psychic duck
International
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Messages
- 5,094
Ireland fans have sometimes been frustrated at the lack of progressive thinking of their coach Declan Kidney. Likewise Argentina also have a coach who like Kidney is one of the most conservative and poor selectors there are, and loves picking average out of form 30 year olds to keep the side the same and making the form younger players wait. Phelan's selections for the first match of the Rugby Championship shows that nothing has changed with him and he has kept nearly entirely the same side that scraped past Scotland in the World Cup. He has only made one change that isn't injury or retirement enforced from the team that lost to New Zealand. He has made a number of errors in selection.
1. Why select an average 30 year old who has been injured for most of the past year ahead of the 21 year old with potential who did well against France?
From the Pumas matches against France, it was seen that flanker Tomás de la Vega had some potential to be a genuine openside (fetcher) for the Pumas in the future. He did a good job in the Pumas win against France making numerous tackles and slowing the French ball down. But Phelan instead opts to exclude the 21 year old from the squad, and selects an average 30 year old in Alvaro Galindo who has been injured for the most of last season (he made just 3 starts).
2. Why continue to select a 33 year old who looks unfit and off the pace this year?
On the other flank, Julio FarÃas Cabello is retained. Cabello did decently last year, but the 33 year old is ageing and has looked off the pace in 2012 for the Pampas XV and the Pumas and his selection is another example of non progressive thinking by Phelan.
The back row is actually an area where South Africa should now have an advantage over Argentina now, as Keegan Daniel who looks very fit and mobile and young Marcell Coetzee should be able to outpace and outmanoeuvre a 33 year old in Cabello who looks unfit (weight wise) and off the pace and a 30 year old in Galindo who has been injured for the past year.
3. Why select a back row with three 30 year old's all of whom have had injury/fitness issues?
Juan MartÃn Fernández Lobbe has as well had injury problems over the past year (he just came back towards the end of last season from a long term knee injury) and is in his thirties, so Phelan has selected three back rowers with fitness issues and all in their thirties. Surely it would have been better to have selected de la Vega who is much younger, and doesn't have fitness issues surrounding him.
4. Why select a semi retired 35 year old ahead of a younger player who is clearly as good and probably surpassed him?
Phelan has also decided to stick with another unfit veteran 35 year old Rodrigo Roncero. It has been clear at least since 2011 that the Leicester prop Marcos Ayerza has surpassed an ageing Roncero and is now better (and concedes a lot less penalties for sure), it was understandable why Phelan stuck with Roncero until the World Cup, but now it is time to select the 29 year old who will be available in 2015, not the semi retired 35 year old who was undecided about whether to continue playing a few weeks ago. Anyway, even though Roncero is starting you can guarantee you will see Ayerza in action, Roncero struggles to make it 50 minutes these days.
5. Why leave out the most exciting back, and the team's best finisher?
In the backs meanwhile, the most stupid omission of any player is that Argentina's most exciting back Juan Imhoff. This is one of the most ridiculous omissions I have seen. Imhoff is by far the Pumas best winger.
I have no idea why Camacho has been preferred. The stats show a simple story Imhoff is the superior try scoring winger. At club level, Camacho has scored 5 tries in his last 44 appearances in Premiership and European rugby for Harlequins and Exeter over the past three seasons. Imhoff scored more tries in just one season with Racing-Métro (plus he created tries too), and the season before that he was the leading try scorer in the 2011 Vodacom Cup for the championship winning Pampas XV side, he also scored tries in the both warm up matches against Stade Français. Imhoff also gets involved in play better than Camacho, and makes much more line breaks. The only place where Camacho is stronger than Imhoff is in defence where Imhoff can tend to tackle a bit high. This is typical Phelan, ignoring the game changing form player of the last season for a solid, unspectacular, non try scoring winger.
(Argentina's most exciting back and best finisher Juan Imhoff has been stupidly omitted for a non try scoring winger in Gonzalo Camacho, everybody in Argentina realises this is stupid)
Meanwhile whatever defensive gains may be gained (not that much anyway) by picking Camacho, they are undone by Phelan picking weak centres (a much more important tackling position than wing). Argentina are keeping selecting two fly halves in the centres, and as a result they get players with suspect defence like Marcelo Bosch playing there (Contepomi was an exception as he was a good tackling fly half).
6. Why fail to experiment different players in problem positions in the warm up matches?
13 is not Argentina's strongest position, and the fact Bosch is still there despite his flakiness is more proof of Phelan's lack of progressive thinking. If he was thinking properly, he would have experimented in the June tests and the Stade matches converting a winger to the position. An experienced player like Horacio Agulla could fit in there (he has played there on occasion before), or a player like Manuel Montero who despite impressing in June was never likely to feature much in this tournament as a winger, but has the potential to be Argentina's equivalent of Rougerie at 13. But no non-progressive Phelan fails to experiment and the Pumas are stuck with a flaky erratic player like Bosch at 13.
