Friday Knight Lights wrote: And we're falling into the trap again - 'we can't possibly play Carmichael with McCallum because both are young' . Well, McCallum has been better at 3 than Berghan/Bryce/Beavon and it helped us, McCallum wasn't a 'prodigy' either - there were far more fancied players in that under 20 side. Gilchrist and McKenzie are either underperforming or just not good enough, what is the issue with starting a young guy in their place? How much worse could Carmichael do than those two?
.
where to start? Carmichael would have been packing down behind Cosgrove much of the time. But the issue is how many youngsters can you sensibly lay in a front 5. You may think it does not matter, few coaches will agree with you.
McCallum has been very good (incidentally if you saw or recall him playing for e U20s he was very good indeed - at loose head!)- he got his chance because of injury to both Nel and Bryce, and Bergan for a bit other there was no other better alternative, otherwise he would still be bench warming at best. He deserved to start above the likes of Beavon for example quite clearly in everyone's opinion. The key thing is he was next in line, he wasn't just "given a chance". Players are not "given a chance" - they earn the right to get a chance, or are very very lucky with injuries to others. They earn that right in club matches, in training and in general attitude.
I'm not saying he should not have had a few starts, I am trying patiently to explain why perhaps he didn't get them. Just sometimes even Edinburgh coaches make reasonable calls.