George Smith - Will / Should He Play Against The Lions?

[Slim 293]

George was named 'man of the match' for the third test..........

 

[ACT Crusader]

George was named 'man of the match' for the third test....

Really, why? I know MOTM selections don't always compute with what an armchair critic thinks so I would be interested in why if anyone can find a reason/stats.

I watched the whole game just last week (thanks YouTube) and he just didn't stand out in what was an enthralling test match. Thought Flatley was pretty good at 10, Eales excellent in the tight, Herbert very good YC excepting.

 

[Scott Allen]

I just finished watching the second test from 2001 tonight.

I'm not sure who was MOM but George Smith was extraordinarily good in that one. I know we all say it's like he was never away (me included) but his current form is nothing compared to what he was doing in his early career.

He was just so quick to get in on the ball - he played like I believe a seven should still play. He's pretty good today but not like he was. He has added in other areas to make up for it though.

 

[Brumbieman]

He should have been MOTM in the 2nd AND 3rd game. He was just unbelievable, and the number of BIG moments he was involved in (and came out on top of) was just astonishing for even a seasoned veteran, let alone a 20 year old rookie.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Watched the whole series as well, looking forward to the series as I did in 2001. Thought Roff was unreal in that 2nd test. I remember after that first test there was lots of talk about the Lions backs and rightly so IMO given the way they played, so it was no surprise to me that in test 2 the OZ backs really came to play. Roff was all class.

 

[Slim 293]

Back to this Lions series.......

Deans has spoken to George and it's looking likely that he will play a part in this series too, but the ARU need to contact Suntory for clearance and to arrange insurance cover:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...and-up-for-test-selection-20130423-2iclh.html

 

[jay-c]

one thing i hadnt considered before> now that the lions will be captained by warburton who is on debut for the lions and may face leadership challenges from oconnell and odriscoll> he'll be under serious pressure> also to maintain his starting position>> this is exactly where id prefer to have smith opposite him compared to gill or hooper>>

 

[qwerty51]

Why?

 

[jay-c]

because of smiths clear advantage when it comes to experience>
knowing warburton is captain i would direct so much of my energies to upsetting him knowing his inexperience could lead him to crack> and if u crack the captain it will have a massive influence on the team.
im not doubting hooper or gills abilities, but under pressure you want someone whos got the experience and is not going to make mistakes- even hooper and gills biggest supporters must admit that they dont know how they are going to perform on the big stage, when they are tired and shits going against them> we still see the kind of inexperienced mistakes that gill and hooper make under pressure that could cost us a game against the lions>

 

[Braveheart81]

because of smiths clear advantage when it comes to experience>
knowing warburton is captain i would direct so much of my energies to upsetting him knowing his inexperience could lead him to crack> and if u crack the captain it will have a massive influence on the team.
im not doubting hooper or gills abilities, but under pressure you want someone whos got the experience and is not going to make mistakes- even hooper and gills biggest supporters must admit that they dont know how they are going to perform on the big stage, when they are tired and shits going against them> we still see the kind of inexperienced mistakes that gill and hooper make under pressure that could cost us a game against the lions>

Or you could pick Hooper who played three tests off the bench against Warburton in the last year.

By the same token as you're saying that Smith has more experience, Hooper has infinitely more experience in test match rugby against Warburton.

I don't accept that Hooper and Gill are so far behind in terms of what they bring to the Wallabies. Smith will bring a lot but Hooper and Gill are routinely standout players in and and every team they play for. I have complete confidence that they will do the job.

 

[jay-c]

well i would suggest that theres not much between them in skills- each bringing different advantages> but in terms of what they bring to the wallabies im gunna have to think your quite wrong in that smiths leadership and experience brings a whole heck of a lot to the wallabies> consider his presence on not only the forwards around him but the impact on the opposition players>
let me reiterate- im sure each of them can do the job- im suggesting smith, simply by being g smith brings much more than hooper or gill could hope to- at least for the next few years> maybe when they have won what smith has... maybe
and what he brings cant be measured from the fantasy rugby stats page- its the impact that the players around him would attest too> if u make a mistake and smith sees u make it, how would u react? would it be different to if gill or hooper was along side you?

