Picking on form vs experience. A sober reality.

Imagine you go for a job in the current job climate. Let's say your qualifications look very good. You have engaged in a number of extra-curricular activities. You come across as a well-rounded person in the interview. But, and here's the catch, you don't have any experience. It requires a leap of faith from the employer to take a punt in you and hire you. It's easier to look at other candidates who have proven experience and hire them. Like a box of chocolates with pictures on the back, you know what you're going to get. That's not to say every now and then a candidate will come along with superb qualifications that makes people sit up and notice and be afraid of letting them slip through their fingers. So they hire them based on the promise they can deliver. But you'd be right in thinking that this kind of thing doesn't happen very often. There are of course other ways like greasing your way up the old boy network and landing in a plum job with no credentials. Let's call them David and Cameron or David Cameron if you like. But knowing the right people is another rare occurrence as there are very few right people worth knowing and they can only have so many connections to Kevin Bacon. 6 degrees of separation if I'm not mistaken.

These are easy enough concepts to grasp. The world sucks and is against the majority of us. Very brilliant individuals get discovered from their own raw talent and an equally privileged few get a lift up but most of us have to grind out an existence and prove ourselves at the coalface so to speak. There are no shortcuts.

So why is it these sober facts do not translate well to rugby players? How often do I hear from people the coach should pick players on form and that x player has been playing great in the Premiership, ITM, Currie Cup or whatever? Unless you have the raw but noticeable talents of say somebody like Jonah Lomu or somebody who has come up through the age system like Beauden Barrett. Why are coaches so reluctant to pick players who haven't proven themselves in test rugby and who haven't played provincial or Heineken Cup games? Same reason why employers don't want to pick somebody with no experience. You don't know what you're going to get. Why waste investing time and money in somebody who might turn out to be a failure? Why do Hollywood producers go with films about video games or books? It doesn't matter if you made the right choice. It matters if it was worth it. Choose a safe option and you know more or less what you're getting and are able to get a return on that investment. Seem overly conservative to you? Then put up your own money and write your own film or hire your own employee and make any choice you like. Sadly it's the way things are.

So case in point. Robbie Fruean. Stood out in a lot of people's eyes with powerful running and an eye for the tryline. Turns out he has a heart condition so there are question marks over his fitness but even before that there were doubts about his defence and option taking. Stood out in the S15 but the gaps are not so forthcoming in test rugby. Take the reverse, Mils Muliaina going into his 100th cap and gets it taken off him by Israel Dagg. He had some fleeting appearances at fullback and on the wing but it took a leap of faith from the selectors. But that leap was made easier by the considerable talent he has on offer.

Then there are players like Weepu and Williams who you think maybe it's time to invest in the future. Ali Williams has been made captain of the Blues. Excuse me? A baking powder? This would be the equivalent of an old boy network or a love child from a drunken night. But very few of those players as well. Those in the ABs are there based on form and not so much based on reputation. Because if you don't perform in the black shirt, then you don't get picked.

Other countries with smaller player resources still are governed by the same rules. Steffon Armitage is a name that often gets banded about as a player worthy of a recall. He has played test rugby before but he doesn't seem flavour of the month with management. Something he said? Something he did? Not the right fit? Who knows. But just as when a person walks into a job interview and we take one look at them and think no way José, so too can coaches be just as fickle. Nick Easter is another player who is constantly held up as a consistent performer in the Premiership. And that he is. But he was identified as not having something at test level. Pace? Dynamism? Linking ability? I don't know. But he didn't make the cut. Very few do.

Of the players to break into the ABs this year I can name TJ Perenara, Ardie Savea and then I'd have to ask my fellow Kiwi posters for some help because I'm not too sure. Ideally I'd like to see a hooker, lock, backrower, inside centre and a back three player be added to the mix but they probably already have been.

