Why did Earl Rose not play flyhalf?

The worst thing about being a top level coach is that when your selection decisions don’t come off you have journalists, bloggers and sports commentators spending the next day telling you what you did wrong.

But I guess that that is part and parcel of the job, as unfair as it may be.

One decision I did find quite curious this weekend was Eugene (Loffie) Eloff’s decision not to play Earl Rose at flyhalf in the Currie Cup semi-final match against the Sharks.

Now just to clarify – I don’t rate Earl Rose particularly highly and have blogged on that topic before.

But Rose has been mentioned as a potential for the Springbok touring side at the end of the year and he is currently the leading points scorer in the Currie Cup. Most importantly, he has been the first choice flyhalf for the Lions for the majority of this season.

Eloff himself has said that he believes Rose will be a Bok flyhalf but he shouldn’t be rushed.

Despite this Eloff decided for the crunch semi-final he would instead shift Rose to Fullback and field Louis Strydom at flyhalf. (Bear in mind that the last time these two sides met two weeks earlier, Strydom came on as a late replacement and covered himself in glory by throwing the intercept pass that sealed the game for the Sharks.)

My ‘arm-chair’ concern is that Eloff sent out the message that he does not trust Rose in the big games because he may be targeted.

What does the rest of the team take out of the decision?

Does that not pass on a message to the rest of the team that Eloff does not believe the system they have employed for the rest of the season will be sufficient to carry them through?

Hindsight is obviously 20/20 and if Strydom had had a blinder or Rose had scalped them from the fullback position, I probably wouldn’t be writing this. It just doesn’t seem to make much sense to me that you would publicly talk about all the faith you hold in a player and then shift them around when the crunch came….