P
Paradox
Guest
Except they haven't played all other Aussie sides have they? TPN over Moore is utter madness.
aus front row
- Thread starter jay-c
- Start date
- Status
Except they haven't played all other Aussie sides have they? TPN over Moore is utter madness.
MrTimms
Ken Catchpole (46)
TSR
Mark Ella (57)
Paradox, a fair point that he hasn't matched the hype so far. A very fair point - but I do think he is helped by a lot of potential and the lack of other stand out options.
Potential alone should never be a reason to pick a test player, but I think that none of the other props are putting themselves firmly in front of him in the peaking order. While Kepu hasn't been great I don't think there is a strong arguement that any of the other props have been better. Unfortunately this is the position Australian rugby is in - a lack of genuine world class front rowers that can dominate opponents.
Potential alone should never be a reason to pick a test player, but I think that none of the other props are putting themselves firmly in front of him in the peaking order. While Kepu hasn't been great I don't think there is a strong arguement that any of the other props have been better. Unfortunately this is the position Australian rugby is in - a lack of genuine world class front rowers that can dominate opponents.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
I doubt that we will ever have "genuine world class front rowers that can dominate opponents". We just do not have the gene pool, or the inclination, at the lower levels of the game here.
Frankly, I happen to think that this is a good thing, and we are ahead of the rest of the world in the evolution of the game. Scrum domination does not make good television, except for the afficionado, and the afficionado is not where the future lies. It lies in making the game appeal to a wider audience, particularly in the Americas and Asia. And do those people know or care about the dark arts of the scrummage?
Frankly, I happen to think that this is a good thing, and we are ahead of the rest of the world in the evolution of the game. Scrum domination does not make good television, except for the afficionado, and the afficionado is not where the future lies. It lies in making the game appeal to a wider audience, particularly in the Americas and Asia. And do those people know or care about the dark arts of the scrummage?
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I don't think it's a good thing at all but it's more the nature of the game here, as you say the spectacle of a strong scrum emphasis isn't appealing here and that's detrimental to the scrum culture here.
As for the best, well clearly Robinson at LH. Moore and TPN the hookers. Kepu and Palmer the THs but Robbie will pick Slipper instead of Palmer.
As for the best, well clearly Robinson at LH. Moore and TPN the hookers. Kepu and Palmer the THs but Robbie will pick Slipper instead of Palmer.
Bowside
Peter Johnson (47)
All it takes to turn australia into a decent scrummaging nation is to change the rules at junior rugby level so that:
A) You can push a scrum more than a couple of metres without the ref penalising the dominant scrum for pushing too far.
B) Make it so any team that asks for uncontested scrums forfeits any competition points.
C) Allow crotch binding at U19 level (why is it even illegal?)
With the situation we have no there is no incentive to pick scrummaging props when you can pick two extra flankers instead and then ask for uncontested scrums because "one of our props couldn't make it today".
Even when the scrums start off being contested, if one team develops scrummaging dominance, after half time the opposition coach will ask to go uncontested and use the excuse"because one our props is injured". That coach will then leave the "injured" player on the field for the second half. If he is injured why the fuck is he still on the field? The coach is either cheating or negligent.
It happens every fucking weekend and it is a scourge on Australian rugby that is having serious ramifications at professional level.
A) You can push a scrum more than a couple of metres without the ref penalising the dominant scrum for pushing too far.
B) Make it so any team that asks for uncontested scrums forfeits any competition points.
C) Allow crotch binding at U19 level (why is it even illegal?)
With the situation we have no there is no incentive to pick scrummaging props when you can pick two extra flankers instead and then ask for uncontested scrums because "one of our props couldn't make it today".
Even when the scrums start off being contested, if one team develops scrummaging dominance, after half time the opposition coach will ask to go uncontested and use the excuse"because one our props is injured". That coach will then leave the "injured" player on the field for the second half. If he is injured why the fuck is he still on the field? The coach is either cheating or negligent.
It happens every fucking weekend and it is a scourge on Australian rugby that is having serious ramifications at professional level.
TSR
Mark Ella (57)
We've had front rowers previously that dominated their opponents. I dont think the gene pool is a valid reason, but I agree that the the lack of emphasis on the scrum definitely is.
Even though I am am disappointed at where we are at currently I do think we are trending in the right direction and I think there is a genuine will to address our shortcomings. This may take some time to yield results, but I am optomistic that Kepu, Slipper etc will continue to improve. As a Reds fan I also hope Daley does because he has a fantastic, combatitive attitude which I think actually could give him an advantage if he develops technique. But he seems a long way behind most of the others in terms of technique at present IMO.
As for good TV, I suppose I am one of the 'afficionados' that you refer to - I love a good scrum battle. But I would also point out that both France & NZ have very strong scrums and regularly use them as a platform for attractive rugby. Imagine how much better our backline would like behind a forward back that consistenly dominated their opponents (particularly if we stopped the poor kicking).
