Wallabies Watch

[qwerty51]

When a player doesn't pass, that's because of the game plan, if it wasn't the coach would hook them. Every player can pass, it's not a fucking hard skill at all. The talk of AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), McCabe, Carter etc. never passing is just rubbish.

 

[cyclopath]

Yeah, but if we seldom see someone do it, how do we judge whether they are good, or just passable ( ) at it?

 

[Train Without a Station]

I mentioned both Barnes and McCabe because they have claims based on experience alone. Just said their names deserved to be thrown in the hat to at least be discussed.

Despite his latest injury troubles, Barnes was good for the Wallabies for 90% of last season. Although with KB (Kurtley Beale)'s troubles he may slot straight into fullback after his efforts on the EOYT.
.

Baa Baa that's a big call to say McCabe has a claim based on experience. Prior to June 2011 he hadn't even played for the Wallabies If I recall correctly, and if so, not at 12 (That could almost apply to Super Rugby), and even since is yet to play a full season (Injured for the 2 games post WC?). We aren't talking about somebody like Stirling Mortlock in 2008 after 8 odd years of service. This is a bloke who has been there for barely 18 months, missed a decent chunk through injury, and has been a controversial selection all along.

 

[Athilnaur]

I think McCabe definitely has a claim based on experience, say what you like about him no one can dispute he steps up in the tough games, even when others are turning to cream puffs, like V Samoa. He has, what, 14 tests under his belt. So by no means a veteran, but utterly proven within the context of crash ball, including at the very toughest levels such as vs the Boks in RWC.

Can he be more, yes of course, he's bright and trains his ass off. Is he a 13? I think he has the potential, definitely, but short of AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) having to play wing or fullback, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) will be at 13 v Lions if his game last week is any indicator at all.

 

[Sully]

No disrespect to McCabe because I think he is a good player but if we pick him to run crash ball against the probable monster lions centres I will pull my hair out.

 

[Scotty]

The thing I like about Tapuai, and which I think we need, is his ability to accelerate into a gap, and to change direction at speed without losing much. He seems to have good spatial awareness of where to go. Sure, his defensive positioning, and distribution can improve, but that style is what I really like in a 12. I just don't think Barnes or McCabe at 12, although they both have good qualities, are what we really need.
I agree Lealiifano has been best at 10, but he makes a damn fine job of 12 too, from what I've seen. I really hope we see him in Tests this year, I think he has a lot to offer.

Taps and Lilo are the only ones that can play the full game we need at 12. Strong running, alternate kicker, good distributed and offloads and strong defenders. Barnes and McCabe are too limited in some of these skills, they have both had their shot and neither have been overly successful.

McCabe is an option for 13. Barnes is an option for bench, covering 10/12/15.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Barnes will struggle to make the Tahs XV if no injuries to Foley and Horne

Ditto McCabe at the Brumbies. 12, 11, 14 and 15 are well looked after atm, and I wouldn't necessarily see him replacing Smith or Kuridrani at 13 in the starting lineup.

 

[Athilnaur]

Just for arguments sake, If you had Genia at 9, JOC (James O'Connor) at 10, Ioane and Mitchell/Tomane at wing, Mogg/Beale at fullback, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) at centre, and your question as selector was McCabe/Lilo/Taps vs a Lions team that rely on power and speed to penetrate through the 10/12 channel, who does Deans pick. Someone who straightens the attack, has decent speed and can run good lines, and who creates turnover opportunity through dominant tackling as well as being one of the best defenders in super rugby, or a player like Taps who is far more dynamic, but has less defense and a little less ability to straighten the attack, or Lilo who can play first receiver and is somewhere between the other two in style and skill.

For me it would be McCabe, simply because I want to know we have a good shot at closing down Phillips/Roberts/Tuilagi/BOD, and expect dynamic play from all the surrounding players. But I have to say if either of Lilo or Taps start showing dominant defense in the coming six weeks, and/or McCabe isn't playing in good form and showing he can run some good lines, then I'd change my tune pretty fast.

If Quade was playing 10 in my submission you'd want an excellent defender even more.

What will Deans do? Well he's never seemed to be someone who caves to public opinion in selections, maybe a little last year in the TRC, and given the only way he will stay on this year will be to win one of Lions, Bled, or TRC, he will choose whoever he likes and utterly ignore public opinion.

