Waratahs 2012

[Ruggo]

Gnostic you are on your own in with regards to Vickerman, he is still the premier lock in Australia. What exactly were you not impressed with during the WC and the TNs?

His running of the Wallaby lineout was well below bar. I like Vickerman but your man love may be clouding your judgment on this one.

James Horwill would have to be the premier lock in Australian Rugby. He has had an outstanding year Big Kev. Bias Reds fan yes though I don't need to be one to draw that conclusion.

 

[waratahjesus]

His running of the Wallaby lineout was well below bar. I like Vickerman but your man love may be clouding your judgment on this one.

James Horwill would have to be the premier lock in Australian Rugby. He has had an outstanding year Big Kev. Bias Reds fan yes though I don't need to be one to draw that conclusion.

How can u criticize a man fir poor running if a line out then promote one that won't accept that responsibility at any level. Kev is a cog not a leader come set piece time. Prevents him from being compared to Vicks and sharpe

 

[Slim 293]

Pretty simple.

Horwill was not in charge of the lineout.

Vickerman was.

Sharpe was needed to partner Horwill/Vickerman.

Having 2 similar locks wrecked the balance.

 

[qwerty51]

His running of the Wallaby lineout was well below bar. I like Vickerman but your man love may be clouding your judgment on this one.

James Horwill would have to be the premier lock in Australian Rugby. He has had an outstanding year Big Kev. Bias Reds fan yes though I don't need to be one to draw that conclusion.

What are you basing this on? Which game? South Africa in the quarters? Problem looked to be with Moore imo, Sharpe came on and did not do any better. Horwill was excellent but so was Vickerman, he has a real presence around the field and is like another backrower with his effective cleaning out. Go look at who had the highest involvement rate of all the players in the 2011; Vickerman. I'm happy to classify Horwill as good as him since they do offer different games, Horwill is a better ball runner, Vickerman's better at the lineout, defence and cleaning out etc.

As for Sharpe well he's decent but no where near these two in terms of physicality, really lacks a punch in the breakdown and scrummaging.

Having 2 similar locks wrecked the balance.

Vickerman and Horwill are not similar.

Vickerman and Horwill were the best aspects of our forward play in every game. Yes even the quarters where the lineout went to shit.

 

[Slim 293]

Moore's throwing was fine. It's always been reliable.

The organisation of the jumpers was poor though, and as the article on the front page did a good job of explaining was that we seemed to be telegraphing to the opposition where the ball was going.

Our best lineout performance was in South AFrica when Sharpe started, and he tore apart the South Africans.

Vickerman had a good workrate, but was he really that effective?

He put in some cheap shots, gave away stupid penalties, and brought down what was our strong set piece in the lineout...

 

[TOCC]

How can u criticize a man fir poor running if a line out then promote one that won't accept that responsibility at any level. Kev is a cog not a leader come set piece time. Prevents him from being compared to Vicks and sharpe

I really doubt it's a case of Horwill not accepting the responsibility of running the line out..... Jeez his the captain in both sides

I'd imagine he didn't get it at test level because he doesn't do it at Super level... It could be a tactical decision not to give it to him, think in a military sense where you don't put all your leadership in the same vehicle in case of an incident.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Never been a Sharpe fan until this year.
Thought he was a bludger and that he played too wide looking for the flashy offload (Bit like QC (Quade Cooper)) when he wasnt actually that good a ball player (unlike like QC (Quade Cooper)).
Something changed this year: I reckon he was told that he was needed more as a tight forward and he modified his game. I had to admit that he had played well in the new role.
As for Vickerman my enduring recollection of him will be of him on one knee putting a frigging contact lens back in........more than once over the years, thereby providing ample fodder to my league following mates for their view that union is bullshit because we stop for "injuries" (rests they call them).

 

[cyclopath]

Gnostic, it seems a little at odds to state Vickerman was quite as useless* and ineffective as you say, especially when one looks at Scott Allen's excellent front page piece on the involvement rates for Wallaby players.
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/wallabies-2011-involvement-rates/
Now, I don't want to have a debate about the methodology of how those figures were generated (mainly because I don't fully understand it all!!), but it seems he was doing quite a lot. I accept firstly you don't particularly like him, nor the fact that he got "an easy ride" back into the Wallabies, but the fact is he seemed to be far from useless*. Granted he was used more as an impact player, so could go harder for his time there, which may skew things a little.
I would not advocate him starting for the Wallabies, unless it was planned to really only use him for 40-50 minutes - I think he is better at the other end. And I wouldn't call him the premier lock either.
But if Horwill is to be the "premier" lock, I think the issue of him assuming more responsibility at Provincial and Test level with regard to lineouts needs to be addressed. I mean, he is the only sure pick, and is likely to play most, if not all, the game. Better it is him than someone who's going to be subbed.

