Planet Rugby Forum

brat wrote:What dud wing selections?

Surely not Reece and bridge who both deserved selection on form, and who both played well in the rwc?

Yup, in UncleFB's fantasy world Reiko Ioane's form never fell off a cliff in 2019, and I presume he wanted Waisake Naholo or Jordie Barrett at 14?

brat wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

Grandpa wrote:4 years till next world cup.. let's be adventurous... but please don't let Jordie Barrett anywhere near the All Blacks ever again... and Rieko has surprised me at how good he is playing at 13... speed and power in the backs... and in the back row... I'd have picked Tom Robinson if he wasn't injured...

15 B Barrett
14 Jordan
13 R Ioane
12 Goodhue
11 Caleb Clarke
10 Richie Mo
9 Smith
8 Sotutu
7 Savea
6 Frizzell
5 Whitelock (C)
4 Tuipulotu
3 Laulala
2 Taylor
1 Moody

16 Coles
17 Ofa
18 Lomax
19 S Barrett
20 Papalii
21 Nock
22 McKenzie
23 ALB

This isn't a bad 23 - but very experimental as you say. I can't see Foster dropping his captain Sam Cane from the match day 23. And I've got as much chance of wearing the All Black no.21 jersey this year as Nock does. I actually don't hate your Goodhue/Ioane midfield, whilst I don't like Reiko at 13 I think Goodhue would be able to bring the best out of his running game.

I think we will be spending the next 4 years questioning why Ian Foster keeps selecting Sam Cane at openside flanker when there are better options available.

Frankly, I'll still be spending the next 4 years wondering why Hansen threw the RWC away by not selecting Cane in favour of his older Barrett love child (not to mention his dud wings selection).

What dud wing selections?

Surely not Reece and bridge who both deserved selection on form, and who both played well in the rwc?

Played well ... you’re having a laugh. They conjured up 4 tries between them. I was a fan of Bridge but after a good start he didn’t live up to your hype and your domestic abuser mate was barely any better.

Ali's Choice wrote:

brat wrote:What dud wing selections?

Surely not Reece and bridge who both deserved selection on form, and who both played well in the rwc?

Yup, in UncleFB's fantasy world Reiko Ioane's form never fell off a cliff in 2019, and I presume he wanted Waisake Naholo or Jordie Barrett at 14?

Sheesh AC, those are the worst two examples of players that I’d ever pick ever ... they’d be lucky to even make my RWC squad.

Sonny Blount wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

jdogscoop wrote:

Sonny Blount wrote:

Grandpa wrote:
Something about Nock... a bit of the Faf de Klerk about him... I think he could flourish at international level.

And Goodhue gives you the luxury of having Rieko at 13... see if he cn develop in the role... and then what an exciting back 4 that gives you... #dreamy

Why the fudge would you select Rieko at 13 other then memories of his career at 11?

You wouldn't. He simply is not the best centre in New Zealand, or even on the dias.

Who is the best centre (not 2nd five or centre playing 2nd five) in NZ according to you two?

Sonny: You can't pick JB on his potential at centre either.

ALB

ALB is an instant pick in my AB midfield, but he’s been in average form during the Super Rugy Aotearoa comp.

UncleFB wrote:

jdogscoop wrote:

akann wrote:Has any AB coach gotten off so easily after a WC disaster, the way Hansen has? The media in particular are terrified to criticise him. Even the general public were relatively forgiving. Hart, Mitchell and Henry were not so lucky.

Several reasons.

1. The media are scared of Hansen because he threatens to step reporters outside.
2. The public are generally forgiving because we'd won the previous two world cups with Hansen involved.
3. The public are generally forgiving because it wasn't a great All Blacks side and met its match in England.
4. The public were more critical of Hart, Mitchell and Henry because they all lost to inferior sides.

I don't think that England was a superior side to what the ABs could have put out anymore than Mitchell's side that got rolled by Eddie was too.

Yes it was. In our most recent game at Twickenham we'd been lucky to win when TJ telegraphed his fvcking box kick, got charged down and we were fortunate enough to be on the right side of a marginal offside call.

No right thinking Kiwi was assuming we'd walk the semi-final, and more than a few people were anxious to read Scott Barrett named as the starting 6 despite very little experience in that position.

