Waratahs 2012

[Inside Shoulder]

The luxury I referred to was going with the understudy even though it is assumed/presumed he is not up to it. The reason I like this approach is that it very clearly sends the message that this is a team effort and if you're part of the team you will be called upon to fill the gap rather than looking to shuffle the deck chairs.
To a great extent you can't do that (because its this week's results that count not the teams psyche next year) in s. 15 but given the reality (which I think is still being ignored) of the Tahs position in 2012 now would have been as a good a time as any.
In my view this is precisely what the Brumbies did in the glory years - the number of unknowns plucked from obscurity to play key positions rather than giving in to the temptation of weakening 4 positions in order to avoid picking the unknown to start was a feature: showing faith builds confidence and team morale - 2 things lacking in the Tahs.
Its amazing how many blokes step up when given the chance and its equally salutary how many understudies who aren't picked when their chance arises in this way just never quite make it.

 

[Cutter]

In fact IS, in the key positions, there was virtually no change in personnel during their glory years. It's very different replacing a winger than a 2, 8, 9, 10 or 15.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

In fact IS, in the key positions, there was virtually no change in personnel during their glory years. It's very different replacing a winger than a 2, 8, 9, 10 or 15.

I notice you left out 12 and 13.... but they did the same with props from time to time and Justin Harrison immediately springs to mind as someone that was given his chance - same too AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Mortlock, Larkham (albeit that his path to immortality as a 10 was circuitous). Even more recently they have gone with the less obvious solution of picking a bloke in position rather than moving an established player.

Even initially the Brumbies were built from NSW discards like Knox who was ignored here because he couldn't/wouldn't tackle - NSW would not pick him if they could avoid it because he didn't suit NSWs image of what a footballer should be.

In NSW there's the inner sanctum who seem to be first choice to cover holes and the backups have to wait until everyone falls over: needless to say that must affect even the most confident youngster.

 

[en_force_er]

Larkham was picked out of position with much success, this and other examples prove that the "don't weaken two positions by moving a player" attitude is not a one size fits all attitude.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Larkham was picked out of position with much success, this and other examples prove that the "don't weaken two positions by moving a player" attitude is not a one size fits all attitude.

That surely depends on what his proper "position" was.
If by "we" you mean the Tahs then you're kidding.....lets see how the players' playing out of position travel tonight, these include:
Barnes
AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
Halangahu
Kingston
so, more than half the back line is playing out of position....maybe you can argue the toss re: barnes.
Is it any wonder that the backs have look stilted and that their passes have not been going where they were needed? i think not.

 

[en_force_er]

That surely depends on what his proper "position" was.
If by "we" you mean the Tahs then you're kidding.....lets see how the players' playing out of position travel tonight, these include:
Barnes
AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
Halangahu
Kingston
so, more than half the back line is playing out of position....maybe you can argue the toss re: barnes.
Is it any wonder that the backs have look stilted and that their passes have not been going where they were needed? i think not.

I don't understand if you're disagreeing with me or not... you certainly seem like you are but I just don't understand what, if any, point you're trying to make.

Also, I don't think I said "we" at any point in my post.

Anywho... AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Kingston and to some extend even Barnes are players who have no concrete starting position; one is a career utility, one was hired at center but is getting game time on the wing, and one has filled the role of a 2nd 5/8 with more success than he ever had at 10.

We can agree on the fact the Tahs backline hasn't been right but I don't think it's the fact personel are playing certain positions, I think they just don't have the right personnel.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think its both - but i also think that the backline, whoever is in it, is just a rabble. Horne's first try was well worked but looking at it dispassionately it was a hail mary job - there wasnt really anything on and there was a misread in defence that made it look better than ti was. I know that could be induced by cunning and guile in the lead up but it just didnt ring true to me.....

 

[I like to watch]

IS, that was not a hail mary job. By criticising the things that they executed well it demeans your points on areas where you might actually be correct.
Bag them for fucking up by all means, but what is the point of bagging them for things they did well that came off?
There are plenty of things they did/didn't do last night, it's not like they don't give you plenty of ammunition.
BTW the object of most, if not all backline moves, is to create a gap or a hole in the defensive line by causing the defenders to misread your intentions.

