Wallabies v All Blacks Sydney

[Joe Blow]

Yes, he has introduced a lot of new talent during his tenure.
No-one could argue otherwise.
At times he has persisted with certain players that have not fared well because he most likely sees something in them and is trying to give them the chance to break through. He is stubborn and prone to flogging a dead horse in this way.
He has also ended a couple of careers before the players were ready to hang up their boots. He has stated that these players are still in the picture and he already knows what they bring to the party. However he is not selecting them.
It will be interesting to see if he calls on any of these guys when it comes time to name his RWC squad.

It looked as though he took a couple of steps forward last week with selection and use of his bench. May he continue in the same vein from here on in!

 

[Groucho]

The cool thing about here is that we can agree to disagree. As for Chis, I though he was excellent of Saturday and worked his arse off as a proper tight forward. His guns watching is so two years ago

When Chisholm was a running second row, people slated him for not working enough in the tight. Now that he works in the tight, people slate him for not being sufficiently dynamic in open play. And always, always, the critics warn other people to stop looking at his guns. Weird world, innit?

 

[Scotty]

Chisholm was bad as a running lock, as he couldn't catch the ball to save his life on occasions.

 

[Reddy!]

Chis was good in the lineout.

 

[RedsHappy]

fp, whatever you say, Van Humphries would play in my team ahead of Chisholm. Stop checking out his guns, mate, and watch him play rugby.Van covered Victor beautifully when they played this year.

What I can add here is that when I chatted with numerous Reds players at a function recently, many (of the best) spontaneously sung VH's praises as a key man behind the revival. They highlighted his phenomenal work rate, tough as nails, never say die, great motivator on the field, mongrel +++, and general skills. Reckoned he was key in many for the Reds best wins.

Above does not a Test player make, but I have rarely heard so many top players (without prompting) rate a team man this strongly.

 

[en_force_er]

In my opinion the one last position Robby hasn't been able to create depth in is 8. Benny M is a great 6 and Browny is a great utility loosey but they just can't give us the go forward in attack and defense we need.

The only 8 physically suited to the game style we need to Houston and he is still a couple of years off being Wallaby ready.

In the mean time, enjoy this video:

[video=youtube;UoSn2dW_yaQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoSn2dW_yaQ[/video]

This is the video that spurred my comments. Deemed illegal, it wasn't, but still amazing. Nobody in the Aussie squad can do that right now.

 

[Scarfman]

Cheers RH - you're onto it.

 

[RedsHappy]

RedsHappy, Do you actually think that any of the established players (apart from Giteau vs England) have cost us games this season? Do you honestly think that if they had been replaced with untried players that we would have won anymore games? For me the issue with Robbie is not is in ability to try new players (don't forget we have the youngest and least experienced team in the 3N), it is more his inability to a) use the bench and b) get the players to play for a whole game. These two issues may well be tied together.

First: 'apart from Giteau vs England'...well, leaving that unforgivable debacle out the debate in an absolutely crucial match is rather like not noticing the lions in the zoo, but, second: whilst I could never - who could? - disprove your suggestion that '(no) established players costs us games', I think that, yes, the Baxters, Waughs, Turners, better/more use of Barnes at 12, Giteau not at 10 (crazy), etc, say Van H used (if OK), Hodgson (when fit earlier) not Elsom or Brown (is Brown established?), could have aided better results and been better for mental robustness in the team in pressure periods and in certain games. I totally agree with Lee G that this team lacks 'hard-edged aggressive grinders-out' of points or defence when the counter is really on in force. I think players like Baxter and Waugh - whilst not as capable in all respects as younger players - could have added (off the bench after 50 mins or otherwise) invaluable mental toughness and 'grinding out' psychology to balance, and teach, the younger guys. To your point, Elsom (Mr Experience) is only now - after 9 2010 Tests - just coming good (will it hold?), and he's been a very uneven and unsteady captain and I feel sure this has not greatly helped the team to optimise its chances or build 'hard mind'.

Next, as above, I never argued this debate was only about trialling alternative new players; for me (as for Gnostic and Scarf), it's just as much about refusing to use alternative established players.

Re you other points; I think you will know that I agree with this critique of the Wallaby coaches.

 

[Scotty]

Ok, that was a little hard to read, but I think I got what you are saying. A few comments:

1. Would you honestly take Pocock off for Waugh with 30 minutes to go? Goodness me, imagine the uproar (rightly) if Robbie had done that to the player consistently getting our man of the match awards and often keeping us in games.

2. Your assertion that we can't use the occurrence of injuries to our top line team as a reason for poorer performances is paramount to my ignoring Giteau's involvement in the loss vs England. They are both facts, and as to the injury situation, it is made even worse when not only top class players are injured (TPN, Alexander, Horwill, Ioane etc) but also other up and comers we would have liked to try in their place (Higginbotham, Davies, Hynes, Chambers, A Fainga'a at one stage).

I agree that there are a few options that could have been tried in lieu of the current crop, but really only a few, without being too destabilising. I believe you are overstating the options we have while understating the affect of the injury situations.