My final question to you is who would be two players for you who breaks into the test scene for you based on no prior experience or, to make it a little easier, have very few test caps and hasn't played in a while? Who would be that lucky two to make it through? But it also means that you can't talk about any other promising players being added to the squad for the year because in all likelihood that's all you can get through. So make your choices wisely. kia kaha

A good aritcle.

Happens in Scottish rugby all the time. Because the "form" players at club level are often pretty average, when they play for Scotland they also look average. This leads many fans to the "anyone but" argument.

The best example of this was Dan Parks. By a country mile the best stand-off in Scottish club rugby for a number of years, but because he more often than not played poorly at international level, the "anyone but" argument would cause fans to call for players like Jackson, a player who at that stage had never really played a solid 80 minutes of rugby at any level. He was preferred because of one half break against Bath in an HC Cup game, which suggested that unlike Parks he could actually run with ball in hand. The stats and facts never backed this up, and unsurprisingly Jackson has never really taken off as an international player (and in most respects has been less effective than Parks).

The closest we've had to "bolters" in Scottish rugby in recent times have been Stuart Hogg and Lee Jones (international debuts after only half a season in pro rugby). Picked on talent really. Hogg has continued to develop, whilst the weaknesses in Jones' game (defence) have been ruthlessly exposed (Malzieu ran over him in last seasons' 6 Nations and he's been shaky since).

Its difficult to establish how players interact with other players/coaches behind closed doors. Sometimes players just don't get along with certain coaches/players already in the set up. Luke Watson was a prime example of this... he has such a distaste for Boere and Schalk in particular which made his short test career toxic.

Peter Grant is a guy who many wonder how he isn't picked by the boks. He is quite simply the best kicker in the world... second to none the man has been the kicker with the most accurate boot in SR for the last 2 seasons.

PDV said he was too slow to play... but picked Morne for the last 2 years of his tenure.

Rory Kockott is another who I can't believe was ever capped. Was a very useful player and then moved to the top14... this seasons top points scorer if I recall.

In the summer tournament I'd like Meyer to test guys like van Zyl (cheetahs 9), Kolisi (Stormers Flank) & Kitsofff (Stormers prop). Against Italy, Scotland and Samoa you can take a few chances (well if you're a top 5 side).

Its half to do with luck in my mind... when you get your break, against who and what players are around you. Take Cipriani... he was thrust into test rugby and struggled big time... but he had no elder statesmen in there to ease him through. He was dropped and thought of as unreliable. Now he's in the wilderness and won't get back in. Test career is over... which is a shame for ENG. Matt Tait is another.

I agree with you on Peter Grant fa, everytime I've watched the stormers play he has looked decent and always seemed to nail his goals. Also a bit of a surprise a French team didnt offer the big bucks, or have they now?

Coaches do prefer the players they know and I don't think that will ever change. Once you are in a squad, some players seem to become undroppable despite the fans wondering why, not seeing on what goes on behind closed doors. Better the devil you know and all that...

Its also worth remembering that we are fans are very fickle, a couple of good performances by a player means they should be playing internationally, why is the boring incumbant still there etc. I remember on 606 not so long ago both Flatman and Peter Short were appearing in a lot of the dream XV's that were being put on the board. As an aside both are now retired through injury. But would those changes have made much difference? Probably not and then after a few games there would be some new players who would be expected to be world beaters straight away.

Bathman_in_London

Grant does the odd stint in Japan in the off season as he doesn't play Currie Cup nor is in the springbok squad. Think he's done that for the last 2 years.... very lucratice.

Probably continues to aspire for springbok colours which is why he always comes back to the Stormers.

I would admit one thing about him though... like Chris Paterson of Scotland his range is a little poor. If its beyond the 10metre line often our FB Joe Pietersen has a crack.

Luck is so important... being the right age and in the right place at the right time. Consider 2 players. Juandre Kruger and Eben Etzebeth both new capped locks this year.

Juandre Kruger is what 27? Behind Bakkies & Victor for whole for whole of his career. Went abroad just to get game time, was no where near representing the bulls at SR let alone the boks. Had to wait near 6-7 years to get capped.