Having grown up in NZ, it has always seemed to me that the real secret to great All Blacks, i.e the ones that keep getting selected, was that they rise to the occasion. Which is why you keep seeing guys like Nonu and Weepu in the mix. Well for us players like Vickerman, Horwill, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), and Barnes were/are in that camp. I think he sees McCabe in the same light.

My conclusion is that it is very likely that the many many aussie fans out there who want playmaker centres are likely to be disappointed unless Lilo continues to improve in form, especially defensively.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I've been thinking about the 3 amigos and how most people here fall on one side or the other:

• dislike them because they're trouble making prima donnas who undermine rather than contribute to team morale by virtue of their incessant antics;
• geniuses who should be forgiven every sin because of their potential to pull something out of a hat.

Rather than merely debate these two sides of the argument I thought it would be interesting to see if anyone is able to identify a player with these types of issues, on a long term basis, who ever fulfilled the potential identified when they were first picked.
I struggle to think of one.
My premise is that picking blokes in spite of their behaviour because they have potential, either theoretical or shown from time to time, is a flawed approach. Almost without fail I reckon if you pick the bloke with his head and heart in the right place you will finish up in front.

 

[Gnostic]

When a player doesn't pass, that's because of the game plan, if it wasn't the coach would hook them. Every player can pass, it's not a fucking hard skill at all. The talk of AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), McCabe, Carter etc. never passing is just rubbish.

Really it isn't a hard skill? If that were the case why do so many Australian Players fail to execute the skill with consistency. Even those where the skill is a core of their position eg. Halfback.

Can you pass equally as well both left and right? I played halfback, centre and wing and my pass left to right is atrocious. The statement that a player doesn't pass because of game plan is an absolute statement that cannot help but be incorrect, absolutes almost always are. As others have suggested Carter and McAbe in particular have been unfairly criticised for being unwilling to pass. The game plan that were called to play required them to do what they did with no offloading. Indeed looking at the structures the teams played rarely was there ever anybody to take an offload. However all the players you named are far from accomplished passers of the ball, with McAbe being the best of the lot. It is a point of irritation for me that so many players in Oz rugby have not improved their core skills (execution in game being the only measure of value), these are not amateurs with little time to spare on training those skills, but I seriously suggest that many of the old amateurs could execute core skills with far more consistency and accuracy than some of our full time pros. It speaks to me of a lack of focus from coaches on these basics, and the attitude here reflects that in the belief from many that coaches should not be 'coaching' these things once a player reaches a certain level. The easiest flaw in that is that critical review is required to assist anybody in improving what they do as very often a flaw in technique cannot be identified by the person executing it because they do it so often, and generally without thinking about the execution steps.

 

[swingpass]

as was once said by a coach to me

"practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect"

doing the skill under pressure is what is necessary. i assume the super/test players practice their skills, but i agree in many games it doesn't look like they do, in stark contrast to the players from NZ and SA

 

[Swat]

Happy Easter Bitches!
With all the talk about George Smith possibly being made an exception to the rule of no overseas players being eligible for wallaby selection I was wondering where everyone stood on this? Do you think allowing such an exception or the abandonment of the rule would have a negative effect on super rugby? Would we see a mass exodus of our best players going to japan and france? Do you think we should allow overseas players to play for the wallabies? If so, who do you think we could bring back into the fold? Gits? Burgo? Palmer? (next year).

Personally I think the best solution would be to set a 50 test buffer. i.e. If you have played 50 test for Australia you can continue to play for the wallabies even if you are contracted overseas.

 

[cyclopath]

Happy Easter Bitches!
With all the talk about George Smith possibly being made an exception to the rule of no overseas players being eligible for wallaby selection I was wondering where everyone stood on this? Do you think allowing such an exception or the abandonment of the rule would have a negative effect on super rugby? Would we see a mass exodus of our best players going to japan and france? Do you think we should allow overseas players to play for the wallabies? If so, who do you think we could bring back into the fold? Gits? Burgo? Palmer? (next year).

Personally I think the best solution would be to set a 50 test buffer. i.e. If you have played 50 test for Australia you can continue to play for the wallabies even if you are contracted overseas.

