Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:14 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 805 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3008
Location: Switzerland
Sandstorm wrote:
Magpie26 wrote:
cmatnz wrote:
https://twitter.com/BrianODriscoll/status/1007894994311671808?s=19

Seriously, how much of a salty pr!ck is this guy?

I must be blind because I've watched the footage so many times now and can't even make out any contact between ALB & Fall, much less evidence of a push.

Sometimes I wonder if these pathological haters watch AB games in a parallel universe...

He really is a bitter twat.

He goes in the air and lands on his head - throws a hissy fit and its the crime of the century.
BB goes in the air and lands on his head and BOD is making every excuse as to why it shouldn't be a red card :?


Yesterday was NOTHING like 2005, mate.

He knows better than most what a dangerous situation it is to land on your head from height yet he is trying to excuse the clear red card.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:08 am
Posts: 6652
Location: Sydney
Irish journo Brendan Gallagher is having ago at Gardner on Twitter now for having “long,cosy chats” with the AB captain whereas he couldn’t extend the same to Morgan Parra because Parra doesn’t speak english.FFS.

They’ll be running out of refs willing to officiate All Black tests soon.Pathetic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13205
BBB wrote:
Irish journo Brendan Gallagher is having ago at Gardner on Twitter now for having “long,cosy chats” with the AB captain whereas he couldn’t extend the same to Morgan Parra because Parra doesn’t speak english.FFS.

They’ll be running out of refs willing to officiate All Black tests soon.Pathetic.

I saw that. He was insisting that officials appointed should speak the language of both teams as the appointments "Are known well in advance". It'll make those Fiji versus Japan or Uruguay versus Romania tests difficult to staff correctly.

He was also bagging the ref of the Wallaby vs. Ireland game. Who is a Kiwi.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:08 am
Posts: 6652
Location: Sydney
Incredible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14714
Location: Melbourne
Hey Ardie, how about contesting a ruck from time to time. Don't you claim to be a seven?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5473
How many caps amongst the finishing pack? Apart from big Sam, the rest would struggle to have 20 between them. And the ones who do have a few caps have got a lot of those in 10 - 15 minute spells off the bench. A lot of inexperience there.

Still,not such a bad wake up call. I'm sure a few are not looking forward to Shags debrief.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5473
How many caps amongst the finishing pack? Apart from big Sam, the rest would struggle to have 20 between them. And the ones who do have a few caps have got a lot of those in 10 - 15 minute spells off the bench. A lot of inexperience there.

Still,not such a bad wake up call. I'm sure a few are not looking forward to Shags debrief.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15035
The Native wrote:
BBB wrote:
Irish journo Brendan Gallagher is having ago at Gardner on Twitter now for having “long,cosy chats” with the AB captain whereas he couldn’t extend the same to Morgan Parra because Parra doesn’t speak english.FFS.

They’ll be running out of refs willing to officiate All Black tests soon.Pathetic.

I saw that. He was insisting that officials appointed should speak the language of both teams as the appointments "Are known well in advance". It'll make those Fiji versus Japan or Uruguay versus Romania tests difficult to staff correctly.

He was also bagging the ref of the Wallaby vs. Ireland game. Who is a Kiwi.

Gallagher is an idiot and a bell end. He has hissy fits on twitter over NZers of Island heritage playing for NZ (senior and U20s) and when it's pointed out they're NZers he just re-hissy fits.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33251
UncleFB wrote:
The Native wrote:
BBB wrote:
Irish journo Brendan Gallagher is having ago at Gardner on Twitter now for having “long,cosy chats” with the AB captain whereas he couldn’t extend the same to Morgan Parra because Parra doesn’t speak english.FFS.

They’ll be running out of refs willing to officiate All Black tests soon.Pathetic.

I saw that. He was insisting that officials appointed should speak the language of both teams as the appointments "Are known well in advance". It'll make those Fiji versus Japan or Uruguay versus Romania tests difficult to staff correctly.

