Zero_Cool
Arch Winning (36)
@Dctarget
I think it was me mentioning that Coleman looked to have lost that edge around when he had kids, and I do not blame him at all. I'd completely be the same heck I'd never even had that edge to begin with. But I'd agree it's correlation not causation, but could be. But whatever the reason is, he has looked to have lost his edge a little.
As for the wingers I think the physical demands that playing on the wing puts you under combined with the magnifying glass they are put under both in attack and defense really limits your longevity. If you're found out in defense as a winger you can't be played because you'll ship points, if you're found out in attack you can't score and you can't be played. If you lose that speed and power as a pure winger you can't be played. Then the wing is often used as an easy entry point for young kids because when you are young typically you are faster and more dynamic as well as being in a less pivotal position. And lastly, the OS clubs love an Aussie winger almost as much as an Aussie backrower.
I'd agree with the others who have said we can't take someone like a Skelton (a grounded lock), while we have the players to probably overcome that -- especially coming out of the Cheika era, I don't think we can't pick fundamentally flawed players and cover it up with picking other flawed players.
If we were to go down that path (a non-jumping lock) we don't really have an 8 that can jump. Samu is a jumping 8, Willson is serviceable, but Isi isn't a jumper. Wright and Ned can both play 6 and jump enough as a 6 (as well as Samu). But the truth is there are no 'dedicated' jumping positions in the back row. What you ideally want is 3 very good jumpers (often 2 locks and 6) and ideally 1 serviceable jumper typically 8 but sometimes 7.
I think it was me mentioning that Coleman looked to have lost that edge around when he had kids, and I do not blame him at all. I'd completely be the same heck I'd never even had that edge to begin with. But I'd agree it's correlation not causation, but could be. But whatever the reason is, he has looked to have lost his edge a little.
As for the wingers I think the physical demands that playing on the wing puts you under combined with the magnifying glass they are put under both in attack and defense really limits your longevity. If you're found out in defense as a winger you can't be played because you'll ship points, if you're found out in attack you can't score and you can't be played. If you lose that speed and power as a pure winger you can't be played. Then the wing is often used as an easy entry point for young kids because when you are young typically you are faster and more dynamic as well as being in a less pivotal position. And lastly, the OS clubs love an Aussie winger almost as much as an Aussie backrower.
I'd agree with the others who have said we can't take someone like a Skelton (a grounded lock), while we have the players to probably overcome that -- especially coming out of the Cheika era, I don't think we can't pick fundamentally flawed players and cover it up with picking other flawed players.
If we were to go down that path (a non-jumping lock) we don't really have an 8 that can jump. Samu is a jumping 8, Willson is serviceable, but Isi isn't a jumper. Wright and Ned can both play 6 and jump enough as a 6 (as well as Samu). But the truth is there are no 'dedicated' jumping positions in the back row. What you ideally want is 3 very good jumpers (often 2 locks and 6) and ideally 1 serviceable jumper typically 8 but sometimes 7.
