Wallaby Watch 2014

[Braveheart81]

I think the point about needing to see more games like this from Horwill is accurate. He was excellent last night and he needed to lead his team which has been struggling. Having that sort of impact against better opposition is crucial though. That will give a better indication of how good and consistent his form is.

Skelton is an attractive option for his impact. It could end up being Horwill and Carter competing for the starting spot with Skelton to finish.

Teams will excuse Skelton's slightly lower involvement and expect the other 7 forwards to make up for it because he can provide something none of the other 7 can.

 

[Scotty]

We won't beat them with x-factor or any other BS term people use to describe players who bring something outside the core role of their position without fulfilling those core roles first.

We won't beat them by doing that because it leaves other weaknesses, and they certainly wouldn't do that.

Arguable their best lock the past decade has been brad thorn. He hardly did any of skelton's positives. He was too busy doing is core role well.

Before you liken their clean out ability, it's a moot point when it's not done at the same frequency.

RWC 99 - high work rate player in Cockbain starts for the wallabies at 6. He makes way for the lower work rate but higher impact Finnegan.

This model has worked very well for teams in the past and is what we are talking about in respect to finishing with Skelton. As long as the pack retains a balance there is nothing wrong with a lower involvement but higher impact forward being involved.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Finegan was a more complete player of his time than Skelton is of now.

You are talking in absolutes. Indeed it's not just about highest work rate. But would Finegan be considered a low work rate player?

 

[Ruggo]

What do you mean not ready? Did he not prove against the French that he is going to make a bigger impact in terms of effectiveness than either Horwill or Carter could make? No one is saying he could match it 80 minutes with the All Blacks because he doesn't need to. He will most likely be coming off the bench and providing 30 minutes of effectiveness. If Carter starts and then there's 30 minutes or so left for one lock you can't tell me Horwill would be preferable to Skelton. 5m out from the line when you need a try, would you rather Skelton carrying it up against tired forwards, Skelton or Horwill? Who's going to attract defenders late in a game freeing up a Beale or Folau? Who's going to smash McCaw in a ruck when he's about to cause a critical turnover? Sure there's the set-piece argument but we're not going to beat NZ with a safe set-piece and I trust Link to work around his weakness in that area.

Every player needs to. If they are not capable of playing a full 80 minutes, they shouldn't be anywhere near the test arena. What happened to Moore in that first test could happen to any player at any given moment.

Impact from any player especially off the bench is surely a secondary consideration to the player being able to fill the core function of the position he is filling.

The man love for Skelton's size is superficial, it is his engine where the attention should be directed.

 

[Braveheart81]

Every player needs to. If they are not capable of playing a full 80 minutes, they shouldn't be anywhere near the test arena. What happened to Moore in that first test could happen to any player at any given moment.

Impact from any player especially off the bench is surely a secondary consideration to the player being able to fill the core function of the position he is filling.

The man love for Skelton's size is superficial, it is his engine where the attention should be directed.

That completely ignores his size and skills which gives him a unique point of difference. No one that big has ever played for the Wallabies and so far no team has been able to completely nullify him.

Neither Link nor Cheika have thought that his limitations in terms of playing minutes and lineout skills outweigh the benefits he brings to a team.

 

[TOCC]

I agree he doesn't need to be an 80minute player, but there is no question he needs to improve it well beyond the 50min he is currently capable of for Test rugby. Skelton will always struggle to play 80minutes because of his sheer size but he needs to improve his playing time to at least 60-70minutes.

 

[Sully]

Question. If we make him an 80 minute ply will it decress his impact?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk

 

[Scotty]

Finegan was a more complete player of his time than Skelton is of now.

You are talking in absolutes. Indeed it's not just about highest work rate. But would Finegan be considered a low work rate player?

Comparative to Cockbain I would suggest yes!

 

[Scotty]

We have a unique opportunity to bring a bloke in that is incomparable to any other international player. The time is now for his involvement (at least from the bench), and then by the time the World Cup rolls around we may well have a consistent game breaker.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Comparative to Cockbain I would suggest yes!

That's irrelevant. If we were only talking about work rate we would advocate 8 opensides. We are not saying that.

 

[Ruggo]

That completely ignores his size and skills which gives him a unique point of difference. No one that big has ever played for the Wallabies and so far no team has been able to completely nullify him.

Neither Link nor Cheika have thought that his limitations in terms of playing minutes and lineout skills outweigh the benefits he brings to a team.

I would prefer to ignore his size. I don't buy into that argument personally. No doubt about his skills though as they are bloody impressive. I actually think he has a very bright future and am actually a fan of his. I just have my reservations coming into this next test. We are going to go up against the benchmark in World rugby. I would like to see the bloke progress but I think we should pick our battles. I am not writing him off as an 80 minute player, just saying we have yet to see it from him. I think we should keep progressing him without doubt. Maybe we let him lose on the Boks or the Argies before we let him loose on a highly mobile AB pack. That experiment would be a bridge to far for mine at this stage.

 

[Braveheart81]

How can you ignore his size? It's one of the core aspects of his game.

His skills combined with that size is what makes him dangerous.

 

[Scotty]

That moves us to the discussion on picking a particular player to play against a particular team. Not sure I think that is the way to go.

My preference is to decide how we want to play and impose that in the other team with the best players to do that. Sure, change style for weather conditions but don't change players for opposition.

 

[Scotty]

How can you ignore his size? It's one of the core aspects of his game.

His skills combined with that size is what makes him dangerous.

Yeah - we should just play 90kg locks and see what happens!!

 

[Sully]

I love a bit of Skelton. But I'd be favouring Horwill fit the start of the rugby championship and be giving Skelton a run against Argentina and a dead rubber Bledisloe. Especially if Palu is playing.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

BH, are you happy with where his fitness is at for Test rugby, you don't think he has the ability to play more minutes?

If his fitness remains the same, do you think it could count against him when talking RWC selections where you have short turnarounds, limited squads etc?

 

[barbarian]

It's understandable that people are put off by the Skelton hype. But those people need to understand that this is a big positive for the game, a point of difference over the other codes. Skelton has non-Rugby fans talking, the first debutant to do that since Folau.

As to his impact, I agree he still has a way to go. He is young, though, so let's give him time! In his first test he contributed 14 points off his own bat, when was the last time a Wallaby lock did that??
.

 

[Braveheart81]

BH, are you happy with where his fitness is at for Test rugby, you don't think he has the ability to play more minutes?

If his fitness remains the same, do you think it could count against him when talking RWC selections where you have short turnarounds, limited squads etc?

I think his fitness has improved a lot and is reasonable right now. He has shown that if he needs to play 80 or close to he can do it reasonably.

Do you really think he wasn't told before his first test that he'd be off early in the second half if all went well and to give it everything in that time?

In my opinion he's done a pretty good job of giving it everything in the amount of minutes he has.

 

[Bairdy]

Skelton played 56 minutes in his debut, while in comparison, Palu - generally considered the MOTM - played 63 minutes.

You can't have a team of workmanlike players or a team of high impact players. Skelton will naturally slim down with age, and his fitness will improve, but why make him into an 80 minute player when we have the likes of Simmons, Horwill, Carter and perhaps Jones?

It will be up to Link and his assistants to find the balance, though and use Skelton advantageously.

 

[Ruggo]

How can you ignore his size? It's one of the core aspects of his game.

His skills combined with that size is what makes him dangerous.

I can quite easily ignore his size. It becomes even easier when you take a far lighter player like Carter and how his technical superiority makes him able to match it with those players much bigger. He is just one example. As previously said, people focus on his size yet I focus on his engine. It is his engine I find as dangerous.