Bledisloe II
-
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
I think it is a failing of most supporters, and even teams, but Ozzie seem to be especially susceptible to it. The idolisation of players that do easily spotted amazing things. Folau and Pocock are prime example, Folau is almost unmatched in the air and is a devastating runner - but still awful at positioning and other fullback 'must haves'. But he's so spectacular that he is over hyped and used. You can say the same for Beaudy, this year anyway, but he seems worse at some core 10 roles than previous. But he gets rave reviews for his amazing, and very easy to see, plays. At least Beaudy has done the core in games during his AB career, Folau has never done a proper full backs role. And Pocock is a one trick, amazing trick, turnover pony. Make him tackle the carrier rather than be second man in and he's not that great, see RWC 2011 semi-final!
-
@antipodean Why pick him in the squad play him in the game of 3 halves, say he needs game time, he gets game they are happy, and then when his position opens up you dont pick him and play the best 15 on the wing.
@wreck-diver Because the squad is not nowadays just the top players who are ready to play. The ABs especially look for long term goals, they bring players into their squads even if the never expect to play them, leaving others out who are more likely to play - see Todd. They are growing depth, spreading ABs corporate knowledge, and assessing players - as well as getting a team to smash everyone today, they are making a team to smash everyone tomorrow. ABs explicitly use the apprentice system, but they also do it with players who they really don't want to play unless they have to. Those who see this as a failing as squad selectors are really missing what has made the ABs so long term great in the current era.
-
@wreck-diver Because the squad is not nowadays just the top players who are ready to play. The ABs especially look for long term goals, they bring players into their squads even if the never expect to play them, leaving others out who are more likely to play - see Todd. They are growing depth, spreading ABs corporate knowledge, and assessing players - as well as getting a team to smash everyone today, they are making a team to smash everyone tomorrow. ABs explicitly use the apprentice system, but they also do it with players who they really don't want to play unless they have to. Those who see this as a failing as squad selectors are really missing what has made the ABs so long term great in the current era.
@machpants said in Bledisloe II:
@wreck-diver Because the squad is not nowadays just the top players who are ready to play. The ABs especially look for long term goals, they bring players into their squads even if the never expect to play them, leaving others out who are more likely to play - see Todd. They are growing depth, spreading ABs corporate knowledge, and assessing players - as well as getting a team to smash everyone today, they are making a team to smash everyone tomorrow. ABs explicitly use the apprentice system, but they also do it with players who they really don't want to play unless they have to. Those who see this as a failing as squad selectors are really missing what has made the ABs so long term great in the current era.
Fine I understand all of that. So who plays on the left wing then?
-
@machpants said in Bledisloe II:
@wreck-diver Because the squad is not nowadays just the top players who are ready to play. The ABs especially look for long term goals, they bring players into their squads even if the never expect to play them, leaving others out who are more likely to play - see Todd. They are growing depth, spreading ABs corporate knowledge, and assessing players - as well as getting a team to smash everyone today, they are making a team to smash everyone tomorrow. ABs explicitly use the apprentice system, but they also do it with players who they really don't want to play unless they have to. Those who see this as a failing as squad selectors are really missing what has made the ABs so long term great in the current era.
Fine I understand all of that. So who plays on the left wing then?
@wreck-diver Buggered if I know, I think I know what they are trying to achieve, I'm just guessing at how or with whom they will do it!
-
@wreck-diver Buggered if I know, I think I know what they are trying to achieve, I'm just guessing at how or with whom they will do it!
@machpants Thats exactly what I did. So I think it will be NMS Smith and Naholo
-
@crucial said in Bledisloe II:
A question for the scrum club. In those early ones where Franks was just lying flat on the ground yet the Convicts were penalised, was that from the loosehead sliding up over his back? If so, it was a very good spot from Peyper because it looked like the only one going to ground was in black.
I commented on this during the match and was perplexed as to why Peyper didn't swap to the other side of the scrum to have a look.
Thinking back he penalised Kepu more that Robertson. Don't even know if he penalised Robertson.
In my non-front row eyes Franks was getting a schooling.
-
@mikethesnow You can't be getting a scholling from a loosehead whose backside is up in the air everytime the scrum goes down. Of course the ref will see that as hinging
@rebound said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow You can't be getting a scholling from a loosehead whose backside is up in the air everytime the scrum goes down. Of course the ref will see that as hinging
The arse in the air was post Franks on the floor. Not every time admitedly. But the majority.
-
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
-
@rebound said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow You can't be getting a scholling from a loosehead whose backside is up in the air everytime the scrum goes down. Of course the ref will see that as hinging
The arse in the air was post Franks on the floor. Not every time admitedly. But the majority.
@mikethesnow Really? Remove your biase and look at things objectively. It happened twice early in the 1st half. Scrum goes down referee penalising Wallabies (not sure if it was both times the loosehead) but both times the loosehead is unstable and ass in the air. I mean from the outset he looked like packing in a shit position. So what must the referee do other then penalise him. And based on the scrum during the rest of the game one would say the referee got his calls right
-
@mikethesnow Really? Remove your biase and look at things objectively. It happened twice early in the 1st half. Scrum goes down referee penalising Wallabies (not sure if it was both times the loosehead) but both times the loosehead is unstable and ass in the air. I mean from the outset he looked like packing in a shit position. So what must the referee do other then penalise him. And based on the scrum during the rest of the game one would say the referee got his calls right
@rebound said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow Really? Remove your biase and look at things objectively. It happened twice early in the 1st half. Scrum goes down referee penalising Wallabies (not sure if it was both times the loosehead) but both times the loosehead is unstable and ass in the air. I mean from the outset he looked like packing in a shit position. So what must the referee do other then penalise him. And based on the scrum during the rest of the game one would say the referee got his calls right
Those early calls were against Kepu no?
