Picking PLayers for their strengths...or not picking them for their weaknesses?

There was an interesting debate came up in the club section whilst speaking about Christian Wade, the young Wasps winger..

I asked if you would thow him in on the tour to SA this summer...as he is simply electric in attack...and actually has a fair defence...

Another poster however suggested he wouldnt as Wade is too small....to which i said well so were Shane Williams, Jason Robinson, Vincent Clerc etc...

So here's the question...

Is this a particularly English trait that we look at peoples faults then look at their strengths...Or Do all national teams tend to judge people on their weaknesses foremost...

Would you be inclined to take someone like Wade for his ability to really attack the boks...like Johnny May etc or do you think nope he's too small and would get butchered in SA??

Have we also missed out on others like Varndell and JSD for similar reasons...?

I think Ireland are the exact same to be honest. We expect our younger or less experienced players to be practically perfect in their game before giving them a chance internationally. It is annoying honestly because sometimes as you say the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. I mean Wales seem to give their players chances, and it has paid off. Many people were saying Cuthbert is far too weak defensively, yet Gatland obviously saw his attacking prowess and gave him a shot.

It is definitely something the English do a lot and its so frustrating.
Wade is still the premierships top try scorer and hes been out injured for a good 2/3 months, why wouldn't we take him to South Africa he's looked like he has that something extra every time i've seen him play from under 20's level up until now in the senior game.
I would absolutely take him to South Africa, he's surprisingly strong in contact as well so i wouldn't worry about him there.

Ah so maybe you guys think its a more Northern Hemisphere trait...whereas the Kiwis, Aussies etc look at the their strengths and say hey..we can work on the weaknesses...

I think we need to take a few more risks, though keeping weaknesses in mind is important (let's not play Cips because he is weak in several fundamental areas for a 10 and from what I know, in his attitude, which is a much harder weakness to accommodate or forgive) but the key is if we overlook weaknesses to play people for their strengths and then next game their weakness pops up and they get manhandled by a bigger, now useless Welsh centre or fail to tackle one of the best attacking players from New Zealand in a scramble defence, then we MUST stick by them to help them adapt to the International game or adapt our game to their strengths and not just discard them. If they were good enough to be picked when we all knew about the weaknesses beforehand but thought the strengths overcame them, they are still good enough after they confirm the problem and the best way to counter the weakness is by testing it at the highest level

It's an interesting point Geordie and I think it is certainly true to say that you could define coaches by virtue of how much risk they are willing to take on the benefits and detriments of the players that they choose. Not an English trait, necessarily.

Take Andy Robinson.

The players that did the most good for Scotland in the recent 6N were Stuart Hogg, Lee Jones, David Denton and Ross Rennie. All of these players were only given their chance because of injury to an incumbent in the position (e.g. Rory Lamont, Kelly Brown) or because the incumbent was playing so badly that it was not possible to choose anyone else (e.g. Johnny Beattie, Max Evans, Simon Danielli, etc).

Many Scotland fans feel that Robinson's selections are too 'safe' - i.e. he focuses on players who have a broad but average skillset (Graham Morrison, for example) at the expense of players who have obvious potential weaknesses (their size in the case of Jones and Hogg or their international inexperience in the case of Denton) but who have something that can change a game. I think that Gatland is braver in that respect.

It depends whom you are playing too. You could feasibly close out a tight game against the Boks by playing 'pill up the jumper' stuff, but to win against the All Blacks, you would have to score tries.

I think that we often forget that no player is perfect and even players like Carter that have a 90% perfect skillset for their position are unbelivably rare. You don't need to look any further than Timoci Matanavou for Toulouse against Edinburgh - he was specifically targeted for his weakess under the high ball and that cost his side a try. On the other hand, the try he then scored was something that nobody else on the pitch could have done.

Thats it George...

