Waratahs 2013

[fatprop]

Jake White's only error last year, imo, was to try to fit Ita Vaea at 7 in the early games, following the SA model. The Reds played two fetchers against the Brumbies and won easily largely through glut of possession. Hooper then started, and we know what his impact was for the rest of the season. I think a fetching 7 is still the best way to go.

The pleasure of rugby is that it depends on the gameplan.

The Reds countered the Brumbies gameplan, but the two fetchers should weaken both the lineout and scrum, more mature tactically sides would have/should have been able make the Reds pay a bit more.

 

[Dave Beat]

The pleasure of rugby is that it depends on the gameplan.

The Reds countered the Brumbies gameplan, but the two fetchers should weaken both the lineout and scrum, more mature tactically sides would have/should have been able make the Reds pay a bit more.

Ah fat prop - coaches and game plans. it has been the Wobs / Tah's problem for a couple of years now.
I'm not going to cop the injury tag - unfortunate yes - but:
Reds had an horrendous injury toll last year.
Brumbies made it as far as they did on new players that weren't wanted, or were unsigned.

 

[Quick Hands]

yep your right.
I looked it up, Carter re signs 27/7 Foley resigns 2 or 3 days later.
He knows he is leaving, why would he then fill up the roster with guys he did not want to use all year,so the new guy cannot recruit the guys that he wants...

Says a lot about what's been wrong with the Waratahs over the last 4-5 years.

 

[Quick Hands]

Ah fat prop - coaches and game plans. it has been the Wobs / Tah's problem for a couple of years now.
I'm not going to cop the injury tag - unfortunate yes - but:
Reds had an horrendous injury toll last year.
Brumbies made it as far as they did on new players that weren't wanted, or were unsigned.

The Aust cricket team are making the same mistake as the Waratahs and Wallabies have made in the last 4-5 years. All these sports scientists and alleged experts need to remember that team sports are different from individual sports. There's more to it than multi-skilling, rotation etc. The immeasurable and vital factors of human understanding, combinations & confidence are part of a team environment. Well selected and well coached teams are far greater than the sum of the individual parts. Players need confidence in their own position, their team mates and the coach. Shuffling and reshuffling backlines, forward packs often provides little short term gain for a lot of long term pain.

If team selections are settled, it's also much easier to cover an injury as there's only 1 player to slot in and everyone around him knows exactly what to do. Quite often, the lesser player will lift in to this environment - particularly if it's short term, but sometimes even in long term situations they can grow into the spot because of team mate & coach support.

 

[cyclopath]

theres not much point in trying to have a rational discussion with someone who attempts to change the meaning of my post

I apologise for coming to this comment late, but my excuse is that I have been on a plane. The thinly veiled suggestion that Turner kicking is somehow cowardly, is cheap, and really not necessary. Just for future reference.

 

[fatprop]

can someone who believes turner deserves a starting spot over kingston please give me a few reasons why? im left bewildered when i keep seeing people select him in their teams for this season when i personally believe kingston showed more last season then turner has since his debut season (and of course that great test v the blacks) seriously> turner has been one of the biggest culprits of unnecessary (some might say cowardly) kicking the ball away for years now> i havnt seen his pace for so long its a myth as far as im concerned

I will give it a go, but first, this "(some might say cowardly)" stuff is just unacceptable, you can do better.

As for Turner over Kingston, before his injury, he was the one of the best defensive backs in the comp, missing bugger all tackles and making few mistakes.

He also works his arse off - off the ball (something to few supporters see to think is important). He chases kicks, he creates options for the receiver by working hard to get there. He also has a strong kick His weakness has been his ability to break that first tackle on counter, but give him space and he can find the line.

Kicking the ball away? It isn't a Turner specific issue/tactic with the Tahs

Kingston? solid, but he is a young, a light 13 stuck out on the wing. He can step one way and beats defender when given space, his defense is good, but against big units he can be a speed bump

 

[Richo]

Kingston is a great prospect for the future, but I'd imagine that Cheika seems him as a replacement player at present who will hopefully develop and take over at wing or 13, depending on how things go. There is no need to rush is development when the Tahs have excellent stocks in outside backs. I'm sure he'll get a good run this year, either due to injuries, rotations, or just substitutions.

 

[Dave Beat]

FatProp, you'll no doubt understand and others.
Probably up until under 12's maybe older - if you were asked your position did you answer "Prop" fair call.
Probably at under 15's onwards if you were asked your position your answer may have been THP or LHP as you become more specialised - there is a clear difference between the 2.

Same applies to backs there a skill sets a 5/8 needs, an inside centre needs, and an outside centre needs - any wonder there is utter confusion on their faces.

So "picking players out of position" is part of our problem, in addition to that "game plan" or lack of.