He was also bagging the ref of the Wallaby vs. Ireland game. Who is a Kiwi.

Gallagher is an idiot and a bell end. He has hissy fits on twitter over NZers of Island heritage playing for NZ (senior and U20s) and when it's pointed out they're NZers he just re-hissy fits.


The weirdest thing about him is his profile pic which must be twenty years old now of him in a Steve jobs style turtleneck.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6207
BBB wrote:
If you look at the footage of this incident though,you’ll see Fall never looks anywhere but at the ball and then barely jumps before he takes out Barretts legs.The onus is on him to realise where he is (which he so easily could have by taking a split second eye off the ball as players usually do in his situation) so as far as these types of Red cards go this one is pretty straight forward.
I just don’t understand why people are so confused and unhappy about this particular example of a Red Card for this type of offence when it was so easily avoided and caused injury.


To us old chaps the fact that Fall never took his eyes off the ball absolves him of blame.

Players are going to air now precisely because they know it gives them protection and reduces the options for the other side. It has almost become a competition to see who can be airborne first and get highest.

You can't jump into a tackle, so just ban jumping for a catch to make things consistent. This brings the competition for the ball back to the ground and both reduces the chances of injury and levels the playing field.

When I was playing rugby in the 70s things were a lot more violent and it is right that some of the thuggery has gone. Having said that, players then accepted the consequences of their actions. If you went into the air you ran a risk so players were far less likely to go vertical. Removing that risk for valid reasons is fine, but doing so has upset the balance between competitors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33251
Edinburgh01 wrote:
BBB wrote:
If you look at the footage of this incident though,you’ll see Fall never looks anywhere but at the ball and then barely jumps before he takes out Barretts legs.The onus is on him to realise where he is (which he so easily could have by taking a split second eye off the ball as players usually do in his situation) so as far as these types of Red cards go this one is pretty straight forward.
I just don’t understand why people are so confused and unhappy about this particular example of a Red Card for this type of offence when it was so easily avoided and caused injury.


To us old chaps the fact that Fall never took his eyes off the ball absolves him of blame.

Players are going to air now precisely because they know it gives them protection and reduces the options for the other side. It has almost become a competition to see who can be airborne first and get highest.

You can't jump into a tackle, so just ban jumping for a catch to make things consistent. This brings the competition for the ball back to the ground and both reduces the chances of injury and levels the playing field.

When I was playing rugby in the 70s things were a lot more violent and it is right that some of the thuggery has gone. Having said that, players then accepted the consequences of their actions. If you went into the air you ran a risk so players were far less likely to go vertical. Removing that risk for valid reasons is fine, but doing so has upset the balance between competitors.


Good old Dean Richards wouldn't catch too many kicks these days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39052
Location: in transit
All the talk about Fall not looking...

did Barrett?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3249
Edinburgh01 wrote:

You can't jump into a tackle, so just ban jumping for a catch to make things consistent.


Yes you can. And it's a penalty if someone tackles you when you do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6207
guy smiley wrote:
All the talk about Fall not looking...

did Barrett?


If you are referring to my point, I am pointing out that things have changed, and in the past (i.e. before the advent of strict liability) Fall not taking his eyes off the ball would be a critical factor in assessing culpability, regardless of what Barrett did.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6207
Sonny Blount wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:

You can't jump into a tackle, so just ban jumping for a catch to make things consistent.


Yes you can. And it's a penalty if someone tackles you when you do.


No you can't, that is dangerous play. Just think about the implications of what you suggest. A player is on attack, there is only one defender between him and the line. All he would need to do is jump into the tackle and the defender either has to let him past and score or it will be a penalty try.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39052
Location: in transit
Edinburgh01 wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
All the talk about Fall not looking...

did Barrett?


If you are referring to my point, I am pointing out that things have changed, and in the past (i.e. before the advent of strict liability) Fall not taking his eyes off the ball would be a critical factor in assessing culpability, regardless of what Barrett did.