If you look at how the NZRU manages their "star" players, it gives a clue. Sabbaticals to just rest or play a stint OS are nice. But if you look at the sponsorship finances they get from Adidas and AIG, well, it makes that indulgence easier. The ARU can't compete with that.
50 caps might be a good mark, who knows. I actually think parachuting a player in who is not playing at all in Oz is not on (e.g Burgess, Giteau for example) but at least Smith is here in Super Rugby, albeit on "loan". It's a tough one, but I could live with the latter scenario I think.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

When a player doesn't pass, that's because of the game plan, if it wasn't the coach would hook them. Every player can pass, it's not a fucking hard skill at all. The talk of AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), McCabe, Carter etc. never passing is just rubbish.

AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) is a fantastic player and i never understand the hating of him.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Just for arguments sake, If you had JOC (James O'Connor) at 10 ... and who creates turnover opportunity through dominant tackling... If Quade was playing 10 in my submission you'd want an excellent defender even more.

Mate you are kidding yourself on all 3 counts.

1. JOC (James O'Connor) aint a 10 and the fact he is being selected at 15 for the Rebels with a rookie at 10 shows that.
2. McCabe is solid defender, but he is not a hugely dominant defender. Further more, if you want an example of shutting down big centres, have a look at the Reds vs the Chiefs in 2012 and Crusaders in 2011. You will find it was Taps on SBW in both those cases with Ant Fainga'a at 13. You cannot call McCabe any more of a dominate tackler than Fainga'a
3. Quade is no worse on defence than JOC (James O'Connor) and Beale. Both these two fall off plenty of tackles. Hell JOC (James O'Connor) was shown up by both McCabe and Carter last year at 12... Neither noted attacking players. All 3 are at an unacceptable level, but none worse than the other.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

I think if you hit 75 caps (arbitrarily picked) you should be eligible for a stint overseas on the basis that it's within the first two years after a world cup so that the player can come back for two seasons pre-WC.
when a lions tour is on, i think and it has been proven, that the lions will be a motivation to stick around.
forces development of younger players for two years after a WC and then in the two years prior you have some pretty significant competition for jerseys and arguably more depth which means you can better rotate players through the rugby championship in a WC year, helping to stave off fatigue and injuries.
it just makes sense to me.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Happy Easter Bitches!
With all the talk about George Smith possibly being made an exception to the rule of no overseas players being eligible for wallaby selection I was wondering where everyone stood on this? Do you think allowing such an exception or the abandonment of the rule would have a negative effect on super rugby? Would we see a mass exodus of our best players going to japan and france? Do you think we should allow overseas players to play for the wallabies? If so, who do you think we could bring back into the fold? Gits? Burgo? Palmer? (next year).

Personally I think the best solution would be to set a 50 test buffer. i.e. If you have played 50 test for Australia you can continue to play for the wallabies even if you are contracted overseas.

Make it 100 and discretionary. I don't think Players like Giteau and Barnes have earned the same right as Smith. Otherwise players like Elsom would have been eligible when he went overseas which despite being one of the most important players at the time, I don't think he had earned it either. 50 caps are a little too easy to rack up when we are playing 14 tests a year.

 

[TOCC]

I think if you hit 75 caps (arbitrarily picked) you should be eligible for a stint overseas on the basis that it's within the first two years after a world cup so that the player can come back for two seasons pre-WC.
when a lions tour is on, i think and it has been proven, that the lions will be a motivation to stick around.
forces development of younger players for two years after a WC and then in the two years prior you have some pretty significant competition for jerseys and arguably more depth which means you can better rotate players through the rugby championship in a WC year, helping to stave off fatigue and injuries.
it just makes sense to me.

I doubt it would make much of a difference, only Sharpe had more then 75caps and he was in the twilight of his career anyway.

 

[fatprop]

I really like how Quade plays rugby, but I am yet to be convinced his approach is effective in the top end of test rugby.

I feel he is in the same group as Spencer and Cipriani, wonderful talents but ineffective at playing the percentages in test rugby.

 

[RoffsChoice]

Happy Easter Bitches!
With all the talk about George Smith possibly being made an exception to the rule of no overseas players being eligible for wallaby selection I was wondering where everyone stood on this? Do you think allowing such an exception or the abandonment of the rule would have a negative effect on super rugby? Would we see a mass exodus of our best players going to japan and france? Do you think we should allow overseas players to play for the wallabies? If so, who do you think we could bring back into the fold? Gits? Burgo? Palmer? (next year).

Personally I think the best solution would be to set a 50 test buffer. i.e. If you have played 50 test for Australia you can continue to play for the wallabies even if you are contracted overseas.

I think it'd have to be something like the 50 caps you suggest, but also have them not been contracted to a foreign team during a world cup.