Rate the Wallabies 2008 Spring Tour

[Spook]

Oz really need some of the younger 9s like Holmes or Lucas to step up. Even if Burgess is on fire next year, we have noone as backup.

 

[RugbyReg]

agreed, and I don't think its a bad thing that Valentine will see more game time next year.

 

[Lee Grant]

Curious comment . What did you think of Scott Johnson's experiment with Larkham at 12 a couple of years back ?

I don't ever remember Horan offering much as a ball player.

naz

To suggest that we develop one of the young flyhalves in Oz to play at 12 in the next couple of years is not such a curious comment when you think about it; but you have to think.

If Queensland's use of flyhalf Barnes at 12 prompted Deans to try him there, successfully, for the Wallabies, who is to say that the trick won't work again? No, I don't know who of the young blokes will be good at it either, but who would have tipped Barnes to be a success for the Wallabies at 12 a couple of years after he escaped the Broncos to play for the Reds at 10?

Cooper played well enough for Oz at 12 when Mortlock went off early against Wales. I'm not saying that he is the one, and I'm not saying that any of them will succeed, but worth a try to get depth? Damn right.

What did I think of Johnson's experiment against Italy with Rogers at 10 and Larkham at 12 and players literally running into each other? The same as anybody else, but we could have judged the idea of Larkham playing 12 better with somebody who had experience playing at flyhalf inside him. Certainly if he had played the games at 12 for the Brumbies that Barnes had for the Reds, and outside an experienced no. 10 in that test, we could have judged the experiment better.

But you would know that. It was a red herring and you should have referred to the more relevant Barnes experiment instead. What did you think of that, by the way?

If Barnes is injured again, and his injury profile suggests he will be, who would be your choice to play 12 for the Wallabies next year? Mortlock again? To be honest he played there better than I thought he would, but we all know that his gig was just a stopgap measure.

Mortlock's clone, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), could be a reserve stopgap, but still a stop gap. Staniforth would be the best choice if he were younger and fit enough to play a whole S14 season, but it won't happen. Tyrone Smith does not have the quality IMO, but if Horne gets a chance to play 12 for the Tahs, he could reprise his NSW schoolboy form there.

Young Rabbit O'Connor could surprise us at 12 for the Force to the extent than his small size on defence is overcome - but these are all coulds, ifs and maybes.

No, I didn't mention Tom Carter.

I'm not saying that the chances are great, but if we can find a young no 10 who can succeed as a 12 in the next couple of years to play the type of game that Barnes can, and Kiwi Mauger could, play, and dare I mention the great Noddy playing outside of Ella, it would have been a worthwhile experiment.


As for your not remembering Horan as a ball player: I believe you; but I remember him combining well with Little and later Herbert, and dishing out a few golden balls. I also remember his being a good enough ball player for the midfield. As an inside centre he had a bigger skill set than any other Wallaby I ever saw. Noddy would have been close, but he didn't run enough.

 

[Spook]

I'm confused, I thought everyone was asking for Gits at 12 another at 10. :nta:

 

[TOCC]

ive always thought that Barnes playing at 12 for the Reds was a way to strengthen the backline defensively rather then Cooper being a better 5/8..

Could you image a centre pairing of Cooper and Turinui... might as well use the turnstiles they have at the entrance to the stadium

 

[Scotty]

I understand it also had a lot to do with improving the attack. Have a look at the first game Cooper played at 10 last year ? the game vs the Bulls. There was a big difference between Barnes and Cooper in their alignment in attack ? Cooper plays much closer to the line. I?m not sure if Barnes has fixed this up in his game yet, but I hope so. I know at least one player that attributed Cooper?s inclusion at 10 as the reason why the Reds won that game.

 

[Lee Grant]

I'm confused, I thought everyone was asking for Gits at 12 another at 10. :nta:

Most of us, including yours truly, were, but the question is: what do we do at 12 if Deans keeps Gits at 10, and Barnes is hurt again? Or even, what if Giteau is switched to 12 and Barnes to 10 - as in the RWC last year - and Giteau is hurt, or has gone offshore.

We need options, and I think it's worthwhile doing another Barnes experiment - trying a young flyhalf at 12 - and as with Barnes, at the S14 level first.

 

[TOCC]

well the Brumbies and Force are probably in the best position to do the 5/8 at inside centre experiment..

