Who Should Run The Wallabies Attack in 2013?

[Groucho]

It is a factor of cattle, not coaching.

You can polish a turd, but it is still a turd. Coaching won't turn a turd into a diamond, just a shinier turd.

You can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter.

 

[Quick Hands]

Put Cruden at 10 with the AB's and he looks like a champ.
Put Cruden at 10 with the Wob's and he would be average.
The difference?
In black he get front foot ball all day, and arguably the best players in the world outside him. The defence are worried about every player around him.
He is spoiled for options when in Black,in gold he is in survivor mode.
That has nothing to do with coaching,everything to do with cattle.

We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on that. To put it another way, put him in a back line where the other 6 players have played in the same postions for an extended period and he looks like a champ and put him in a back line where the other 6 play in different positions and in different combinations every match and he looks like a chump.

Difference? The backline know all the calls, know exactly what their team mates will do in a given situation, know where and when their team mates are going to run certain angles, understand with complete confidence what the next man will do in a defensive situation. So he can run the game without having to think too much about these things.

No doubt playing ability comes into it, but I think that you underestimate the influence that a good coach can make. (by coaching, I include the selection process and managing players) Good coaches in any sport are the ones who can make average players into above average members of a team.

 

[Quick Hands]

You can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter.

But you can use it as fertiliser and produce valuable and useful crops.

 

[I like to watch]

We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on that. To put it another way, put him in a back line where the other 6 players have played in the same postions for an extended period and he looks like a champ and put him in a back line where the other 6 play in different positions and in different combinations every match and he looks like a chump.

Difference? The backline know all the calls, know exactly what their team mates will do in a given situation, know where and when their team mates are going to run certain angles, understand with complete confidence what the next man will do in a defensive situation. So he can run the game without having to think too much about these things.

No doubt playing ability comes into it, but I think that you underestimate the influence that a good coach can make. (by coaching, I include the selection process and managing players) Good coaches in any sport are the ones who can make average players into above average members of a team.

How many different players did we use in the backline last year?
How many of them could make an AB's side?
I know it sounds defeatist, but there is no shame to losing to those guys ATM.
I'm not saying they are unbeatable, and we should just concede.
Just that man for man very few Oz guys could make an AB team, so it's logical that we would struggle against them. Logically that does not make the management incompetent does it?

 

[Ruggo]

It is a factor of cattle, not coaching.

You can polish a turd, but it is still a turd. Coaching won't turn a turd into a diamond, just a shinier turd.

You leave me with the impression that you know your shit fatprop.

 

[It is what it is]

You can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter.

No, a turd can be polished -

 

[Quick Hands]

How many different players did we use in the backline last year?
How many of them could make an AB's side?
I know it sounds defeatist, but there is no shame to losing to those guys ATM.
I'm not saying they are unbeatable, and we should just concede.
Just that man for man very few Oz guys could make an AB team, so it's logical that we would struggle against them. Logically that does not make the management incompetent does it?

Respectfully, it's got nothing to do with how many Wallabies would make the ABs or whether they are better than us or not. You're right, there is no shame losing to them and Wallaby coaches shouldn't be judged on win/loss to the ABs. Any comments that I have ever made about RD have never had anything to do with beating the ABs. My comments have always been about how the team go about their business and the point has been made by someone on another thread, that the longer they retain the ball, the less likely they are to score.

There are other teams in world rugby that we play and our backline should be going better than it is. In my view, and you and others are perfectly entitled to a different view, at least part of the reason is that the players appear confused at times on the field. At least part of the reason for this would be that there are frequent changes in personnel and positions in the team, there seems to be a lack of coherence and combination. In the last 2 years, we've lost to Samoa, Scotland and had a close call against Italy. The coach and his style of play/selections must take some responsibility for this.

I've never said that the coach should be able to turn every 5/8 into a Daniel Carter or a Steve Larkham. What I have said is that there are enough good players in Australia to put a good backline together. That doesn't mean that all 7 of them will be the best in the world in their position, it means that if there is consistency in selections then they will perform at their optimum level because each of them will have a clear understanding of their role and more importantly they will have intimate knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of their team mates. In short everyone will know what the other 6 players are going to do. It then becomes much easier when injuries occur to slot one player into the vacant position, that player is lifted by those around him.

 

[Dave Beat]

Respectfully, it's got nothing to do with how many Wallabies would make the ABs or whether they are better than us or not. You're right, there is no shame losing to them and Wallaby coaches shouldn't be judged on win/loss to the ABs. Any comments that I have ever made about RD have never had anything to do with beating the ABs. My comments have always been about how the team go about their business and the point has been made by someone on another thread, that the longer they retain the ball, the less likely they are to score.

There are other teams in world rugby that we play and our backline should be going better than it is. In my view, and you and others are perfectly entitled to a different view, at least part of the reason is that the players appear confused at times on the field. At least part of the reason for this would be that there are frequent changes in personnel and positions in the team, there seems to be a lack of coherence and combination. In the last 2 years, we've lost to Samoa, Scotland and had a close call against Italy. The coach and his style of play/selections must take some responsibility for this.

I've never said that the coach should be able to turn every 5/8 into a Daniel Carter or a Steve Larkham. What I have said is that there are enough good players in Australia to put a good backline together. That doesn't mean that all 7 of them will be the best in the world in their position, it means that if there is consistency in selections then they will perform at their optimum level because each of them will have a clear understanding of their role and more importantly they will have intimate knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of their team mates. In short everyone will know what the other 6 players are going to do. It then becomes much easier when injuries occur to slot one player into the vacant position, that player is lifted by those around him.

Quick Hands PM sent -
Correct.

• Macqueen with NSW back in the early 90's - didnt have a team of starts but playes always playing their position, cant remember the 5/8 - Tombs / Wells Edgerton - 3 players who excelled and didnt get the same acknowledgments as Horan & Little and Co but players he brought through were part of the backbone of the 91 world cup.
• Macqueen with the brumbies, lets face it other states unwanted, coaching, game plan, player mgmt, and players playing in their position. We may have a Dan Carter, or a Bernie Larkam within our group, how would we know when there is utter confusion.
• Macqueen with the Wobs, some of the players he brought through may not have been picked by other coaches, a keen eye, coaching, game plan, player mgmt, and players playing in their position. Andrew Walker excelled under McQueen, Macqueen brought through GSmith.

Okay I have chosen a freak of a coach, but why not use one of the best - at the moment - coaching, game plan, player mgmt, and players playing in their position - sucks.

 

[cyclopath]

I think a big part of the problem is the seeming fascination over the past decade in Australia with utility-style backs. So many players have played 3,4 or more positions in the backline, both at provincial and national level.
Giteau, Rogers, and lately JOC (James O'Connor), AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Beale, McCabe, Barnes, To'omua, and even the constant shuffling ( and calling for shuffling in these fora) of all the centres so who knows whether any of them are better at 12 or 13. Then talk of great wingers like Ioane being pushed into 13.
When promising youngsters come into the NZ provincial system, you see good young 10s at 10. Good outside backs stay at 11, 14 or 15 ( where interchangeability is more logical).
Sure, some freaks have changed positions with aplomb, but in general terms 10, 12, 13 and 15 are pretty specific in their requirements. I think we have struggled greatly with players being allowed consistency, rather a mentality of getting all the talent on the field somehow has prevailed, and mostly not worked.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Groucho]

No, a turd can be polished -

Ha, that's fantastic!

 

[ACT Crusader]

I think a big part of the problem is the seeming fascination over the past decade in Australia with utility-style backs. So many players have played 3,4 or more positions in the backline, both at provincial and national level.
Giteau, Rogers, and lately JOC (James O'Connor), AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Beale, McCabe, Barnes, To'omua, and even the constant shuffling ( and calling for shuffling in these fora) of all the centres so who knows whether any of them are better at 12 or 13. Then talk of great wingers like Ioane being pushed into 13.
When promising youngsters come into the NZ provincial system, you see good young 10s at 10. Good outside backs stay at 11, 14 or 15 ( where interchangeability is more logical).
Sure, some freaks have changed positions with aplomb, but in general terms 10, 12, 13 and 15 are pretty specific in their requirements. I think we have struggled greatly with players being allowed consistency, rather a mentality of getting all the talent on the field somehow has prevailed, and mostly not worked.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Good post cyclo. The other big thing when ABs have had success is that the 12/13 combo has been settled. IMO they are the most difficult defensively in the backs and when they are not on the same page in attack it becomes blatantly obvious.

OZ have been in the same boat as well.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think a big part of the problem is the seeming fascination over the past decade in Australia with utility-style backs. So many players have played 3,4 or more positions in the backline, both at provincial and national level.
Giteau, Rogers, and lately JOC (James O'Connor), AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Beale, McCabe, Barnes, To'omua, and even the constant shuffling ( and calling for shuffling in these fora) of all the centres so who knows whether any of them are better at 12 or 13. Then talk of great wingers like Ioane being pushed into 13.
When promising youngsters come into the NZ provincial system, you see good young 10s at 10. Good outside backs stay at 11, 14 or 15 ( where interchangeability is more logical).
Sure, some freaks have changed positions with aplomb, but in general terms 10, 12, 13 and 15 are pretty specific in their requirements. I think we have struggled greatly with players being allowed consistency, rather a mentality of getting all the talent on the field somehow has prevailed, and mostly not worked.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

2 impressions:
most/many/a lot/some all black first 5's start at 2nd 5 - including the great DC: this reflects their view that 12 is a 2nd 5 and not a centre - as I understand their reasoning.
As someone pointed out on this forum - nearly every back in or around Wallaby level played 5/8 as a kid because thats where we put our best player.
By contrast DC played 1/2 in his school 1st XV - a position we often ignore in junior rugby.

 

[Quick Hands]

I think a big part of the problem is the seeming fascination over the past decade in Australia with utility-style backs. So many players have played 3,4 or more positions in the backline, both at provincial and national level.
Giteau, Rogers, and lately JOC (James O'Connor), AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Beale, McCabe, Barnes, To'omua, and even the constant shuffling ( and calling for shuffling in these fora) of all the centres so who knows whether any of them are better at 12 or 13. Then talk of great wingers like Ioane being pushed into 13.
When promising youngsters come into the NZ provincial system, you see good young 10s at 10. Good outside backs stay at 11, 14 or 15 ( where interchangeability is more logical).
Sure, some freaks have changed positions with aplomb, but in general terms 10, 12, 13 and 15 are pretty specific in their requirements. I think we have struggled greatly with players being allowed consistency, rather a mentality of getting all the talent on the field somehow has prevailed, and mostly not worked.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

And judging by the 19s at the last JWC, a lot of this might be coming from the HPU.

We're making good players look very ordinary with this constant shuffling and reshuffling of backs.

 

[I like to watch]

Forget about constant reshuffling in regards to the 19's.
There were numerous complaints about selections.
Almost to a man, the contentious selections were shown to be sub standard.
If you send a sub standard squad, expect a sub standard result.

 

[TOCC]

There will always be contentious decisions when it comes to selections in rep teams

 

[Quick Hands]

There will always be contentious decisions when it comes to selections rep teams

Maybe we could get Nuci to come back and do an independent review of the HPU/19s programme?