I can't stand this debate any longer. It took Al Baxter 50 tests to start to get good. As soon as he got quite good, we dropped him for someone else who might take 50 tests to get good. ....
Scarf out.
Isn't the whole despair-ridden debate over Baxter about something deeper: namely, many of us seem (by implication) to have just accepted that the ARU and current coaching elite have done just a fine job preparing over recent years an adequate quantity and quality of Test-level, or near top level, forwards. Therefore, 'the forwards injury crisis', the explanation for Perth's and Gosford's woes, is, well, it's just awful bad luck and we have to live with it, and if we come to lose the Bledisloe and Tris because of it, we'll, that was just terribly unfortunate old chap. But thank goodness for those dazzling backs, loved the replays, so impressive, Cooper's a genius. Pity the crowd numbers are down again with no big wins. Oh well. Now, who will we pick for Europe, let's move on to the next blog....
But the question I would like to ask (of those far more knowledgeable than I), is this: why does it have to be like this, and should we not expect more the the rugby elite (ARU, Wallabies and S14 coaches) in this country?
If we accept that (a) forwards get lots of injuries (b) we have to play lots of physically very demanding Tests and (c) we MUST start to win Bleds and/or Tris to get our game back to its rightful place, then why aren't we making - more importantly demanding - this type of calculus is implemented at the core of Wallaby long-term planning, namely...
Looking forward: (1) statistically, over time what is a prudent, assumed forwards injury rate and average recovery period out for top line forwards? (2) what is the derived quantum of top line forwards required to provide adequate injury-contingent back up for (1) for all the crucial Tests that must aspire to be won on a credible basis. (3) What developmental, coaching, talent-seeking, skills training, physical conditioning etc resources must be invested in to ensure that each year we have delivered the depth of numbers (of sufficient quantity, quality and pack position) required by (2)?
Some may say: 'oh, that's unrealistic, it's just impossible to develop that many forwards in Australia, it's all about just being lucky enough in any one year and holding up a small number of elite forwards and fingers crossed'. And, of course, 'Deans is doing his best just finding two new props, he can't be held accountable for all these injuries, now we just have to experiment...'.
Then I would say: sorry, disagree,
if we want to return to the very top league in world rugby (for a number of years, sustained), that sort of complacency and lack of forward planning _is precisely why today we have no viable answers to the disappearance of Robbo, Ben, Moore, TPN_. And why the 'bring back Baxter' movement is more a kind of despairing cry than the solid 'we really have the depth today' answers that we should have, but manifestly do not.
Bottom line: I want more, much more, from the ARU and our elite coaches _in a long-term sense_ in the proper
resourcing of our game to deal with a near-predictable flow of forwards injuries in the increasingly high-speed, full on game being played in the South.
[A PS if I may: whilst tactical mistakes were no doubt made in the Reds v Hurricanes match that began the consignment of the Reds to 5 on the ladder, there can be no question that the level of forwards injuries just prior to that contributed heavily to the Reds decline in the very last key games. McKenzie admitted there was not enough depth to handle it, and that he'd wouldn't let that happen again in 2011 (hopefully).]
