Wallabies 2024

[Tomthumb]

Did he? It was pretty broadly accepted that he didn't really grasp his opportunity against Georgia which is the weakest team we've played this year. We scored two tries in that first half against Argentina in the second test and I think Donaldson was fine. I would hardly describe the attack as "humming" as a result of his play though.

Lolesio continues to be the most consistent at Super Rugby level and that's why he is getting more opportunity at test level.

I don't think either of them are the long term option but I think there's no real evidence to suggest that Donaldson is a better player and should be preferenced to Lolesio.

That Georgia team was thrown together so hardly a chance for cohesion, Lolesio also came on and looked poor in that game

They were up 20-3 after 30 mins with him directing traffic vs Argentina. He looked more in control than Noah has all year. And i disagree, Donaldson was better throughout Super Rugby IMO

 

[Tomthumb]

100% what I am saying. Until we fix the underlying issues picking shit player (a) or (b) won't change anything.

And we will never fix the underlying issues as becomes more apparent by the day.

Bit of a loser mentality, no?

 

[stillmissit]

but he went with Lolesio.

I wonder why? Was it the Super Rugby coaches giving him their insights into a 10? Rennie suffered a similar fate when he started with the team. No real idea about what talent is here and forced to rely on Super Rugby coaches who are all failing at their jobs (admittedly the Brfumbies are failing less).
There is always 50% cheering on our head coach and 50% plotting their downfall.

 

[Tomthumb]

I'm not missing the point.

Donaldson hasn't shown he's clearly a better option and Schmidt has determined that he thinks Lolesio is his best option available at this time and will persist with that.

He has seen a lot of both of them in training and enough on the field from Donaldson to tell him that his verdict is correct.

Your position is that Donaldson should get a lot more opportunity so Schmidt can then determine whether after reaching the same level of experience Donaldson is ahead of Lolesio. Schmidt's position is that Lolesio is slightly ahead now and the best potential outcome is to stick with that so they can build cohesion and hopefully end up in a better overall position after the next x number of tests.

There's undoubtedly an element of bad luck for Donaldson. Lolesio isn't obviously a much better player than Donaldson. There's clearly very little between them. Schmidt could have decided Donaldson was his first choice and invested the bulk of the opportunity there but he went with Lolesio.

How many tests is X? 100? 200? It's lunacy

Mind you Schmidt also holds the position that Laurie Fisher is a competent defense coach so maybe that explains it

 

[Derpus]

Bit of a loser mentality, no?

I guess so. It's the reality though. Look at our performances and results?

 

[stillmissit]

I'm not missing the point.

Donaldson hasn't shown he's clearly a better option and Schmidt has determined that he thinks Lolesio is his best option available at this time and will persist with that.

He has seen a lot of both of them in training and enough on the field from Donaldson to tell him that his verdict is correct.

Your position is that Donaldson should get a lot more opportunity so Schmidt can then determine whether after reaching the same level of experience Donaldson is ahead of Lolesio. Schmidt's position is that Lolesio is slightly ahead now and the best potential outcome is to stick with that so they can build cohesion and hopefully end up in a better overall position after the next x number of tests.

There's undoubtedly an element of bad luck for Donaldson. Lolesio isn't obviously a much better player than Donaldson. There's clearly very little between them. Schmidt could have decided Donaldson was his first choice and invested the bulk of the opportunity there but he went with Lolesio.

BH faced with two poor managers working for you do you keep one and sack the other or remove both over a short period and replace them with others? What I am saying is, we cannot afford to have two poor 10's in a critical part of the future of the Wallabies.
Both these players have been around long enough to show major improvements and I can't see either of them doing that.

 

[Braveheart81]

I wonder why? Was it the Super Rugby coaches giving him their insights into a 10? Rennie suffered a similar fate when he started with the team. No real idea about what talent is here and forced to rely on Super Rugby coaches who are all failing at their jobs (admittedly the Brfumbies are failing less).
There is always 50% cheering on our head coach and 50% plotting their downfall.

My overall take here is that Lolesio and Donaldson are much of a muchness and it's better to pick and stick with one of them for the bulk of tests than it is to chop and change because neither are overly good.

I think Schmidt has come to the same conclusion.

In my view both are placeholders until someone better comes along.

 

[Tomthumb]

I guess so. It's the reality though. Look at our performances and results?

The past doesn't have to define the future, that's defeatist rubbish

 

[Tomthumb]

My overall take here is that Lolesio and Donaldson are much of a muchness and it's better to pick and stick with one of them for the bulk of tests than it is to chop and change because neither are overly good.