In 2003, we'd smacked Australia in the Tri Nations and were rightly confident going into the semi-final against a side we thought we had the measure of. Eddie Jones was basically laughed at in the pre-match presser for saying they had a decent chance.

The only similarity is that NZ got done up front in both games.

UncleFB wrote: Sheesh AC, those are the worst two examples of players that I’d ever pick ever ... they’d be lucky to even make my RWC squad.

So who would you have picked at 14 for the AB's at last year's RWC? You bang on and on about the Crusaders wingers being bad selections for the RWC but who would you have had over Reece?

jdogscoop wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

jdogscoop wrote:

akann wrote:Has any AB coach gotten off so easily after a WC disaster, the way Hansen has? The media in particular are terrified to criticise him. Even the general public were relatively forgiving. Hart, Mitchell and Henry were not so lucky.

Several reasons.

1. The media are scared of Hansen because he threatens to step reporters outside.
2. The public are generally forgiving because we'd won the previous two world cups with Hansen involved.
3. The public are generally forgiving because it wasn't a great All Blacks side and met its match in England.
4. The public were more critical of Hart, Mitchell and Henry because they all lost to inferior sides.

I don't think that England was a superior side to what the ABs could have put out anymore than Mitchell's side that got rolled by Eddie was too.

Yes it was. In our most recent game at Twickenham we'd been lucky to win when TJ telegraphed his fvcking box kick, got charged down and we were fortunate enough to be on the right side of a marginal offside call.

No right thinking Kiwi was assuming we'd walk the semi-final, and more than a few people were anxious to read Scott Barrett named as the starting 6 despite very little experience in that position.

In 2003, we'd smacked Australia in the Tri Nations and were rightly confident going into the semi-final against a side we thought we had the measure of. Eddie Jones was basically laughed at in the pre-match presser for saying they had a decent chance.

The only similarity is that NZ got done up front in both games.

If England were that superior they would have won the final against SA easily... and they didn't. The same SA who had lost to NZ a few weeks before...

This has been discussed ad infinitum on this forum. NZ lost because of tactics on the day and the wrong mental attitude going into the match. They didn't approach it with the same hunger and focus as they did the previous week... I think they expected to win... you only have to be off your game 2% and you'll get shafted...

I compare it to the 2015 team that beat France in the quarters....an emotional bogey team... and yet kept it together the following week to beat SA.

Last years team lacked the same mental strength even though a few of them had been there before... Cane would have helped. But the coaches (and leadership group) failed them in the days leading up to that match...

Ali's Choice wrote:

UncleFB wrote: Sheesh AC, those are the worst two examples of players that I’d ever pick ever ... they’d be lucky to even make my RWC squad.

So who would you have picked at 14 for the AB's at last year's RWC? You bang on and on about the Crusaders wingers being bad selections for the RWC but who would you have had over Reece?

Easy Ben Smith, unlike Hansen I would have let him play himself back into form, instead of taking the Perth game, looking at our forwards collapsing like cheap suits and blaming our wings.

jdogscoop wrote: Yes it was. In our most recent game at Twickenham we'd been lucky to win when TJ telegraphed his fvcking box kick, got charged down and we were fortunate enough to be on the right side of a marginal offside call.

No right thinking Kiwi was assuming we'd walk the semi-final, and more than a few people were anxious to read Scott Barrett named as the starting 6 despite very little experience in that position.

In 2003, we'd smacked Australia in the Tri Nations and were rightly confident going into the semi-final against a side we thought we had the measure of. Eddie Jones was basically laughed at in the pre-match presser for saying they had a decent chance.

The only similarity is that NZ got done up front in both games.

Nah that's straight up after the fact thinking, no Kiwis honestly thought we were going to lose that match, everyone thought it would be tight but we'd prevail in the end ... although, I straight up said we were in trouble when we dropped Cane for Barrett.

@fb

Reece was the standout winger on form over the whole season - he deserved to be there along with bridge

I don’t really see the overall relevance of 4 tries in the tournament as they both played well -especially vs the boks, sometimes wingers don’t score the tries depending on the pattern of the game

Smith and especially reiko were down on form all year, yes you could pick them on experience but it would’ve been a mistake

The English game was lost up front, it wouldn’t matter who was on the wing in that game, wouldn’t have made bugger all difference

UncleFB wrote:

Ali's Choice wrote:

UncleFB wrote: Sheesh AC, those are the worst two examples of players that I’d ever pick ever ... they’d be lucky to even make my RWC squad.

