Wallaby Locks - The Future

[Gnostic]

As Lee said we have a fascination that began with Eddie Jones in my view that advances forwards who fill all the key skill areas away from the set pieces. Until this is addressed along with specialist forward coaching in these set pieces will continue to see the problems, especially in the scrum. The days of being able to hide the basic skill flaws in the hit are gone.

As for the premise of the thread, IMO there is little wrong with the 2nd rowers we have. IMO it is one of the best covered positions in Australia with at least two very good options at each of the Super squads and sometimes 4. In most instances those players haven't been tried or even exposed to Wallaby rugby.

Arguments can be made that the following are meritorius of Wallaby experience to a greater or lesser degree (and whilst some will argue to they are blue in the face they have performed as well as their opponents at Super Level)

Horwill, Simmons, AWH, Fardy, Carter, Pyle, Jones, Wykes, MMM, Douglas, Timani.

Backrowers able to convert is essential - Kimlin, Mowen, Denis, Chapman

Up and comers - Power, Skelton

There are more that I have forgotten and I can't be bothered looking them up. It can hardly be said that there is a lack of depth when most of those named have never been given the chance. It is a big call to say outright on the basis of Super Rugby form that somebody can NOT step up as much as it is to say they will. I will use a NZ example here in Nonu - has he ever played well at Super level?

The place I truly think Australian Rugby has an issue is at Hooker. Indeed even Shute Shield sides this year had trouble fielding teams with true Hookers running on. FFS we really need a front row/scrum academy.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

I dont think aus has a massive hooker prop they are just all injured atm

Moore
TPN
Fainga
Hanson
Charles
Teesman
Siliver

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk 2

 

[ChargerWA]

It would be great to see someone do a list of all the locks in each Super squad. I would, but I don't want to hog the glory.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

Ill do one for the Force.

Wykes
MMM
Battye
Walton
Lynn (aus elg gone back to nz)

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk 2

 

[cyclopath]

Tahs:-

Douglas
Skelton
Chapman ( I think)
Potgeiter
Dennis as backup

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I dont think aus has a massive hooker prop they are just all injured atm

Moore
TPN
Fainga
Hanson
Charles
Teesman
Siliver

I'm with Gnostic. In this list above, world quality is rather thin on the ground.

After the first two listed (one of whom spends a fair bit of time in Team Rehab), there are thin pickings. The situation is made worse when one of the top two gets injured, and the other has a bit of a form slump.

 

[Bowside]

I still think second row is out weakest position.

Horwill is the only lock we currently have who would get a start in any of the other top 6 rugby nations.

We have a lot of super rugby standard second rowers, but we're very thin when it comes to test standard players.

 

[Gnostic]

I'm with Gnostic. In this list above, world quality is rather thin on the ground.

After the first two listed (one of whom spends a fair bit of time in Team Rehab), there are thin pickings. The situation is made worse when one of the top two gets injured, and the other has a bit of a form slump.

And the prime difference between the Hooker and lock issue is that only Hanson on the list has played with any real consistency in a Super season, whilst plenty of locks have.

We should also be careful of just lumping all locks together as if 4 and 5 were identical positions.

I also argue that whilst people have made statements regarding people not being test quality, I say that is a very big call when that individual has never been given the opportunity to perform at that level even when they have been consistently good at Super Level. How does one gauge such performance without actual performance at that level - it can only be subjective. I suggested that Mowen should have been picked for the Wallabies over 3 years ago much to the ire of some, and IMO if he had been his test development would be much greater than what it is now and the Wallabies better served by a player recognised in his youth sides as a true Captain. People questioned even this year that he wasn't test quality, and true he is struggling a bit at 8 behind a well beaten tight 5, but how can one make any objective assessment without testing the evidence?

There are just too many accomplished locks at Super Level to objectively say that there is a depth crisis in Australian Rugby. IMO with improved coaching in basic skills and technique the current Locks could be dominant.

 

[Pfitzy]

Locking crisis? Nup no news here. Is an injury crisis, no more.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Just catching up on ITM cup and the Northland Taniwha are playing Hawkes Bay. There is a big lump of a lad playing second row for the Taniwhas called Tom Murday.

Google tells me that he is playing for the Canberra Vikings but he appears to be unsigned at Soup level.

The NZ Commentators are suggesting on the back of a NZ mother that he should be playing Soup Rugby for a Kiwi Franchise. We can ill afford to lose talent to the Darkness.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Like others on this thread I do think there is a problem with our locks atm. We are missing Horwill, certainly, but he was looking tired before his injury and might well benefit from being rested from the EOYT.

Neither Simmons nor to a lesser extent, Douglas have cemented a spot despite many opportunities. Timani, ditto, and he wants to go overseas.

I really think Scott Fardy would be an improvement in the second row while also strengthening the back row by allowing Mowen to shift to 6.

From outside the current squad, Neville and Carter are the best prospects immediately. Both are consistent Super contributors. Neville is particularly strong with ball in hand, which is a skill we are desperately short of atm, while also hitting hard in defence. Carter is probably the hardest working lock in the Aus conference.