Etzebeth... if people think he was a sure thing to be capped then I would beg to differ. He wasn't even 1st choice sub at start of season and only started due to injuries and his form dictated that he stay in the team. Had those injuries not occurred he probably would have had a couple of games here and there at SR and would have taken another season or 2 to establish himself. There is no such thing as a reserves league so he chance to show his worth would have been very limited.

Luck is a huge thing you are right, being fit at the right time is key. Kruger was a good player when he played in England, if one the best lock combinations hadn't been in front of him he would certainly have been capped earlier.

To use an English example, JSD has constantly been injured at the wrong times, now its too late for him, the one that got away.

I can't say I'm an expert on ENG grassroots (i.e. not test) rugby anymore but for me the biggest loss in terms of potential which was never converted was Ollie Smith.
Wouldn't say he was misused like Tait was but he had so much talent but it seems the emphasis on the time wasn't development like we see with Lancaster.

Wales dont seem to have a problem picking non experienced players, but they dont have as much to lose as the All Blacks.

George North is a good example in recent times, 18 years old, played only a handful of games for the Scarlets before starting against South Africa

But North is a talented player. Look at Julian Savea. He made a name for himself in sevens and had a good season with the Hurricanes. It wasn't all plain sailing for him and after his debut of three tries, he was dumped after his second test against Ireland and had to work his way back into the side. He was lucky to get another chance. Some people only get a few chances and they might not impress on those performances. So it is a question of luck for many cases. The times where a player arrives and gives an assured performance right away are few and far between. Look at the fuss kicked up when McCaw made his debut against Ireland. Kronfeld was quick to call it as a big mistake.

With respect Club,Currie Cup,Heineken,Rabo,ITM,Super isn`t Test Rugby.A few years ago Hosae Gear was on fire and displaced THE ROCK since then he`s hardly set the World alight.In 2007 Luke McAlister,Brendon Leonard,James Ryan and Jason Eaton all looked the business.Ryan injured gave the game away,Leonard injured never the same,ditto Jason Eaton,McAlisterhad one great season finis.Anton Boric is solid,back from injury,and in 2008 outplayed Matfield and Botha with another rookie lock no mean feat.
Richard Kahui if you can keep him fit is a class act,Perenara deserves a chance but for injury would have last year.Andre Taylor would probably have had a run.
Would like to see another Flanker like Matt Todd play along side Ritchie playing left and right.Something the Crusaders do often.
Class is permanent,form transitory most of the AB squad picks it self still not convinced by Messam and Vito.Interesting how Kaino and SBW figure in 2014 with there pension funds filled if there back in contention

Why worry about home grown Bok talent they can just go and pick top14 players as usual.Man that has to be the joke of the year agree about Peter Grant,rated Earl Rose as well.

Yes Alan expecting some big moves from the ones you name. Kahui has been very careful this time round and he looks to become part of this year in a big way. Same with Boric. Just depends how he goes with the Blues. The squad is incredibly lightweight with a high ratio of pacific Islanders and youth (23 average). The loss of Woodcock and Nonu to the Highlanders (who also gain Thorn and now a much stronger side than last year) and Mealamus layoff for most of the campaign will hurt hem big time. Noakes at 10 (cant recall the Counties guy backing up) is a real concern. Champ sides must have expert 10's in my opinion. Ali at captain I'm hoping will come right under Henry and JK.

Perenara will press the AB 9's for sure. Hes one of those with 'destiny' writen all over him.

Kia the sxv will do its job as it does every year. Produce new stars and names so I wouldnt worry too much there. We are lucky in that respect. Players who do well in sxv are at least half ready for AB test rugby- the environment takes care of the rest and decides whether they will come or go.

For longshots the Blues must throw up at least one new gun theres so many and I think its one year too early for Ardie. Just turned 19 and he needs to bulk up a little for the 7 pos. Don't know what hes like on the ground or as a hunter and gatherer yet as hes stunned with his Jones like attributes in the loose with ball in hand primarily.

