Northern Edition
Select Edition
Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Will Genia: Why Pete Samu's Bledisloe omission is a 'huge head-scratcher'

Pete Samu. (Photo by Kelly Defina/Getty Images)

Eddie Jones swung the axe in the wake of a winless start to The Rugby Championship. The three victims surprised many, including former Wallaby Will Genia.

ADVERTISEMENT

Fullback Tom Wright started both of the Wallabies’ opening games but failed to make the Bledisloe Cup squad, as did Reece Hodge after a start against South Africa and Pete Samu after only a brief showing off the bench in that same game.

Samu’s omission took Genia by surprise due to the dynamic loose forward’s skillset being seen as a great addition to what has been an underperforming back row for the Wallabies.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

The unconvincing form of Australia’s back row, as well as an injury to Michael Hooper, has seen Rob Valetini be the only player named to start in both Tests to start the Wallabies’ 2023 campaign.

With selection very much up for grabs under new head coach Jones, the 16 minutes of action Samu received before facing the axe was barely a scratch on what the flanker deserved in Genia’s eyes.

“For me, it’s a huge head-scratcher why Pete Samu was left out of the squad,” Genia told the Aotearoa Rugby Pod. “He’s been such a consistently good player for the Wallabies over the last couple of years, granted he’s played a lot of his footy off the bench.

“The way Test rugby is going now, I don’t necessarily think you need a fetcher as much as you did in years gone by, I’d rather have size.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The thing about it is, you can slow the opposition’s ball down two ways, right? You’ve got David Pocock-style play, you can put pressure on the ball and slow it down or, you can slow it down by winning the collision with bigger bodies; making dominant tackles, flooding the ruck and slowing it that way as opposed to getting someone over the ball.

“I’d much rather go the route of having the bigger bodies, particularly in that back row and slowing the ball down that way.

“I think the All Blacks seem to have got their loose forward trio down and I think we’re still searching at the moment.”

Related

Genia went on to break down the available candidates for the Wallabies’ back row, saying while Michael Hooper had an underwhelming start to his international season, he’ll likely bounce back. Rob Valetini was seen as a success at No 8 and the return of Rob Leota could add the muscle that the No 6 jersey requires.

ADVERTISEMENT

Genia said for his starting openside flanker, he would in fact have opted for the dropped Pete Samu.

“Just to give him an opportunity,” Genia explained. “Again, someone who enjoys the physical battle, he’s dynamic in the ball carry as well, he creates a lot of opportunity with offloads in that space. I think we’ve got to get that balance right.”

ADVERTISEMENT
LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

8 Comments
B
Bruiser 694 days ago

4000 players and staff later, Eddie will still be building for the world cup in 20 years

M
Mark 694 days ago

Spot on.

N
Nice One Bruvva 694 days ago

Trained and won matches with the Crusaders ... Good player.

0
007 694 days ago

Even more baffling is the omission of Harry Wilson - a specialist and out and out No.8, who is currently languishing in the Australia A camp.

Blindside: Valetini; 7. McReight; 8. WIlson - problem solved!

J
JW 694 days ago

What about Gleeson?

D
Don M 694 days ago

Will G is spot on. Samu's consistency and overall skillset is the key. Inexplicably he didn't make the final squad for the Japan World Cup, and was missed. Missing the cut again would be dead-set cruel.

N
NH 694 days ago

agree with will that its a bit stiff to drop samu (and hodge). But, I don't really see him as a 'physical' enforcer type. Yes, he is a bigger body then hooper/mcreight, but his talent is in being a dynamic ball runner/link player, not a defensive enforcer. He was tried at 7 against NZ last year by rennie and long and short of it, he missed alot of tackles.

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

f
fl 1 hour ago
Ex-Wallaby laughs off claims Bath are amongst the best in the world

I ultimately don’t care who the best club team in the world is, so yeah, lets agree to disagree on that.


I would appreciate clarity on a couple of things though:

Where did I contradict myself?