 

[Paradox]

Or you could pick Hooper who played three tests off the bench against Warburton in the last year.

By the same token as you're saying that Smith has more experience, Hooper has infinitely more experience in test match rugby against Warburton.

I don't accept that Hooper and Gill are so far behind in terms of what they bring to the Wallabies. Smith will bring a lot but Hooper and Gill are routinely standout players in and and every team they play for. I have complete confidence that they will do the job.

Wow, some weird logic - 100 tests don't mean much to some. Actually Smith has a far greater skill set than either at this stage and has a physical edge. If you don't see that, then you don't watch him much. You're comparing one of the Wallaby proven greats and best ever in his position for Oz with 2 blokes who could be superstars but are still relatively inexperienced.

Gill and Hooper would do the job but Smith will do it better.

Re watch Australia Vs New Zealand in Brisbane last year and look at the errors Hooper makes that allow NZ to get back into it. I think Gill came off the bench from memory and made a few doozies as well.

 

[Braveheart81]

Wow, some weird logic. Actually Smith has a far greater skill set than either at this stage and has a physical edge. If you don't see that, then you don't watch him much. You're comparing one of the Wallaby proven greats and best ever in his position for Oz with 2 blokes who could be superstars but are still relatively inexperienced.

Gill and Hooper would do the job but Smith will do it better.

I was more just trying to balance the hyperbole which seems to be saying that without Smith's experience the Wallabies have no hope.

I completely agree that Smith is still a brilliant player and will be a star for the Wallabies if he plays but it suddenly seems like Hooper and Gill's quality and test match performances in 2012 are being completely discounted. There seems to be a clamor that Smith needs to play for the Wallabies against the Lions at all costs otherwise we'll be doomed.

I really don't see it that way.

 

[Paradox]

I was more just trying to balance the hyperbole which seems to be saying that without Smith's experience the Wallabies have no hope.

I completely agree that Smith is still a brilliant player and will be a star for the Wallabies if he plays but it suddenly seems like Hooper and Gill's quality and test match performances in 2012 are being completely discounted. There seems to be a clamor that Smith needs to play for the Wallabies against the Lions at all costs otherwise we'll be doomed.

I really don't see it that way.

You're right Braveheart81, it's certainly not gloom and doom! I'd start Hooper myself if no Smith was available as he's a tough bastard and has those extra tests under his belt. I can't recall Gill doing anything at test level yet but has had a great super rugby season.

 

[jay-c]

really sick of this george smith precedent talk> hes contracted for an australian team for THIS year> that makes him eligible for the wallabies THIS year> what he does NEXT year is an issue for NEXT years wallabies > people gotta get off their high horse and think about whats best for australia THIS year> same argument could be made for falou> but im not touching that

 

[qwerty51]

no jay once again he does not have an ARU contract. That's the precedent.

 

[vidiot]

The Lions tour is a home development tour before the Rugby Championship, isn't it? We certainly seem to beat the Lions more often than the ABs. We really should be using it to get our exciting rookies up to speed.

 

[jay-c]

fair comment>
but hes not gunna be selected without an aru contract anyway and i dont think anyones suggesting he should be
>i believe its just a matter of paper work for that now

what i was pointing out was peoples reasoning for not selecting him was pissing me off>> this crap about development for the next world cup etc and this includes ewens article the other day>>
right now the lions is bigger than the world cup, in 2014/2015 we worry bout the world cup

 

[qwerty51]

if he he's selected he will be without an aru contract, the ARU will exclude him from their normal rules.

I agree, 'development' reasons are bullshit. I wouldn't pick him because he's not better than Hooper or Gill.

 

[jay-c]

id assume he'd need an aru contract- for insurance etc?
id pick him because he is better than gill or hooper> but i doubt either of us are gunna change our minds based on another anonymous posters point of view- theres still a lot of rugby to be played and there is a risk of injury which may decide it for us>> but lets let the next few weeks of s15 do the talking>>