The collateral damage is having to play these guys (cause we have to select someone) even though they aren't ready.
I think he might be a substantially better player if he hadn't been picked and dropped 8 times through his test career before the age of 24, and he had an experienced 10 along with him for the ride as mentor.
Or at least he may not be on the verge of being discarded for the next option
Managing better, might have meant playing fewer tests.
I don't think it's a coincidence that he has better outcomes playing under Larkham
Collateral damage for fans or the players? In general I think they're better off career-wise having been selected in the first place even if for whatever reason it wasn't for a long time. They make more money immediately, they'll always be Wallabies and I think it generally increases their earnings potential internationally.
Even if some of them weren't overly ready for test rugby, I don't think they were selected prematurely. They've all been the form option or close to it when selected. It's not like we've selected young project players ahead of currently clearly better options on the basis that we hope they will one day become an even better option on the back of that experience.
I'd say the Larkham thing is more that Super Rugby is his level and at test level his good stuff doesn't stand out as much and his bad stuff is exposed more.
I think this is just where we're at. Guys who are justifiably being selected to play for the Wallabies because they're the best we have right now aren't good enough to be long term stars. I also think that for a lot of these guys who have been in professional systems since a young age and haven't got a lot to gain through improved physicality/muscle that's achieved as they age a bit, they're far closer to their ceilings than they once would have been at a similar age.