Wallabies v Wales: Name Your Best XV

[RedsHappy]

I don't think the Wallaby squad is only going to be 32 people. I think this is just top up contracts.

I imagine Wallaby squads will be just as big as they have been previously and people will be paid for training (I assume this) and match payments will be made to the matchday 22 (this is a given).

I think the ARU is trying to find some middle ground between ensuring they keep the bulk of their key players in Australia and ensure that they aren't committed to paying too many fringe players who 6-9 months later wouldn't be part of a Wallaby squad on form.

Interesting. So RD and the ARU are now going to pioneer an innovative experiment in the social engineering of teams. Daring and bold as ever, they will attempt to disprove the longstanding belief that radically different and unequal means of engaging, remunerating and giving security to people in the same group that must perform an intensive, high pressure task as one leads to problems in team cohesion and internal confidence building.

I get it it now. We are going to have 'Class A Wallabies: The Fortunate Retained' ones who will be given 1-3 years security of national team tenure, the economic confidence to plan their lives and families and full-time engagement in the whole Wallaby development, coaching and support systems over these sorts of periods. These Class A fellows will be the 'costly inner core'. We are meant to assume that Class A Wallabies will provide excellent consistency, are unlikely to have form slumps, and are thus generally the golden ones.

Then we shall have 'Class B Wallabies: The Temporary, Form-Unknown' national ones that will merely receive spot payments for training and playing (if they do), they will be given no career or life certainty as national players, they are maybe 'in' for Test 3 and 'out' for Tests 4-8 and back in for one Test 9 in France. They will have no consistent engagement with ongoing Wallaby training, coaching and team tactical consolidation through all-of-season presence with the same core Wallaby group. They will be the 'cost efficient fringe outliers'. These outliers are somehow pre-known to be the 'form at risk fringe' ones, vs the 'form secure' Class A ones.

The above scenario is an accountants' delight. Costs are minimised as the Class A group is reduced in number vs history, and Class B is the pinnacle of cost prudence and seemingly reduced risk as these players are 'fringe, form-risky' ones. An outstanding economic construct.

But, how do you feel about your professional career strategy if you are Class B? If you're better than S15 level and can earn far more in Japan on a secure contract, what do you do knowing that you must maximise earned cash flow over, say, a 7-10 year career period? How do you feel when training with the Class A golden breed? And what if in fact multiple Class As start to show poor or uneven form, yet your Class B form is far more consistent, and how is all this predicted in advance when Class As are appointed? How do you blend together and bond as a fighting unit when there are two very different, very unequal, strata and rewards systems working within the same match day 22?

The above querying is only part complete as it wholly leaves aside the related, but highly significant, question of what size of full-time Wallaby squad is required to deal with 4 June Tests, a new 4N in 4 widely dispersed geos, and then the strategically-critical for-Aus-rugby BIL tour in 2013.

 

[fatprop]

I have no issue with effort being rewarded off a lower base, keeps them hungry

 

[Braveheart81]

What I would be interested in is whether some players have made Wallaby squads in the past because they were contracted players whereas if we had a smaller number of contracted players and more match/training payments, those players would have been left out because their form was poor.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

I have no issue with effort being rewarded off a lower base, keeps them hungry

But will effort be rewarded or will be see a situation when a ARU contracted player is picked over a "teir2" player even if the non contracted player is playing well above the Contracted player.

Will this become a type of international EPS where if contacted players are avaliable they must play in front of the non contracted?

 

[fatprop]

One would assume that sides will be picked on some judgement of form.

Making some broad assumptions, lets say a third of the squads contracts turnover each year. So 10 or 11 spots are available. That should create a good load of pressure on players to fight for another contract or get one.

That said, I think the whole change is to save money

 

[Gnostic]

One would assume that sides will be picked on some judgement of form.

Making some broad assumptions, lets say a third of the squads contracts turnover each year. So 10 or 11 spots are available. That should create a good load of pressure on players to fight for another contract or get one.