Even though I am am disappointed at where we are at currently I do think we are trending in the right direction and I think there is a genuine will to address our shortcomings. This may take some time to yield results, but I am optomistic that Kepu, Slipper etc will continue to improve. As a Reds fan I also hope Daley does because he has a fantastic, combatitive attitude which I think actually could give him an advantage if he develops technique. But he seems a long way behind most of the others in terms of technique at present IMO.
As for good TV, I suppose I am one of the 'afficionados' that you refer to - I love a good scrum battle. But I would also point out that both France & NZ have very strong scrums and regularly use them as a platform for attractive rugby. Imagine how much better our backline would like behind a forward back that consistenly dominated their opponents (particularly if we stopped the poor kicking).
Joe Mac
Arch Winning (36)
TPN is a better scrummager and there is a lot to said for Tah's row playing the whole season together and bringing those developed combinations to the next level.
TPN is also injury prone due to his torpedo style tackling and is not as accurate at lineout time. Taking all these things into account, it seems a smarter move to play him first and bring Moore on for the last 30.
That way we have our best scrummager and most aggressive defender playing first. We also have the guy least likely to be injured while on the field and the best line-out guy on toward in the final phases of the game.
Think of the risks created by Moore having to re-enter the game in the final 10 cold and tired because TPN goes down injured after 15 minutes on the field. Or a lost line-out in our 22 when we are trying to close out the game...
Moore is our number 1 hooker but there is lightyears between TPN (number 2) and whoever you consider to be number 3. For the above reasons it seems logical (to me) to play our number 2 hooker first...
C
Cave Dweller
Guest
Slipper & Cowan
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
The rules make the scrums crappy, plus perhaps full-time professionalism which has made the players a lot stronger, and the competition more ruthless.
William Webb Ellis allegedly picked up the ball and ran with it. Scrums should be a means to an end, not the end in themselves. Do you really think that people who have never seen proper rugby want to see scrums?
To me, Palmer starts or doesn't play I would prefer a bench option that can play both sides. Otherwise Robinson goes off, Kepu moves to LHP and Palmer to THP.
Possible, doable, but not preferable
Intruder
Dave Cowper (27)
I thought he was still available for selection, if not Pyle starts for me bringing someone onto the bench.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
There is nothing thing wrong with scrums. What is wrong is the collapsing and/or the resets of them which have been spawned by the abomination of the power hit, a relatively new thing in the game.
The law to stop the power hit is already in the laws: it just needs a tweak. The front rows are not allowed to charge in from a distance - just change the wording to "from any distance" or take the reference to distance out of the sentence.
It is an old song I sing.
MrTimms
Ken Catchpole (46)
the sabanator
Ron Walden (29)
1. Alexander - can play both sides and is better than the vastly, vastly overrated Robinson - he isn't much of a scrummager and his work around around the park? Half the time I see him standing next to the ruck with his hands on his hips.
2. Moore - absolutely undeniable selection.
3. Palmer - I'm sick of seeing the Australian scrum get shunted around. He'd bring a level of stability to TH that we haven't had in years, his work around the park would increase with inclusion in the Australian set up.
4. Pyle
5. Horwill (C)
16a. TPN - great in the last minutes of the game as a real cannonball against tired players. Needs to work on his lineout throwing - if this turned into an issue I'd replace him with:
16b. Hanson - offers a bit of the same cannonball ability that TPN does, but to a lesser extent, but does offer a solid scrum option and a better throw.
17. Slipper - serviceable scrummager, when he goes on in the end of the game will offer an excellent workrate around the park, particularly against already-tired players.
2. Moore - absolutely undeniable selection.
3. Palmer - I'm sick of seeing the Australian scrum get shunted around. He'd bring a level of stability to TH that we haven't had in years, his work around the park would increase with inclusion in the Australian set up.
4. Pyle
5. Horwill (C)
16a. TPN - great in the last minutes of the game as a real cannonball against tired players. Needs to work on his lineout throwing - if this turned into an issue I'd replace him with:
16b. Hanson - offers a bit of the same cannonball ability that TPN does, but to a lesser extent, but does offer a solid scrum option and a better throw.
17. Slipper - serviceable scrummager, when he goes on in the end of the game will offer an excellent workrate around the park, particularly against already-tired players.
You picked Palmer because you're worried about the scrum getting shunted around yet you've gone with Alexander over Robinson.
How exactly is Robinson not much of a scrummager? Can you name an opposing THP who has bettered him in the scrum?
How exactly is Robinson not much of a scrummager? Can you name an opposing THP who has bettered him in the scrum?
Richo
John Thornett (49)
I think you might have misunderstood my comment. You're right that the rules are a problem, but bad scrums tend to get pinged more and that slows things down even more.
As for the part about people who have never seen proper rugby not wanting to see scrums, my feeling is that if you don't want to see scrums (good, well-policed, timely scrums) then you shouldn't watch rugby. I don't watch golf because I don't like seeing guys in plaid hit a dimpled ball into a hole.
- Status