Lincoln McClutchie article
-
@Canes4life Any Hurricanes interest in Aiden Morgan over one of the first five prospects coming through in the Hurricanes region is/would be another slap in the face. Morgan was the lesser 10 in the National Top 4 Final, in which Lattrell Smiler-Ah Kiong was named player of the Final. Wellington signed the Auckland (
St Kent'sKings') lad because apparently there are no good 10s in its own region, and suddenly the Hurricanes show interest? It would be beyond belief.@Stargazer I haven't seen enough of those players to make a judgement but all I know is Morgan has a few wraps on him from what I hear.
I like McClutchie and I was actually surprised he wasn't selected on a full contract this year, hopefully his Japan stint is only a one-off because he does look to have the goods as a gun first five.
Who is the St Kent's first five that Wellington have signed? I know they've signed Ruben Love and Aiden Morgan, but haven't heard about any other additions to the academy.
-
@Stargazer I haven't seen enough of those players to make a judgement but all I know is Morgan has a few wraps on him from what I hear.
I like McClutchie and I was actually surprised he wasn't selected on a full contract this year, hopefully his Japan stint is only a one-off because he does look to have the goods as a gun first five.
Who is the St Kent's first five that Wellington have signed? I know they've signed Ruben Love and Aiden Morgan, but haven't heard about any other additions to the academy.
@Canes4life Sorry, I meant King's College (Aiden Morgan), not St Kent's.
-
@Stargazer I haven't seen enough of those players to make a judgement but all I know is Morgan has a few wraps on him from what I hear.
I like McClutchie and I was actually surprised he wasn't selected on a full contract this year, hopefully his Japan stint is only a one-off because he does look to have the goods as a gun first five.
Who is the St Kent's first five that Wellington have signed? I know they've signed Ruben Love and Aiden Morgan, but haven't heard about any other additions to the academy.
Ruben Love is a 1st 5/fullback so could be competing against Morgan.
-
Some players like Bryn Gatland, James Marshall, and JGB must be possesses of some sort of special rugby talent yet to be unleashed to the general viewing rugby public if they deemed to be of better quality than McLutchie when it comes to awarding Super Rugby pay cheques.
-
Some players like Bryn Gatland, James Marshall, and JGB must be possesses of some sort of special rugby talent yet to be unleashed to the general viewing rugby public if they deemed to be of better quality than McLutchie when it comes to awarding Super Rugby pay cheques.
@Higgins said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
Some players like Bryn Gatland, James Marshall, and JGB must be possesses of some sort of special rugby talent yet to be unleashed to the general viewing rugby public if they deemed to be of better quality than McLutchie when it comes to awarding Super Rugby pay cheques.
I know right! It can't be something tangible or just that they're better players - obviously if all these guys from HB think that the HB player is waaaay better then there must be a conspiracy afoot I reckon. It can't be that others (probably not from HB) think they're a better investment this year.
-
@Higgins said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
Some players like Bryn Gatland, James Marshall, and JGB must be possesses of some sort of special rugby talent yet to be unleashed to the general viewing rugby public if they deemed to be of better quality than McLutchie when it comes to awarding Super Rugby pay cheques.
I know right! It can't be something tangible or just that they're better players - obviously if all these guys from HB think that the HB player is waaaay better then there must be a conspiracy afoot I reckon. It can't be that others (probably not from HB) think they're a better investment this year.
@Bones said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
@Higgins said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
Some players like Bryn Gatland, James Marshall, and JGB must be possesses of some sort of special rugby talent yet to be unleashed to the general viewing rugby public if they deemed to be of better quality than McLutchie when it comes to awarding Super Rugby pay cheques.
I know right! It can't be something tangible or just that they're better players - obviously if all these guys from HB think that the HB player is waaaay better then there must be a conspiracy afoot I reckon. It can't be that others (probably not from HB) think they're a better investment this year.