 

[Jnor]

This is the video that spurred my comments. Deemed illegal, it wasn't, but still amazing. Nobody in the Aussie squad can do that right now.

Thanks for the vid enforcer, it just makes me want to see Palu back in the team asap. All we can really do is hold out and wait with no real alternatives springing directly out of the woodwork.

I couldn't believe that was a YC, but then I looked and saw it was Kaplan.

 

[DPK]

I couldn't believe that was a YC, but then I looked and saw it was Kaplan.

I don't Kaplan's bias had anything to do with it. He got to see it once; fast motion, no HD vision, adrenaline pumping. Then he had about 4 seconds to make a decision.

I'm not saying it was an illegal hit.

 

[Groucho]

In my opinion the one last position Robby hasn't been able to create depth in is 8. Benny M is a great 6 and Browny is a great utility loosey but they just can't give us the go forward in attack and defense we need.

The only 8 physically suited to the game style we need to Houston and he is still a couple of years off being Wallaby ready.

In the mean time, enjoy this video:

[video=youtube;UoSn2dW_yaQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoSn2dW_yaQ[/video]

This is the video that spurred my comments. Deemed illegal, it wasn't, but still amazing. Nobody in the Aussie squad can do that right now.

Yeah! Bash 'em, Cliffy.

 

[TheRiddler]

Love Guscott's comment : "Kearny ran into his shoulder!"

 

[PaarlBok]

This test will show if the Wallabies has turn the corner. If they dont win this one they'll be back to square one. The All Blacks are there for the taking and I dunno if the Wallabies have it between the ears, on paper they MUST win this one.

 

[RedsHappy]

....2. Your assertion that we can't use the occurrence of injuries to our top line team as a reason for poorer performances is paramount to my ignoring Giteau's involvement in the loss vs England. They are both facts, and as to the injury situation, it is made even worse when not only top class players are injured (TPN, Alexander, Horwill, Ioane etc)......

Scotty, a problem I have with the thesis that this bunch of players will likely transform performance, and we profoundly miss them, etc is this: did they not (from memory) all (incl Palu) play extensively in the 2009 EOYTs, along with many of our current players? That package of Euro Tests was, as we all agree, very disappointing (especially given the pre-hype). The Slam was there or the taking, we blew it utterly, with Scotland the low point.

To the above I add: the consistent history of badly botching 1H leads - then losing - against the ABs, over the last 2+ years. The regularity of this spans period when we had a much lower general injury count, and many of the current injured were actually in those key matches. This consistent syndrome - a big reason behind our poor 2008-10 w-l ratio - manifestly transcends a current injury peak in 2010, or any other injury peak.

My point being: there are many actual periods of recent sustained poor Wallaby performance and inconsistency that contained as players the current injured, and/or occurred when our injury count could not be marshalled as an explaining variable (as it is for you today).

 

[Scotty]

So are you saying that even if the likes of Horwill and Palu were uninjured, you would not pick them?

 

[Gnostic]

Point 1:- That Vid shows why I hate Kraplan reffing any game with a team I support and he is the only ref I will say it about. But every game I have seen with him he has ruined it somehow. Being a Tahs fan, that makes it easier to say since he has a clear bias against Tahs and Tahs players (Palu is a Tahs player so Kraplan used his pre-defined set of rules). There was nothing wrong with that tackle at all.

Point 2:- Why is Houston a couple of years off being a Wallaby? In a couple of years he will be on the plane to Euroland and will not have been trialled. He hasn't even made the extended squad (I think) to be exposed to the training methods etc of the Wallaby camp. McCalman and Dennis came from as good performances as Houston showed into the Wallabies. Houston was a genuine alternantive to Brown how was consistant only in showing that he didn't get over the gain line. His work rate is huge but the impact of that is negligible. Houston deserved a chance on form or at the very least exposure to the squad over Brown who we had seen for two years. That is the whole thrust of the arguments, the options that are there for non-performers haven't been recognised but because the first choice (Palu in this case) is out we go back to the previously tried Brown without saying lets try Houston. Nobody else had been tried at 8 until McCalman. Even the less obvious option of moving Elsom to 8 (please don't say he is the best 6 in Oz - he hasn't been in form since he came back) and playing Dennis, McCalman or Higginbum at 6 was never tried.

 

[cyclopath]

Houston has not shown the work ethic at Provincial level to be considered a Wallaby, I would say. It is nothing to do with ability - he has that in spades.
He has failed to impress the coaches with his application and fitness I would think. I wish he could get it right because he is a big talent.

 

[Scotty]

I reckon Houston was better when he was over weight. Albeit in only 40 minutes each game before he started dying though.

I'm hoping he will now increase his muscle mass over the off season, and could make some real strides next year.

 

[RedsHappy]

So are you saying that even if the likes of Horwill and Palu were uninjured, you would not pick them?

Indeed, I'd almost certainly pick them. But this is not my/the point, and it is: whilst I'd pick them, I am far from convinced this injured group's absence is anything like the most important core problem the Wallabies have, and I don't believe the 'return of the injured' will be the transforming variable that will, in and of itself, turn the corner. If it was the key corner-turner, we would have probably won the Grand Slam in 2009.