The Highlanders have to feel good about what theyve ended up with- very strong squad:

Highlanders 2013 Squad- look at these names:

Forwards

Josh Bekhuis (Lock),
Jarrad Hoeata (Loose forward),
Andrew Hore (Hooker),
Jamie Mackintosh (Prop),
Nasi Manu (Loose forward),
Brad Thorn (Lock),
Tony Woodcock (Prop).

Backs

Tamati Ellison (Midfield back),
Hosea Gear (Wing),
Ma’a Nonu (Midfield back),
Declan O’Donnell (Wing),
Kade Poki (Wing),
Hayden Parker (First five-eight),
Buxton Popoalii (Wing/Fullback),
Colin Slade (First five-eighth),
Aaron Smith (Halfback),
Ben Smith (Wing/Fullback),
Lima Sopoaga (First five-eighth)

Very good article.

Lions 2005 good example me thinks.

I'm not worried Taylorman about the talent conveyor belt. I could sleep easier with a few more props, locks and backrowers and inside centre but that's nit picking. We actually introduced quite a few new names last year due to retirement and injury or lack of form: Aaron Smith, Retallick, Romano, Cane etc.

The point of the post was to point out the fallacy in people's claims that certain players deserve a call up due to their form in anything other than test rugby and for example Johhny Wilkinson should get a Lions call up. If you've been away from the test scene or haven't played there yet, it's very difficult to get a call up. Certain players will do it but they're not guaranteed of getting a spot. The test club is difficult to break into simply because test rugby is difficult and not everybody is suited to it. It's a big step up and maybe it's because talented players who make the step up make it look easy. But easy it is certainly not.

When you look at the Highlanders and see names like Macintosh,Berkhaus,and Hoerta all at one time.Capped or considered on a short list but never again mentioned talent NZ is there in plenty.Whether you pick them is another matter
it seems so often people look for stars,not those who do a job every match.Back in the 1960`s Dave Harker of Wellington was just about THE best Lock around.Players like Colin and Stan Meads,Tiny Hill were outstanding forwards but played at Lock,Flank or number 8.In those days all forwards wereconsidered tight or tight loose forwards.Dave was never capped but others his inferior in the position were.
Taylorman you talk about 10`s as though theyall need to be stars buyt look back at most 10`s you`ve had.Just solid very good players who did the business in every game they play.
THEY also serve who stand ans stare the Crusaders especially did superbly with run of the mill players supporting the stars.

Not necessarily stars, but they need to be top 3 at least, or an AB.
Aucklands failings last 10 years can be compared to the ABs of the 70's up until Fox- useless series of poor number 10's. We have had numerous ducks at 10 for Auckland and Noakes at 27 hardly inspires...yet.

87 had foxy, 91 had Lynagh, 95 had Stransky, 99 Larkham, 03 Wilkinson, 07 Steyn and 07 and 11 the ABs stuttered when the 10's dropped one by one. And if they werenet great, they were at least key to the wins.

71 had John and its no fluke that the best sxv sides in the pro era aligned with Spencer in his heyday then merts and Carter for the saders.

Crusaders have not had a lot of Carters services over the last few years for one reason or another and nor have they won the title for a while- their 10 replacements being ordinary.

The Chiefs last year had Cruden in the best form of his career.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the great sides, at least since the 70's have had great 10's.

Steyn for SA last 3 years is also a perfect illustration of this. Without the pack guns of the 07 cup Steyns performances, along with SA, have fallen off.

And look at Wales during the World cup- great form with Priestland one of the best 10's of he tourney. Is it a mere coincidence that his shocking drop in form happens to align with Wales demise...I think not.

Like Steyn, Priestland has to go, and Wales are taking loss after loss while they dont sort this as did SA. You simply cant operate without a very good 10 who is responsible for continuity, key decision making and most of all, directing the match to a winning conclusion, regardless of who or what is around him.