-
@crucial said in Bledisloe II:
@bovidae said in Bledisloe II:
At least Ngani hasn't resorted to wearing mascara. We used to have fun calling him Ma'ascara.
Which was a bit silly as he didn’t wear mascara.
I don’t feel silly calling him that but I clearly lack your extensive knowledge of makeup and where it’s applied . What’s your preferred pronoun?
@jegga said in Bledisloe II:
@crucial said in Bledisloe II:
@bovidae said in Bledisloe II:
At least Ngani hasn't resorted to wearing mascara. We used to have fun calling him Ma'ascara.
Which was a bit silly as he didn’t wear mascara.
I don’t feel silly calling him that but I clearly lack your extensive knowledge of makeup and where it’s applied . What’s your preferred pronoun?
I admit that 'Eyeliner Nonu' doesn't work as well as it doesn't offer the same play on words but still, he didn't wear mascara so is was just made up.
PS: if those deleted posts were clever insults in my direction feel free to PM them too me. I'm not sensitive. If they weren't, then, as you were.
-
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe II:
@crucial said in Bledisloe II:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe II:
@crucial said in Bledisloe II:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe II:
@crucial re laumape why play an inferior player for 2/4 of the game? That doesn't make sense
Depends on whether they view him as inferior and the gameplan in mind. I doubt they have him in the squad to carry bags and would be looking to put him on the field.
He's inferior
I have to agree. I'm an ALB fan. I just wonder if the attack may look at a change up in tactic to unsettle the Wobs rush defence. Tell Laumape to do the one thing he probably isn't inferior at which is hard angled running (at Beale/Foley)
I completely understand the reasoning there. I just think it's silly to pick a guy because he likes running in to people really hard.
The early version of Nonu was just that.
Which may go someway to explaining that it took until 2008 for Nonu to become a regular starter.
Having said that, I do really like Laumape and want to see him get a shot. He's pretty bloody quick too, so could well be fighting out ALB for his place. Which means he may get a shot this weekend on the bench.
@majorrage said in Bledisloe II:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe II:
@crucial said in Bledisloe II:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe II:
@crucial said in Bledisloe II:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe II:
@crucial re laumape why play an inferior player for 2/4 of the game? That doesn't make sense
Depends on whether they view him as inferior and the gameplan in mind. I doubt they have him in the squad to carry bags and would be looking to put him on the field.
He's inferior
I have to agree. I'm an ALB fan. I just wonder if the attack may look at a change up in tactic to unsettle the Wobs rush defence. Tell Laumape to do the one thing he probably isn't inferior at which is hard angled running (at Beale/Foley)
I completely understand the reasoning there. I just think it's silly to pick a guy because he likes running in to people really hard.
The early version of Nonu was just that.
Which may go someway to explaining that it took until 2008 for Nonu to become a regular starter.
Having said that, I do really like Laumape and want to see him get a shot. He's pretty bloody quick too, so could well be fighting out ALB for his place. Which means he may get a shot this weekend on the bench.
Noun had and used a step in his early days at 12.
-
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
Richie was pretty average. Pocock is dreadful. He had one good run in that test, and I think that's the first I've ever seen from him. He's Owen Franks like in just hitting the ground on first contact.
-
Richie did work on that aspect of his game and in those last couple of seasons he did alot of carrying.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
He was not just pretty average. He wasn't Read awesome, but he made decent carries and had good ball skills.
-
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
He was not just pretty average. He wasn't Read awesome, but he made decent carries and had good ball skills.
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
He was not just pretty average. He wasn't Read awesome, but he made decent carries and had good ball skills.
Ritchie McCaw? He did not have good ball skills. He was an amazing player but good ball skills and running game did not add to his greatness.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
He was not just pretty average. He wasn't Read awesome, but he made decent carries and had good ball skills.
Ritchie McCaw? He did not have good ball skills. He was an amazing player but good ball skills and running game did not add to his greatness.
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
He was not just pretty average. He wasn't Read awesome, but he made decent carries and had good ball skills.
Ritchie McCaw? He did not have good ball skills. He was an amazing player but good ball skills and running game did not add to his greatness.
Not at the start but he worked on these things and became very good. Regardless, even early career McCaw made more yards and did more with ball in hand than Pocock. It's not a valid comparison.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
He was not just pretty average. He wasn't Read awesome, but he made decent carries and had good ball skills.
Ritchie McCaw? He did not have good ball skills. He was an amazing player but good ball skills and running game did not add to his greatness.
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
He was not just pretty average. He wasn't Read awesome, but he made decent carries and had good ball skills.
Ritchie McCaw? He did not have good ball skills. He was an amazing player but good ball skills and running game did not add to his greatness.
I'm not sure what your point is, but he was a much better player than Pocock is.
