All Blacks 2025
-
@DurryMexted said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@brodean That approach works if you have no interest in winning games in 2-3 years time, or when injuries strike. I think its a critical job of the all blacks coach to have succession & contingency built into their squad and how they select players.
Similarly the balancing act of keeping fringe players interested in the jersey and not heading off shoreYou don't need to have players four deep in every position to have succession.
Replace players as needed with the next best cab off the rank has worked fine in the past. He hasn't even been picking the next best cab off the rank in a number of selections. Players like Fihaki and Bell were picked purely on his perceived potential over other players with a long CV of form and rounded game.
In the modern game injuries naturally force changes without having 'building depth four deep' as the primary number one focus.
Just managing injuries in the modern game will naturally build depth.
-
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Except at 10 of course, he's sure as shit not building depth there, or encouraging players to stick around.
I agree with you in principle but I suppose he thinks he’s got 3 already…throw in Love and he’s got his 4.
-
@DurryMexted
Sort of agree and the balance is hard to find but I’m a bit sick of this building for the future argument. When Robertson took over he had more than 40 tests before the World Cup and these are tests we want to win. From being a bet meh about him I give him credit for building depth ( 8 new caps this year) without throwing games away. -
It's not even possible to build depth to four players in each position. There just isn't enough game time to get every player enough experience - and recent experience if they get the call up - to be accustomed to test rugby. A couple of caps against Japan or ten minutes at a time here and there doesn't cut it.
-
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
It's not even possible to build depth to four players in each position. There just isn't enough game time to get every player enough experience - and recent experience if they get the call up - to be accustomed to test rugby. A couple of caps against Japan or ten minutes at a time here and there doesn't to cut it.
i kind of agree in principle, add to that when we have most super rugby teams trying to play the same way we're not getting much different from the few choices we have
but, we also dont help ourselves with the persistence of the bench spot just being the second best available in a position rather than having as many of the next generation on the bench as we can
-
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
It's not even possible to build depth to four players in each position. There just isn't enough game time to get every player enough experience - and recent experience if they get the call up - to be accustomed to test rugby. A couple of caps against Japan or ten minutes at a time here and there doesn't to cut it.
i kind of agree in principle, add to that when we have most super rugby teams trying to play the same way we're not getting much different from the few choices we have
but, we also dont help ourselves with the persistence of the bench spot just being the second best available in a position rather than having as many of the next generation on the bench as we can
I agree. I've said on here a few times they should be letting one or two guys have a significant run each week amongst the core group to see how they go - if they perform, they might get another go, if not, they wait their turn again. But that's really to find out if there are better options available outside the current 23, not to build depth to four players.
-
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
It's not even possible to build depth to four players in each position. There just isn't enough game time to get every player enough experience - and recent experience if they get the call up - to be accustomed to test rugby. A couple of caps against Japan or ten minutes at a time here and there doesn't cut it.
I don't think it's necessarily all about game time and it's certainly not about having four equal and interchangeable options. And it's not an easy thing to do if you're starting from near scratch - e.g. at halfback (though already we have Roigard, Hotham, Christie and Ratima - any of whom the coaches appear comfortable starting against the Boks).
But, at hooker, for example - we have Taylor, Tahei'aho, Aumua, McAllister and Bell - all as capped All Blacks. And the first three have played enough tests now to slot in if required. He needs to give one of the other two enough game time to be comfortable as the fourth option. But, someone like Bell has spent a season already in the AB environment. He may not have match minutes on the clock, but he should be comfortable in the environment, know the drills and how everything works. Not be like parachuting in having never been there before.
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@brodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@brodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Interesting to see that Jordan has been demoted from fullback to wing.
Interesting you see that as a demotion. Played at fullback, did you?
I think if your preferred position is fullback - which requires more skill, more vision, and has more influence/responsibility - then yes - being moved from your preferred position to a position with less tactical influence is a demotion.
So has BB been promoted or demoted to 10 from 15? Has Parker been promoted or demoted to 6 from 8? Has Vaai been promoted or demoted to lock from 6 or the other way around? Has DMac been promoted or demoted for this game? Do you have a type of Bloom's Taxonomy for rugby positions, or is it just your bias showing through once again?
BB has always coveted the 10 position so promotion.
Vaa'i preferred position is lock = promotion 6 to lock.
The New Zealand rugby mindset is still one of starters have more prestige than finishes.
Dmac = promotion.
Holland = demotion.Parker - not sure what his preferred position is. He's basically been a utility at the Chiefs for most of his career.