Kia

During the Autumn Internationals we went back to the accorn of playing a fullback at centre,( Ben Smith when Conrad Smith got injured.) It was at that point that I felt Robbie fruen maybe isnt as far out of the mix as we maybe thought a year ago.

I do see Tamati Ellison and Richard Kahui offering more in terms of creating a variety of opportunities for the outsides, than Fruen. However I do agree that 2012 has been Fruen's best year, and he is now no less a health/injury risk than the other two.

Now about those Aucklanders, Williams and Weepu, I think when Ali holds aloft the Super xv trophy Sir JK's plan will come clear for all to see, I just dont know what it is either.

Super Rugby /test Rugby in the SH is about Home Game victories,win those you win trophies.Blues last year had a horrendous string of injuries to key players so the result was expected.
Because the format currently insists that at least one Aus side must qualify for a play off place.Also that a lot of relatively easy points are available in that conference to Aus sides.Come knock out time if that side has home advantage it usually gets thru.
Comments about Crusaders not winning since 2008,how often have they NOT qualified at least to the Semi`s.
How often have they had home advantage in a final,Brett,Slade,Berquist,Tom Taylor may not be Dan the Man.
BUT they still won most of there matches without him,and in 2011 played every game away and still reached the Final.It was a Game to far BUT would you have betted against them had it been a HOME fixture even if in a Neutral NZ Ground.

Point in aucklands case is the 10s have been well below par. Anscombe, Hobbs and he worst of them all Tasesa Lavea. Wouldnt surprise me if Weepu is the perm. 10 this year.

And I know the lack of a good 10 isnt the sole reason teams dont succeed.But the argument that its rare you'll find a great team with a poor 10 is compelling when looking at those examples. Even Oz ran hot and cold depending on Coopers form.

Wer`nt Hobbs and Anscombe considered rising stars like Beaudan Barrett,or are they now just wannabees.?Are they no longer with the Blues?

fa0019 wrote:Its difficult to establish how players interact with other players/coaches behind closed doors. Sometimes players just don't get along with certain coaches/players already in the set up. Luke Watson was a prime example of this... he has such a distaste for Boere and Schalk in particular which made his short test career toxic.

Peter Grant is a guy who many wonder how he isn't picked by the boks. He is quite simply the best kicker in the world... second to none the man has been the kicker with the most accurate boot in SR for the last 2 seasons.

PDV said he was too slow to play... but picked Morne for the last 2 years of his tenure.

Rory Kockott is another who I can't believe was ever capped. Was a very useful player and then moved to the top14... this seasons top points scorer if I recall.

In the summer tournament I'd like Meyer to test guys like van Zyl (cheetahs 9), Kolisi (Stormers Flank) & Kitsofff (Stormers prop). Against Italy, Scotland and Samoa you can take a few chances (well if you're a top 5 side).

Its half to do with luck in my mind... when you get your break, against who and what players are around you. Take Cipriani... he was thrust into test rugby and struggled big time... but he had no elder statesmen in there to ease him through. He was dropped and thought of as unreliable. Now he's in the wilderness and won't get back in. Test career is over... which is a shame for ENG. Matt Tait is another.

Ask Australia about that or what about the 20th November 2010?


Although Scotland will be without its best players and quite frankly at the moment we are shoite so you have a point but Samoa will be a threat to all three other teams especially if they have their best player

emack2 wrote:Wer`nt Hobbs and Anscombe considered rising stars like Beaudan Barrett,or are they now just wannabees.?Are they no longer with the Blues?

Anscombe and Hobbs were let go. Anscombe because he was an in the pocket type 10. Baden Kerr had a good season with the winning Counties side with 90 points in their 6 matches and has an attacking game and compared to Noakes, who has hardly set the Otago fire alight, will probably be the key 10 this year. So Kirwan must be placing a lot of faith in him.

Beaudan Barrets older brother Kane, (was also captain of the NZ sec schools in 2009) flanker from Taranaki has also joined the blues.

The World Cup has had a big impact on the form vs experience trade-off. A lot of players announce their international retirements after the tournament which tends to open up a few squad places.