7. Why when the goal kicking was so bad in the World Cup, not select a player in the 22 who is the regular goal kicker for their club?
Also there is still no trusted goal kicker in the side. According to the stats Argentina had the worst goal kicking percentage of any side at the World Cup with Contepomi getting the yips goal kicking wise, and RodrÃguez Gurruchaga's kicking was all over the place. Bosch isn't a good enough goal kicker either, Hernández has goal kicked on occasions but there are no players who are regular goal kickers for their clubs, nor is there on the bench. This is another poor piece of selecting by Phelan, MartÃn Bustos Moyano who is the regular goal kicker for Montpellier (or Ignacio Mieres regular goal kicker for Exeter) should have at least been in the 22 so he could take over if Hernández was struggling. But now the Pumas will have to rely on a non regular goal kicker in Hernández, which is risky as the Pumas will need to get every single point available to them to cause an upset or in some cases simply keep the scores close.
8. Why continue to select a player a player who was awful in his opportunity in June?
The final issue in the Pumas side is at hooker in Guiñazu. For those who don't know much about him, Guiñazu is one of those players who gets a club contract based on the fact he plays all three front row positions ... just none of them very well. He has had a high turnover of clubs based on the fact of his versatility he can get short term injury cover contracts, but unsurprisingly no clubs have ever wanted to retain him (he is currently unattached), in fact he has made just 13 starts in 5 years at club level for 5 different clubs. Whilst Guiñazu is only in the side because Creevy is injured, god knows how he has made the side as in June he was a disaster. In the Italy match he cost the Pumas as his failure to hook the ball led to a turnover at the scrum and Italy scored from it. Against France the scrum was again destroyed just as it was against Italy but adding to that his lineout throwing was simply awful. He must surely be the worst player from any sides starting lineups this weekend, his set piece is awful and he does nothing with ball in hand.
But this dreadful selecting is nothing new for Phelan, he has been doing it for years. At the World Cup, Amorosino was man of the match against Romania, and saved Phelan his job against Scotland and was still left on the bench behind an off form RodrÃguez Gurruchaga. Also in the same tournament Imhoff impressed when given a chance to play, making a good break late on against England, scoring against Romania and Georgia, but still Phelan kept selecting Camacho.
Phelan has made it nearly impossible for youngsters to breakthrough to the side regardless of form, there is just one player under the age of 26 in the Pumas starting lineup for the weekend. And only two players under the age of 30 in the forwards. Just two of the starting XV will be under 30 by the 2015 World Cup. Whilst this is not neccesarily a bad thing if the older players are good and much better than anybody else, it is a bad thing when average 30 year olds like Alvaro Galindo with no potential to improve are selected ahead of players who are as good, and have potential. Much like how Kidney's lack of progressive thinking has frustrated Irish fans, Phelan is doing the same with the Pumas.
1. Why select an average 30 year old who has been injured for most of the past year ahead of the 21 year old with potential who did well against France?
From the Pumas matches against France, it was seen that flanker Tomás de la Vega had some potential to be a genuine openside (fetcher) for the Pumas in the future. He did a good job in the Pumas win against France making numerous tackles and slowing the French ball down. But Phelan instead opts to exclude the 21 year old from the squad, and selects an average 30 year old in Alvaro Galindo who has been injured for the most of last season (he made just 3 starts).
2. Why continue to select a 33 year old who looks unfit and off the pace this year?
On the other flank, Julio FarÃas Cabello is retained. Cabello did decently last year, but the 33 year old is ageing and has looked off the pace in 2012 for the Pampas XV and the Pumas and his selection is another example of non progressive thinking by Phelan.
The back row is actually an area where South Africa should now have an advantage over Argentina now, as Keegan Daniel who looks very fit and mobile and young Marcell Coetzee should be able to outpace and outmanoeuvre a 33 year old in Cabello who looks unfit (weight wise) and off the pace and a 30 year old in Galindo who has been injured for the past year.
3. Why select a back row with three 30 year old's all of whom have had injury/fitness issues?
Juan MartÃn Fernández Lobbe has as well had injury problems over the past year (he just came back towards the end of last season from a long term knee injury) and is in his thirties, so Phelan has selected three back rowers with fitness issues and all in their thirties. Surely it would have been better to have selected de la Vega who is much younger, and doesn't have fitness issues surrounding him.
4. Why select a semi retired 35 year old ahead of a younger player who is clearly as good and probably surpassed him?
Phelan has also decided to stick with another unfit veteran 35 year old Rodrigo Roncero. It has been clear at least since 2011 that the Leicester prop Marcos Ayerza has surpassed an ageing Roncero and is now better (and concedes a lot less penalties for sure), it was understandable why Phelan stuck with Roncero until the World Cup, but now it is time to select the 29 year old who will be available in 2015, not the semi retired 35 year old who was undecided about whether to continue playing a few weeks ago. Anyway, even though Roncero is starting you can guarantee you will see Ayerza in action, Roncero struggles to make it 50 minutes these days.