-
@Chris-B said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
It's not even possible to build depth to four players in each position. There just isn't enough game time to get every player enough experience - and recent experience if they get the call up - to be accustomed to test rugby. A couple of caps against Japan or ten minutes at a time here and there doesn't cut it.
I don't think it's necessarily all about game time and it's certainly not about having four equal and interchangeable options. And it's not an easy thing to do if you're starting from near scratch - e.g. at halfback (though already we have Roigard, Hotham, Christie and Ratima - any of whom the coaches appear comfortable starting against the Boks).
But, at hooker, for example - we have Taylor, Tahei'aho, Aumua, McAllister and Bell - all as capped All Blacks. And the first three have played enough tests now to slot in if required. He needs to give one of the other two enough game time to be comfortable as the fourth option. But, someone like Bell has spent a season already in the AB environment. He may not have match minutes on the clock, but he should be comfortable in the environment, know the drills and how everything works. Not be like parachuting in having never been there before.
He doesn't need to force game time to develop depth.
McAllister is naturally getting more game time due to unavailability.
Players like McAllister shouldn't just be handed tests in the RC for the point of depth development when we have only won 5 out 9 RC games under Razor's tenure.
We need to play our best players that are available.
-
@brodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Players like McAllister shouldn't just be handed tests in the RC for the point of depth development
he isnt being handed a test just for development, he is there due to injuries.
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@brodean said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Players like McAllister shouldn't just be handed tests in the RC for the point of depth development
he isnt being handed a test just for development, he is there due to injuries.
Yeah, that is my point, he is getting game time due to injury and that should be enough for his development at the moment if he's clearly below the other 3.
Injury will provide development opportunities.
-
@Chris-B said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
It's not even possible to build depth to four players in each position. There just isn't enough game time to get every player enough experience - and recent experience if they get the call up - to be accustomed to test rugby. A couple of caps against Japan or ten minutes at a time here and there doesn't cut it.
I don't think it's necessarily all about game time and it's certainly not about having four equal and interchangeable options. And it's not an easy thing to do if you're starting from near scratch - e.g. at halfback (though already we have Roigard, Hotham, Christie and Ratima - any of whom the coaches appear comfortable starting against the Boks).
But, at hooker, for example - we have Taylor, Tahei'aho, Aumua, McAllister and Bell - all as capped All Blacks. And the first three have played enough tests now to slot in if required. He needs to give one of the other two enough game time to be comfortable as the fourth option. But, someone like Bell has spent a season already in the AB environment. He may not have match minutes on the clock, but he should be comfortable in the environment, know the drills and how everything works. Not be like parachuting in having never been there before.
Well they have to select someone.
-
@Bones said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Wonder what's happened to the Vaa'i at 6 experiment?
Parker.
Plus Vaai will be the captain by 2027...
He can’t be, he claps after we win the ball.
-
@ACT-Crusader well wasnt it after we were lucky enough to defuse thier lethal mid-field lineout, so maybe it was more a laugh-clap, he shoulda slapped his knee too...
-
@Snowy said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Except at 10 of course, he's sure as shit not building depth there, or encouraging players to stick around.
I agree with you in principle but I suppose he thinks he’s got 3 already…throw in Love and he’s got his 4.
I think 2 will be pretty close to the age that the great Dan Carter retired at by the next WC, and our current incumbent is older than that right now?
On top of that, you could mount an argument that at least 2 and maybe all 3 of them are fairly reliant on their pace and acceleration for their (supposed) effectiveness - as opposed to Carter's game management - which is a touch more resilient to the indignities of old age. -
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Bones said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Wonder what's happened to the Vaa'i at 6 experiment?
Parker.
Plus Vaai will be the captain by 2027...
He can’t be, he claps after we win the ball.
I love a bit of passion. For a while there we became too reserved and conservative (and relinquished ranking number one)
We're back! -
He needs to experiment at 10 this year. That is non negotiable
-
@BerniesCorner said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
He needs to experiment at 10 this year. That is non negotiable
we know he wont though, he has RM coming back and DMac and BB currently his go too
-
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@Snowy said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Springboks II:
Except at 10 of course, he's sure as shit not building depth there, or encouraging players to stick around.
I agree with you in principle but I suppose he thinks he’s got 3 already…throw in Love and he’s got his 4.
I think 2 will be pretty close to the age that the great Dan Carter retired at by the next WC, and our current incumbent is older than that right now?
On top of that, you could mount an argument that at least 2 and maybe all 3 of them are fairly reliant on their pace and acceleration for their (supposed) effectiveness - as opposed to Carter's game management - which is a touch more resilient to the indignities of old age. -