Pyle would be a good option but is injured. He does play wider than most, but does so effectively. All of Neville, Carter and Pyle are excellent lineout operators, and if I'm not mistaken, Pyle usually calls the Rebels' lineout.

Longer term, Skelton really looks the goods. He is massive and uses his size effectively in both attack and defence.

For the EOYT, I'd like to see Neville in the squad, and Pyle if fit, but if not then Carter. Only one of the experienced locks is needed.

 

[Lee Grant]

As a follow-up to my earlier post: I think we have to judge all our locks by their tight work plus their technical and unit ability.

The next thing is how they contribute to the balance in a 23. We often talk about balance in a backline or even a back row, but hardly ever in a second row.

Fair dinkum, some folks talk as though there should be three ball-running blindside flankers in every run-on team, though I agree that there is a case for a Fardy type to be on the bench to cover lock and 6.

It is easier to talk about locks if you have a back row lineout guy who can call the lineouts, but if Mowen is not there who is your lineout caller?

If Mowen is not available, or benched, there is no use saying that Simmons shouldn't be running on because he is one of the few Wallabies' second rowers who calls the lineouts for his Super team.

People say that Pyle does the calling for the Rebels and should always be in the squad—and boy, can he run with the ball and score a try—but how is he in the departments of: being a hard bastard in tight work, bending the line, and making dominant tackles?

And how good is he at lineout calling anyway, and how good is any lineout caller in any Oz Super team for that matter? This was was one reason I liked Sharpie being involved with the Wobs this year: if he didn't know, nobody would.

Lineout calling is one thing and the ability to be able to help the THP at scrum time is another. You have to have one tighthead-lock-who-makes-a-difference-at-scrum-time on the park for an hour.

It is not enough to look at who has packed on the right hand of the scrum for their Super team and tick a box for them: you have to be able to assess their ability in the role: after all, even Nathan Sharpe packed down on the right-hand side for the Wallabies every now and then, and he was a powder puff TH lock.

In my eyes only Skelton (for the future) and Timani stand out in that area in Oz. We can ill-afford to lose Timani overseas especially since the new scrummaging procedure has disadvantaged the Wobs, as I foretold it would—not that this was rocket science.

As one who saw Skelton drop the ball a lot at Tahs' lineout training before most folks had heard of him, he has to prove to me that he has the ability to take the ordinary ball consistently at the front, and also the difficult ball. He also has to prove that he can play flat out for 60 minutes every week in Super Rugby.

And there haven't been a lot coming through schoolboys either who are hard bastard tall timber with a bit of meat of their bones, plus the joy of contact and knocking people over—lots of athletic stringbeans though. I hope that Colts is picking up some late bloomers, as they do in most positions.

Lastly, we come to how athletic a guy is. Now some folks will think of how he can score 50 metre tries and link with the backs. No, that should came after last in test rugby.

By athletic I mean: how good is the lock at getting into position to catch the restart kick, how good his footwork (especially backwards) when running up and down the lineout line to jump or lift, how good at catching the difficult lineout ball and being able to deflect it to the scrummie if he can't catch it, how good at moving sideways to plug a hole around the ruck, how good at bouncing back on his feet so that his team has 15 players for longer etc etc.

Of course, such athletic players who do those things well, often have the ability to do the flashy stuff also, and good on them if they do, but we should look more at tight-five athleticism and not so much at skills that are easy on the eye.
.

 

[Brumbieman]

Lee -

Mowen is the Brumbies lineout operator, and I would say he's a world class caller. He actually runs it, and coaches it, IE he's the lineout coach for the club.

 

[tigerland12]

Just catching up on ITM cup and the Northland Taniwha are playing Hawkes Bay. There is a big lump of a lad playing second row for the Taniwhas called Tom Murday.

Google tells me that he is playing for the Canberra Vikings but he appears to be unsigned at Soup level.

The NZ Commentators are suggesting on the back of a NZ mother that he should be playing Soup Rugby for a Kiwi Franchise. We can ill afford to lose talent to the Darkness.

He was in the Reds College this season.

I think he will get the last available spot in our 30 man squad.

 

[wamberal]

All great Wallabies teams have had at least one world class lock (or second rower, as we used to be called).


This position should be relatively easy to fill, surely there is not as much competition from the mungoes for tall timber as there is everywhere else on the field?

 

[Gnostic]

Lee - I agree with nearly all your post except the need for the TH Lock to be huge. Size doesn't necessarily equate to technique and it is technique that is getting the Wallabies violated at the scrum (and in the lineout when Mowen isn't present). This is a coaching issue, at Wallabies and Super Level. Size will not solve the issue for instance the Wallabies already outweighed the Pumas last week and still got reamed until the Puma changed their front and second rows.

To illustrate that point check out the size (weight) of Eales when he came on the scene in 1991 as a youngster. Ability trumped size. Giffen wasn't as heavy as the other options running around at the time. Again ability was the deciding factor. Brad Thorn was perhaps the shortest Test lock in a Tier 1 side, and he wasn't selected for the Lineout though he was used effectively at times.