I am allarmed when I read the Tah's 35 man player roster, there is only
1. Inside Centre - Tom Carter.
1. Outside Centre - Rob Horne.
So specialised centres there are only 2?
I would only have "either or" playing definately not both of them, over the past 3 or 4 years I have seen neither of them provide the attacking angles or speed in Super Rugby, or the Shute Shield that I'd like to see.
Who to pick? A back line needs to click, so it depends on the 9, 10, 11,14, & 15.

 

[fatprop]

FatProp, you'll no doubt understand and others.
Probably up until under 12's maybe older - if you were asked your position did you answer "Prop" fair call.
Probably at under 15's onwards if you were asked your position your answer may have been THP or LHP as you become more specialised - there is a clear difference between the 2.

Same applies to backs there a skill sets a 5/8 needs, an inside centre needs, and an outside centre needs - any wonder there is utter confusion on their faces.

So "picking players out of position" is part of our problem, in addition to that "game plan" or lack of.

I am allarmed when I read the Tah's 35 man player roster, there is only
1. Inside Centre - Tom Carter.
1. Outside Centre - Rob Horne.
So specialised centres there are only 2?
I would only have "either or" playing definately not both of them, over the past 3 or 4 years I have seen neither of them provide the attacking angles or speed in Super Rugby, or the Shute Shield that I'd like to see.
Who to pick? A back line needs to click, so it depends on the 9, 10, 11,14, & 15.

The concept of specialisation in Aus falls over due to squad limitations, unless you are a gun, you will be more likely initially picked if you can sit on the bench and cover a few positions.

As to "out of position", with a limited player pool units the axium is to get your best players out there. Sometimes when filling in they are still better than the rest in their 3rd best position.

 

[emuarse]

The SMH finally got to this story today. Just goes to show rugby stories break on G&GR first. Here 'tis:http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-members-over-cap-clanger-20130111-2cjv7.html

All you happy chappies south of the border get your NRL sample bags (he he)

 

[Dave Beat]

The concept of specialisation in Aus falls over due to squad limitations, unless you are a gun, you will be more likely initially picked if you can sit on the bench and cover a few positions.

As to "out of position", with a limited player pool units the axium is to get your best players out there. Sometimes when filling in they are still better than the rest in their 3rd best position.

No doubt you would have thought some of the Woodies could have performed better in thier position than some of the Tah incumants.

 

[wamberal]

The Aust cricket team are making the same mistake as the Waratahs and Wallabies have made in the last 4-5 years. All these sports scientists and alleged experts need to remember that team sports are different from individual sports. There's more to it than multi-skilling, rotation etc.

Rotation has been an essential element of baseball for many years, particularly amongst the pitchers.


Yes, there is more to team sports than multi-skilling and rotation, but I am pretty confident that in a highly professional environment certain players - certain positions - benefit from being rested and rotated.

 

[Quick Hands]

The concept of specialisation in Aus falls over due to squad limitations, unless you are a gun, you will be more likely initially picked if you can sit on the bench and cover a few positions.

As to "out of position", with a limited player pool units the axium is to get your best players out there. Sometimes when filling in they are still better than the rest in their 3rd best position.

I don't buy the limited player pool argument. As the graph in the attached table indicates, Australia has about 39,000 senior rugby players out of about 86,000 players overall. There's about 200 professional players spread over the 5 super teams, plus plenty of talent in semi-pro competitions in Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra, plus quite a few talented players who are playing professionally in UK or France.

http://www.rugbydump.com/2011/09/2103/rugby-world-cup-daily-player-numbers-around-the-world

Multi-skilling is fine in the development/academy phase where you are giving players generic skills. As you enter the team/squad phase, there needs to be a degree of specialisation. This is one of the reasons why development should be in the hand of the super teams where they can receive specific positional development, rather then in the generic HPU type environment.

Weakening one position to strengthen another has rarely worked long term. Australian backline play, which was once our pride and our strength has never been in such disarray. Some of the players are much more talented than they are showing, because they are being shuffled around into different positions with different combinations.

 

[fatprop]

I don't buy the limited player pool argument. As the graph in the attached table indicates, Australia has about 39,000 senior rugby players out of about 86,000 players overall. There's about 200 professional players spread over the 5 super teams, plus plenty of talent in semi-pro competitions in Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra, plus quite a few talented players who are playing professionally in UK or France.

http://www.rugbydump.com/2011/09/2103/rugby-world-cup-daily-player-numbers-around-the-world

Multi-skilling is fine in the development/academy phase where you are giving players generic skills. As you enter the team/squad phase, there needs to be a degree of specialisation. This is one of the reasons why development should be in the hand of the super teams where they can receive specific positional development, rather then in the generic HPU type environment.

Weakening one position to strengthen another has rarely worked long term. Australian backline play, which was once our pride and our strength has never been in such disarray. Some of the players are much more talented than they are showing, because they are being shuffled around into different positions with different combinations.