5. Why leave out the most exciting back, and the team's best finisher?
In the backs meanwhile, the most stupid omission of any player is that Argentina's most exciting back Juan Imhoff. This is one of the most ridiculous omissions I have seen. Imhoff is by far the Pumas best winger.
I have no idea why Camacho has been preferred. The stats show a simple story Imhoff is the superior try scoring winger. At club level, Camacho has scored 5 tries in his last 44 appearances in Premiership and European rugby for Harlequins and Exeter over the past three seasons. Imhoff scored more tries in just one season with Racing-Métro (plus he created tries too), and the season before that he was the leading try scorer in the 2011 Vodacom Cup for the championship winning Pampas XV side, he also scored tries in the both warm up matches against Stade Français. Imhoff also gets involved in play better than Camacho, and makes much more line breaks. The only place where Camacho is stronger than Imhoff is in defence where Imhoff can tend to tackle a bit high. This is typical Phelan, ignoring the game changing form player of the last season for a solid, unspectacular, non try scoring winger.
(Argentina's most exciting back and best finisher Juan Imhoff has been stupidly omitted for a non try scoring winger in Gonzalo Camacho, everybody in Argentina realises this is stupid)
Meanwhile whatever defensive gains may be gained (not that much anyway) by picking Camacho, they are undone by Phelan picking weak centres (a much more important tackling position than wing). Argentina are keeping selecting two fly halves in the centres, and as a result they get players with suspect defence like Marcelo Bosch playing there (Contepomi was an exception as he was a good tackling fly half).
6. Why fail to experiment different players in problem positions in the warm up matches?
13 is not Argentina's strongest position, and the fact Bosch is still there despite his flakiness is more proof of Phelan's lack of progressive thinking. If he was thinking properly, he would have experimented in the June tests and the Stade matches converting a winger to the position. An experienced player like Horacio Agulla could fit in there (he has played there on occasion before), or a player like Manuel Montero who despite impressing in June was never likely to feature much in this tournament as a winger, but has the potential to be Argentina's equivalent of Rougerie at 13. But no non-progressive Phelan fails to experiment and the Pumas are stuck with a flaky erratic player like Bosch at 13.
7. Why when the goal kicking was so bad in the World Cup, not select a player in the 22 who is the regular goal kicker for their club?
Also there is still no trusted goal kicker in the side. According to the stats Argentina had the worst goal kicking percentage of any side at the World Cup with Contepomi getting the yips goal kicking wise, and RodrÃguez Gurruchaga's kicking was all over the place. Bosch isn't a good enough goal kicker either, Hernández has goal kicked on occasions but there are no players who are regular goal kickers for their clubs, nor is there on the bench. This is another poor piece of selecting by Phelan, MartÃn Bustos Moyano who is the regular goal kicker for Montpellier (or Ignacio Mieres regular goal kicker for Exeter) should have at least been in the 22 so he could take over if Hernández was struggling. But now the Pumas will have to rely on a non regular goal kicker in Hernández, which is risky as the Pumas will need to get every single point available to them to cause an upset or in some cases simply keep the scores close.
8. Why continue to select a player a player who was awful in his opportunity in June?
The final issue in the Pumas side is at hooker in Guiñazu. For those who don't know much about him, Guiñazu is one of those players who gets a club contract based on the fact he plays all three front row positions ... just none of them very well. He has had a high turnover of clubs based on the fact of his versatility he can get short term injury cover contracts, but unsurprisingly no clubs have ever wanted to retain him (he is currently unattached), in fact he has made just 13 starts in 5 years at club level for 5 different clubs. Whilst Guiñazu is only in the side because Creevy is injured, god knows how he has made the side as in June he was a disaster. In the Italy match he cost the Pumas as his failure to hook the ball led to a turnover at the scrum and Italy scored from it. Against France the scrum was again destroyed just as it was against Italy but adding to that his lineout throwing was simply awful. He must surely be the worst player from any sides starting lineups this weekend, his set piece is awful and he does nothing with ball in hand.
But this dreadful selecting is nothing new for Phelan, he has been doing it for years. At the World Cup, Amorosino was man of the match against Romania, and saved Phelan his job against Scotland and was still left on the bench behind an off form RodrÃguez Gurruchaga. Also in the same tournament Imhoff impressed when given a chance to play, making a good break late on against England, scoring against Romania and Georgia, but still Phelan kept selecting Camacho.
Phelan has made it nearly impossible for youngsters to breakthrough to the side regardless of form, there is just one player under the age of 26 in the Pumas starting lineup for the weekend. And only two players under the age of 30 in the forwards. Just two of the starting XV will be under 30 by the 2015 World Cup. Whilst this is not neccesarily a bad thing if the older players are good and much better than anybody else, it is a bad thing when average 30 year olds like Alvaro Galindo with no potential to improve are selected ahead of players who are as good, and have potential. Much like how Kidney's lack of progressive thinking has frustrated Irish fans, Phelan is doing the same with the Pumas.
Last edited by a moderator:
