0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Wayne Smith | August 11, 2009
Article from: The Australian
FORMER Wallabies coach John Connolly says the moment has arrived for his successor Robbie Deans to consider reviving the promising 2006 experiment of using Matt Giteau at halfback.
Pressure is mounting on Deans for a change at halfback after Luke Burgess again put his side under unnecessary pressure with wayward passes in the weekend's Tri-Nations Test against the Springboks in Cape Town.
His erratic service directly cost the Wallabies three points at Newlands when hooker Stephen Moore was isolated having to scramble back to collect one of his errant passes in the 12th minute, allowing Morne Steyn to kick his third penalty goal. But the price could have been as high as 10 points, with another misdirected Burgess pass killing a highly promising attack early in the second half.
It was Deans who made Burgess a Wallaby and he has stuck to him, believing he can develop into a world-class halfback. But in the Wallabies' two Tri-Nations Tests so far this season, the Waratahs No 9 has struggled to provide any real direction from the ruckbase, and his combination with five-eighth Giteau is so laboured it creaks.
It would be unfair to lay the blame for Giteau's own unimposing form at the feet of Burgess, but the Wallabies cannot afford to have their point-of-difference player not making a difference.
The simplest option would be for Deans to substitute Will Genia for Burgess at halfback, a switch that worked well for Australia in the final 25 minutes in Cape Town.
Indeed, rather than limiting himself to that straight swap, Deans could go the whole way, installing this year's Reds pairing of Genia and Berrick Barnes as his new halves pairing and moving Giteau out to his original Test position, inside centre.
Barnes won a host of new admirers for the way he took charge of proceedings at key moments in Cape Town, most especially in the brief period Australia was down to 13 men on either side of halftime.
So well did he direct operations that the Springboks scarcely had a chance to exploit their numerical advantage.
Before his successor went down that path, Connolly said, he should at least re-examine restoring Giteau to halfback - the position he filled in all four Tests of the 2006 spring tour.
"The dilemma is that Giteau is the best 9 (halfback), 10 (five-eighth) and 12 (inside centre)," Connolly said. "But as a halfback, his good left boot means the Wallabies don't have to pass the ball backwards before putting it into touch."
As vital as Giteau's kicking game could yet be at halfback, especially with the box kick now, regrettably, dominating proceedings, the best argument that can be made for the switch is a statistical one.
If Giteau is, as most critics would agree, Australia's best and most dangerous player, he needs to have the ball in his hands more than any other player. And the place for that is halfback.
The IRB's Game Analysis of last year's Tri-Nations series reveals the Wallabies halfback had the ball in hand more than anyone else in the entire tournament. A total of 397 passes - 46 per cent of all passes thrown by the Wallabies in the series - were made by the halfback.
As for sceptics who think the best playmaker should always be at five-eighth, the Springboks are doing very nicely with the world's best player, Fourie du Preez, at halfback.
Ultimately, Connolly realised the best use of his slender resources was to stick with Giteau at inside centre for the 2007 World Cup and continue with George Gregan at halfback, but the 2006 experiment, while discontinued, was anything but a failure.
As radical as Connolly's suggestion might be, a Wallabies 9-10-12 combination of Giteau, Barnes and James O'Connor at inside centre would be a handful for opposing defences. All three pose a genuine running and kicking threat.
It may be that with Deans already having to find a new centre combination following the loss of injured skipper Stirling Mortlock he does not want to feed more changes than necessary into the system.
Even installing O'Connor at fullback to release Adam Ashley-Cooper to replace Mortlock at outside centre brings more than enough upheaval.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...015651,00.html
If feels weird and uncomfortable to admit it but I actually agree with Connolly here. Barnes has seemed at lot better and more competant than Giteau at running the show. He was pretty awesome in the time we had only 13 men at keeping things under control. Burgess has had one good performance this year and needs to be dropped. Maybe not for the 3Ns but I'd give it a go on the Euro tour.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
9. Genia
10. Barnes
12. Giteau
Gits has one poor game and everyone wants him to move to every weak spot in the team.. cmon guys play him where hes at his strongest.. 12 is perfect for him always has been. 10 is the next best and 9 .. well whats wrong with Genia? Valentine?
Burgess has never been my favorite, his passing is up shyte creek but i wouldnt move gits there at the expense of the back line.
I'd like to see that![]()
61 years between Grand SlamsWas the wait worth it - Ya betta baby
christ i wouldn't![]()
War is Gods may of teaching Americans Geography
It's nothing personal to Gits. It's not even about him playing a poor game. It's simply the way the game seems to be going. Genia looks the goods but doesn't have as much test experience and I haven't really seen him kick yet (not that that's a bad thing just an unknown). Barnes just seems to be more natural in the 10 role. Now if Giteau and Barnes did a straight swap I think that'd also be good I just think Giteau at 9 seems to work because it allows for a bigger 12 to handle the bigger 12s everyone else seems to be using in test rugby these days.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
Genia is a MUCH better 9 than Giteau. Genia has the best pass I've seen on any Australian player and is as good a runner and tackler as Bugess IMO. People have bemoaned this yeatr that Giteau's long ball is not even good enough for a 10, so how is the answer to play him at 9??
Agree with those above who suggest a Genia-Barnes-Giteau halves combo.
Suspect AAC will move to 13 and JOC in at 15.
Poor old Crossy hasn't had the opportunities this year and with AAC's form I doubt Deans would drop him to the bench.
---------- Post added at 12:39 ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 ----------
Cross will defo be coming in on the bench though
If only i could praise more than once for a single post!
I'm impressed by Conolly's remarkable ability to miss the obvious, even when he's stated it in the article......no wonder the Wallabies failed under him.
---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 ----------
replacement halfback isn't much better!
C'mon the![]()
![]()
9. Genia
10. Barnes
11. Mitchell
12. Giteau
13. Cross
14. Hynes/Turner
15. AAC
20. Valentine
21. Hynes/Turner
22. JOC
Genia & Barnes have played alongside each other more than Genia & Gits have, and Gits & Crossy have also worked together. I think keeping the partnerships that they have already developed would work better than trying to form new ones at this stage.
Alternatively:
9. Valentine
10. Giteau
11. Mitchell
12. Barnes
13. AAC
14. Hynes/Turner
15. JOC
20. Genia
21. Cross
22. Hynes/Turner
Obviously Valo would have to be re-called for either to happen but he and Gits work well together and if he came in at scrumhalf I think Gits' performance at 10 would improve. In the case of JOC needing to leave the field AAC would move to fullback and Crossy would come in at 13. AAC and JOC can both play fullback and AAC and Crossy can both play 13 so it makes sense for all 3 to be included in the team somewhere.
OK you are all going to crucify me here but if it didn't work for the Force why would it work for the Wallabies.
I'm definitely pro force but the backs did not exactly convert the procession they received this year my personal thoughts on that centre around leadership.
(please block this post so Mudskipper can't see this)
Last edited by Thequeerone; 11-08-09 at 19:15.
61 years between Grand SlamsWas the wait worth it - Ya betta baby