There is a very long injury list, of that there isn't any doubt. What I objected to and has got lost somewhere is the assertion that there are NO options out there.FFS we have gone back to Chis at lock yet Al Baxter (yes I know he is now injured) got dropped for, good by the looks of it, for similar performance issues and making the same mistakes. Yes there are injuries, but instead of reverting to the tried and failed go in a different direction. There are options, that is my point, I never implied or meant to imply that they were as good as the top line, point in case nobody would ever pick S. Fainga'a over TPN but he deserve a run and he confirmed what we suspected (we did not know it but had very firm suspicions).
Indeed. The other dimension that must be aired here is that 'who is Test standard' is a rather subjective matter (as the raging debates here affirm) before the player in question has actually played in a Test (or more). I remember vividly in S14 2009 that many commentators said, with utter conviction, that Cooper would and should never rise above S14 level. Only a handful of months (even weeks) ago, many posters here were decrying Beale as 'showing as not Test standard'. Go back and look at GAGR's earliest markings of Pocock - there were not all 7s and 8s in his early Tests. Higgers (before the latest injury) was in the queue for a go from the bench in SA, and a few months back there were shrieks of dismay that he should even be on the list.
Especially when injuries beckon and you don't have 2 or more XVs of established Test players, that's when well-planned experimentation with strong new candidates for Test use must occur, via both rotating selections of newcomers, and early and complete use of the bench (ideally in home June Tests to not overpower the rookie) so as to optimise assessments of the newcomers. We all now that did not happen to any degree, and has not happened under Deans and co. (except in Blom re bench use). We all know it took _9_ 2010 Tests to start killing off the obvious duds, and using the bench properly.
Gnostic and Scarf are quite correct: there have been credible alternatives, of both established players and new candidates. No one suggests the alternatives were without risk, but that's always the case. The real 'benefit' of a high injury level is that more and better talent might be uncovered through necessity. Saying 'all the alternatives are not of Test standard' is, by definition, almost as speculative as saying 'they might well prove themselves in Tests'. And then, something of a clincher: if our cattle are so severely restrained through injury, how did we manage the hoodoo-cracking away win in Blom, where, it cannot be denied, the newer players - Cooper, Genia, Pocock, etc - were the p.o.d.
