0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Not the bullet dodger, more Burgess the nobody other than Sam Cordingly's even close yet
C'mon the![]()
![]()
Plus Vickerman is south african and can prob understand Afrikaans. So he might even figure out the line out calls somewhere along the game.
Im a fan of Sharpe and wish he was chosen. but then again, Dean's reasoning of ommitting him is quite logical. Why carry 3 specialist locks, when you can carry more versatile players who can play both 4,5 and 6. Dean's probably liked the aggressiveness of Horwill more and the experience of Vickerman in line outs just overshadowed Sharpe's strengths.
But then again, i think Dean's shld change the hookers. Maybe give Adam Freier a go back in the starting/bench and even bring Tai Pan back.
I think this is going to happen a lot more with the ELV's, specialist positions will need to be filled by more adaptable players. Front row players will have to be fitter and faster than ever before and undoubtedly weigh less.
Deans sights who he wants very quickly and has a vision of where the team is going and who he wants to take on the ride, I just don't think he sees Sharpie as a part of it.
Personally I can't see why the Brown Dog hasn't been given the nod yet, the makings of a very good flanker or No 8 for the men in gold.
Lineouts aside, I do wonder whether Deans is sending Sharpie a bit of a message along the lines of preferring his forwards in the hard places rather than seagulling around as ball carriers...
I also think that it is Sharpie's work around the ground rather than the lineout which has resulted in his omision. The words of Deans "you cannot hope to prosper at international level without meeting the physicality of a test match" are ringing in my ears.
I hope Sharpie gets the chance to prove me and others wrong however.
and yet every bit of training footage I see I get lots of images of locks hitting the ball up in the centres, why would Deansey drop them for doing what they do at training without steppping into the drill and telling them to do it again with the locks in the right place.
There is also the school of thought which plays the locks about four metres apart in the centre of the field in defence to ensure that one of them arrives quickly to each breakdown, leaving the other out in the centres if the ball is played away from them.
C'mon the![]()
![]()
How else would you interpret comments about versatility? I remember a discussion at one of the pre-season games(?) indicating that thinking on the ELVs was that a Pusey type of lock was expected to be the go. Of course, then Hockings had a run and they decided that wasn't such a bad option either, but perhaps the original thought may be the lines along which Deans is also thinking.
I think you've got to look a the touring squad though.
If anything happens on tour, you want to be able to have a team that is versatile rather than having to struggle in certain aspects.
I think its important in every team that you need to start off with at least 1 specialist lock and against teams like the ABs and Boks, you need 2 specialist locks, or else risk losing at line outs.
Pusey was kind of neither here nor there. You had Hockings and Sharpe who are both specialist locks and above the pecking order for Pusey. Then you had Brown, Pocock and Fava who were all above the pecking order as well. So only time Pusey would have been used was when either locks were injured, or when they needed someone on the bench to play anywhere in the second row(eg 4,5,6 and 7).
Sharpe's tendency to hit the ball up at the centres is part of Dean's game plans. He held a training session for coaches when in perth. And he told the coaches that he liked hitting the ball up there away from the usual pillar post key, as they tended to be able to gain more ground. After all a back will tend to struggle to tackle a lock.
Still reckon it all smacks of mind games - Sharpie is one of the most consistent performers the Wallabies has ever had - reckon it might be enforced resting as they have a fairly hard touring season ahead of them and Vickerman is currently available. That option will not be available in a couple of months - reckons Deans likes to stick with a core of people but he needs them to be keen and fighting for their spot. The old selection routine is out - Morlock has had a rest as has Smith - next Giteau ?
61 years between Grand SlamsWas the wait worth it - Ya betta baby
but you cannot base your future on players that will not there next year, get rid of them now and lets stick to the ones that are sticking with us
mabye he knows what he needs to do for the future, and sharpie has been left behind to start preparing for it prop53?
its also about fielding the best team possible. if sharpie wasnt performing the way deans wanted him to, then his not going on tour is for the good of the team. these boys dont play for fun no-more. its about winning.
i agree with jono on fielding the best team possible.
If that was the case of fielding the future players, then Larkham, Gregan etc should not have played last year.
tri nations test matches are about bringing the best of each country's rugby resources and matching it against each other. I also agree that we need to feature future players as well. And thats what Dean is doing with guys like Horwill, Barnes etc. If thats the argument u make, then why not bring in Kurtley Beale to play. Or even better James O Connor? Why not start them now against the likes of the All Blacks?
We need to be competitive against these other nations. Vickerman is a fantastic asset to the Wallabies and carries the experience that not many others in the team will have. Sharpe does as well, but its a shame that the coach thinks otherwise of him. Just hope he picks up the pieces and makes a comeback in the near future.