So who would you have picked at 14 for the AB's at last year's RWC? You bang on and on about the Crusaders wingers being bad selections for the RWC but who would you have had over Reece?

Easy Ben Smith, unlike Hansen I would have let him play himself back into form, instead of taking the Perth game, looking at our forwards collapsing like cheap suits and blaming our wings.

jdogscoop wrote: Yes it was. In our most recent game at Twickenham we'd been lucky to win when TJ telegraphed his fvcking box kick, got charged down and we were fortunate enough to be on the right side of a marginal offside call.

No right thinking Kiwi was assuming we'd walk the semi-final, and more than a few people were anxious to read Scott Barrett named as the starting 6 despite very little experience in that position.

In 2003, we'd smacked Australia in the Tri Nations and were rightly confident going into the semi-final against a side we thought we had the measure of. Eddie Jones was basically laughed at in the pre-match presser for saying they had a decent chance.

The only similarity is that NZ got done up front in both games.

Nah that's straight up after the fact thinking, no Kiwis honestly thought we were going to lose that match, everyone thought it would be tight but we'd prevail in the end ... although, I straight up said we were in trouble when we dropped Cane for Barrett.

You are dreaming. England had just belted Australia and looked in commanding form. If any Kiwi was supremely confident of beating them, they were an idiot. I certainly had my concerns.

By contrast, no one would have expected us to lose the 2003 semi, and rightly so. We'd full on smeshed Australia in the Tri Nations with daylight second.

Does anyone else reflect upon the fact that the AB's back three suffered after Ben Smith was moved from 15. There's more to fullback than catch and kick!

Peteray wrote:Does anyone else reflect upon the fact that the AB's back three suffered after Ben Smith was moved from 15. There's more to fullback than catch and kick!

Yes, me. By far our best fullback played out of position... to accommodate the 2 playmakers.

We got out-thought in that semi but way more out-passioned. We were just losing collisions from the start, it was a head space thing, we weren't in it. I still think it's a credit the ABs how they stayed in that game till Sam W got the penalty reversed, given how much we were being dominated. Selections played a very far second place.

Toro wrote:We got out-thought in that semi but way more out-passioned. We were just losing collisions from the start, it was a head space thing, we weren't in it. I still think it's a credit the ABs how they stayed in that game till Sam W got the penalty reversed, given how much we were being dominated. Selections played a very far second place.

Pretty much this. Even though we were getting smashed at times, England couldn't really get comfortably away and I (along with many of the English supporters I was with) were pretty sure the ABs would score to get them back into the game.
Credit to England for not allowing them to do this but we really weren't mentally at the top of our game as we should have been.

I think it also came down to the ABs playing all the 'probables' for the WC. Realistically it was NZ, Ireland, SA and England battling it out for the WC with possibly Oz and France as outsiders. NZ played and beat SA, mainly by out thinking them and played and beat Ireland mainly because they wanted it more and it was clear it was a target game for them. NZ was England's 1st game against a probable and they were much fresher mentally and physically for it.

Peteray wrote:Does anyone else reflect upon the fact that the AB's back three suffered after Ben Smith was moved from 15. There's more to fullback than catch and kick!

What did you have in mind? The outside backs were picked on form and I don’t think that’s where we lost.

brat wrote:@fb

Reece was the standout winger on form over the whole season - he deserved to be there along with bridge

I don’t really see the overall relevance of 4 tries in the tournament as they both played well -especially vs the boks, sometimes wingers don’t score the tries depending on the pattern of the game

Smith and especially reiko were down on form all year, yes you could pick them on experience but it would’ve been a mistake

The English game was lost up front, it wouldn’t matter who was on the wing in that game, wouldn’t have made bugger all difference

This is revisionist at best, a supposedly down on form all year Reiko out ran, out beat defenders, and out scored most other NZ wings (including Bridge) in Super rugby except the Fijian domestic abuser - while playing for the Blues (and not this years Blues either). Also, as you know I don't think Reece should have even been eligible for the team regardless of how well he was playing - the guy should have been playing club rugby in Ireland but couldn't control himself on the drink and Hansen rewarded him for that (yep, I'm still bitter about, and still surprised by anyone not having a problem with it).