I think Schmidt has come to the same conclusion.

In my view both are placeholders until someone better comes along.

And what if said player doesn't look like Dan Carter on debut? He will be thrown on the scrapheap like all the others

 

[stillmissit]

I guess so. It's the reality though. Look at our performances and results?

Losers always revert to reality as their excuse, been used for hundreds if not thousands of years. It is hard to rebuild a failed operation and it takes talent but not more than 2 years.

 

[Braveheart81]

BH faced with two poor managers working for you do you keep one and sack the other or remove both over a short period and replace them with others? What I am saying is, we cannot afford to have two poor 10's in a critical part of the future of the Wallabies.
Both these players have been around long enough to show major improvements and I can't see either of them doing that.

There's not really others though. Lynagh is clearly not ready and maybe we'll see Edmed given a chance on the EOYT. Edmed is also clearly not a much better player.

In terms of your analogy I would say there are two poor managers and you're the boss and you have no choice but to promote one of them for a specific role so you make your choice knowing that neither candidate is ideal but you don't have another viable option.

 

[Braveheart81]

And what if said player doesn't look like Dan Carter on debut? He will be thrown on the scrapheap like all the others

Who has been thrown on the scrapheap?

 

[stillmissit]

I think Schmidt has come to the same conclusion.

I am coming to the conclusion that Schmidt is a great structured coach but struggles to pick his nose. He needs better ID spotters than are currently available.
In NZ there is a small army of talent spotters giving insights into potential talent, we have next to nobody.

 

[stillmissit]

There's not really others though. Lynagh is clearly not ready and maybe we'll see Edmed given a chance on the EOYT. Edmed is also clearly not a much better player.

In terms of your analogy I would say there are two poor managers and you're the boss and you have no choice but to promote one of them for a specific role so you make your choice knowing that neither candidate is ideal but you don't have another viable option.

That's how companies fail. There is always talent out there that is better, but finding them and working out how to get the best out of them is the difficult bit.

 

[Braveheart81]

I am coming to the conclusion that Schmidt is a great structured coach but struggles to pick his nose. He needs better ID spotters than are currently available.

Who are these amazing players that he's failing to identify?

I am not a fan of Lolesio and you can look back through years of posts on this forum that attest to that. I am pretty comfortable saying that it is perfectly reasonable to decide that he's the best option we currently have and stick with him.

Donaldson is fine. I reject the assertion that he's clearly better than Lolesio which I think is the required threshold for Schmidt not to just pick and stick with what he's decided is his best option.

 

[Braveheart81]

That's how companies fail. There is always talent out there that is better, but finding them and working out how to get the best out of them is the difficult bit.

It was an analogy. Of course there are other managers out there that a business can hire.

This is Australian Rugby though. We literally have four starting Super Rugby 10s to choose from and they are Noah Lolesio, Ben Donaldson, Tom Lynagh and Tane Edmed. Aside from Tane Edmed all of them have played for the Wallabies this year.

The idea that there's a better option to play 10 for the Wallabies out there right now but Schmidt hasn't worked out who they are is just ridiculous.

 

[Derpus]

Losers always revert to reality as their excuse, been used for hundreds if not thousands of years. It is hard to rebuild a failed operation and it takes talent but not more than 2 years.

I mean - I'm not making an excuse? I am not a Wallaby nor am I directly involved in any of this. I'm literally just pointing out that they are terrible at rugby. Both Noah and Donaldson are very poor test level flyhalves.

You can blame my loser mentality if you want but.... seems pretty fucked in the head to me.

 

[stillmissit]

Ignoring the current 10 potentials, who else should be in the mix that is currently not?

I will start with Harry McLaughlin-Phillips only saw him play one game but I think he has it.

 

[Derpus]

Let's just all abandon rugby union as a lost cause in AUS and watch the 6 tackles and kick game? Comments like this really piss me off, no idea about building anything just basic puss and nonsense.

I've made thousands of posts on this forum about steps that could be taken to improve rugby. But RA have just kept doing the same things. Dunno what else you want from me, really. Some banal positive bullshit that completely ignores all evidence or reality?

 

[stillmissit]

We literally have four starting Super Rugby 10s to choose from

BH this is the issue, if you accept that a world class coach you are paying a mil a year for cannot ID others who should be in the mix, then you are in deep shit. We don't have the time to be conservative, we have to bring on the best young talent we have and that is why I would be using Aus A to test them on. You do not see real talent until pressure is applied and at this time there is little pressure on both these 10's.