Reds 2014

[Hugh Jarse]

<snip>

As far as hookers go, I think both Ready and Ngauamo are considered pretty highly so I wouldn't be too worried.

<snip>

I think he is playing club footy in Sydney Shute Shield with the Southern Districts Hobbits. http://www.nswrugby.com.au/NSWRugby/ShuteShield/DrawsResultsLadders/ShuteShieldDrawsResults.aspx
There can't be too many Maile NGAUAMO's floating around can there?

 

[Scrubber2050]

Paulie or Weekes would be a good pickup. Then Slips would have something to work with. Time to let Daley go - terrible scrummager and just hasn't improved in the last 4 years. Good around the park BUT first up job is the set piece.

 

[tranquility]

McMahon would have been a terrible pick up. Another undersized back rower who isn't quite a 7 and not quite a bullocking 8. We already have 2 of those in our starting team and browning and Robinson to cover 6 also. McMahon would be the last player we need.

Haha - we'll see mate. McMahon is 19 years old. But you know best, I'm sure.

Tell me again, about these large bodied backrowers. You know, the 6 foot 5, 120 kg ball runners, who can pilfer and run a lineout and have really deft hands. The Willem Alberts type. Other than your imagination, where do you suggest we get some of these?

Let me know if you figure that out. In the meantime, get back with the program.

 

[Parse]

Paulie or Weekes would be a good pickup. Then Slips would have something to work with. Time to let Daley go - terrible scrummager and just hasn't improved in the last 4 years. Good around the park BUT first up job is the set piece.

Someone else said it at some time, but I wouldn't mind seeing them trying to turn Daley into a No. 8

 

[tranquility]

Fairly long bow I would have thought. Browning will be a much better 8, and hopefully a bigger one too.

 

[TOCC]

Haha - we'll see mate. McMahon is 19 years old. But you know best, I'm sure.

Tell me again, about these large bodied backrowers. You know, the 6 foot 5, 120 kg ball runners, who can pilfer and run a lineout and have really deft hands. The Willem Alberts type. Other than your imagination, where do you suggest we get some of these?

Let me know if you figure that out. In the meantime, get back with the program.

I don't think he was saying he was a bad player, rather he would just exacerbate the issue the Reds already have of lacking back rowers who can bend the line. He suits the Rebels given the ball runners they already have in their pack.
Browning is and will be a better back rower then McMahon, I think the Reds kept the right player.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Tranquility, I don't give a flying fuck if McMahon is 25 and in the peak of his career. He plays the position that we have the most depth and coverage in the squad. Therefore he would be a terrible pick up. We have 4 players that can play 6 at Super Rugby level (5 is you consider McDuling) able to offer their best and would not be considered out of position to their detriment, why on earth would another one be a good pick up?

Gill is a wallaby capped openside and our first choice 7

Shatz was the 2013 Pilecki medal winner.

Quirk showed more potential in 2013 than McMahon has shown in his few games in 2014.

These 3 form a hard working back row that covers a lot of ground.

Robinson is a championship player who has been great in every appearance due to his abrasive nature, whilst also being a back up 7. Not bad when you consider he was good enough at 7 to be part of a Super Rugby winning team. He has also effectively started at 6 on multiple occaisions for us.

Browing has massive wraps on him and for good reason was made an offer whilst McMahon wasn't. In addition he appears to be the strongest 8 style ball runner out of any of the 5, and McMahon.

Now tell me which one of these proven performers for more than 6 games you would take McMahon at the expense of, and what deficiency in our back row signing him would have addressed more importantly. Because fuck me, from what I've seen of him he sounds like he'd be a perfect fit into this group of 5 somewhat similar players, which once again, is not what we need at all.

A speculative signing, at the expense of proven performers, that doesn't fill any of the weaknesses of our back row. Sounds like a terrible signing to me. He could end up better than all 5, wouldn't make him a good signing and wouldn't be addressing what our squad needs in a time of limited squad sizes.

 

[tranquility]

Look I understand. I too think Browning will be a better player, but he and McMahon hardly play a similar game.

I too can count how many backrowers we have in our squad, and I have watched all of them play plenty of rugby. All of them underage superstars. Eddie Quirk in one of the best schoolboys teams ever, and Shatz making rep sides in year 11 with Quade and Aidan.

I know we have all got to that point, where a "Line-Bending" backrower will change our teams fortunes, like a magic potion. But where are they?

Other than Palu (sic), Higgers, and maybe McCalman - we don't really have any others in the country.

So then people will say, "why don't we go to Africa and grab some, or better yet Argentina!"

Athletes of this type are very rare, they are not just found unemployed looking for an opportunity ready to play super rugby. If this was a tact that the Reds actually wanted to go down, they could go to Africa or anywhere in the world really and contract 15 year old back-rowers and it would be a 10 year process.

Also why are you giving me a history lesson about things we all know about? I am a big fan of all three, and have been very vocal about them for years.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I'm explaining why the guy would not be a good signing for the Reds.

I'm not saying that there are these line-bending number 8s out there.

I'm saying to sign McMahon would be at the expense of somebody else who has shown more for the Reds in some way than McMahon has at the Rebels and that as he would be more of the same, what purpose would that serve?

If we were short on hard working 6 (counting Shatz and Robinson here) type back rowers he would be great. We're fucking overflowing with them though.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Someone else said it at some time, but I wouldn't mind seeing them trying to turn Daley into a No. 8

Are you serious? They tried to make him a No. 1 - and not real good there. Bloke is way too slow for 8. Should go to Hooker if anywhere

 

[tranquility]

TWAS,

I'm not trying to get you excited, I'm merely trying to express a point.