I've said many many times that we lost the England game due to the forwards, and said we were in trouble from the moment we dropped our best offensive defender - but that decision was just a further example of the reactionary selecting that the plagued the ABs that year, which was also highlighted by blaming the wings for Perth - in a game where it wouldn't matter who was on the wing. We lost to England due to bad selection and mentally not being there which caused surprising errors (Whitelock) and unsurprising errors (Jordie).

Uncle FB, where was this concern over domestic abuse when other recent AB's committed similar crimes? Or does name suppression (even when we know who was involved) make the difference? There are a couple of recent AB wingers who have committed similar acts.

Ali's Choice wrote:Uncle FB, where was this concern over domestic abuse when other recent AB's committed similar crimes? Or does name suppression (even when we know who was involved) make the difference? There are a couple of recent AB wingers who have committed similar acts.

I've never been happy with any ABs committing domestic abuse - why would you pretend otherwise? I gave lots of shit to Julian Savea. None of the others were recent selections in the ABs who only made the team because their contract with an overseas club was cancelled due to their domestic abuse. It was a stain on NZ rugby to not even stand him down for at least a year from representative selection, that's NRL level bad.

I’m with UncleFB. Reece’s rise to stardom on the back of domestic abuse doesn’t sit well with me at all.

Wilderbeast wrote:I’m with UncleFB. Reece’s rise to stardom on the back of domestic abuse doesn’t sit well with me at all.

Every domestic violence case is different and Reece's was at the extremely low end. My understanding is that his actions were defensive in nature, that his Mrs was overwhelmingly the instigator of violence in this incident, and that if he had made a complaint to the police she'd have likely been in jail.

Ali's Choice wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:I’m with UncleFB. Reece’s rise to stardom on the back of domestic abuse doesn’t sit well with me at all.

Every domestic violence case is different and Reece's was at the extremely low end. My understanding is that his actions were defensive in nature, that his Mrs was overwhelmingly the instigator of violence in this incident, and that if he had made a complaint to the police she'd have likely been in jail.

This is what I have heard and it certainly helps. I didn’t like Hansen batting for him though, really just felt like him justifying a selection as to really believing Reece was a reformed good guy.

No one goes to jail on a one off domestic violence charge.
You have to be trying really really really hard to see a prison sentence for practically anything outside murder or 100kg of Methamphetamine.

Peteray wrote:
Does anyone else reflect upon the fact that the AB's back three suffered after Ben Smith was moved from 15. There's more to fullback than catch and kick!


What did you have in mind? The outside backs were picked on form and I don’t think that’s where we lost.

I'm thinking along the lines of the complete fullback also being the 'master' of the backfield. He was moved, obviously, to accommodate the two playmaker scenario of DMac, Beaudy and RMO, and while all are quality players anywhere on the park, it always seemed that Smith was able to move the wings, and 10 at times, in sync with what he was doing. Communication is essential in ensuring the back three functions as a unit of its own. Navel gazing I guess, but it is what it is.

I don’t see any way in which Smith turns our fortunes around. Cane for Barrett possibly, but I think the tactics were wrong and the mental aspect wasn’t there.

Wilderbeast wrote:I don’t see any way in which Smith turns our fortunes around. Cane for Barrett possibly, but I think the tactics were wrong and the mental aspect wasn’t there.

Yeah, I don't see us winning that game period. No one player was good enough to reverse the team's mindset on the day and salvage a win. Dominated from 1-8, and the better team won.

Hansen and Foster's arrogance in thinking similar tactics would account for England in the way they'd done for Ireland made it a deserved loss.

Peteray wrote:Peteray wrote:
Does anyone else reflect upon the fact that the AB's back three suffered after Ben Smith was moved from 15. There's more to fullback than catch and kick!


What did you have in mind? The outside backs were picked on form and I don’t think that’s where we lost.

I'm thinking along the lines of the complete fullback also being the 'master' of the backfield. He was moved, obviously, to accommodate the two playmaker scenario of DMac, Beaudy and RMO, and while all are quality players anywhere on the park, it always seemed that Smith was able to move the wings, and 10 at times, in sync with what he was doing. Communication is essential in ensuring the back three functions as a unit of its own. Navel gazing I guess, but it is what it is.

Ben Smith wouldn't have sharted his shorts like Jordie Barrett did, but we'd still have lost the game.

We'd be talking about how solid he was despite very limited opportunities in the 7-19 loss.

I'm a firm believer in putting your best AB side on the park, no matter how far away the Rugby World Cup may be.