If Lealifano stays at 10 then maybe Mat To'omua can slip into inside centre, while Tyrone Smith may have won rookie of the year? i dont think he is the long term ACT solution to the 12 position. Then again they may shift AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) into that position, but he isnt a ball playing 12.

Force, with Giteau at 5/8 they may play JOC (James O'Connor) at 12 or even Daruda who i think is also a good player. Unfortunately for both i think we will probably see Staniforth at 12 and both those players on the bench.

 

[naza]

If Queensland's use of flyhalf Barnes at 12 prompted Deans to try him there, successfully, for the Wallabies, who is to say that the trick won't work again?

I don't agree it was successful. If the EOYT proved anything it proved that the midfield mix is not working. Giteau is not a flyhalf. He needs to be pushed back out to 12.

As a flyhalf, Barnes is not good enough. He kicks excessively, plays too far behind the advantage line and has no creativity, which is why Quade Cooper became the Reds flyhalf. Cooper has a bit of magic and x-factor. Test rugby is presently dominated by defence. You need a wizard to unlock that defence.

As an inside centre Barnes is mediocre. Same flaws at flyhalf apply and his running game is no threat. His defence is good but you don't see anyone arguing for Gene Fairbanks or Ben Jacobs to be the test inside centre.

What did I think of Johnson's experiment against Italy with Rogers at 10 and Larkham at 12 and players literally running into each other? The same as anybody else, but we could have judged the idea of Larkham playing 12 better with somebody who had experience playing at flyhalf inside him.

Surely the whole idea of a 2nd 5/8 is to have someone with the ball skills to 1/ take pressure off the flyhalf and 2/ to create and pass to the outside backs instead of trucking up crashball.

Larkham delivered those 2 ingredients but it didn't work. Why ? Our outside backs weren't good enough. They weren't quick enough. They weren't creative enough. They turned the ball over because they isolated themselves from their support. They predictably grubber kicked when they ran out of options. We weren't able to build and sustain pressure. Hard earned quality field position was squandered.

I'm a bit over the excuses for our inept backs. They were 'programmed'. They need 'forward parity'. They need 'better inside backs'. It never ends.

If Barnes is injured again, and his injury profile suggests he will be, who would be your choice to play 12 for the Wallabies next year? Mortlock again? To be honest he played there better than I thought he would, but we all know that his gig was just a stopgap measure.

You can substitute 'Barnes' for 'Mortlock' in that sentence.

This is what we have S14 for - to see who'll emerge and show the form required.

 

[spectator]

If the EOYT proved anything it proved that the midfield mix is not working. Giteau is not a flyhalf. He needs to be pushed back out to 12.

As a flyhalf, Barnes is not good enough. He kicks excessively, plays too far behind the advantage line and has no creativity, which is why Quade Cooper became the Reds flyhalf. Cooper has a bit of magic and x-factor. Test rugby is presently dominated by defence. You need a wizard to unlock that defence.

As an inside centre Barnes is mediocre. Same flaws at flyhalf apply and his running game is no threat. His defence is good but you don't see anyone arguing for Gene Fairbanks or Ben Jacobs to be the test inside centre.


[/quote] Agree with most of that except for the 'mediocre' comment in respect of Barnes. Apart from his defence he has at least given the backline a semblance of a kicking game and he has a cool head.

When Cooper fully matures (mentally I mean) I think the magic and x factor that naza mentions, when combined with an excellent passing game will put him ahead of the competition.

 

[Scotty]

I tend to agree that Cooper and Beale have the potential to be better flyhalves than both Barnes and Giteau, but we already knew that didn't we?

When Barnes was running at flyhalf during some of the test matches I think it was successful, although I agree with naza that he still plays too deep. It was successful in that it put Giteau in the position that he is most effective, and allowed him to use his running game. We seemed to be able to get the ball wide a lot quicker with Barnes at 10 and Giteau at 12, and I think the same would apply for Cooper at 10 and Giteau at 12. Both Barnes and Cooper have longer passes than Gits (in the case of Cooper a much longer pass).

A mature Cooper is an exciting prospect - the ability to kick and pass long, chip kick accurately and step off both feet. I'm sure he could open up a lot of space for his outside men.

 

[disco]

As a flyhalf, Barnes is not good enough. He kicks excessively, plays too far behind the advantage line and has no creativity,

Well we only saw him for ten minutes at flyhalf on this tour It would have been nice to have seen more but I think most people will agree that our backs probably looked sharper in that 10 minutes than any other time on tour.