An example could be..Quade Cooper...who's defence is attrocious, yet the aussies happily play him because his offensive play can be quite sublime...where as England would cry out if Cipriani was picked because his defence is attrocious...regardless of what he can offer offensively.
Thus we get Farrell...a very mature, strong defensive player...with (at the moment) a seriously limited offensive game.

Likewise someone like JSD..England have missed out on one of the most talented guys of his generation (aisde from injuries) because he has a suspect defence....SO WHAT! The guy was and still is phenominal.....

Now the thing is you pick him for his ability...then get the defence coach working his backside off improving JSD's defence...and then by god what a player you have....

To be fair my issues with Cips are not that he can't tackle but that he won't, his kicking out of hand is also suspect, I think he's too selfish to play a team
Sport, Josh Lewsey found him hateful enough to punch him when they were on the same team, he's overconfident in his abilities etc mostly (aside from the low style of kicking) attitude issues that I have seen little evident he has sorted.

Okay yes Cips was maybe a bad example...but rather than the mental and personality issues about Cipriani (i actually wouldnt have him in the England team either because of that) i was trying to point out the way we look at players physical skills as opposed to the Aussies or Kiwis etc...

GeordieFalcon wrote:...where as England would cry out if Cipriani was picked because his defence is attrocious...regardless of what he can offer offensively.
Thus we get Farrell...a very mature, strong defensive player...with (at the moment) a seriously limited offensive game.

Interesting arguement. Between the 2 i wouldn't say it was anything to do with style of play - it's more the personality. Cipriani may well be stunning offensivley, but is well renowned for being an utter tool that requires huge amount of baby sitting; even the Auusies have had enough of his nonsense. Whereas with Farrell, you have a player that is just as gifted as Cipriani, but happens to be the polar opposite in both play style and more importantly attitude. Cool head, team player, doesn't subscribe to the hype.

Being a team sport i'd pick the person that serves the team most effectivley, and that certainly wouldn't be Cipriani.

Simple, it depends if a players strengths outway their weaknesses and whether or not they fit into the overall structure of the team and style of play.

Another factor to consider is the age profile of the player and whether their weaknesses can be rectified through training, coaching and further experience.

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here. It depends on the player and team.

We do this a fair bit in Ireland. We tend to prefer all rounders who are jack of all trades from time to time. There have been lots of players doing really well who have been neglected due to not having a full skill set and us not harnessing what they can actually do well.

There is nothing wrong with a limited player if they fit into the team. As Rodders says there is no right or wrong answer - depends on the team and if their weakness can be trained out of them or masked.

In addition to Rodders comments, I think you have to consider the position of the player you are discussing and the balance of the team i.e. some positions you can utilise the abilities of a player and hide (or compensate for) their weaknesses, whereas others (and other parts of the same 'unit') you need someone who is reasonably consistent across the range of skill-sets or who has a particular strength to compensate for their colleague's weakness.

A few examples that come to mind:
Stringer - one of the best technicians at scrum half of the last decade, but offers naff all as a sniping runner (although considering he is 7 stone soaking wet, he's never shirked defensive responsibilities). To compensate, he has played alongside one of the best tactical 10s (again with his limitations) and with a back row that included 3 ball carriers.

Morgan: Great ball carrying 8, but is relatively short (6' 3" iirc) so isn't much of a lineout operator. Playing alongside Croft this becomes a non-issue, but would potentially be a problem if we picked Robshaw at 6 and Steffon Armitage at 7.

I also reckon coaches are more inclined to pick risky players on the wing and perhaps at 13, where a moment of magic can win a match but a moment of poor play lose one. An attitude that never really harmed David Campese's reputation as a player...

to the overall question, you can do that at club level, but at international level they get found out.

It irritates the crap out of me to be honest, has anybody ever seen Wade man-shamed in defence? I haven’t and I’ve been paying attention. Yet as soon as some see his size, that’s it. We could be ignoring one of the most naturally talented wingers I have seen in a very long time because he is short a couple of inches! Get him on the pitch; persevere with him for a bit and he WILL score tries.