With that in mind, here's mine:

15. B.Barrett
14. S. Reece
13. J. Goodhue
12. A. Lienert-Brown
11. G. Bridge
10. R Mo'unga
9. A. Smith
8. H. Sotutu
7. S. Cane (c)
6. A. Savea
5. S. Whitelock
4. S. Barrett
3. N. Laulala
2. D.Coles
1. J. Moody

16. C. Taylor
17. O. Tuungafasi
18. T. Lomax
19. P. Tuipolotu
20. D. Papali'i
21. T. Perenara
22. N. Laumape
23. J. Barrett

UncleFB wrote:

brat wrote:@fb

Reece was the standout winger on form over the whole season - he deserved to be there along with bridge

I don’t really see the overall relevance of 4 tries in the tournament as they both played well -especially vs the boks, sometimes wingers don’t score the tries depending on the pattern of the game

Smith and especially reiko were down on form all year, yes you could pick them on experience but it would’ve been a mistake

The English game was lost up front, it wouldn’t matter who was on the wing in that game, wouldn’t have made bugger all difference

This is revisionist at best, a supposedly down on form all year Reiko out ran, out beat defenders, and out scored most other NZ wings (including Bridge) in Super rugby except the Fijian domestic abuser - while playing for the Blues (and not this years Blues either). Also, as you know I don't think Reece should have even been eligible for the team regardless of how well he was playing - the guy should have been playing club rugby in Ireland but couldn't control himself on the drink and Hansen rewarded him for that (yep, I'm still bitter about, and still surprised by anyone not having a problem with it).

I've said many many times that we lost the England game due to the forwards, and said we were in trouble from the moment we dropped our best offensive defender - but that decision was just a further example of the reactionary selecting that the plagued the ABs that year, which was also highlighted by blaming the wings for Perth - in a game where it wouldn't matter who was on the wing. We lost to England due to bad selection and mentally not being there which caused surprising errors (Whitelock) and unsurprising errors (Jordie).

If you seriously think reiko should have been running out as one starting winger as you are implying you are delusional

No revisionism at all, no way was his form anywhere that of Reece, and some way behind bridge -think you may have memory loss

Once Hansen decided that Reece’s form was irresistible then the other wing was always going to be player like bridge rather that ioane for a rwc starting wing

The vast majority of fans were happy with the starting wing combination, and again the 4 tries were irrelevant in the context of the games played

If you want to point fingers at the backs, then yes I agree that Jordie was a poor selection, along with not starting cane

brat wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

brat wrote:@fb

Reece was the standout winger on form over the whole season - he deserved to be there along with bridge

I don’t really see the overall relevance of 4 tries in the tournament as they both played well -especially vs the boks, sometimes wingers don’t score the tries depending on the pattern of the game

Smith and especially reiko were down on form all year, yes you could pick them on experience but it would’ve been a mistake

The English game was lost up front, it wouldn’t matter who was on the wing in that game, wouldn’t have made bugger all difference

This is revisionist at best, a supposedly down on form all year Reiko out ran, out beat defenders, and out scored most other NZ wings (including Bridge) in Super rugby except the Fijian domestic abuser - while playing for the Blues (and not this years Blues either). Also, as you know I don't think Reece should have even been eligible for the team regardless of how well he was playing - the guy should have been playing club rugby in Ireland but couldn't control himself on the drink and Hansen rewarded him for that (yep, I'm still bitter about, and still surprised by anyone not having a problem with it).

I've said many many times that we lost the England game due to the forwards, and said we were in trouble from the moment we dropped our best offensive defender - but that decision was just a further example of the reactionary selecting that the plagued the ABs that year, which was also highlighted by blaming the wings for Perth - in a game where it wouldn't matter who was on the wing. We lost to England due to bad selection and mentally not being there which caused surprising errors (Whitelock) and unsurprising errors (Jordie).

If you seriously think reiko should have been running out as one starting winger as you are implying you are delusional

No revisionism at all, no way was his form anywhere that of Reece, and some way behind bridge -think you may have memory loss

Once Hansen decided that Reece’s form was irresistible then the other wing was always going to be player like bridge rather that ioane for a rwc starting wing

The vast majority of fans were happy with the starting wing combination, and again the 4 tries were irrelevant in the context of the games played

If you want to point fingers at the backs, then yes I agree that Jordie was a poor selection, along with not starting cane

He scored more tries than Bridge, ran more metres than Bridge, beat more defenders than Bridge etc etc. I was always a fan of Bridge but after a good start in the ABs he became pedestrian.