Saying “Trophies matter. They matter a lot. But so does winning games. So does making finals.” is entirely compatible with ranking a team as the best - over an extended period - when they have won more games and made more finals than other comparable teams. It would be contradictory for me to say “Trophies matter. They matter a lot. But so does winning games. So does making finals.” and then completely ignore Leinster record of winning games and making finals.


“You can get frustrated and say I am not reading what you write, but when you quote me, then your first line is to say thats true (what I wrote), but by the end of the paragraph have stated something different, thats where you contradict yourself.”

What you said (that I think trophies matter) is true, in that I said “Trophies matter. They matter a lot. But so does winning games. So does making finals.”. Do you understand that Leinster won more games and made more finals than any other (URC-based) team did under the period under consideration?


“Pointless comparison on Blackburn and Tottenham to this discussion as no-one includes them on a list of the best club. I would say that Blackburns title season was better than anything Tottenham have done in the Premier League. My reference to the league was that the team who finished second over two seasons are not better than the two other teams who did win the league each time. One of the best - of course, but not the best, which is relevant to my point here about Leinster, not comparing teams who won 30 years ago against a team that never won.”

I really don’t understand why you would think that this is irrelevant. You seem to be saying that winning trophies is the only thing that matters when assessing who is the best, but doesn’t matter at all when assessing who is 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc.


“What I referred to in my Leinster wouldn’t say the were the best is your post earlier where you said Leinster were the best overall. You said that in two separate posts. Seasons dont work like that, they are individual. Unless the same team keeps winning then you can say they were the best over a period of time and group them, but thats not the case here.”

Well then we’ve just been talking at cross purposes. In that my position (that Leinster were the best team overall in 2022-2024) was pretty clear, and you just decided to respond to a different point (whether Leinster were the best team individually in particular years) essentially making the entire discussion completely pointless. I guess if you think that trophies are the only thing that matters then it makes sense to see the season as an individual event that culminates in a trophy (or not), whereas because I believe that trophies matter a lot, but that so does winning matches and making finals, it makes it easier for me to consider quality over an extended period.

24 Go to comments
M
MT 1 hour ago
Ex-Wallaby laughs off claims Bath are amongst the best in the world

As I said in one of my first replies to you - we can agree to disagree. If you want to leave it no problem. I completely disagree with your ranking of Leinster as the best team in the world. Now you have said you will change it if Bordeaux win the Top 14. Well as Leinster themselves prioritise the CC over the URC and Bordeaux won the CC, how are they not ranked higher by you? Are Leinster one of the best teams, yeah - never said they weren’t. But not the very best team, as the very best team have trophies to show for their seasons. They matter when you discuss the very best.


You can get frustrated and say I am not reading what you write, but when you quote me, then your first line is to say thats true (what I wrote), but by the end of the paragraph have stated something different, thats where you contradict yourself. Just so we are clear, you said you would too on my statement that I would rather be a fan of a team that won a trophy over the three seasons, but end the paragraph saying you would rather be a fan of the team that won the most matches but didn’t win a trophy. Both cant be true. Thats one example of where you contradict yourself.


Pointless comparison on Blackburn and Tottenham to this discussion as no-one includes them on a list of the best club. I would say that Blackburns title season was better than anything Tottenham have done in the Premier League. My reference to the league was that the team who finished second over two seasons are not better than the two other teams who did win the league each time. One of the best - of course, but not the best, which is relevant to my point here about Leinster, not comparing teams who won 30 years ago against a team that never won.


What I referred to in my Leinster wouldn’t say the were the best is your post earlier where you said Leinster were the best overall. You said that in two separate posts. Seasons dont work like that, they are individual. Unless the same team keeps winning then you can say they were the best over a period of time and group them, but thats not the case here.

24 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Did Argentina 'con' the British and Irish Lions in 2005? Did Argentina 'con' the British and Irish Lions in 2005?
Search