I've been arguing a similar line to you. I happy with what I understand as the motive behind the ruling, to protect players from serious injury. I'm very uncomfortable on the full onus of the outcome resting on the player arriving to a contest for the ball who effectively can't control the actions of a player jumping over him. Eyes on the ball trying to compete is to me, a desirable way to attack but what we've seen is an expectation that he must look for others around him while trying to track the ball.

No-one has really looked at the responsibility of the player jumping.

It's not a good situation and I don't think WR are going about this the best way they could. Losing a player for the rest of the match just doesn't sit well for me in this type of scenario.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2721
Location: Wellingdingdington
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Sonny Blount wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:

You can't jump into a tackle, so just ban jumping for a catch to make things consistent.


Yes you can. And it's a penalty if someone tackles you when you do.


No you can't, that is dangerous play. Just think about the implications of what you suggest. A player is on attack, there is only one defender between him and the line. All he would need to do is jump into the tackle and the defender either has to let him past and score or it will be a penalty try.



Edinburgh01 is Jerome Garces and I hereby claim my chocolate fish


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:27 am
Posts: 413
Location: Mostly in my own head
jdogscoop wrote:
Hey Ardie, how about contesting a ruck from time to time. Don't you claim to be a seven?


Didn't he actually get a few turnovers in this game! Thought he had his best game in Black for a while.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6207
kiwidutchie wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Sonny Blount wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:

You can't jump into a tackle, so just ban jumping for a catch to make things consistent.

Yes you can. And it's a penalty if someone tackles you when you do.

No you can't, that is dangerous play. Just think about the implications of what you suggest. A player is on attack, there is only one defender between him and the line. All he would need to do is jump into the tackle and the defender either has to let him past and score or it will be a penalty try.

Edinburgh01 is Jerome Garces and I hereby claim my chocolate fish


You'll be referring to the penalty for tackling Sinckler in the air in the second Lions match?

Read correctly queries if Sinckler had jumped into the tackle which would be an All Blacks penalty. Sinckler had in fact jumped to take a high pass and was then hit in the air, which makes it a Lions penalty.

It also once more shows how daft the laws now are. If Sinckler had merely reached up to take the pass above his head and been tackled, play on regardless of what then happened. But because he got off the ground to catch the pass, it was a Lions penalty. The All Black defender had little or no chance of getting out of the way. He had no idea the pass would be high and Sinckler would jump and yet as the laws are now, it was a stone cold Lions penalty. Which gets back to my earlier point that the laws as they stand are well intended, but give too much advantage to the player in the air.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 11:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22133
Shrekles wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
Tehui wrote:
Flockwitt wrote:
DMac has steadily improved as a 10 at soup level and think he'll get there for the ABs.


There are better first-fives in NZ than McKenzie. He's yet to prove himself in that position at Super Rugby level. I'd rather have a specialist first-five on the bench.

One is leaving. That leaves Barrett and Mo'unga, and Mo'unga gets a luxury ride in that Crusaders team. DMac has been steadily improving, his biggest issue last night was being a hungus when making breaks.



It's mildly interesting to watch the rationalising going on over McKenzie.

it's all 'yeah but'...

he's currently a utility selection. If he was a recognised 10 with a proven track record in Soup rugby then his selection would stand on that but he's at best a 'mercurial' player at 10 who doesn't yet naturally direct a game and from my viewing, still tries to do too much himself.

So does Barrett to a degree.

Coincidentally, we've yet again got a Test team that doesn't really gel in the backs. Results flatter to deceive, and last night a 14 man French team got that whole AB side rattled and out of kilter.