That said, I think the whole change is to save money

Why would that be the case? It hasn't been since Deans arrived. The danger is as others have said the contracted player will be played simply because they have already been paid.

If they want to move to a pure performance based system then do so and have everyone on a perform or your out system, this is a half assed attempt and creates a two tier system with all the issues described above. However selection MUST be based on a pure performance model there could be no selecting long term injured players like Elsom or those returning from an extended hiatus Vickerman or even a rookie bolter who just deserved selection because of an outstanding talent.

I however agree with Redshappy in this that how can a national coach build a team with any number of players that are not consistently in the squad. Take into account Links comments in his SMH column today.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...o-highpressure-situations-20120411-1wsam.html

 

[fatprop]

Gnostic

Just because you or I don't see (or agree with) the logic of a specific selection doesn't mean there wasn't any in that selection

 

[Shiggins]

Are you... are you serious?

hell yeah. Haha


Http://www.youtube.com/shiggins316

 

[RedsHappy]

....how can a national coach build a team with any number of players that are not consistently in the squad. Take into account Links comments in his SMH column today.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...o-highpressure-situations-20120411-1wsam.html

Yeah Gnostic, that 'link from Link' is very relevant to this discussion re the issues associated with pulling players into a top level squad that have not trained with that squad continuously. These issues would apply - to varying degrees - if the new ARU plan is to have a fully contracted 'A' Wallaby squad of 32, that will somehow be supplemented with a floating but not contracted or committed 'B' Wallaby collection of part-time outliers that will by definition come in and then out of the A squad.

 

[Brumbieman]

best team atm
15. Kurtley Beale
14. Adam Ashley-Cooper
13. Mcabe
12. Barnes
11. Digby Ioane
10. JOC (James O'Connor)
9. Will Genia
8. Palu
7. David Pocock
6. higgers
5. Horwill
4. For fuck sakes Sharpe
3. Ben Alexander
2. Stephen Moore
1. Cowan
Reserves:
16. Charles
17. Slipper
18. Rebells lock, pick one,
19. Ben McCalman or brown
20. Hodgson
21. Sheean
22. Cummins

Sweet, jesus......please tell me this is a piss take, and that there isn't actually anyone is Aus who genuinely believes that this is actually our best team?

 

[MrMouse]

Sweet, jesus......please tell me this is a piss take, and that there isn't actually anyone is Aus who genuinely believes that this is actually our best team?

I surely don't, but some of the people you've highlighted (emboldened?) are perfectly reasonable selections. For example - Sharpe, Palu, JOC (James O'Connor) and Barnes appear in almost everyone's XV (barring the odd one who thinks we need to move beyond Sharpe or is certain Palu will be injured).

I don't agree with several bench selections or Cowan but isn't the whole point to put forward your own thoughts on the matter?

 

[Brumbieman]

I have no issue with effort being rewarded off a lower base, keeps them hungry

Indeed. The problem is, players actually GETTING rewarded for showing form, something Deans has shown about as much aptitude for as the NSW Government has shown for just about anything.

The reverse situation is also just as important. Players who are deemed to be important, and of international quality, are not being told to fuck off for a (international) season, if they didn't perform at Super rugby level.

If you're a B grade Wallaby, and the form player in your position throughout all of SUper rugby, and then come international season, a player who has played a handful of games, and been average at best in those, automatically gets selected ahead of you (Palu, Horne, Barnes, Kepu, Elsom, Giteau, Brown), what incentive is there for you to train your arse off and give everything you have in every single game?

 

[Brumbieman]

I surely don't, but some of the people you've highlighted (emboldened?) are perfectly reasonable selections. For example - Sharpe, Palu, JOC (James O'Connor) and Barnes appear in almost everyone's XV (barring the odd one who thinks we need to move beyond Sharpe or is certain Palu will be injured).

I don't agree with several bench selections or Cowan but isn't the whole point to put forward your own thoughts on the matter?

Of course it is. However, Barnes and JOC (James O'Connor) are most certainly the wrong way around, hence their highlighting.