 

[en_force_er]

I think capitalising on a misread and scoring is called "capitalising on your opportunities", every high level coach's catch cry.

 

[RedsHappy]

See the challenge with this "post" analysis is that there is too much 20/20 hindsight.

These guys take advise from the medical experts and essentially gamble everytime they go out there - they are always playing injured, there are always needles and injury management.

They want to play in tournaments like the RWC, they are told "if" A, B & C happens, the stars align and they work their arses off they should be right.

They do the work, pass the milestone tests and get selected. If they then get injured or re-injured - unlucky.

They are picked because they are worth the risk as they are simply better than the "next" best options. Aus doesn't have a conveyor belt of quality test players, we have one or two in most positions then daylight.

Well, OK, you put the 'sympathetic' general case re injury management. I put the 'what have we learnt in actual practice' case (especially as it concerned the RWC squad). In the case of all of Rocky, Mitchell and Palu at the last WC, it has come out since the RWC that all these players had known high levels of pre-RWC injury exposure that placed them at severe or high risk of further break down during the RWC. And look what actually happened to either their continuity and/or actual play quality throughout the WC. Now, if your argument is that they were all utterly irreplaceable and a massively higher grade of player (and with recent top form) above any other alternative - which IMO is at least debatable - then just maybe you have an argument for taking them as core players in a numerically fixed WC squad. But if you assess that their risk of sub-standard play via pre-injury or actual breakdown (as happened to Palu and Mitchell) is real, then the better calculus is (a) to take the next ranked players who have no such known risks and (b) preserve the at-risk players' ability to recover properly for the next championship vs risking far more chronic injury out periods through over-playing.

 

[TSR]

RH, I thought Australia were in exactly that position last year that they had to punt on those players. I felt the ABs were still a step above us on their best day (despite our Bledisloe win) and so we had to take some calculated gambles on selection to try and have our best possible team on the park. IMO there WAS a clear difference between players like Palu & Mitchell & the next cab off the rank. Elsom was a bit questionable for me due to his lack of playing time, but plenty of other posters here seemed to have felt differently. It is history now that this gamble failed, and in hindsight the players involved paid a heavy price - but I for one thought at the time our best chance of winning was to include these guys and hope they could be up to speed.

Like Fatprop said, if the players pass all the relevant fitness tests and the players are available for selection then I think it is reasonable that a coach takes it at face value and assesses their selection on a risk/return basis.

For me there were a number of other, more critical selection issues such as the lack of a back up fetcher, that cost us.

 

[fatprop]

Well, OK, you put the 'sympathetic' general case re injury management.

what you would call 'sympathetic' I would call 'realistic'

 

[Richo]

Can't blame guys for wanting to come back and play in a RWC. That's exactly the kind of guts you want to see in top sportsmen.

 

[Cutter]

Well, OK, you put the 'sympathetic' general case re injury management. I put the 'what have we learnt in actual practice' case (especially as it concerned the RWC squad). In the case of all of Rocky, Mitchell and Palu at the last WC, it has come out since the RWC that all these players had known high levels of pre-RWC injury exposure that placed them at severe or high risk of further break down during the RWC. And look what actually happened to either their continuity and/or actual play quality throughout the WC. Now, if your argument is that they were all utterly irreplaceable and a massively higher grade of player (and with recent top form) above any other alternative - which IMO is at least debatable - then just maybe you have an argument for taking them as core players in a numerically fixed WC squad. But if you assess that their risk of sub-standard play via pre-injury or actual breakdown (as happened to Palu and Mitchell) is real, then the better calculus is (a) to take the next ranked players who have no such known risks and (b) preserve the at-risk players' ability to recover properly for the next championship vs risking far more chronic injury out periods through over-playing.