Comparing with RichieMo, you've got an experienced 10 at Soup level who doesn't usually play fullback. I dunno if he ever has, to be fair. Apparently, the 'luxury' of playing behind the Crusaders pack is his weakness and we should extrapolate from that, that the ABs pack would be inferior to the Saders. We should just cap the Crusaders and be done with it, perhaps...

but Mo'unga will distribute and take the line on. He can also pass in the traditional manner as opposed to the DMac netball two handed push pass.

We're a year out from the RWC and this is a good time to be challenged. BB will probably miss next week due to concussion so I would be starting Mo'unga and leaving DMac on the bench as utility cover again. Mo'unga has to be given a run and assessed because we all know you can end up down to your 4th choice player in a RWC and it'd be handy to actually have options outside one specialist and one utility lined up.


I agree with this - it is time to see what Richie Mo can do behind the AB pack. Mackenzie is being picked as a bench utility and not as a first choice 10 I feel - I guess we will find out this week.


Same. It's time to see what Mo'unga can do. If it all goes to hell in a hand cart, well we have DMac on the sideline to rescue the situation.....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22133
Edinburgh01 wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
All the talk about Fall not looking...

did Barrett?


If you are referring to my point, I am pointing out that things have changed, and in the past (i.e. before the advent of strict liability) Fall not taking his eyes off the ball would be a critical factor in assessing culpability, regardless of what Barrett did.


I'm not sure of the correct wording, but they also assess effort to contest, i.e. was it a genuine attempt.

If you had watched the whole match, and I assume you haven't from your comments, you will have noticed several such aerial contests, even a couple where players landed heavily. The difference was, both players were in the air, both had their arms outstretched for the ball. No penalty. There is a clear difference between those contests and Fall's. As it is, I thought Fall was harshly treated, live I thought a yellow would have been more appropriate but I would not have grizzled at a penalty only.

As an aside, it's getting beyond tedious where there seems to be a hysteria that has been whipped up by journalists and social media that to the effect that whatever side of the coin the AB's are on, they are in the wrong. You do realise, don't you, that without fail your are all as asinine as Trump supporters and for the very same reasons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 44506
The chaser should always be aware of the position of any defender jumping for the ball and determining his chances of beating him in a contest for the ball.

Often we see a chaser, realising he does not have a decent chance and aware of the risks if he gets it wrong, of slowing down a bit and tackling the defender as he hits the ground.

Fall chose the high-risk option and paid a high price.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6767
All Blacks played poorly as a team.

New Zealand did not have 1 attack over 7 phases...
France had more runs, run metres, and 17 offloads to 10
NZ had 30 missed tackles (vs. 14)
They conceded 14 penalties ... (Ireland conceded 5 on Sat)

Overall poor game.

For next week:
- As i've said before i believe Mounga is a better 10 than DMac - however if the selectors feel DMaC is the back up 10 he needs to play there in the next test.
- If DMaC is at 10 i believe Ben should be 15 / Naholo on the wing.

KG


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 44506
kiwigreg369 wrote:
All Blacks played poorly as a team.

New Zealand did not have 1 attack over 7 phases...
France had more runs, run metres, and 17 offloads to 10
NZ had 30 missed tackles (vs. 14)
They conceded 14 penalties ... (Ireland conceded 5 on Sat)

Overall poor game.

For next week:
- As i've said before i believe Mounga is a better 10 than DMac - however if the selectors feel DMaC is the back up 10 he needs to play there in the next test.
- If DMaC is at 10 i believe Ben should be 15 / Naholo on the wing.

KG


I hope Shag starts with Mo'unga but he has to be on the bench if not starting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15257
Location: Auckland, NZ, Earth
I didn't even watch the match. First time in years I have missed a home test, just not feeling the interest at the moment.

That said, a 13 point win against a team of 14 is not a great effort by NZ standards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6207
Ted. wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
All the talk about Fall not looking...

did Barrett?


If you are referring to my point, I am pointing out that things have changed, and in the past (i.e. before the advent of strict liability) Fall not taking his eyes off the ball would be a critical factor in assessing culpability, regardless of what Barrett did.