I also don't think the second bold is true, lots of fans weren't happy - a small majority at best.

Hilarious that you're on the 4 tries (between them) doesn't matter mantra when their early try scoring romps were and are used to hype their selection.

Ah well, we can't change the result, so no doubt this will be argued about at regular 6 months intervals from now until eternity (or the end of PR, whichever comes first).

You'll struggle to find many Kiwi supporters agreeing with you on that one, Uncle FB.

There are a few factors you can pin that loss to England on.

Selecting Reece and Bridge over Reiko Ioane ain't one of 'em.

Does anyone else get the feeling that in 20 years time aging trolls like Uncle FB will be blaming the Crusaders' wingers for our 2019 RWC semi final loss, in a similar way that they blame Robbie Deans now for not selecting Christian Cullen in 2003, despite it being undisputed & common knowledge that Deans's contract clearly stated that he was not an All Black selector and could never sit in on an AB selection meeting because of his coaching role at the Crusaders and the perceived conflict of interest.

Do people blame Deans for Cullen? I blame Mitchell, he’d have final say wouldn’t he?

Wilderbeast wrote:Do people blame Deans for Cullen? I blame Mitchell, he’d have final say wouldn’t he?

I've seen posters blame Deans for Cullen so many times.

UncleFB wrote:

brat wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

brat wrote:@fb

Reece was the standout winger on form over the whole season - he deserved to be there along with bridge

I don’t really see the overall relevance of 4 tries in the tournament as they both played well -especially vs the boks, sometimes wingers don’t score the tries depending on the pattern of the game

Smith and especially reiko were down on form all year, yes you could pick them on experience but it would’ve been a mistake

The English game was lost up front, it wouldn’t matter who was on the wing in that game, wouldn’t have made bugger all difference

This is revisionist at best, a supposedly down on form all year Reiko out ran, out beat defenders, and out scored most other NZ wings (including Bridge) in Super rugby except the Fijian domestic abuser - while playing for the Blues (and not this years Blues either). Also, as you know I don't think Reece should have even been eligible for the team regardless of how well he was playing - the guy should have been playing club rugby in Ireland but couldn't control himself on the drink and Hansen rewarded him for that (yep, I'm still bitter about, and still surprised by anyone not having a problem with it).

I've said many many times that we lost the England game due to the forwards, and said we were in trouble from the moment we dropped our best offensive defender - but that decision was just a further example of the reactionary selecting that the plagued the ABs that year, which was also highlighted by blaming the wings for Perth - in a game where it wouldn't matter who was on the wing. We lost to England due to bad selection and mentally not being there which caused surprising errors (Whitelock) and unsurprising errors (Jordie).

If you seriously think reiko should have been running out as one starting winger as you are implying you are delusional

No revisionism at all, no way was his form anywhere that of Reece, and some way behind bridge -think you may have memory loss

Once Hansen decided that Reece’s form was irresistible then the other wing was always going to be player like bridge rather that ioane for a rwc starting wing

The vast majority of fans were happy with the starting wing combination, and again the 4 tries were irrelevant in the context of the games played

If you want to point fingers at the backs, then yes I agree that Jordie was a poor selection, along with not starting cane

He scored more tries than Bridge, ran more metres than Bridge, beat more defenders than Bridge etc etc. I was always a fan of Bridge but after a good start in the ABs he became pedestrian.

I also don't think the second bold is true, lots of fans weren't happy - a small majority at best.

Hilarious that you're on the 4 tries (between them) doesn't matter mantra when their early try scoring romps were and are used to hype their selection.

Ah well, we can't change the result, so no doubt this will be argued about at regular 6 months intervals from now until eternity (or the end of PR, whichever comes first).

Why would the 4 tries matter if they are winning and the tries are scored amongst the players.. Which is what was happening- apart from the England game

I’m not worried about stats, you can talk about them as much as you like but reikos form was not good enough to be a starting wing, especially with Reece nailing down one spot- they needed a kicking/ fb style wing on the wing- They could’ve also started smith there as well

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one

Yeah I’m with brat on Ioane. His form wasn’t as good as Reece so going with a fb/wing on the other side was logical.