You suggest that signing McMahon would have be 'terrible', while I could never understand your choice of words - I understand your well-worn point.

However another point of view is that you have very little idea how these players will develop as they get older. I remember watching a young Springbok debut with a big wrap on him called Spies, he was almost invisible. Hardly a wrecking ball. The fact is he was just too young physically to hand the intensity.

I would argue that it is the same situation for our "large body" back rowers. Quirk and Shatz weren't "work rate" back rowers at junior level. They bent the line, hell impregnated the line, belted blokes and were judged the best of the crop to develop as bruising senior back rowers. This hasn't been the case yet, but I don't think it is because they don't have the talent - I think they have been thrown in the deep-end on a full-time basis too early. The major crux of losing Higgers too early.

However if the best of our local back rowers do not develop into the backrowers you want them to be, where do you suggest they get these players from?

McMahon has generally played pretty decent rugby along the way, I think he will make a fairly decent senior backrower. What type? I'm not sure. Because as youngsters at the senior level all back rowers are workrate back rowers, because physically they can't be anything else.

 

[Forcefield]

Athletes of this type are very rare

Two words. Dud Roodt.

 

[Train Without a Station]

You've lost me. Spies was invisible early in his career before going on to be... Mostly invisible for the rest of his career. If a player is going to be a bruising line bender, he will look like he has the potential of one early in his career.

I find it odd to say Shatz and Quirk have been thrown in the deep end too early when they were eased in over multiple seasons.

If you signed a player you don't need, it would be a terrible signing. Hence my words.

 

[tranquility]

The pont is. Jake is the oldest at 23, maybe 24.

They are very young men to be playing such combative positions week-in-week-out.

The penny didn't drop for Higgers, McCalman, Mowen, etc until they were 25 at the earliest. It takes time to be a physical presence at this level.

Maybe none of them will be enforcers at this level, but I suspect at least one of them will be.

McMahon currently has the benefit of playing with two experience and battle hardened partners. Replace he with Quirk or Shatz at the Rebels, minus the responsibility they carry at the Reds, and they would look incredibly capable.

Mind you, the extra responsibility they are getting at the Reds will hopefully pay off in the long run of their development. Who knows, however.

 

[Train Without a Station]

McCalman is the only one that really supports your point and even then that has been the result of putting on additional bulk through an off-season effort. But even he was always considered an abrasive player, but perhaps not quite big enough to make an impact. He still isn't a bulldozer though. And he never will be.

Higgers showed indications as early as 2009, much like Quirk in 2013. It wasn't until 2011 on when his work in the gym got to the point where he was topping gym records that he was able to maintain consistency in his performances.

Mowen isn't a physical player now and his physicality and dominance in contact is the biggest criticism people have of him as a player. Maturity hasn't assisted him in this. Him cracking the Waratahs was also the result of him making a large off-season effort to gain close to 10kg around the same time as Dave Dennis.

My point is all of these players have pretty much indicated the type of player they will be at their peak from the beginning of their careers, a bit of gym work over period, which could be construed as a greater level of professionalism has assisted them in achieving consistency in this.

Higgers and Mowen also had the frames to build more size. Quirk does too. Shatz and McMahon are pretty filled out already. Neither of them appear to be lacking in gym work, so that's not really going to push them along.

 

[tranquility]

McMahon is 19 years old. He hasn't even finished growing yet? Let alone gym work?

Higgers was so raw in 2009 its not even funny.

Quirk will be a very big bloke once he has fully matured both physically and professionally. He will start to win collisions on both sides of the ball with more ease, and this will effect they way he spends his energy on the field in my opinion.

Ive gotta do some work. Cheers

 

[Braveheart81]

Maybe the question should be, if you were looking to bring McMahon back to Queensland, which current backrower would you let go to make space?

 

[Train Without a Station]

Which was my original question actually.

McMahon is 186cm tall and 101kg according to the Rebels website. He's almost 20 so I doubt he is going to get any taller and on that frame, anything more than 105kg would really be getting too heavy and sacrificing mobility.

Whilst he is a talented player, he does not appear to be a 7 and based on his size I think he is really destined to be a notter. Not big enough for 6/8, not a 7. Physically he is not too dissimilar to Hoiles or McCutcheon. Even Salvi. All excellent players, but unfortunately play like small 6s and 8s, but are built like ideal 7s.

 

[Scoey]

I think it's risky to get caught up in a players dimensions for a couple of reasons.

1. Unless you physically weigh and measure them personally, their height and weight as published will almost certainly not be accurate.
2. I've seen a few players play much bigger than their apparent size and I've seen more players than I care to remember, play a lot smaller than their size.

The young, like McMahon (and the Reds backrow for that matter) will grow physically into their early twenties and they will 'harden' into their mid to late twenties, perhaps even later. It's hard to judge a young 'un's worth until they develop a bit.

 

[tranquility]

Exactly Scoey. 'Hardening' is what I am getting at.

McMahon will make a very fine 6, forget his dimensions - this is where he will play his footy.

He left for a very good reason, the queue of talented blokes in front of him. But who knows he might be the best of the lot? Might be the worst.

I'm happy to back the three that we have kept, but we really need another older bloke to help carry the load. It is going to be very difficult to expect them to hit their peak individually or collectively when they are all learning on the job.

For what it's worth, I am glad he is down in Melbourne rather than being warehoused in QLD or on the sevens circuit - but all players on the market need to be looked at. By the time his next contract is up, he might be a Wallaby.

Cusack down in Canberra is another backrower of enormous potential when he comes back from injury.