I'm not sure of the correct wording, but they also assess effort to contest, i.e. was it a genuine attempt.

If you had watched the whole match, and I assume you haven't from your comments, you will have noticed several such aerial contests, even a couple where players landed heavily. The difference was, both players were in the air, both had their arms outstretched for the ball. No penalty. There is a clear difference between those contests and Fall's. As it is, I thought Fall was harshly treated, live I thought a yellow would have been more appropriate but I would not have grizzled at a penalty only.

As an aside, it's getting beyond tedious where there seems to be a hysteria that has been whipped up by journalists and social media that to the effect that whatever side of the coin the AB's are on, they are in the wrong. You do realise, don't you, that without fail your are all as asinine as Trump supporters and for the very same reasons.


Which supports my general point about the protection for the player in the air (for good reasons) is distorting the game. For there to be deemed to be a fair contest both players are now having to go airborne. Which means collisions are taking place in the air rather than on the ground, which must be more dangerous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2020
It's interesting that Hansen made the horseracing analogy in regards to Moody, Whitelock, Squire, Cane and Franks, of their 'second-up' being too close to their first start back. It's good too that he has owned up to that selectorial issue. Someone said that his team are 'yes-men,' and that may prove to be a genuine weakness in the zoo.

Looking forward, maybe the backline will depend upon combinations? If the start Mounga, then Crotty will be at 12, but if it's D Mac, then SBW at 12. Matt Todd at 7 surely, but with Frizzell at 6, who plays 8? Luke at 8 isn't really a ball carrier is he? Does Naholo come in and if so, who plays 15? Probably B Smith with Jordie to the bench. Rest Sam? Or go to the well again? Start KT and give Moody an impact role?Lots, LOTS to ponder, I suspect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39052
Location: in transit
Peteray wrote:
It's interesting that Hansen made the horseracing analogy in regards to Moody, Whitelock, Squire, Cane and Franks, of their 'second-up' being too close to their first start back. It's good too that he has owned up to that selectorial issue. Someone said that his team are 'yes-men,' and that may prove to be a genuine weakness in the zoo.

Looking forward, maybe the backline will depend upon combinations? If the start Mounga, then Crotty will be at 12, but if it's D Mac, then SBW at 12. Matt Todd at 7 surely, but with Frizzell at 6, who plays 8? Luke at 8 isn't really a ball carrier is he? Does Naholo come in and if so, who plays 15? Probably B Smith with Jordie to the bench. Rest Sam? Or go to the well again? Start KT and give Moody an impact role?Lots, LOTS to ponder, I suspect.



The trouble is too many possible combinations and I reckon that's the attraction to them of throwing McBarrett and DMac into the team. They've got the look of selections made in hope that potential becomes real.

It's the same across the park.

What's our starting 15 for the RWC looking like now?

We should know that at this stage. I reckon we haven't got a clue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18076
guy smiley wrote:
Peteray wrote:
It's interesting that Hansen made the horseracing analogy in regards to Moody, Whitelock, Squire, Cane and Franks, of their 'second-up' being too close to their first start back. It's good too that he has owned up to that selectorial issue. Someone said that his team are 'yes-men,' and that may prove to be a genuine weakness in the zoo.

Looking forward, maybe the backline will depend upon combinations? If the start Mounga, then Crotty will be at 12, but if it's D Mac, then SBW at 12. Matt Todd at 7 surely, but with Frizzell at 6, who plays 8? Luke at 8 isn't really a ball carrier is he? Does Naholo come in and if so, who plays 15? Probably B Smith with Jordie to the bench. Rest Sam? Or go to the well again? Start KT and give Moody an impact role?Lots, LOTS to ponder, I suspect.



The trouble is too many possible combinations and I reckon that's the attraction to them of throwing McBarrett and DMac into the team. They've got the look of selections made in hope that potential becomes real.

It's the same across the park.

