Wallabies 2023

[fatprop]

That's an issue right there. A lot people can't send kids to Private School and may not have access to Sports High Schools. The fact it's dead in the Public System is sad

The top prospects, more often than not, are in either of those two streams

The public system now streams the top sportsmen into the Sports high schools whilst the privates offer scholarships into the same prospect pool

 

[Dctarget]

That's an issue right there. A lot people can't send kids to Private School and may not have access to Sports High Schools. The fact it's dead in the Public System is sad

In Victoria it's thriving. Very few super players come through our private system.

 

[Dctarget]

To think the Brums had Richie & Rory & Sam Carter (who is still playing ok at Ulster at the ripe age of 33)

I'm sure the Reds... or any Super club would love to have Emmanuel Latu-Meafou in their squad.

I did just listen to the commentator for the London Irish say, "Simmons passes to Coleman, over a hundred wallaby caps between them". Which is a little unfair of Rob as he has over a hundred caps on his own.

 

[stillmissit]

The English have done a far better job opening up the game to broader appeal than we have. Being somewhat split between the two countries now my impression is that Australians are generally snobbier than the English - outside the Harrow and Eaton types.

I don't think we have done much in opening up rugby to the wider community. We gained that support during MCQueen, Dwyer and the original Jones time. Not sure we have had it since 2003.
BTW I played with a couple of guys from Eton whilst in the UK and one of them has remained a close friend over the years. Never saw any snobbishness about them and I was a working-class guy from a housing estate. I think a lot of snobbishness is the middle classes trying to be something they ain't.

 

[stillmissit]

There are basically two juniors pathways, private schools and sport schools

The step after that is the issue, post school, before Super Rugby

Fattie, when I first came here to play there were several competitions to find talented guys ie Nth Harbour v South, City v Country etc and a large school competition involving more than just the private schools.
In times of need, we should put a fine tooth comb over what talent we have. Given the problems with young men in terms of part-time work, social life outside of rugby and the plethora of options if they want to play sport btw I was shocked at how few want to play any sport!
We need to re-work the whole system and I ain't sure it is fixable but it is essential to try.

 

[Dctarget]

Bring Paenga-Amosa home. Leading the entire bloody Top 14 for pilfers, Wallabies in desperate need of another on-baller. He's been playing so well.

 

[stillmissit]

On the most part this is going to be true though. If you aren't part of say the top 150 players around the country in your age group you have a very low chance of a professional career in rugby.

On the whole we are pretty good at identifying who the good players are. Even the ones that were supposedly missed and ended up doing well overseas were generally on the radar through those age group rep teams (they just might have been the next group down etc.).

BH, couldn't this just be confirmation bias? I think we miss a heap of youngsters who could step up later. I played with a guy who played U20's for Australia and struggled to crack 2nd grade in club land. There were several guys with skills that developed later BUT that was a lifetime ago and you could be right today but I hope not!

 

[Lightblue]

Fair enough I guess. I think his record so far means he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Hell of an improvement on Pulver and co, anyway.

That wasn't going to be hard. Pulver was useless.

 

[Braveheart81]

BH, couldn't this just be confirmation bias? I think we miss a heap of youngsters who could step up later. I played with a guy who played U20's for Australia and struggled to crack 2nd grade in club land. There were several guys with skills that developed later BUT that was a lifetime ago and you could be right today but I hope not!

I don't think so. You can go back through most of the "missed" players who end up overseas and succeeding and/or representing another country and while the average punter hasn't heard of them, if you go back through the age rep teams you'll generally find them so they were identified as a player of some talent and had some opportunity to impress.

There will always be the odd player who for whatever reason only breaks through at an older age. You're always going to be reliant on them pursuing the game through club rugby and potentially getting an opportunity later. I don't think anyone could reasonably come up with a method of unearthing more of these players. It's a low percentage shot that a player aged 23-25 is likely to become a good professional if only given the opportunity.

If we were missing a lot of talent then you'd expect to see more players turning up to play colts or grade who were very good and completely unknown to the various systems. I don't think that is the case at all.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

BH, couldn't this just be confirmation bias? I think we miss a heap of youngsters who could step up later. I played with a guy who played U20's for Australia and struggled to crack 2nd grade in club land. There were several guys with skills that developed later BUT that was a lifetime ago and you could be right today but I hope not!

Its just playing the percentages. @Braveheart81 isn't saying that people cant make it just that it is more likely that the top bracket will. With limited resources you need to target areas where you are most likely to get a return.

Ideally the more resources we have the more likely it is that we will have club harden players like Jock Campbell and Scott Fardy.