On the other hand, coaches have decided that you need a certain number of caps across the squad to win a World Cup. This will be remain the standard wisdom until a young, relatively inexperienced squad goes all the way.

Martin Johnson had this calculation in mind almost evey time he chose a team. The total number of caps sometimes seemed more important than whether players could complement each other.

What does this mean for someone like Lancaster? He undoubtedly wanted to create a new squad culture based around young players he had been monitoring before. Having done so, and made progress, he now has a lot less scope to turn back to some older hands if he hits a speed bump.

Nick Easter is playing some good rugby but he will be 37 by the next World Cup. It's not impossible he'll still be playing then but if you aren't expecting to pick him later, then every cap you award him now is one less for the squad.

Before the World Cup, coaches didn't really think in terms of four year cycles. Most probably had some idea of a development arc for their team but they weren't all looking to peak at one point every four years. Now, it's the be-all and end-all.

Rugby fan you have hit the nail on the head for some Countries it is indeed a question of the RWC being the only thing that matters.
For most real fans 4 6N Grand slams,or 4 -4Ns titles on the trot would mean more than winning a RWC.OR to be more precise reaching 3 finals and losing them all.
Club/provincial Rugby is no help to Test preperation with so many unqualified
players.Not to mention whether they will be released by there clubs for training or Test matches.
The IRB plays lipservice to Country before Club but does little to enforce it much better the All Black ethos.Count the losses not the wins and play every game in that frame of mind.NOT oh well we tried but on the day we wer`nt quite good enough.
Yes teams like England will get the odd result against them once every 10 years or so.
Team building is one thing,playing your BEST team another it is a fine balance.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Nick Easter is playing some good rugby but he will be 37 by the next World Cup. It's not impossible he'll still be playing then but if you aren't expecting to pick him later, then every cap you award him now is one less for the squad.

That might be so but a player's presence can provide more value to a squad than a new and raw individual in terms of building momentum, passing on experience- particularly when there isnt much difference in actual player contribution between the two. Its not as clear cut as one less cap if not a lot were to be gained for that cap. Theres still a lot of value in retaining the old hands during the first 1 or 2 or even 3 years after a last cup.

Getting the right balance and mix in the existing squad is just as important.

Taylorman wrote:Getting the right balance and mix in the existing squad is just as important.

I don't disagree. Here, though, are the numbers that are in most coaches minds:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/8955321/Graphic-average-age-and-caps-of-Rugby-World-Cup-winning-teams-and-how-England-might-compare-in-2015.html

Current thinking says you want a team with an average of 40-50 caps a man. That old Telegraph forecast sees an experienced England team with a total of 700+ caps by 2015 but you'll notice their line-up includes some well-capped, but certainly not long in the tooth, names like Croft (36 caps), Haskell (45), Hartley (42), Flood (53), Foden (30) and Ashton (29). Some of them may not make it on current trends. All of their potential challengers are only just starting their careers, and would inevitably bring the cap total down.

If Lancaster doesn't see Easter (47 caps) as one of his experienced hands come Word Cup time, then he has good reason to ensure that a player like Morgan (9 caps) gets a good run. Before 2015, we've got 3 Six Nations (15 matches) 2 Autumn International (maximum 8 matches) 2015 World cup warm-ups (probably 3) and two, perhaps even three, tours (9 Tests?). It really isn't a lot of fixtures and few players, if any, will earn caps in all those games.

I think Easter is just very unlucky. With no World Cups in the schedule, national coaches could afford to think more on a year by year basis. Easter would surely be in the mix if that was still the case today.

Yes numbers are important but still only a guide- as is age. Form over rides both usually. I mean we've got Ali Williams on some ridiculous number of tests yet I wouldnt start him ahead of either of our 8-10 new test babies. Mealamu has 100 odd and is on the bench usually these days.

And McCaw on a million tests all broken and bruised we wouldnt start without so numbers can be deceiving on their own.