What's our starting 15 for the RWC looking like now?

We should know that at this stage. I reckon we haven't got a clue.


We do, really

Moody
Taylor (if Coles doesn’t recover)
Franks
Retallick
Whitelock
Squire
Cane
Read
Snecky
B Barrett
Ioane
SBW
Crotty
Bender
J Barrett

Given some extraordinary luck with injuries, that’s likely to be very close to the starting XV (give or take Naholo or NMS pinching the right wing and switching Smith back to 15).

The problem is with the bench players, and wider depth. Our reserves have nothing like the quality and impact of 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16746
guy smiley wrote:
Peteray wrote:
It's interesting that Hansen made the horseracing analogy in regards to Moody, Whitelock, Squire, Cane and Franks, of their 'second-up' being too close to their first start back. It's good too that he has owned up to that selectorial issue. Someone said that his team are 'yes-men,' and that may prove to be a genuine weakness in the zoo.

Looking forward, maybe the backline will depend upon combinations? If the start Mounga, then Crotty will be at 12, but if it's D Mac, then SBW at 12. Matt Todd at 7 surely, but with Frizzell at 6, who plays 8? Luke at 8 isn't really a ball carrier is he? Does Naholo come in and if so, who plays 15? Probably B Smith with Jordie to the bench. Rest Sam? Or go to the well again? Start KT and give Moody an impact role?Lots, LOTS to ponder, I suspect.



The trouble is too many possible combinations and I reckon that's the attraction to them of throwing McBarrett and DMac into the team. They've got the look of selections made in hope that potential becomes real.

It's the same across the park.

What's our starting 15 for the RWC looking like now?

We should know that at this stage. I reckon we haven't got a clue.



You reckon? I'd say that 11 of the starting spots are nailed down (Franks, Moody, Retallick, Whitelock, Read, Cane, A Smith, Barrett, Ioane, Crotty, B Smith) barring injury and Harris & Squire are looking good for two of the others (fingers crossed for Coles return perhaps). Hardly 'haven't a clue' - though we are a bit vulnerable to injury.

EDIT - Taylor, not f**king Harris.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18076
Are you me, JCG?

Am I you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2020
Undoubtedly, our best 15 right now would appear to be Moody, Taylor, Franks, Whitelock, Retallick, Squire, Cane, Read, Smith, Barrett, Ioane, SBW, Crotty, Naholo, Smith. Is that going to change much? For me the biggest issues are tighthead prop, and a concern about the midfield tyros ALB and Goodhue not getting enough footy.

Another thing, am I alone in thinking that D Mac is so much more potent from fullback? I don't think he's a 10 at all. A fill-in maybe, but no more than that. Yet off the bench, could change a game dramatically in the last 20 minutes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18076
Peteray wrote:
Another thing, am I alone in thinking that D Mac is so much more potent from fullback? I don't think he's a 10 at all. A fill-in maybe, but no more than that. Yet off the bench, could change a game dramatically in the last 20 minutes.


Far from alone, you’re in the majority there. A majority of 100% I would say

Anyway, our biggest issue at the moment isn’t personnel. It’s defensive structure.

The drop off from Wayne Smith to McLeod is becoming more evident with every game


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39052
Location: in transit
Imma gonna let you finish but first...

I reckon there's a question mark over Jordie's head as far as being a test standard 15.

He's got speed and can hoof it. That's nice.

He also looks mentally suspect.

You query that, then your whole backline becomes a different beast. As for Crotty, I'm a massive fan BUT

he's physically unstable in the head. So that's a big risk taking into a RWC. Take him out of there and...

it gets messy.

Squire looks like being the default 6. Let's hope he's matured in the role by then. There's no-one else really, is there.

It's all f**ked man. All of it. Everyone. Everything.

Mind you, it all looked shaky this time 4 years ago so meh.

Nuthin to worry about.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18076
guy smiley wrote:
Imma gonna let you finish but first...