Wade's defence, from what I've seen is better than Ashton's and he's much bigger

Hmm.. makes me wonder if rugby is going in a pretty bad direction. Will all rugby players start to look like tall, muscled athletes? The game for all sizes, which is starting to see more mobile props, backs as big as the forwards if not bigger, and the smaller players being ignored as long as there are more 6 foot 4 wingers.

Personally, I would love to see Wade duck, dodge, and run circles round the likes of Cuthbert, North etc. Would be fantastic for rugby.

I think there has to be a balance, the springboks have three players in specific who are small by today's standards.

Gio Aplon is only 5ft 9 inches and ways 75 kg
Juan de Jongh is only 5ft 9 inches and ways 86 kg
Bjorn Basson is tall at 6ft 2 inches but only ways 86 kg

Compare that to Zac guildford who weighs 93 kg or Israel dagg who weighs 95 kg, and these aren't the biggest back out there.

So as much as the three South africans are talented to put all three of them in the same backline will just not be smart defensively.

Maybe we should list some players who typify this - a a few obvious welsh ones over the years are:

Shane Williams - "small and unlikely to achieve much" - might have proven his doubters somewhat
Mike Phillips - Definately a marmite choice - I'd have him at 9 anyday but he will frustrate on occasion

rubyguby, if there is a balance between the weaknesses, they aren't apparent, take williams for example, he was the only small player in the welsh back line, the rest balanced his weakness, the same with a player lie Jonah Lomu, who was a briliant player, but very poor in turning around to fetch, teams worked him out on that, but his team mates made up for that weakness.

Bilton, you are commenting on Shanes last 6 months as an international; the previous 12 years Wales did not have a giant backline and pre 2005 we were rubbish yet he still confounded his critics most of the time.

Yes, but I am saying he wasn't surrounded by a small backline.

Just a few points depending obviously on the position,also the overall game plan etc.Shane Wiliams isn`t a particularly good example,he has been in the game what 10years.He is very talented and achieved a lot BUT first he plays for Wales
a side that traditionally runs the ball.IF he was starting today,especially in mid field people look for big hard tackling men.Traditionally,in NZ the had the 5/8 system[a half back EITHER side of the Scrum/Ruck] plus a specialist centre.The rest of the world had 2 centres one was a crunching tackler,the other a feeder
of his wings.It used to be said you could tell if a wing scored lots of tries who`s his centres.A back today has to fit into a overall team plan one small player among several big ones you can get away with.More than that it becomes iffy,and build and genetics means bigger,taller,heavier players etc.
If you want to take examples Morne Steyn,was once so i`m told was a running back.His coaches wanted a kicking back he became one,Dan Carter never used the Drop Goal,on theold 606 site I asked if he could do them.Up until about 2007 Rwc he had kicked 1,Aron Mauger 2,in build up to 2011.Pre-injury he was practising Drop goals and tactical kicking especially restarts until it was a fine art.
IF you think a player has IT,give him a run BUT don`t blame him if things go wrong.A Cautionary tale,in 2009 Ali Williams ruptured his Achilles,the AllBlacks played the then Crusaders Locks.Brad Thorn and Isaac Ross in the 3Ns ,Ross was calling the lineouts.Thorn was effectively a non jumper,so the Lineout was Ross plus a back row forward.2009 3Ns was a disaster for the All Blacks losing 3-0 to the Boks,Carter was injured McCaw unfit after injury,plus other injuries.etc.Ross was praised by the AllBlacks management but in 3rd Bok match
that year.They lost 13 lineouts in the first half alone.Despite that the AllBlacks almost won the match,a late score denied them.After that NZ media went ape the 3 wise men were vilified Ross dropped,he could`nt even get a start for the canterbury provencial side.Tom Donnelly fixed the lineout overnight,by the end of 2009 the All Blacks were back in there right ful place IRB number 1.The Boks endured a tour from Hell losing I think 4 matches including 2 tests.