Wallabies announced

[tranquility]

Since day one Horne has been a freak. If we can keep him on the paddock, he will become one of the most valuable commodities in Australian rugby.

 

[daz]

I would really like Van to get a Wallabys cap. He deserves it.

I missed this post the first time around but it deserves a follow-up.

Absolutely agree. As they say, guys like Van are only one injury away from a call-up.

 

[spectator]

I would really like Van to get a Wallabys cap. He deserves it.

I missed this post the first time around but it deserves a follow-up.

Absolutely agree. As they say, guys like Van are only one injury away from a call-up.

He and Sharp have been the best OZ locks in the S14, so agree... he deserves a green and gold jersey.

Good to see a couple of veterans leading the way.

 

[spectator]

Only ten in the Baabaa's?

Im thinking that To'omua will get the nod after 20's and reckon Morahan and Schatz and at least one of the talented 7's might also get the nod.

 

[Lee Grant]

I wrote in some thread after the EOYT that only 2 of our players were irreplaceable: Genia and Palu - and that number was predicated on the basis that if Moore was injured then TPN would be available to be hooker - and vice versa.

Now that the players for those 3 positions are out it should make us pause before we crow about depth. We don't have depth in the 9, 2 and 8 position and 1 and 4/5 are very dodgy also. Specialists for 12 and 13 are not falling off trees either, come to think of it. Sure, we have some fair replacements but I don't call it depth; it is more like width - a few players more or less the same below the top guy, and some of those are counted for other positions.

I call depth having a player who would not disgrace himself in a World 22, backed up by an experienced international backed up by a fellow who had the potential to be an experienced international but for the other 2 in front of him. It's the kind of depth that countries like France and England should have; countries with a large number of professional clubs.

Once the excess foreigners' contracts expire our 5th Super team will be important for Oz rugby in generating more depth, or at least more width to cover injuries. We could go crazy trying to figure out what Wallaby talent was revealed by having a 4th Super team that would not have otherwise been identified with 3, but I will go with the vibe of it and state, with no evidence whatsoever, that the 4th team has been salutary for the purpose of national selections. 5 teams would be like baby Bear's porridge: just about right ( in 3-4 years time), and 6 would be too many at any time.

There weren't too many surprises in the selections. Deans aversion to Waugh is well known in rugby circles and the emergence of Hodgson as a valid 7 candidate when Pocock was injured for the Force had marginalised the Tahs captain anyway. Also Deans has done the right thing methinks in taking a chance with younger props and discarding Baxter.

I didn't expect Mowen, a stepper not a power player, to get a gig and must assume that Higginbotham was not considered because of injury. People who decry the omission of Waugh and Mowen and a few others often miss the point when they say that they should have been chosen because they played well in Super rugby It's not all about how somebody has played for their Super14 team.

Form should be OK of course but sometimes good Super performances do not transpose into good performances in big test matches. The trick is to pick the players who are likely to play for 80 minutes under pressure in a big game by looking at the processes they have gone through when they were on the park and not just the flashy or obvious stuff. That trick involves reading tea leaves from a full cup because the player may not have ever played in such a big game.

There is also a "blow our socks off" factor whereby new players or guys coming back for a 2nd chance are given an opportunity to blow the selectors socks off, though the selectors would not be sure who these sock blowers may be until they see them in a big game.



Mowen's omission makes the inclusion of Hoiles puzzling because some of his no.8 boxes are not ticked either. No. 8s come in different styles: Parisse the Italian is an all the skills player, Spies is a try scorer from a long way out, Easter and Palu like to run over folks and get over the gain line, Read is a workaholic and good runner; Harinoroduy is the perfect all-round no.8 and Heaslip not too far off that benchmark either. Hoiles is the Parisse type but that doesn't have a lot of currency in 3N games where shifting and knocking people over and picking and going and tackling to the cows come home and looking for more, are more highly valued no.8 traits.

 

[waratahjesus]

Form should be OK of course but sometimes good Super performances do not transpose into good performances in big test matches. The trick is to pick the players who are likely to play for 80 minutes under pressure in a big game by looking at the processes they have gone through when they were on the park and not just the flashy or obvious stuff. That trick involves reading tea leaves from a full cup because the player may not have ever played in such a big game.

can you have a go at explaining richard browns inclusion lee, its the one i really cant understand, especially agreeing with this paragraph.

 

[Hawko]

There weren't too many surprises in the selections. Deans aversion to Waugh is well known in rugby circles and the emergence of Hodgson as a valid 7 candidate when Pocock was injured for the Force had marginalised the Tahs captain anyway. Also Deans has done the right thing methinks in taking a chance with younger props and discarding Baxter.

I didn't expect Mowen, a stepper not a power player, to get a gig and must assume that Higginbotham was not considered because of injury. People who decry the omission of Waugh and Mowen and a few others often miss the point when they say that they should have been chosen because they played well in Super rugby It's not all about how somebody has played for their Super14 team.

Form should be OK of course but sometimes good Super performances do not transpose into good performances in big test matches. The trick is to pick the players who are likely to play for 80 minutes under pressure in a big game by looking at the processes they have gone through when they were on the park and not just the flashy or obvious stuff. That trick involves reading tea leaves from a full cup because the player may not have ever played in such a big game.

I think its very dangerous to pick players who are playing badly over players who are playing well. Chisolm played poorly this year on top of some less than stellar performances for the Wallabies previously. Brown showed last year he was not up to test standard and he played only OK once he got back to S14. Hoiles in my opinion did not do that well, stats notwithstanding.

Giteau was poor in almost every S14 match. He should have been in the Baa-Baa's squad on a last chance basis, because except for one match on the EOYT he was also very poor. He is being included for his performances three years ago. Barnes form was very patchy, some good performances mixed with a lot of bad. Josh Valentine did not impress either.

The problem with not picking the best players is twofold. Firstly, when a player has a great S14 and doesn't get picked its a big kick in the guts. Van primarily, Mowen to a lesser extent, A. Faainga (though he's in the BB's) should all feel aggrieved. Secondly, players get to believe in their "divine right to be picked". Giteau is a classic case.

Deans, like most NZ coaches, likes workhorse no. 8's rather than those in the Palu/Spies mould. Remember how long it took to get Palu back into 8 last year. So Brown and Hoiles probably got chosen for that. Still I hope Higginbotham comes in for one of them as soon as he is fit.

The front row is a special case. TPN has been selected while injured - that's a real worry. But worse we seem to have convinced ourselves that taking young props who are great round the field but poor scrummagers is the way to go, trying to teach them how to scrum once they make the national team. Props have to be selected for their scrummaging first. In this regard the loss of Baxter is very disappointing. His play in tight was excelllent, his scrummaging was good in most matches (Saders the major exception) and he shaded Weeks and Maafu when they went head to head. So he's 32. Prime time for THP is 27-32. Picking THP's just out of their teens is way too early. Baxter should have been chosen in the squad, with Weeks in the BB's.

 

[Ruggo]

I agree with everything you say Hawko, except Baxter. All the young props selected have proven worthy scrumagers. They have had their ups and downs but have been good.

 

[mark_s]

I can understand Baxter not being selected in the squad, we play more tests against the ABs than any other team and BAxter has struggled (fairly or unfairly) against the blacks. Deans will know that we are going to struggle against the ABs with Al and he needs to consistently beat the blacks to be judged as successful. Also, I suspect Deans knows that, if push really comes to shove, BAxter could probably be brought into the squad/team at short notice - certainly quicker than anyone else.

Edmonds is a worrying choice, the scary thing is that he will probably be seriously considered for the wobbs if both Moore and TPN are out.

I would like to see Deans give Alexander and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) picked in their long term positions starting from the FIJI test. Deans will be tempted to swap them round a bit to experiment (and accomodate injuries) and them expect them to fire in different positions in the 3N.

 

[Lee Grant]

Hawko

Good post. I didn't agree with all of it but that is neither here nor there - it's why we posters do what we do.

Brown - to answer wj's question also as to why he was picked (and not Mowen or Houston) when Palu and Higginbotham were out - it's probably just on work rate and mongrel. He's like the Kiwi Read without the pace, but he'll play for 80 minutes. There's a bit of danger there because being a mongrel player is never far away from being a nutter; but Deans has made the call.

Why Hoiles, a linker, got picked ahead of Mowen, another light player IMO, is anybody's guess but perhaps Deans saw a bit more hardness in him this year that I missed. He certainly looked like he had his noggin in a few more rucks this year.

There was always going to be a big hole if Cliffy was injured. Higginbotham has the physical attributes but I doubt if Deans will think of him as an 8 when he comes back. [And incidentally Hawko, Palu had trouble getting back into the side 12 months ago because he always takes time to come back after an injury.]

Baxter got a a tough selection decision but Deans has thrown the dice in favour of Ma'afu. I thought that Weeks was in anyway. Those two should fight it out for the 3 jersey. Scrummaging should come first as you say but it was his scrummaging that was targeted by refs in 3N last year, rightly or wrongly, and Deans didn't want to take a punt on that happening again to a 32 year old. He's thinking that either Weeks or Ma'afu will be up to speed internationally for next year. Even this year you couldn't say they are young props that can't scrummage and have to learn on the job in test matches, though the first England test will be revealing.

LHP selections are a more serious matter. Alexander will most likely sub for Robinson, not that Fat Cat had a stellar S14 scrummaging season by his standards. Alexander had a few dodgy scrum games also - the Canes' match comes to mind and IIRR, the Crusaders'. Cowan by his own admission was not in great form in the S14 and the injury to Fat Cat should give him another chance. Based on experience he would probably have precedence over Daley to be the no.2 LHP; so look for him and whoever Deans thinks is the 2nd rated THP to start for the Barbarians.

Giteau got a bit of form back towards the end and was always going to be in the Wallaby team anyway - but that is your point, that he shouldn't have been. One thing I will say about Giteau is that if he's in a bit of form he can take that into any game he plays - S14 or a big test match. He's not like others who may be cowed by a big occasion.

He may have been marginalised if Barnes was in top form but he's not. Barnes' good games, and there weren't a lot, were sprinkled sparingly over the S14 season. If you don't have these guys in the team, who do you put in? I'd rather take a punt on these fellows coming right this winter than trying another inexperienced guy like A. Fainga'a with the other problems we are having. His time in test matches should come, but except for injuries to others I think it will be after the next RWC when Giteau has gone offshore, not before. But like some others, AF should be taken on the EOYT to see if he blows a few socks off in the mid-week games. That could change everything.

Valentine – I think you are being a bit harsh. I thought he was in good form for the Brumbies and mentioned in some post thathe was winning the battle with Burgess as the form backup to Genia. He is a nutter though and Deans will probably prefer Burgess, warts and all.

 

[#1 Tah]

It is interesting to note, that on the wallabies webpage with the squad, Matt Gitau is listed as Flyhalf/Inside Centre/Scrumhalf

 

[chief]

For this year, I really don't see the value in having a back up half back on the bench. If Genia gets injured, I think just replace him with Giteau. Genia has shown he has the fitness to last the full 80 minutes. If there is to be a back up selected I would hope that it would be Valentine selected. His form this year is far more consistent than Luke Burgess one stellar of a performance. This year, Valentine has been Australia's 2nd performing half back.

On the Baxter issue, I think he was very harshly treated by the refs last year, and his exclusion was inevitable. He gives away more penalties then any other Front Row. Rugby is now becoming about who can give away the least penalties especially with the monstrous boots of Steyn, Wilkinson and Carter who will come and get us and as we saw last year it cost us our first win in NZ in god knows how long.

All this talk of Houston being selected is frustrating to say the least. He didn't deserve to be picked, a lot of the games he was lucky to even be seeing field time especially ahead of Ed Quirk, who I think was bought in too late. Houston has the potential to be a good player, but he's still got to work on his fitness, and I think next years Tri-Nations is his time, possibly Spring Tour. I'm sure we are all cursing ourselves that we haven't an ARC, to see some quality Australian Rugby, makes it very hard for Deans to see how there form is going especially that we haven't any mid year tests next year, could make it slightly harder.


#1 Tah He's usually listed as that, he's played time at #9 before.

 

[Scarfman]

chief - the reason Houston is worth a look is that it gives you the chanve to do a straight Palu / Houston swap. With very other selection you need to rethink the whole back 3.

Of the two substantial posts, above, I agre with Hawko more than Lee. Mainly I just think that the Micthell / Deans All Blacks failed exactly because of a lack of hardness and experience, and this, I believe, has been Deans' blind spot as a selector all the way through.

 

[fatprop]

I still think Houston needs to work on his core fitness, he is like Palu was for a few seasons early in his career, just not fit enough to play more than 30 minutes of quality S14 rugby let alone test rugby. At the moment he gets tired and his skills disappear.

But under Link, I think he will be flogged for the next 8 months and if he does the base work he will be great cover for Palu for the RWC

 

[MrMouse]

Life is easy and posting's a breeze some days...

I think its very dangerous to pick players who are playing badly over players who are playing well. Chisolm played poorly this year on top of some less than stellar performances for the Wallabies previously. Brown showed last year he was not up to test standard and he played only OK once he got back to S14. Hoiles in my opinion did not do that well, stats notwithstanding.

Giteau was poor in almost every S14 match. He should have been in the Baa-Baa's squad on a last chance basis, because except for one match on the EOYT he was also very poor. He is being included for his performances three years ago. Barnes form was very patchy, some good performances mixed with a lot of bad. Josh Valentine did not impress either.

The problem with not picking the best players is twofold. Firstly, when a player has a great S14 and doesn't get picked its a big kick in the guts. Van primarily, Mowen to a lesser extent, A. Faainga (though he's in the BB's) should all feel aggrieved. Secondly, players get to believe in their "divine right to be picked". Giteau is a classic case.

Deans, like most NZ coaches, likes workhorse no. 8's rather than those in the Palu/Spies mould. Remember how long it took to get Palu back into 8 last year. So Brown and Hoiles probably got chosen for that. Still I hope Higginbotham comes in for one of them as soon as he is fit.

The front row is a special case. TPN has been selected while injured - that's a real worry. But worse we seem to have convinced ourselves that taking young props who are great round the field but poor scrummagers is the way to go, trying to teach them how to scrum once they make the national team. Props have to be selected for their scrummaging first. In this regard the loss of Baxter is very disappointing. His play in tight was excelllent, his scrummaging was good in most matches (Saders the major exception) and he shaded Weeks and Maafu when they went head to head. So he's 32. Prime time for THP is 27-32. Picking THP's just out of their teens is way too early. Baxter should have been chosen in the squad, with Weeks in the BB's.

+1

chief - the reason Houston is worth a look is that it gives you the chance to do a straight Palu / Houston swap. With very other selection you need to rethink the whole back 3.

Of the two substantial posts, above, I agree with Hawko more than Lee. Mainly I just think that the Micthell / Deans All Blacks failed exactly because of a lack of hardness and experience, and this, I believe, has been Deans' blind spot as a selector all the way through.

+1
Tada!

 

[Lee Grant]

Mainly I just think that the Micthell / Deans All Blacks failed exactly because of a lack of hardness and experience, and this, I believe, has been Deans' blind spot as a selector all the way through.

I actually agree with this and have mentioned it several times myself over the years. It's just that there's not a lot of hard experienced players that missed out. If you're talking about Baxter, I agreed with his omission just on scrummaging grounds - that referees pinged him too much last year and would likely as not do so again when they guess.

Which hard experienced players were omitted? Van Humphries comes to mind instead of Chisholm but who else - Waugh ahead of Hodgson? Not for me.

One thing I would like to see is that of the 40 selected Deans does picked the hardest bastards regardless of age and to a certain extent regardless of skill in the loose - given that they are technically sound in their speciality.

 

[Hawko]

We don't all agree but it has been a very interesting discussion. Scarfman's quote had me trying to remember just who Mitchell and Deans left out! to see whether it stacked up. Alas, those brain cells are long dead.

I've enjoyed the posts.

 

[Langthorne]

I think Lee's point about width rather than depth is right on the money - we have real depth if a guy is left out who would be selected in most other national teams. When Australian cricket was at its peak there were players like McGill and Law who were unlucky to come along when they did, plus there were always guys ready to take over from the incumbent (Gilchrist is one who springs to mind). The other interesting thing is that age is never an issue with the cricket team - if you are good enough you are in (Hussey).

The Wallabies have a potentially very good 22, but beyond that I'm afraid it is a big drop in ability/talent/class. The 4 (now 5) Super franchises have done a lot to rectify this, and hopefully they'll continue to do so.

 

[Lee Grant]

Hawko

Me too but the question remains: who are the hard men and/or form players who missed out? Yep we would all like only players who were in top form and a lot more hard, experienced men, but what are their names? We know the dangers of not picking form players or hard men because most of us have watched the Wallabies perform poorly since they beat the B&I Lions 9 years ago.

I made a comment on the other selection thread something like, IIRR: with 40 guys picked and the inevitable injuries - and only 60 guys starting every week in the S14, and some obviously not up to speed yet - or never will be - just about everybody will be right in their picks.

It wasn't quite last man standing but it wasn't far away. Add those 16 injured players back in though and it would have been a different story.

Then we could have had a righteous bitching session.

 

[Scarfman]

From memory, people like and Randell and Umaga felt that they had more games in them.

E.g., fro, Wikipedia: When John Mitchell and Robbie Deans took over the coaching of the All Blacks from Wayne Smith and Tony Gilbert in October 2001 it soon became clear Randell's All Black days were numbered.

This current Wallaby selection goes for skills over hardness at every opportunity. I'm not anti-skills, but I reckon Robbie sees things differently to us selectors here on the forum. And I think he's wrong.