 

[Drew]

Kerevi, Koroibete, Skelton, Arnold, Coleman

I agree with the names, but the broader public? First two, definitely yes. Kerevi and Koro are exciting to watch. The broader public isn’t that jazzed on scrummaging, lineouts, swimming through a defensive maul of a quality lock like we are. Unless they’re absolutely massive like Skelton.

 

[molman]

Michael, I partially agree. If we were competing for young talent but we don't do a lot of that, we're poor at developing our own and end up buying in talent that others have seen and got good use of - then we buy them. That might be to do with wealthy private school educated people not being prepared to take a chance unless it's on a 'Sure thing'.
We lose our own talent and don't appear to be looking for it anywhere else, we wait until a star is shining and then pay whatever to get them. It has always struck me as wasteful and a poor use of resources - it Points directly at ignoring the grassroots.
As a ref for many years, it always amazed me how some players running around in grade or even subbies rarely get an opportunity to see if they can step up, it used to happen in NZ but I have never seen it in Aus. Bob Dwyer being the only exception I have seen.

I think a recent example of talent identification and bringing players into a pathway were the Sevens programs (Womans in particular) which have and do continue to pull in athletes/sports people from a wide range of places. The lack of any established pathways, especially early on really forced this and highlighted how many great players likely get missed due to failure to identify and provide appropriate levels of training/coaching.

I think unfortunately if a player doesn't stand out at an early age they often get lost, with a seeming inability to have clear pathways for the next step coupled with the reality that you need to market your sport to young athletes vs. all the other things they could be doing with their time.

I'm not sure I entirely agree re: the loosing talent and then paying to get them back. There is also a cost involved in developing players, even if it's an opportunity cost of not developing another. Paying top dollar for a proven player whilst expensive takes all the risk away from gauging an unknown/hard quantity - maybe this player will evolve into a superstar or not and the truth is, if they do, they will command top dollar to be retained anyway. You being the one that develops them, doesn't me you wont have to pay their worth eventually. Look at the pay players like Pocock and Hooper etc.. have commanded over their careers.

 

[Marce]

I agree with the names, but the broader public? First two, definitely yes. Kerevi and Koro are exciting to watch. The broader public isn’t that jazzed on scrummaging, lineouts, swimming through a defensive maul of a quality lock like we are. Unless they’re absolutely massive like Skelton.

Yeah but maybe just maybe, my Tahs need some fire in the second row lol

 

[rodha]

So who else do you want to give credit for coaching the greatest upset of all time in Japan beating South Africa? The Ball boy?

Don't forget Borthwick was also Eddie's assistant with Japan in 2015, so he deserves credit also.

Jones was 54 in 2015 with Japan and England started to decline as Jones entered his late 50's, which supports my argument that head coaches achieve their best success before they reach their late 50's, once they get past that stage they ideally move into a technical advisory role (which is how Fisher has managed to remain useful & effective to the Brumbies, without getting in the way of younger coaches coming through) as head coaching is incredibly demanding and is a becoming an increasingly younger man's role, you can't be an retirement aged old geezer in the head role these days because head coaches are primarily motivators, energizers & stimulators (which is different to when Jones first started coaching) - just look at a guy like Razor, he just gushes with enthusiasm and energy. The way I see it is ideally having a younger coach (40-55) as head coach with an older guy like Fisher in an advisory/technical assistant role. The energy and zest required for the head role (as a motivator, vision-setter, and face of the organization) is completely different to a technical focused role. At this stage, Eddie is going to be more effective as a technical coach - not a head coach. There's an argument that he's always been better suited to technical assistant than head coach, because his biggest weakness has always been his man-management, which absolutely must be the biggest strength of a head coach in 2023.

 

[molman]

I don't think so. You can go back through most of the "missed" players who end up overseas and succeeding and/or representing another country and while the average punter hasn't heard of them, if you go back through the age rep teams you'll generally find them so they were identified as a player of some talent and had some opportunity to impress.

There will always be the odd player who for whatever reason only breaks through at an older age. You're always going to be reliant on them pursuing the game through club rugby and potentially getting an opportunity later. I don't think anyone could reasonably come up with a method of unearthing more of these players. It's a low percentage shot that a player aged 23-25 is likely to become a good professional if only given the opportunity.

If we were missing a lot of talent then you'd expect to see more players turning up to play colts or grade who were very good and completely unknown to the various systems. I don't think that is the case at all.

Its just playing the percentages. @Braveheart81 isn't saying that people cant make it just that it is more likely that the top bracket will. With limited resources you need to target areas where you are most likely to get a return.

Ideally the more resources we have the more likely it is that we will have club harden players like Jock Campbell and Scott Fardy.