The examples given show that it isn't the individual players that matter so much as their abilities in BALANCE with other selections around in the other locking position as well as the backrow.

 

[Braveheart81]

Gnostic - I don't think highlighting players like Eales and Thorn as being shorter or lighter than many TH locks really proves anything.

These two are both all time greats and are surely exceptions rather than examples of what we should be looking for in a TH lock.

In the absence of someone who is truly an exceptional player, a bit of size doesn't go astray.

I think one of the problems at the moment is that we're picking forwards to play a game plan that we want to play rather than a game plan that we're capable of playing.

Set piece is such an important part of rugby that I think we have to pick the forwards that will do the best at scrum and lineout time and then develop a game plan that suits those players.

We're putting the cart before the horse.

One thing that I find interesting is that every major tight five change that has been made since McKenzie became coach has seemingly weakened our scrum. Robinson getting dropped, Simmons playing TH lock, Slipper going to LH prop etc.

Could it be a case that McKenzie is overruling his scrum coach when it comes to which players are selected and where?

 

[wamberal]

I was wondering earlier about whether or not Eales would still be as outstanding a lock in today's game, as he was when the game was not as tight (in the contest for possession, particularly) and when his outstanding mobility was unusual. Now most locks seem to be pretty mobile, and certainly the best locks are much more abrasive in contact than Nobody used to be.

Thorn's other attributes more than made up for any shortcomings in the lineout.

 

[Richo]

I think one of the problems at the moment is that we're picking forwards to play a game plan that we want to play rather than a game plan that we're capable of playing.

Set piece is such an important part of rugby that I think we have to pick the forwards that will do the best at scrum and lineout time and then develop a game plan that suits those players.

We're putting the cart before the horse.

One thing that I find interesting is that every major tight five change that has been made since McKenzie became coach has seemingly weakened our scrum. Robinson getting dropped, Simmons playing TH lock, Slipper going to LH prop etc.

Could it be a case that McKenzie is overruling his scrum coach when it comes to which players are selected and where?

At the Reds, McKenzie made an art form of preferring open play to set piece work. It was effective at Super level, in part because few teams feature both a dominant scrum and a dominant lineout. Also, Super rugby tends to be more ball in hand and the set piece is used as a platform more often than as a weapon. It looks like he's tried to translate that same approach to test rugby, particularly in the scrum.

But we've now seen 4 tests in which opposing teams used the scrum as a true weapon and the results have been disastrous. If we don't see a change in approach for the EOYT, we're going to be absolutely manhandled. And, after BIL#3, the last thing we need is another atrocious scrum performance against the NH.

The RWC is two years away. It's in the NH. We need to start repairing our scrum reputation now or we'll get whistled off the field in the elimination rounds. If that means sacrificing work around the park, so be it. Slipper to THP, Robbo to LHP, Simmons to the bench.

 

[Gnostic]

Gnostic - I don't think highlighting players like Eales and Thorn as being shorter or lighter than many TH locks really proves anything.

These two are both all time greats and are surely exceptions rather than examples of what we should be looking for in a TH lock.

In the absence of someone who is truly an exceptional player, a bit of size doesn't go astray.

I think one of the problems at the moment is that we're picking forwards to play a game plan that we want to play rather than a game plan that we're capable of playing.

Set piece is such an important part of rugby that I think we have to pick the forwards that will do the best at scrum and lineout time and then develop a game plan that suits those players.

We're putting the cart before the horse.

One thing that I find interesting is that every major tight five change that has been made since McKenzie became coach has seemingly weakened our scrum. Robinson getting dropped, Simmons playing TH lock, Slipper going to LH prop etc.

Could it be a case that McKenzie is overruling his scrum coach when it comes to which players are selected and where?

Hence why I talked about technique being more important than size.

I think people are forgetting that since Link came on board the scrums have changed. They are now a contest based around technique and teamwork. These are the areas the Wallabies are deficient. Adding more size will not fix those points. I look at the Wallabies setting up for a scrum and see basic problems that have been present regardless of who is selected (including the alleged scrum lock Timani). Alexander still sets with shoulder below hips and not square, The locks are still hips above shoulders, the locks are still in contact with the hip of the props instead of under the butt cheek. As Lee Grant said, many here including Scott Allen predicted that the Wallabies scrum would be in real trouble under the new laws as the hit could no longer hide these basic issues. Instead discussing individuals, we should be addressing the core issues and they remain technique. For example note how the tall locks of the ABs, Boks and Argies all kneel to bind onto their props to allow them to get lower and establish a correct point of contact with the prop. The Wallabies do not and just hinge down and bind too high.

As I have said I don't think changes to starting players or bench players will make an ounce of difference until the core technique and skill issues are addressed. It is why I highlighted the examples I did, there are numerous others who were never World 15 players who were achieving better results because the techniques as an individual and team were better applied.