Two things, on what I wrote, I was talking about the squad system as the player pool being the 35.

As to "our" depth, we struggle to provide 200 pros on any quality, if there really was depth, the Force & Rebels wouldn't need their dispensations for O/S players

 

[Quick Hands]

Two things, on what I wrote, I was talking about the squad system as the player pool being the 35.

Apologies if I misunderstood this part of your post. I had no intention to misrepresent you.

 

[Quick Hands]

I noticed the other day that Cheika said that Berrick would be given the choice of position he wanted to play in the first trial. I hope this is an indication that he intends to identify which position his players want to play, judge whether he agrees, pick the best XV players in their best positions in the first match, have in mind the 2nd best player for each position and use that player to replace for injury/poor form.

Where guys who can cover a couple of positions come in is on the bench, but they should still know where they fit into the top XV. It's important for the XV to have confidence in their position and their team mates, and it's also important for next best to have confidence that they will get their chance if they maintain form and the spot becomes available.

It's how a team/club culture develops. Everyone feels that they are part of it, everyone feels that they're being treated fairly and receiving a fair go and everyone trusts the coach.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Carter was not the rock of the Tahs last year, he could not make the match day squad for a chunk of the season.
He was originally told there would be no contract for him this year.
CTM is unknown at this level, but has more upside than Carter.
But Carter's stats do demonstrate he is reliable.
I see Carter's signing as a indicator that the Tahs are going to be more grinders than entertainers this year.

One of the strengths of the English language is that it is constantly evolving. As an example, consider the word "chunk". It can now mean "one instance".

Carter was omitted from the "match day squad" for just one game, Round 13 against the Stormers. One of the interesting things about disinformation is how frequently it transmogrifies into received wisdom.
.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't buy the limited player pool argument. As the graph in the attached table indicates, Australia has about 39,000 senior rugby players out of about 86,000 players overall. There's about 200 professional players spread over the 5 super teams, plus plenty of talent in semi-pro competitions in Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra, plus quite a few talented players who are playing professionally in UK or France.

http://www.rugbydump.com/2011/09/2103/rugby-world-cup-daily-player-numbers-around-the-world

Multi-skilling is fine in the development/academy phase where you are giving players generic skills. As you enter the team/squad phase, there needs to be a degree of specialisation. This is one of the reasons why development should be in the hand of the super teams where they can receive specific positional development, rather then in the generic HPU type environment.

Weakening one position to strengthen another has rarely worked long term. Australian backline play, which was once our pride and our strength has never been in such disarray. Some of the players are much more talented than they are showing, because they are being shuffled around into different positions with different combinations.

All selections are compromises - unless you have the perfect player. Some compromises are more obvious than others.
There are few skills that, if acquired, would not enhance a player in his specialist position.
In the end it is a question of the sum total of the team and not whether one position has been weakened to strengthen another.
If there were players without flaws selection and coaching would be easy: most of the time its about the least worst option in all the circumstances.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I noticed the other day that Cheika said that Berrick would be given the choice of position he wanted to play in the first trial. I hope this is an indication that he intends to identify which position his players want to play, judge whether he agrees, pick the best XV players in their best positions in the first match, have in mind the 2nd best player for each position and use that player to replace for injury/poor form.

Where guys who can cover a couple of positions come in is on the bench, but they should still know where they fit into the top XV. It's important for the XV to have confidence in their position and their team mates, and it's also important for next best to have confidence that they will get their chance if they maintain form and the spot becomes available.

It's how a team/club culture develops. Everyone feels that they are part of it, everyone feels that they're being treated fairly and receiving a fair go and everyone trusts the coach.

You cannot just blindly pick the next best specialist in a position: to do so may mean that the team is weaker than it could be.
The downsides of reshuffling have to be weighed up but those downsides are just some of the factors that go into decisions.
Obsessing about picking specialists also overlooks the dynamic situations that arise during a game.
Players need to possess as many skills at the highest level they can in order to contribute to their potential - whatever a game throws at them.
This is a fundamental difference between what Union asks of a player and what the other rugby code asks.

 

[Dave Beat]

You cannot just blindly pick the next best specialist in a position: to do so may mean that the team is weaker than it could be.
The downsides of reshuffling have to be weighed up but those downsides are just some of the factors that go into decisions.
Obsessing about picking specialists also overlooks the dynamic situations that arise during a game.
Players need to possess as many skills at the highest level they can in order to contribute to their potential - whatever a game throws at them.
This is a fundamental difference between what Union asks of a player and what the other rugby code asks.

Inside shoulder - you are excactly right ünfortunately (You cannot just blindly pick the next best) unfortunately the picking process of recent years has been blind, and thus leaving the game plan, and the backs in a shambles.