Whilst you are potentially correct. The bigger issue is how many kids/young people you are pulling in at the base of your pyramid and what subsection of the population are you drawing from due to other filtering factors that mean you may have zero exposure - ie. a lack of a public school team or even competitive local club.

 

[Lightblue]

Do Foley or Hodge? Foley in particular was never a master game manager, he had a great running game, played pretty flat and was good at bringing a second playmaker into a game.

I get Noah isn't the best 10 in the world but he is pretty clearly our best option (when Quade isn't fit - i.e. 95% of the time). And with Kerevi inside him he should be good enough. He would be better with more time and less fuckery happening, too.

Agree though that bringing in another young bloke would be stupid. Is Donaldson suddenly going to be better than Noah? nah.

I think in young Noah's defense, he has had adopt a less than ideal 10 role, as White tends to do more of the organizing. Is that because of game plan or they don't feel Noah can manage the game as well? Probably both. Eddie will definitely have a different view on the whole 10 plan no doubt and it will be interesting to see who he eventually picks. Super form this year will definitely count. Especially if Quade struggles to be match fit and overcome his injury.

 

[stillmissit]

I don't think so. You can go back through most of the "missed" players who end up overseas and succeeding and/or representing another country and while the average punter hasn't heard of them, if you go back through the age rep teams you'll generally find them so they were identified as a player of some talent and had some opportunity to impress.

There will always be the odd player who for whatever reason only breaks through at an older age. You're always going to be reliant on them pursuing the game through club rugby and potentially getting an opportunity later. I don't think anyone could reasonably come up with a method of unearthing more of these players. It's a low percentage shot that a player aged 23-25 is likely to become a good professional if only given the opportunity.

If we were missing a lot of talent then you'd expect to see more players turning up to play colts or grade who were very good and completely unknown to the various systems. I don't think that is the case at all.

BH, apart from Gamble, I can't think of another club player who has been plucked out of a lower level. There are a few players who get a chance through first grade club rugby but the days of Dwyer plucking players out of 2nd grade he recognised had talent have never been replicated since the early 90's due, I believe, to the fact that we cannot ID talent that could step up and have the balls to pick them.

 

[stillmissit]

I think a recent example of talent identification and bringing players into a pathway were the Sevens programs (Womans in particular) which have and do continue to pull in athletes/sports people from a wide range of places. The lack of any established pathways, especially early on really forced this and highlighted how many great players likely get missed due to failure to identify and provide appropriate levels of training/coaching.

I think unfortunately if a player doesn't stand out at an early age they often get lost, with a seeming inability to have clear pathways for the next step coupled with the reality that you need to market your sport to young athletes vs. all the other things they could be doing with their time.

I'm not sure I entirely agree re: the loosing talent and then paying to get them back. There is also a cost involved in developing players, even if it's an opportunity cost of not developing another. Paying top dollar for a proven player whilst expensive takes all the risk away from gauging an unknown/hard quantity - maybe this player will evolve into a superstar or not and the truth is, if they do, they will command top dollar to be retained anyway. You being the one that develops them, doesn't me you wont have to pay their worth eventually. Look at the pay players like Pocock and Hooper etc.. have commanded over their careers.

Moman, I would like to offer the argument that Rennie has brought into our talent discussions. He was only focused on the names we all knew and had been around the wallabies, with the injury problems he was forced to look outside and surprising to many but most probably not you or I, he unearthed talent that at another time of fewer injuries would never have got a chance.

 

[molman]

BH, apart from Gamble, I can't think of another club player who has been plucked out of a lower level. There are a few players who get a chance through first grade club rugby but the days of Dwyer plucking players out of 2nd grade he recognised had talent have never been replicated since the early 90's due, I believe, to the fact that we cannot ID talent that could step up and have the balls to pick them.

Dwyer's era is a tricky example as it was the still amateur, just becoming professional period. I'm not sure the jump in class of athlete was as much, such that other raw attributes counted equally, if not more. This is not to say that there probably exists many players with the raw material to be exceptional when provided the right support structures - training, coaching etc..

 

[Braveheart81]

BH, apart from Gamble, I can't think of another club player who has been plucked out of a lower level. There are a few players who get a chance through first grade club rugby but the days of Dwyer plucking players out of 2nd grade he recognised had talent have never been replicated since the early 90's due, I believe, to the fact that we cannot ID talent that could step up and have the balls to pick them.

There have been a few players who earned their first Super Rugby contract at age 23+ in recent years. These would be the players I'm talking about. Jock Campbell, Hugh Sinclair, Mahe Vailanu etc.

People love the Phil Kearns being selected from Randwick 2nd grade to play for the Wallabies story but it's also true that prior to that he was in the Australian under 21s team. The idea that Bob Dwyer was the first person to notice his talent is a myth.