Palu and Sharpe are either old or crippled, and we need to move beyond them.

The entire bench is eh....well, alarming at best. Sheehan? Fuck me. I know th eidea is to put your thoughts forward, but as the old adage goes, 'it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt'...

 

[qwerty51]

So you reckon Hansen shouldn't pick McCaw?

 

[MrMouse]

as the old adage goes, 'it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt'...

Were that the case, the GAGR boys would shut down the forum right...now. However, speaking up makes for more interesting conversations.

Shiggins - do you want to elaborate on WHY you think those selections are worthwhile?

 

[MrMouse]

So you reckon Hansen shouldn't pick McCaw?

I firmly believe he should not. Ever again. Please. Pretty please. With sugar on top.

 

[Brumbieman]

Were that the case, the GAGR boys would shut down the forum right...now. However, speaking up makes for more interesting conversations.

Shiggins - do you want to elaborate on WHY you think those selections are worthwhile?

hahaha mate, i'm a PR veteran. Gagr to me is like a posh tea party. Apologies if i seem a little uncouth, or somewhat like the shitfaced idiot in the bar screaming at the TV

 

[MrMouse]

hahaha mate, i'm a PR veteran. Gagr to me is like a posh tea party. Apologies if i seem a little uncouth, or somewhat like the shitfaced idiot in the bar screaming at the TV

Ah it's cool mate. I work with old people - some of them nearly as old as Bruce and Lee - it makes me grouchy sometimes too We've all been that shitfaced idiot at one time or another.

 

[Brumbieman]

The alarming thing is that i'm not an old person, by any stretch of the imagination haha!

 

[BDA]

1. Robinson
2. Moore
3. Alexander
4. Horwill (c)
5. Pyle
6. Higginbotham
7. Pocock
8. Palu
9. Genia
10. Barnes
11. Ioane
12. O'Connor
13. McCabe
14. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper)
15. Beale

16. Polota-Nau/Hansen
17. Slipper/Kepu/Palmer/Mafu
18. Douglas/Simo
19. Hodgson/Hooper/Saffy/Gill
20. Mowen/Douglas
21. White/McKibben
22. Mogg/Morahan

This is the team id pick for the first wales test (if fit). I think the form players in the Super 15 will be rewarded spots on the bench (guys like Mogg and Mowen) without much change to the starting lineup.

Unlike a handle of other teams, i doubt we'll see too many drastic changes to the starting line up. certainly not until the end of the Lions Tour. I think the team is pretty solid. Front row will be particularly good with robinson back. i thought we coped pretty well without him last year. Mafu was particularly impressive (never though id write that) against the welsh in last two games of the season so the cover is acceptable without being spectacular. 2nd row's a bit of a conundrum. With Sharpe gone and Vicks injured, I'd like to see Deans drip feed some new talent this year to see who performs before the main event next year. Pyle looks like a good prospect and Simo is looking decidedly average atm. I think that backrow gives a pretty good balance. To all the Palu bashers, if he can be game fit and in reasonable form come test season, I'd pick him to start. It's early days yet but he might just be able to find some actual form IF he can maintain fitness. In form Palu really offers the wallabies they lack in the contact (size and strength) he did the job pretty well for 40 minutes against the Chiefs before being brought off. I like what I saw in those 40 minutes, so if he can get to the point where he's playing 60-80 minutes at test season I pick him. Lots of worthy flankers. Talk about being spoilt for choice. Gill is a future wallabies for certain but I think I'd maybe like to see him play one more season of Super before taking the step up. He's starting to become more influential at Super level and hopefully he can add a bit more to his frame over the next 12 months. Watching the Super 15 this year makes me want to see us have AT LEAST to specialist 7s in the 22. The Force Look great with Pocock/Hodgson. Id like to see more of that. Possibly playing Palu for the first 50 minutes and then subbing on Hodgson.

Mogg and Morahan both look worthy of a spot in the team. Mogg is a freak and Morahan is great with ball in hand.