Wallabies Watch

[barbarian]

What's the name of the site?

The Silver Fern

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It really doesn't. It just says they have one of the all-time great 10s, and we do not.

And FWIW I do frequent an NZ forum and they have debated at great length putting Dan Carter at 12 to accommodate Cruden, or vice-versa. Positional debates are hardly unique to Aussie rugby.
.

Carter played 12 when he started. We want to pick people at 10 from anywhere but 10.
There's a message in that.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

As much as I'd like to see a Wobs team full of in-form Super Rugby players (read Ponies), I just can't see Dingo taking too many risks and blooding a whole bunch of new caps against the Lions.

He hasn't so far in his contract, so why would he do so now?

Dingo seems keen to extend his contract to the RWC 15.

What better way to prove his credentials than to do so with an emphatic series victory against the Lions using fresh ideas, fresh talent and taking a few calculated risks along the way.

God knows that we do not need the same old same old "too scared to chance our arm and try to win, so we'll play not to lose" served up again.

Take your miserable one point victories from a penalty kick after the siren, and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. Bring on Stade de France 2010 Version Wallabies victories.

Give some new blokes a chance in the Gold Jumper and I reckon that they will tear into the Lions with all the enthusiasm and vigour of a young schoolie on the Gold Coast ripping into a box of free condoms.

I reckon that the Lions ThinkTank will be selecting their squad and preparing them to play the 2012 version Wallabies. We need to do something unpredictable, otherwise we will get predictable 2012 Wobs games and results. Who wants those?

 

[barbarian]

Carter played 12 when he started. We want to pick people at 10 from anywhere but 10.
There's a message in that.

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to here. Beale has been a 10 for 90% of his playing career, and for Cooper that number is 95%. To'omua is always a 10. Barnes has been a 10 most of the time. Same with Lilo.

The only guy who hasn't spent the vast majority of his career playing 10 is JOC (James O'Connor).

I'd suggest we tend to look on 10s so favourably at provincial level that we throw them in anywhere thinking they will have the skills to adapt. It works in some cases, not in others. I don't think that is a huge problem.
.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to here. Beale has been a 10 for 90% of his playing career, and for Cooper that number is 95%. To'omua is always a 10. Barnes has been a 10 most of the time. Same with Lilo.

The only guy who hasn't spent the vast majority of his career playing 10 is JOC (James O'Connor).

I'd suggest we tend to look on 10s so favourably at provincial level that we throw them in anywhere thinking they will have the skills to adapt. It works in some cases, not in others. I don't think that is a huge problem.
.

The problem is that Australian thinking about 5/8s is:
"gee, he's a good footballer: let's play him at 10".
You're right it may not be a huge problem and we may not have options at the top but I would like people to start thinking a little differently about what we want from a 10.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

What do you think it is that we need from a #10?

Does the problem (and solution) lies in the way we select and train kids in the Under 12's - U14's? There are many who would argue that if they haven't learned the basics by the Under 14's, they will never learn the intuitive skills necessary for that role.

Unless they are a great lumbering Ox of a kid, at that level many #10's are the Coaches boy, or dual code star "playmaker" from mungoland who simply can not be anything but the flyhalf.

 

[RoffsChoice]

What I expect from a 10 is to be able to:
kick the ball over the opposition to either touch or our winger
pass a good 30m quickly
make gaps for the rest of the backline

And to know when to do which.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

The "official" "objective" selection criteria for a #10 are:

- Starting position
- Running alignment & angle
- Quality & speed of ball transfer
- Support lines & effort
- Ability to control game
- Kicking quality
- Organisation & bringing up defence
- Defence – effectiveness of tackles
- Composure under pressure

 

[RoffsChoice]

Thing is, if we could define positions like this, Robbie would just be sitting there with an A4 and ticking boxes.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I reckon that that there are plenty of sycophants lurking around Team Wallaby who do just that.

Filling in a bit of paper and then presenting that to the boss is a whole lot easier, and less risky career wise, than having to justify a position you take that is argued from your own personally developed "first principles" philosophy about how the game should be played, and where and how the necessary skill sets and characteristics fit together.

Why take risks when you can just meerkat around at the right moments to tell the Boss what he wants to hear?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

BTW Sources tell me that that criteria is precisely what the various selectors use to select various representative teams.

Ever wondered what was on their clipboards?

The full criteria (for all positions) is available on a variety of websites if anyone is interested.

I think I usually track it down via the Hobbits web site. I don't have a link to it right now, but will post it when I find it, unless someone beats me to it.

It is not the be all and end all, but can be used as a useful prompt for a casual observer who wants to analyse and compare players performance.

 

[wamberal]

Aaaaaah, it was all so simple in the good old days. The five-eighth either passed it or kicked it. If he was Rupert Rosenblum, he only kicked it.

He was supposed to run only twice per match, and both runs were supposed to eventuate in tries being scored.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

the problem (and solution) lies in the way we select and train kids in the Under 12's - U14's? There are many who would argue that if they haven't learned the basics by the Under 14's, they will never learn the intuitive skills necessary for that role.
Unless they are a great lumbering Ox of a kid, at that level many #10's are the Coaches boy, or dual code star "playmaker" from mungoland who simply can not be anything but the flyhalf.

As ever HJ, nail on head: thats why we have QC (Quade Cooper), that's why we had Beale.

pass a good 30m quickly

30m?

I guess you have to have check lists at some levels and it is easy when one's own arse is not in the sling for the selection decision.
for one season from u7's to u 17's I'd like every coach in Australia to pick their best player at 9 and see what happens.
Dan Carter was a 9 through junior football.
Thats why we are always short half backs, i think.

I'm dreaming, of course.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

^^^ If I have interpreted some posts on another board correctly (no guarantee of that) the general Les Frogge philosophy is that #9 is a more important position than #10. (from the discussion on why Burgess may not be the right fit for Frog rugby).

 

[RoffsChoice]

30m?

Field is 70m across, pass most likely to go back, not everyone can pass this distance, I'd like the ball to be able to go from wing to wing in three passes.

Note, this is just what I want.

 

[RoffsChoice]

BTW Sources tell me that that criteria is precisely what the various selectors use to select various representative teams.

Ever wondered what was on their clipboards?

I wish I hadn't brought it up now, it's upsetting.

 

[Dumbledore]

What I expect from a 10 is to be able to:
kick the ball over the opposition to either touch or our winger
pass a good 30m quickly
make gaps for the rest of the backline

And to know when to do which.

They're pretty unreasonable expectations I reckon. How many players have been able to perform those skills on a consistent basis? Carter and... ?

I think when it comes to a flyhalf you're either going to get a running, passing or kicking player. The better flyhalf have at least two of those skills. Running/passing flyhalf - Larkham/Ella; a running/kicking flyhalf - Porta/Steyn etc. Carter is the exception because he's a running/passing/kicking flyhalf. Pulls whatever he needs out of the bag whenver he needs it - has exceptional decision making skills as well.

 

[Richo]

Carter is a strong defender, too. As was Bernie.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Carter also has a line of designer mens underwear named after him. Not sure Bernie was ever that marketable.

JO'C is certainly brand aware.

Sorry doesn't add much to the debate but couldn't resist.

 

[Dumbledore]

Carter is a strong defender, too. As was Bernie.

Good point, but again they'd be the exception rather than the rule.