no longer relevant to the way the game is evolving.

Of our current locks, I'd include all of Coleman, Arnold, Simmons, and probably Rodda as Eales-type players. Proper lineout practitioners, good at scrum time and mostly good at passive defense (by which I mean waiting for the ball runner to come to them), but largely mostly quite poor runners of the ball and not providing any real threat at the breakdown. Itoje does it all, including being very active in rush defense and always a threat over the ball at the breakdown. I would say, Peter Stef du Toit is another who can do most things.

Do we have anyone who could play the type of game on display by Itoje. I don't think so. Maybe Mat Philip would be closest, and Holloway also has some of those characteristics when playing in the second row. Unfortunately, when I look at the talent coming through in Hockings, Blyth and Swain, I think they all look more like Eales than Itoje.

Maybe it's time for a rethink by our coaches on the type of player we want our locks to be.


EDIT : It occurs to me that maybe the reason I have been impressed with Fergus Lee-Warner at the Force is because he is more of the Itoje type of player than an Eales type.

Itoje is really the exception when it comes to lock play. He is so naturally athletic and skillful it's going to be very difficult to replicate that.

It's like saying we need all our Hookers to start playing like D. Coles, or all our props to start running like Tupou.

Up-skilling all players is must, it term's of all forwards being able to distribute and run effectively, and all backs being able to hit rucks etc. But they don't need to be the same level as Itoje to create a winning team.

I'd argue they need to focus on getting the basics right first before they start upskilling too. You simply can't have locks or props that struggle in the set-piece.

Personally I believe the traditionally roles are the base of any team or player, they need to master this first. Then in the modern game add to this - Itoje has done this beautifully, modern props with passing games another great example.

I'd argue, if there was going to be a change in skills for traditional roles, that would more likely come from the back-row then the tight five. It seems it is much better to have all round skillful players in the backrow then specialist fetchers etc.

Underhill and Curry prime examples. They can do it all.

 

[PhilClinton]

Agree with you Seb that backrow is probably the position most likely to undergo a big role shift over the next few years.

Just look at the set piece, a couple of years ago it was a benefit to have 3 primary ball jumpers and an extra one at best to use occasionally. These days if your 6 and 8 can't be called a primary lineout option, they are at risk of non-selection. And a handy jumping openside is a must.

 

[fatprop]

We can't go hunting for what doesn't exist, "we" (well the selection panel) justs picks the best team from who is available and we work it out

And I am sick and tired of hearing that the Wobs are developing players, that is the Super Rugby coaches job.

The Wobs coaches can ad a tiny bit of polish at best

 

[Viking]

We can't go hunting for what doesn't exist, "we" (well the selection panel) justs picks the best team from who is available and we work it out

And I am sick and tired of hearing that the Wobs are developing players, that is the Super Rugby coaches job.

The Wobs coaches can ad a tiny bit of polish at best

Fair call. But a lot of the direction for improvement comes from the international level. For example, saying to Kerevi - we aren't picking you until you learn to pass, your starting on the bench until you do, we don't care how good at ball-running you are - To'omua is starting at 12 until you do even though he might not be the 'best player' at 12.

That's a big call to make, but seems NZ does this more often then not. For example picking Crotty over other more damaging runners etc.

 

[fatprop]

Fair call. But a lot of the direction for improvement comes from the international level. For example, saying to Kerevi - we aren't picking you until you learn to pass, your starting on the bench until you do, we don't care how good at ball-running you are - To'omua is starting at 12 until you do even though he might not be the 'best player' at 12.

That's a big call to make, but seems NZ does this more often then not. For example picking Crotty over other more damaging runners etc.

Yep, and every bit of "direction" is generally just a different human telling them the same thing as their RS coach, their club coach etc etc

 

[Brumby Runner]

We can't go hunting for what doesn't exist, "we" (well the selection panel) justs picks the best team from who is available and we work it out

And I am sick and tired of hearing that the Wobs are developing players, that is the Super Rugby coaches job.