It is, in my opinion, the ultimate irony that you have "Happy" in your name. It strikes me that "Bitter Red" might be more appropriate. Do you ever post without whining?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think capitalising on a misread and scoring is called "capitalising on your opportunities", every high level coach's catch cry.

have another look at it - there was no "capitalising" on a misread: the play was called and was executed. there was no adjustment or adaptation in its execution is just unfolded - thus there was no capitalising because they did not need to adapt. They dont have that capacity.
"capitalsing" is what the Crusaders do - you make a mistake and they change their plan and attack the weakness created by the mistake. This team are just going through the motions.

High level coaches? what have they got to with the Tahs - no doubt like you they will be saying that shows what hard work can do and how they're seeing things: its crap. that move was executed as practiced - it will work 1 in 100 times and, unless it works straight out of the book no one in the Tahs on or off the field seems to have the ability to adjust to what is actually happening - therefore in order to result in a try you have to bet that someone on the other side will make a childish mistake in defence.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It is, in my opinion, the ultimate irony that you have "Happy" in your name. It strikes me that "Bitter Red" might be more appropriate. Do you ever post without whining?

Thats just another cheap shot - whats the whining in this?

 

[Henry]

have another look at it - there was no "capitalising" on a misread: the play was called and was executed. there was no adjustment or adaptation in its execution is just unfolded - thus there was no capitalising because they did not need to adapt. They dont have that capacity.

Wait, so did they execute an excellent move or capitalise on on a miss-read in defence? Either way they scored a great try that was probably the highlight of the night for Tahs fans.

Barnes certainly took the line on excellently and had a FEW more options running of him this week with Horne and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) in the centers. Hopefully next week we can have a backline of:
9. Pretorius
10. Foley (Barnes)
11. Kingston
12. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
13. Horne
14. Pakalani
15. Barnes (Foley)

No point Mitchell playing now. Let him rip it up for Randwick for a few weeks.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Wait, so did they execute an excellent move or capitalise on on a miss-read in defence? Either way they scored a great try that was probably the highlight of the night for Tahs fans.

Barnes certainly took the line on excellently and had a FEW more options running of him this week with Horne and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) in the centers. Hopefully next week we can have a backline of:
9. Pretorius
10. Foley (Barnes)
11. Kingston
12. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
13. Horne
14. Pakalani
15. Barnes (Foley)

No point Mitchell playing now. Let him rip it up for Randwick for a few weeks.

You said they capitalised - I said no they didnt they were going to play that move whatever was in front of them and it just so happened that there was a misread and, for once, it didnt turn to shit. have another look at it - it had trouble written all over it: there's an arguable obstruction; the ball is thrown across the face of defenders who, on any other day or at any other time in the match would have, either, intercepted it or creamed the recipient.

I agree it was the Tahs highlight but its riddled with luck it hasnt actually got much else going for it - that's no platform on which to build. Revelling in it only distracts attention from the deep seated malaise.

There's no capacity to adapt and truly play what unfolds before you. Barnes is playing miserably and I think they need to take some action there - B Foley for mine.

I totally agree with you about Mitchell - it would be a potential waste to take him there: he should come back in the old fashioned manner (through the grades).

 

[waratahjesus]

You said they capitalised - I said no they didnt they were going to play that move whatever was in front of them and it just so happened that there was a misread and, for once, it didnt turn to shit. have another look at it - it had trouble written all over it: there's an arguable obstruction; the ball is thrown across the face of defenders who, on any other day or at any other time in the match would have, either, intercepted it or creamed the recipient.

I agree it was the Tahs highlight but its riddled with luck it hasnt actually got much else going for it - that's no platform on which to build. Revelling in it only distracts attention from the deep seated malaise.

There's no capacity to adapt and truly play what unfolds before you. Barnes is playing miserably and I think they need to take some action there - B Foley for mine.

I totally agree with you about Mitchell - it would be a potential waste to take him there: he should come back in the old fashioned manner (through the grades).

so the fact it came off, doesn't reward the risk and you would have preferred they continued one out pick and drives?

Barnes had one of his best games of the season, there wasn't enough movement int he tahs back line still and it created problems with plays being easy to read, there seems at time to be no decoys whatsoever. but don't take away the good they did, they ran a play and it payed off.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Barnes stood deeper than the mariana trench.
That move got them 7 points - thats it! How's that a foundation for next week?