*= me paraphrasing

 

[Sully]

Horwill is more than capable of running a lineout. With the added duties of captain they decided to put Simmons in charge of it. Vicks and sharpe are lineout greats so why would you get Horwill to run lineouts with them in them?


Sent using Tapatalk on a very old phone

 

[cyclopath]

Horwill is more than capable of running a lineout. With the added duties of captain they decided to put Simmons in charge of it. Vicks and sharpe are lineout greats so why would you get Horwill to run lineouts with them in them?


Sent using Tapatalk on a very old phone

I don't doubt Horwill can do it. I think he should do it. The other 3 are all "part game" players, and I don't think chopping and changing the calling is helpful. Moore is apparently almost infallible as a thrower (thanks Slim ) and these other guys are good jumpers / catchers. Maybe the inconsistency with our lineout is more the constant changing around of who calls it?

 

[MrTimms]

I don't doubt Horwill can do it. I think he should do it. The other 3 are all "part game" players, and I don't think chopping and changing the calling is helpful. Moore is apparently almost infallible as a thrower (thanks Slim ) and these other guys are good jumpers / catchers. Maybe the inconsistency with our lineout is more the constant changing around of who calls it?

We put that to Kev and Squeak on the Bon Voyage podcast before they left for NZ. That was the conclusion they/we came to.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Gnostic, it seems a little at odds to state Vickerman was quite as useless* and ineffective as you say, especially when one looks at Scott Allen's excellent front page piece on the involvement rates for Wallaby players.
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/wallabies-2011-involvement-rates/
Now, I don't want to have a debate about the methodology of how those figures were generated (mainly because I don't fully understand it all!!), but it seems he was doing quite a lot. I accept firstly you don't particularly like him, nor the fact that he got "an easy ride" back into the Wallabies, but the fact is he seemed to be far from useless*. Granted he was used more as an impact player, so could go harder for his time there, which may skew things a little.
I would not advocate him starting for the Wallabies, unless it was planned to really only use him for 40-50 minutes - I think he is better at the other end. And I wouldn't call him the premier lock either.
But if Horwill is to be the "premier" lock, I think the issue of him assuming more responsibility at Provincial and Test level with regard to lineouts needs to be addressed. I mean, he is the only sure pick, and is likely to play most, if not all, the game. Better it is him than someone who's going to be subbed.

*= me paraphrasing

I dont think Elsom ran the lineout when he was captain

 

[Slim 293]

I don't doubt Horwill can do it. I think he should do it. The other 3 are all "part game" players, and I don't think chopping and changing the calling is helpful. Moore is apparently almost infallible as a thrower (thanks Slim ) and these other guys are good jumpers / catchers. Maybe the inconsistency with our lineout is more the constant changing around of who calls it?

No worries.

I just wanted to point out that if you wanted a good lineout throwing hooker, you can't go past Moore.

I agree that our lineout hasn't been helped by chopping and changing the callers, and I'm sure that Nucifora also taking charge of the lineout this year probably didn't help.

But Sharpe should've been in the starting XV. That would've helped a great deal.

 

[cyclopath]

I dont think Elsom ran the lineout when he was captain

That wasn't the point. It was that it made more sense for the guy spending the most time on the field to call it, not because he was the captain.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Well, it seemed there was an implicit, at least, dig at Horwill to the effect that he needed to call the lineouts because he needed to take more responsibility: that is what you said. And anyway Elsom spent the whole time on the field so the message I/we was/were meant to get doesn't really make sense.
Horwill's position in the team is not necessarily based on him being the "premier" lock: he has the intangible quality of leadership about him. He is a guy you want with you. There is an earthiness about him.
I happen to think he, because he is captain, should call them - but no doubt the counter argument is that he has enough on his plate.
To return to the thread: Vickerman strikes me as a pretty selfish footballer.

 

[cyclopath]

Hmm, this is what I said, nothing about him doing it 'cos he's captain.

I mean, he is the only sure pick, and is likely to play most, if not all, the game. Better it is him than someone who's going to be subbed.

That's as far as I will argue the point as to what I meant with you.

