Ranting Wombat: The Idiocy of Incumbency (Rugby League Editorial)
30 04 2008What is all this idiocy about “incumbency” when it comes to NRL representative sides?
In the lead up to the naming of the Australian side for the completely pointless upcoming Anzac test (whole other rant for another day right there), the word incumbency was thrown around a great deal; do we go with form, or do we go with incumbency? Do some incumbents automatically deserve their spots, while others do not? How much does incumbency actually count for when the last Test match played was made up mainly of players who themselves were not actually the incumbents at the time?
These are all difficult questions…provided that you are as stupid as the Australian selectors anyway (mind you, the same goes for the NSW, and to a lesser extent, the QLD selectors as well). The Australian side, even more so than the Origin sides (and certainly more so than the rather pointless City-Country sides), is supposed to be a reward for the BEST players in the league.
So here’s a whacky idea guys, how about you select players on like, you know, FORM?
Billy Slater, despite being the fullback for the best side in the comp, having won a grand final, and represented Queensland like the absolute star he is, has finally gotten the recognition of an Australian jersey because he is in “career best” form; news flash guys, he was still the best fullback in the comp last year…and the year before too, for that matter, and probably the year before that as well.
I’m a big fan of Darren Lockyer, but how does he get chosen after being out injured, and only having played one game this season where he didn’t start from the bench? Greg Inglis, the premiership winning 5/8 (who also won the Clive Churchill medal after the grand final) is in the Australian side…as a centre. There are numerous other good 5/8s (as well as some versatile halfbacks) in the competition that I would argue deserve the spot more than Lockyer through the sheer fact that they’ve been playing full games and achieving some great form; does Lockyer really need yet another test jumper to his name?
How do Mark Gasnier, Willie Mason, Brent Kite or Petero Civoniceva make the Australian side; they have been playing some terrible football, and Gasnier has been out injured to boot! The excuse is that they are the incumbents, but why should the myriad of other talented forwards, backrowers, centres, or anyone else miss out? Why is incumbency protection for these players, but the incumbent halfback Cooper Cronk has not even been mentioned in the lead up to the game? For that matter, as glad as I am that Slater is finally getting a run, shouldn’t Stewart still be fullback? I mean, these guys led the Australian side to an unprecedented 58-0 victory.
I’m in danger of posing far too many rhetorical questions here, but the whole situation is just so incredibly illogical. You know that the system is broken when players are being put into the side and played out of position simply due to incumbency; surely there is enough in the way of quality in the competition for players to be chosen in their own positions purely on merit. It seems every time one superstar retires, four more take his place anyway.
I mean, at the end of the day, it’s not as though Australia is particularly likely to ever actually lose these games, so what’s the risk in changing things up? By the same token, maybe if we did consistently get our arses kicked the selectors would reconsider the policy of rewarding people that are broken down or out of form (or in some cases, never had the form to begin with) simply because they might have won a game in the past (or maybe due to who their uncle was, or which club they play for…hi Mr Fulton!).
Is it too much to ask that rewarding players with a Test birth for actually being the best be the norm, rather than the exception?
Probably.
- The Evil Wombat
Comments : No Comments »
Tags : ARL, Editorials, Football, NRL, Ranting, Rants, Rugby League
Categories : Editorials, Ranting Wombat, TV, sport
Your Say