Hardtackle
Charlie Fox (21)
Elsom, Higgers, Samo and McCalman cover 6&8. We need the next best 7 to cover for Pocock. We are aweful without a strong specialist seven.
Wallabies at the Rugby World Cup 2011
- Thread starter Lee Grant
- Start date
- Status
Elsom, Higgers, Samo and McCalman cover 6&8. We need the next best 7 to cover for Pocock. We are aweful without a strong specialist seven.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
That's why they've gone with Hodgson... because George Smith is ineligible...
We haven't carried a true "specialist" 7 on the bench all season. The team budgets for Pocock to play 80 minutes. The difference between Hodgson & Robinson as a 7 is negligible IMHO - both are damn good, it is just that Hodgson offers more flexibility for the squad and bench
Hardtackle
Charlie Fox (21)
I hope you're right. It's clear we need a 7 on the bench for every game because we're shit without one on the field.
Athilnaur
Arch Winning (36)
I rate Beau over Hodgson based on this year's super form, and I believe Beau is a big game player. He thrives on tough games. He had a nervy game against Samoa tho and I fear that was his only chance to change Deans preferences.
Agree with everyone else we need a 7, badly and I'm happy with either.
Agree with everyone else we need a 7, badly and I'm happy with either.
Godfrey
Phil Hardcastle (33)
I'd prefer Beau over Hodgson, but then again I'm the sort of lunatic that would pick Liam Gill ahead of both of them. I also prefer Hodgson over McCalman in general, I think if he takes McCalman's bench spot and Pocock stays fit then surely most would agree that that's the best we're going to get.
James Buchanan
Trevor Allan (34)
Turner and Hodgson called up:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-02/turner-hodgson-to-join-wallabies/3205650
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-02/turner-hodgson-to-join-wallabies/3205650
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
This news puts an end to all the speculation.
The discussion of the merits of who else should have been selected will continue.
The discussion of the merits of who else should have been selected will continue.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I have sometimes been a strident critic of Deans 
but I can actually see what he was trying to do, and I think it is actually what Link did in the first couple of games with the Reds this year and what Kidney did with SOB with the Irish. The role of the 7 has changed and if you don't have a supreme fetcher then I believe a fetcher who gets penalised regularly is a liability and a player who can pressure the breakdown and counter ruck can provide more.
The big mistake Deans made, and it is one that he has made time and again throughout his tenure in that he is unreasonably loyal and possibly pig headed about changing view on a player. McCalman is an ineffectual 8. He has no impact at the breakdown playing his favoured position why the hell he thought it would be any different with him at 7 is beyond comprehension. Add that to the fact that Elsom remains seriously out of form except for a few brief flashes and you are left with a back row in which the only effective member is Samo (who I will add wouldn't have got a gig if Palu hadn't been injured all year). Further to the woes are the "saviour" of the second row Vickerman still has the same issues at the breakdown that cost Oz dearly in 2007, discipline.
It all adds up to a poor breakdown performance that selecting a specialist 7 will not automatically fix.
but I can actually see what he was trying to do, and I think it is actually what Link did in the first couple of games with the Reds this year and what Kidney did with SOB with the Irish. The role of the 7 has changed and if you don't have a supreme fetcher then I believe a fetcher who gets penalised regularly is a liability and a player who can pressure the breakdown and counter ruck can provide more.The big mistake Deans made, and it is one that he has made time and again throughout his tenure in that he is unreasonably loyal and possibly pig headed about changing view on a player. McCalman is an ineffectual 8. He has no impact at the breakdown playing his favoured position why the hell he thought it would be any different with him at 7 is beyond comprehension. Add that to the fact that Elsom remains seriously out of form except for a few brief flashes and you are left with a back row in which the only effective member is Samo (who I will add wouldn't have got a gig if Palu hadn't been injured all year). Further to the woes are the "saviour" of the second row Vickerman still has the same issues at the breakdown that cost Oz dearly in 2007, discipline.
It all adds up to a poor breakdown performance that selecting a specialist 7 will not automatically fix.
Bowside
Peter Johnson (47)
Would have loved to have seen beau on the plane, he has a great combination with the backrow and halfs for the reds which is really the crux of any good rugby team. Offers an option at first receiver and just generally a warhorse. But sensible selections all the same, openside and winger is what the original squad was missing.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I have sometimes been a strident critic of Deans
The big mistake Deans made, and it is one that he has made time and again throughout his tenure in that he is unreasonably loyal and possibly pig headed about changing view on a player. McCalman is an ineffectual 8. He has no impact at the breakdown playing his favoured position why the hell he thought it would be any different with him at 7 is beyond comprehension. Add that to the fact that Elsom remains seriously out of form except for a few brief flashes and you are left with a back row in which the only effective member is Samo (who I will add wouldn't have got a gig if Palu hadn't been injured all year). Further to the woes are the "saviour" of the second row Vickerman still has the same issues at the breakdown that cost Oz dearly in 2007, discipline.
It all adds up to a poor breakdown performance that selecting a specialist 7 will not automatically fix.
Apart from the fact that unreasonably and loyal should not appear side by side this is an excellent analysis.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
We need experience. We lost against Ireland because we didn't know what to do. These are wise selections. If either of these players find themselves on the pitch they'll have the benefit of many tests behind them. Regardless of how good the alternatives are - its lineball IMO - they simply don't have that.
Bowside
Peter Johnson (47)
I'd argue that what we needed against ireland was beau robinson. The failings in the backs could be put down to inexperience but the forwards not so much, what we lacked in the forwards was effective breakdown play. It was a game where players like ben daley, james slipper and beau robinson would have thrived because they are strong, mobile and love the tough stuff. No reds bias intended, but as other have said before, you have to question 'experience' when our experienced players fail to turn up when they are needed. All the best to matt hodgeson, there should have been a backup 7 from the start.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
HodgsonL 6 tests and Turner: 13 starts for 14 tests
"many tests" or did you mean "not many"
tigerland12
John Thornett (49)
Judging on Super Rugby I beg to differ
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
does it matter? unless pocock breaks a fetlock he wont be starting and if pocock keels over we're f***** and far from home.
given robbie's claim that we dont need 2 #7s is he admitting to error?
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Judging on Super Rugby from the past few years you can't beg to differ...
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
They probably could've done with other experienced big game players like Saia Fainga'a, Tapuai, Morahan, Davies and Lucas...
- Status