 

[spooony]

Waratahs is one of those teams that been up there all season but always seems to fail when push comes to shove. Its like they lose the passion and blow hot and cold. You don't know what Waratah team is going to pitch up today.

 

[Gnostic]

Gnostic, it seems a little at odds to state Vickerman was quite as useless* and ineffective as you say, especially when one looks at Scott Allen's excellent front page piece on the involvement rates for Wallaby players.
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/wallabies-2011-involvement-rates/
Now, I don't want to have a debate about the methodology of how those figures were generated (mainly because I don't fully understand it all!!), but it seems he was doing quite a lot. I accept firstly you don't particularly like him, nor the fact that he got "an easy ride" back into the Wallabies, but the fact is he seemed to be far from useless*. Granted he was used more as an impact player, so could go harder for his time there, which may skew things a little.
I would not advocate him starting for the Wallabies, unless it was planned to really only use him for 40-50 minutes - I think he is better at the other end. And I wouldn't call him the premier lock either.
But if Horwill is to be the "premier" lock, I think the issue of him assuming more responsibility at Provincial and Test level with regard to lineouts needs to be addressed. I mean, he is the only sure pick, and is likely to play most, if not all, the game. Better it is him than someone who's going to be subbed.

*= me paraphrasing

Don't make things personal. I never said that I do not like him. I don't know the bloke, and it is not relevant to the points I made. I do indeed think he got a free pass back into the Wallabies that on performance was not justified. Yes I acknowledge Austo's statistics, but there is that saying about stats isn't there, and the fact that those same stats regularly show McCalman as one of the best 8's Australia has had in recent memory, yet he will get immediately dropped to the bench when Palu looks like he can walk for 10 minutes without breaking down simply because for all his workrate he has no impact. I will not go over my reasoning again, but suffice to say this wasn't a debate about the merits of Horwill V Vickerman but Vick. V Sharpe and the realtive dynamic each could have and did bring to the side when given the opportunity. Many would and have said that Vickerman and Horwill together unbalances the pack as they have many similarities in how they play. That lack of balance in the second row couples with the lack in the front and back row spells disaster.

As for the calling of the lineout issue, Horwill has not even been calling for the Reds where it was Simmons last year and Van the year before if memory serves. I am not saying he can't do it, but perhaps it has been acknowledged that other are better. If so they should be calling at test level surely.

 

[cyclopath]

Don't make things personal. I never said that I do not like him. I don't know the bloke, and it is not relevant to the points I made. I do indeed think he got a free pass back into the Wallabies that on performance was not justified. Yes I acknowledge Austo's statistics, but there is that saying about stats isn't there, and the fact that those same stats regularly show McCalman as one of the best 8's Australia has had in recent memory, yet he will get immediately dropped to the bench when Palu looks like he can walk for 10 minutes without breaking down simply because for all his workrate he has no impact. I will not go over my reasoning again, but suffice to say this wasn't a debate about the merits of Horwill V Vickerman but Vick. V Sharpe and the realtive dynamic each could have and did bring to the side when given the opportunity. Many would and have said that Vickerman and Horwill together unbalances the pack as they have many similarities in how they play. That lack of balance in the second row couples with the lack in the front and back row spells disaster.

As for the calling of the lineout issue, Horwill has not even been calling for the Reds where it was Simmons last year and Van the year before if memory serves. I am not saying he can't do it, but perhaps it has been acknowledged that other are better. If so they should be calling at test level surely.

Sorry, I meant you did not like him as a player, not as a personal slight. Sorry for any misrepresentation, not intended. It seems he has more effect on the field than has been credited to him, but I guess one can choose whether to believe stats or otherwise.
Funnily, McCalman was plum average on Austin's stats, which was the set of stats to which I was referring.
I wasn't meaning to directly compare or rate Horwill v Vickerman, but to highlight the illogical approach that Horwill is likely to be on the park for most of each match, the other locks aren't, and I think the inconsistency around who calls cannot be helpful in fixing a misfiring lineout.

 

[TOCC]

As for the calling of the lineout issue, Horwill has not even been calling for the Reds where it was Simmons last year and Van the year before if memory serves. I am not saying he can't do it, but perhaps it has been acknowledged that other are better. If so they should be calling at test level surely.

Ahhh actually it's a lot more simple then your suggesting..

Horwill was out injured for 9 months in 2010... Can't exactly call the line out from the sideline..

In 2011 he started off at blindside for the first 2 rounds and was then injured for a month... You don't have a blindside calling the line out and by the time Horwill came back, the Reds actually had a very efficient lineout... So why change