Larkham out!

[no.8]

I like many have been wondering why JC has been try his best to make Gitts a half back. Yes he's good, but I think Gregan is better (I'm not saying he's the best half back though!)

But you know as well as I that Gitts is a magiciain and can play brilliant at 12 and 10.
Basically SNM made a total hash of it for the Waratahs all year, against the Welsh and this weekend against JAB's in Hamilton.

Now Larkham for 2 games in a row has been playing like a 2nd grade player.
Dropping balls, over passing, under passing, kicks not going to touch (Morne Styne - Thanks Bernie!)
Where does that leave us?
Do we go into the All Blacks game and hope that Larkham wakes up?

Or do we move Gitts to 10, Spanner to 12 (he should be there for crying out loud!) and Larkham to the bench?

A risk? Leaving on the field is a risk as well!
What do you think?

[frontrow]

For fear of upsetting the apple cart i guess we could leave him there, but maybe a week on the bench wouldn't hurt and also allow Spanner to have a legit shot...

[Burgs]

My initial thought is that you are a hard marker #8!
The thing with Bernie is that when the things he does "wrong" occur they are a step away from brilliance at the same time.
His booming kick down the far touch was a bee's appendage away from going out and seeing the Wallabies deep in Boks territory.
At that level the chasers should have been there to ensure the ball didn't get run so far back.
Steyn's first drop, well if 5/8s start playing to nullify a freak talent like that you won't see more than twenty metre gains from inside the defensive 22.
I think if there is a scapegoat hunt needed then we should be focusing on #15 before #10 as his match cost us fair more field position than Bernies did.

[AndyS]

Our kicking was poor from both 10 and 15, although you're right Burgs, there wasn't that much in it for Larkham. I may be wrong, but my greater concern was that I don't remember Larkham taking on the line once during that match. If he is intent on staying out of traffic, I'd've said they're better off playing Gits or whoever instead. If Bernie suddenly starts challenging the line in the WC, I wonder what that might do to the timing of everyone around him? And if he then picks up an injury as a result, we'd better have something more than a part-timer to fall back on.

[The EnForcer]

I was a little disapointed with Larkham but not to the extent that I would drop him. He made errors but who doesn't and with his experience and undeniable skill, well it's a big risk not to have him there. Maybe give Spanner a run soon though but Larkham is the man still.

[Burgs]

Also can't recall him taking on the line in attack Andy however he was hardly hiding in defence, he had some huge tackles and, as usual (except when he gets injured ) just got on with the job next phase.
I'm confident that Gits has #10 (and #9) covered if required but, while I would love to see Stanners starting, I think the current format has the best player for the job in the best position.
With Gits being so versatile the traditional #20/21 is already on the field and it allows us to have an extra Forward or Outside Back.
The day may come when injury gets us caught out however there is enough experience throughout the 22 to cover positions to play out a match.
While I am dead against Gits starting at #9, the experiment has allowed us the luxury of not needing a specialist Scrum Half on the Bench.

[AndyS]

Fair call on the defense, but that has to be a given - that is the opposition looking for him. My point was more that he is not looking for the break himself, which makes the Wallabies attack very predictable...back 10 yards from the scrum, two steps across, then either Giteau or a cut out to Mortlock with the defense already up in their face. Mind you, it applies to the back three as well - field the kick, long pass to midfield, another long pass to the other wing, five steps forward and the chasers arrive just ahead of the drifting defense. No one seems game to take on the line, commit defenders and then offload.

I agree though, having Giteau's versatility is a bonus provided everyone knows the play and timings with him at 10. How many times has he been run there for the Wallabies?

[no.8]

His booming kick down the far touch was a bee's appendage away from going out and seeing the Wallabies deep in Boks territory.

As always Burgs you always see the positives. But the truth of the matter is the Wallabies faltered twice.
1. The desperate Springboks we're clocking up phase after phase in Wallaby territory and getting absolutely nowhere on the scoreboard. Each Australian trusting his fellow team mates to take their man and wait patiently until the South African's erred in some way. Except someone forget to tell Rocky Elsom about this trust and 25 metre out directly in front of his own post he foolishly handled the ball on floor not once, not twice, but 3 times in a ruck giving the official no option but to penalise him. Thus Percy had a gift 3 points and Victor's men closed the margin.

2. Late into the game as the tiredness and fatigue set in on the 70 minute players and the recently substituted players were probing for a scoring opportunity.
It came with a bee's appendage attached. The curly headed spotty faced Morne Steyn returned a "really should have been a touch finder at this point in the game" between Wallaby posts.
Another 3 pointer that levelled of the scores and was draining my V CASH!

Now the easy drop goal seemed easier for a team with the momentum.

Larkham is a great player but I think he was tired and sore. All game he gave Bakkies Botha and Skulk Bugger a taste of his knuckles (I counted at least 2 occasions for each).
They obviously had hit a nerve, that put Bernie off his game. Uncharacteristic error we would have said 2 or 3 season ago are becoming more and more frequent and sad to say the norm.
If he'd had a couple of weeks off and no Autumn tour of Europe perhaps he'd be firing on all cylinders now.

The bench with 20 or 30 minutes in second half to perhaps pile on some extra points or maybe even save us from the Black death I feel is the answer.
No experiments we know Gitts can play 10 and 12.
This give Connolly a great weapon in reserve and more choice over the life of a game.
Next we have to get Latham or Shepherd into that 15 jersey and Huxley...well let's not go there right now!

[Burgs]

To be fair 8, you have gone from wanting him dropped at least to the bench to now saying he is a great player but he should have been subbed when he ran out of puff.
Not sure how he is to blame for Elsoms penalty (though totally agree with your take on it, trust etc) but the "bee's appendage" I was talking about wasn't the first drop goal, it was the one on the other side which was run back.
It was a huge kick into no mans land but refused to roll/bounce the last inch.
If that kick went out or the chasers were doing their job then the rest wouldn't have occured. That is the luck of the game I guess and is hard to put on anyones head.
In terms of taking it to the line or not, I guess that comes down to balancing whatever Knuckles told him pre match and intuition on the night.
I am pretty confident that pre match the instructions would have been to get the ball to Gits as the wider play maker and for Bernie the job was just provide clean ball.
The Boks were awesome in cover defence all night and I really can't think of any occassion that a result other than a pummeling would have occured if Bernie had run it up.
To me, it is a classic case for having Stanners on the bench as he could have been on at #12, regardless of where Gits went, and started bashing it through the weakening outside backs.
I agree that a likely change would be Bernie off, Gits to #10 and Stanners to #12 however last week if Stanners was there instead of Ashley-Cooper I would have dragged Huxley, dropped Bernie to #15, Gits to #10 and Stanners #12.

Trestle may dispute that I "always see the positives"

[no.8]

I agree that a likely change would be Bernie off, Gits to #10 and Stanners to #12 however last week if Stanners was there instead of Ashley-Cooper I would have dragged Huxley, dropped Bernie to #15, Gits to #10 and Stanners #12.

Trestle may dispute that I "always see the positives"

Bernie was to blame for Rocky's misdemeanour's, Rocky was too blame for that and should be replaced by Chisholm or McMenimem.

I like the combination with Bernie at 15, except when Latham comes back.

Trestle's black heart doesn't can't see the good light that radiate from your's!