Knuckles' plea: keep Gits in the halves

[NewsBot]

Knuckles' plea: keep Gits in the halves

Wallabies coach John Connolly will plead with the Western Force to play Matt Giteau at scrum half in the next Super 14 season.

[Burgs]

Let the battle of the ego's commence

[Sagerian]

John Mitchell will win that one.

[Jess]

now all that hoo ha about Mitchell saboutaging the Wallabies chances at winning the 2007 RWC will start up again. Awesome.

We didn't pay 4 and a half million for a new half back... we have one of those already (granted he had a shocker last year but here's to hoping 2007 is his year). We paid that much for the best number 12 in the world (pretty much) and so in my opinion it is definitely up to Mitchell to play him wherever he sees fit... ie. number 12.

Leave him alone Connolly! It's his call... not yours!

[Burgs]

I agree that the S14 Coach should have the final say regarding selections.
I also think that the National Coach should be able to have some input in the process in terms of seasonal (as oppossed to weekly) outcomes as that is why S14 was basically created.
I am a big supporter of all things Mitch however I think he made an error of judgement to take such a hard line position in regard to Giteau.
He is now left with nowhere to go if it is actually the best thing to do, or if he is faced with two injured Half Backs in a match.
He should have at least said he would "discuss the matter with Connolley" or "wait and see how the experiment went for the Wallabies".
Mitch has come a long way since his All Black days but I think he let his ego rule his head with this one unfortunately.

[Sagerian]

We didn't pay 4 and a half million for a new half back... we have one of those already (granted he had a shocker last year but here's to hoping 2007 is his year). We paid that much for the best number 12 in the world (pretty much) and so in my opinion it is definitely up to Mitchell to play him wherever he sees fit... ie. number 12.

You raise an excellent point regarding the money paid, but still.. What if Giteau at 9 is in fact our best chance at winning the world cup? Wouldn't you like to explore that option? Larkham was a fullback once you know... Staniforth was once a wing too...

[Jess]

I'm all for the Wallabies winning the World Cup but I'm also still a huge Gregan fan and i'm confident he's the man to lead the team in France.

I don't think Connolly's 'Giteau Experiment' went extraordinarily well.. yeah he was good but he's the kind of player who has talent coming out of his ears and could pretty much play anywhere in the backline. I think Giteau is an incredibly exciting number 12 and I'd love to see him stay in the position that he has really made his own.

Of course I want the Wallabies to have the best chance of winning the world cup but for me... that chance isn't improved by having Gits at number 9.

That's just what me thinks.

[Sagerian]

All good points again and maybe it's my fondness of Staniforth in combination with my not-fondness of Henjak, but I'd still like to see more of Gits at 9. He is a very flashy and exciting player, I'd still love to see him spread the ball around the backline more when he's at 12.


The Wallabies attack has been so predictable for a few years, while Giteau might not be a 'classical' scrumhalf like Gregan, he complimented the backline just as well I thought and adds an extra element of unpredictability to the attack.


At he end of the day, Mitchell is going to play Gits where he likes, but Connelly will do the same. All Mitchell is doing by not playing him there is not comfirming in Connelly's mind if Giteau has what it takes at 9, so more test time will be needed to 'confirm or bust' this myth. Test time we need to gel combinations, not mess around with the lineups.

[Jess]

Well I'm also a big Staniforth fan and I'm far from impressed with Henjak's performance in the super 14 last year but I don't think that bringing Gits in as a number 9 will provide much of a benefit for the team of Mitchell for that matter.

I have nothing against perhaps experimenting again with Gits at number 9 during next year's super 14 for maybe some of the 'less challenging' games but I wouldn't like to see number 9 become Git's official and cemented position.

I guess we find ourselves in a unusual predicament in that we just have too many talented backs to choose from!

And at the end of the day, like you said Sage, Mitchell will be the one who determines these position choices.

Drew Mitchell expressed an interest in playing fullback but I think Sheps is just doing a too good a job there and while Henjak had a poor year this year I think him at 9 with O'Young coming on for him is the way to go.

I don't envy John Mitchell as he has one hell of a lot of tough decisions to make and it wouldn't make his life any easier having knuckles looking over his shoulder and trying to pressure him into making certain calls.

I'm confident Mitchell will make the right calls in the end and while Connolly can make suggestions, he can't select Mitchell's team for him so I hope he knows when to talk and when to back off and let the bald man do his thing.

Here's hoping.

[Sagerian]

Once again Jess, great post.

[Burgs]

Great posts Jess.
For me though with regard to the actual players, as oppossed to the Coaching debate, it comes down to a few simple points.
1. Gits has a far greater chance of impacting the outcome of the game at Half Back than Henjak (or O'Young). At #9 he holds a "Quarter Back" type role, at #12 he gets what he is given.
2. Staniforth brings far more in crashing the ball up and in defence/tackle, has a far higher work rate and still is elusive when required which is the only real stand out to the Giteau #12 game. Against Scotland Stanners' second and third acts in the rucks and mauls we have never consistently seen from Gits.
3. Staniforth is wasted on the Wing and we have at least three fine options there anyway.
Mitch will have tough decisions to make but will make them tougher if he isn't prepared to take counsel from his peers and in fact rules out things they suggest.

[Sagerian]

Spot on Burgs, could not agree more.

[Jess]

Maybe we should tell Mitchell and Connolly to log on to TWF and check out this debate... very insightful... they might be able to learn a thing or 2. hehe.

[James]

As if the Brumbies would have ever played Matt Giteau at 9. I figure if John Connolly doesn't have the balls to make a decision about George Gregan (and stick with it) why does Mitch have to do anything? If he gets rid of Gregan that says 'We need Giteau' and sure perhaps then Giteau should play 9, if he doesn't you have Cords and Gregs so why not get Giteau prepped for Fly-half where there is more of a potential vaccum.

[JediKnight]

Great topic this one.....the underlying theme is....Connolly, keep your nose out of the selections!!!

Personally, I think that Digby will struggle to get a starting position in 2007 & he'll become more of an impact player from the bench. He lost the ball too many times in tackles, going into contact for my liking. Maybe if he took off those stupid gloves!

We have 2 quality #9s (Henjak & O'Young) and on latest viewing, Henjak has pulled his socks up. Also, as was noted elsewhere, he hasn't been used to playing 80mins previously so it was a step up for him. #10 will be the interesting selection as Giteau could slot in there but that would be harsh on Hilgendorff or Mackay, although both have struggled with injuries. Certainly to start with, I think that Mitchell (John) will play Mitchell (Drew) on the wing with Shepherd at full-back, although Cam did play well on the wing for the Wallabies.