The Wobs coaches can ad a tiny bit of polish at best

Not so sure FP. The Super Rugby coaches will develop players the way they want them to fit into the Super Rugby team's style of play. If that means eg, Kerevi doesn't pass the ball because Thorn wants him to batter it up the middle over the gain line, then that's how he will play. If the Wallaby coach wants a No 12 with ball distribution skills as well as the gain line advantage play, then he will have to do something to develop the player if he wants him in the Wallabies.

Kicking is another skill area where I think there is plenty of opportunity for the national coaching group to take a lead with particular players. Similarly, pass and catch and ability under the high ball. All are areas where the requirements of the national coaches and the Super Rugby coaches might not be totally complementary.

 

[fatprop]

Not so sure FP. The Super Rugby coaches will develop players the way they want them to fit into the Super Rugby team's style of play. If that means eg, Kerevi doesn't pass the ball because Thorn wants him to batter it up the middle over the gain line, then that's how he will play. If the Wallaby coach wants a No 12 with ball distribution skills as well as the gain line advantage play, then he will have to do something to develop the player if he wants him in the Wallabies.

Kicking is another skill area where I think there is plenty of opportunity for the national coaching group to take a lead with particular players. Similarly, pass and catch and ability under the high ball. All are areas where the requirements of the national coaches and the Super Rugby coaches might not be totally complementary.

We get to disagree

Kerevi's lack of passing was never going to be solved at Wob level, it should have been sorted out as an 18yro.

If we had depth and competition for places, we would not be selecting players who can't pass or kick or scrummage or tackle

 

[Forcefield]

We can't go hunting for what doesn't exist, "we" (well the selection panel) justs picks the best team from who is available and we work it out

And I am sick and tired of hearing that the Wobs are developing players, that is the Super Rugby coaches job.

The Wobs coaches can ad a tiny bit of polish at best

The problem with Australian rugby- it's always someone else's fault.

Wallabies coaches blame Super Rugby coaches. Super Rugby coaches blame age grade or club coaches. Club coaches blame lack of funding from RA. The cycle continues.

 

[Braveheart81]

The problem with Australian rugby- it's always someone else's fault.

Wallabies coaches blame Super Rugby coaches. Super Rugby coaches blame age grade or club coaches. Club coaches blame lack of funding from RA. The cycle continues.

I think a substantial part of it though is that it isn't that realistic that players can bridge the gap substantially on players that are clearly superior to them.

Itoje was doing all these things when he broke onto the scene in the under 20s. Clearly he has kept improving as well. A huge amount of it is natural ability.

Clearly skills can be improved but it is only ever going to be slow and gradual once a player is in an international setup.

There's no deciding that our locks are going to become like Itoje though and all it needs is better coaching and hard work. There are innate skills and athletic ability there that are nearly impossible to add to another player in a test setup just through coaching.

 

[Adam84]

We can't go hunting for what doesn't exist, "we" (well the selection panel) justs picks the best team from who is available and we work it out

And I am sick and tired of hearing that the Wobs are developing players, that is the Super Rugby coaches job.

The Wobs coaches can ad a tiny bit of polish at best

Next year the Wobs will play almost as many games as Super Rugby teams, and the players will spend almost as much time with the wallaby coaching staff as they do their Super Rugby coaching staff. It shouldn’t be an unreasonable expectation that both parties be developing the players.

 

[Bobby Sands]

I think a substantial part of it though is that it isn't that realistic that players can bridge the gap substantially on players that are clearly superior to them.

Itoje was doing all these things when he broke onto the scene in the under 20s. Clearly he has kept improving as well. A huge amount of it is natural ability.

Clearly skills can be improved but it is only ever going to be slow and gradual once a player is in an international setup.

There's no deciding that our locks are going to become like Itoje though and all it needs is better coaching and hard work. There are innate skills and athletic ability there that are nearly impossible to add to another player in a test setup just throughl coaching.

None of our locks will ever play like Itoje, but Roddá is still primed as one of the best lock prospects we’ve had in decades. Probably the only lock in recent times that was both excellent at the lineout and the grunt work was Vickerman and to be fair he wasn’t even developed in Australia.