I think it's a bit unfair, to be honest. His tackling numbers are well up and he seems to be really working on that aspect of the game. He has things to work on, but so does everyone.
In fact, the whole article is based on a false premise, that the playing group can be divided into those who do and don't care. The main problems clearly cut across the entire team.
And this line:
Obviously there's a lot of room for argument, but I don't think that describes us at all. It's an odd label to apply to a team that keeps losing high draft picks.
I think I see it along these lines too, although I was bitterly disappointed in Rich (and Hanley) on the weekend.
I know drafting is an inexact science, but I think that draft ordering is not a bad proxy for 'quality' considered across a lot of players over time. Casting an eye over our mids:
Rockliff- overachiever through the PSD
Hanley- intermittent overachiever off the international rookie list
Zorko- overachieving mature age recruit
Robinson- good hard worker (drafted at pick 40)
Rich- underachieving top 10 pick
Bastinac- pick 21, probably roundabout par in terms of output I reckon
Christensen- pick 40, arguably overachieving, maybe par
We've managed to coax some good performances out of these guys, but suggesting that we have an abundance of quality is a bit off the mark. At the end of the day, it's hard to believe that our player development is/was so good that we should get comparable results out of those picks compared to other sides in the comp who would uniformly have more innate quality (inasmuch as that is reflected through higher draft picks).
No disagreements that our effort was horrible on the weekend though.