I reckon there's a question mark over Jordie's head as far as being a test standard 15.

He's got speed and can hoof it. That's nice.

He also looks mentally suspect.

You query that, then your whole backline becomes a different beast. As for Crotty, I'm a massive fan BUT

he's physically unstable in the head. So that's a big risk taking into a RWC. Take him out of there and...

it gets messy.

Squire looks like being the default 6. Let's hope he's matured in the role by then. There's no-one else really, is there.

It's all f**ked man. All of it. Everyone. Everything.

Mind you, it all looked shaky this time 4 years ago so meh.

Nuthin to worry about.


Jordie is the least likely of those nailed-on starters, but I think the Zoo are going to persist with him as he has a bigger upside than many of the other back three options and - most importantly - can cover kicking if his brother does a ‘Beauden’.

Personally I’d be happier with Ben back there and a fully fit and firing NMS or Naholo on the wing, but the next RWC is going to be an aerial bombardment and we need a tall, secure weapon for that


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33251
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Peteray wrote:
It's interesting that Hansen made the horseracing analogy in regards to Moody, Whitelock, Squire, Cane and Franks, of their 'second-up' being too close to their first start back. It's good too that he has owned up to that selectorial issue. Someone said that his team are 'yes-men,' and that may prove to be a genuine weakness in the zoo.

Looking forward, maybe the backline will depend upon combinations? If the start Mounga, then Crotty will be at 12, but if it's D Mac, then SBW at 12. Matt Todd at 7 surely, but with Frizzell at 6, who plays 8? Luke at 8 isn't really a ball carrier is he? Does Naholo come in and if so, who plays 15? Probably B Smith with Jordie to the bench. Rest Sam? Or go to the well again? Start KT and give Moody an impact role?Lots, LOTS to ponder, I suspect.



The trouble is too many possible combinations and I reckon that's the attraction to them of throwing McBarrett and DMac into the team. They've got the look of selections made in hope that potential becomes real.

It's the same across the park.

What's our starting 15 for the RWC looking like now?

We should know that at this stage. I reckon we haven't got a clue.



You reckon? I'd say that 11 of the starting spots are nailed down (Franks, Moody, Retallick, Whitelock, Read, Cane, A Smith, Barrett, Ioane, Crotty, B Smith) barring injury and Harris & Squire are looking good for two of the others (fingers crossed for Coles return perhaps). Hardly 'haven't a clue' - though we are a bit vulnerable to injury.

EDIT - Taylor, not f**king Harris.


Ireland are the only other team with anything like that settled-ness. It's not perfect, but the chop around the margins still allows for compeitition and semi-bolters, which is good at this stage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33251
guy smiley wrote:
Imma gonna let you finish but first...



Did you ever know Russell Brown in Timaru? You type like him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39052
Location: in transit
Seneca of the Night wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Imma gonna let you finish but first...



Did you ever know Russell Brown in Timaru? You type like him.


I got excited.

oh... no. Doesn't ring any bells. I've got a cousin named Russell if that helps, but his last name isn't Brown.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13042
Fall's red card withdrawn by the disciplinary commission. He is free to play next week.

How is Barrett? Has he recovered?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11252
Sonny Blount wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:

You can't jump into a tackle, so just ban jumping for a catch to make things consistent.


Yes you can. And it's a penalty if someone tackles you when you do.

You can't legally jump out of a tackle but you can jump into one, it was a red though.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 805 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bessantj, bimboman, Bing [Bot], Blake, booji boy, crouchy, danthefan, derriz, DOB, EverReady, Fangle, feckwanker, Google Adsense [Bot], Gospel, I like haggis, inactionman, irishrugbyua, jolindien, kerrandy, Laurent, Macrosan, Mick Mannock, MunsterMan!!!!!, Oxbow, penguin, pjm1, RuggaBugga, Salient, Whatever, Wilson's Toffee and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group