We all know it dates back to 1926 when the Wellington RU for a brief moment thought they'd won the Shield 5 - 8, but it was a missprint and the actual score was 55-8. They've been waging war on us ever since. JGB and James Marshall are their latest dirty bombs in that war. For shame, for shame.
-
@Bones said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
@Higgins said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
Some players like Bryn Gatland, James Marshall, and JGB must be possesses of some sort of special rugby talent yet to be unleashed to the general viewing rugby public if they deemed to be of better quality than McLutchie when it comes to awarding Super Rugby pay cheques.
I know right! It can't be something tangible or just that they're better players - obviously if all these guys from HB think that the HB player is waaaay better then there must be a conspiracy afoot I reckon. It can't be that others (probably not from HB) think they're a better investment this year.
We all know it dates back to 1926 when the Wellington RU for a brief moment thought they'd won the Shield 5 - 8, but it was a missprint and the actual score was 55-8. They've been waging war on us ever since. JGB and James Marshall are their latest dirty bombs in that war. For shame, for shame.
-
Some players like Bryn Gatland, James Marshall, and JGB must be possesses of some sort of special rugby talent yet to be unleashed to the general viewing rugby public if they deemed to be of better quality than McLutchie when it comes to awarding Super Rugby pay cheques.
@Higgins Gatland is on a two-year contract that was signed before McClutchie made his Mitre 10 Cup debut, so you can hardly say that Gatland should not have been signed because McClutchie has shown so much promise. Gatland's contract expires this year and he hasn't played this year, yet, so who knows?
JGB's contract was extended with one year about 12 months ago; the signs were on the wall by then, but still, signed before the 2019 Mitre 10 Cup season in which McClutchie showed he's worthy of a SR contract. It will become more interesting if JGB is re-signed this year at the detriment of McClutchie, but Marshall's and Fletcher Smith's contracts also expire this year.
I can understand Marshall's re-signing on 2 Oct 2019, because he brings experience that both Fletcher Smith and McClutchie didn't/don't have. The Canes needed that experience after BB left. But ... he's been injured and has only played 22 minutes this year. 22 very average minutes. I don't see any justification for him to be re-signed again.
Fletcher Smith's contract - signed in 2018 - also expires this year .....
-
@Bones said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
@Higgins said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
Some players like Bryn Gatland, James Marshall, and JGB must be possesses of some sort of special rugby talent yet to be unleashed to the general viewing rugby public if they deemed to be of better quality than McLutchie when it comes to awarding Super Rugby pay cheques.
I know right! It can't be something tangible or just that they're better players - obviously if all these guys from HB think that the HB player is waaaay better then there must be a conspiracy afoot I reckon. It can't be that others (probably not from HB) think they're a better investment this year.
We all know it dates back to 1926 when the Wellington RU for a brief moment thought they'd won the Shield 5 - 8, but it was a missprint and the actual score was 55-8. They've been waging war on us ever since. JGB and James Marshall are their latest dirty bombs in that war. For shame, for shame.
@Nepia Poor form from you as the score in 1926 was an even bigger thrashing than the tally you quoted.
Hawkes Bay 58 (Bert Grenside (5), Jackie Blake (2), Bert Cooke, Cyril Brownlie, John Swain, Edward Single and Lance Johnnson all with tries. George Nepia (7) and Grenside (1) knocked over conversions whilst Nepia also did the honours with a penalty.)
Wellington 08Inflation adjusted for 2020 points values that scoreline translates to
Hawkes Bay 84 - 09 Wellington
-
@Nepia Poor form from you as the score in 1926 was an even bigger thrashing than the tally you quoted.
Hawkes Bay 58 (Bert Grenside (5), Jackie Blake (2), Bert Cooke, Cyril Brownlie, John Swain, Edward Single and Lance Johnnson all with tries. George Nepia (7) and Grenside (1) knocked over conversions whilst Nepia also did the honours with a penalty.)
Wellington 08Inflation adjusted for 2020 points values that scoreline translates to
Hawkes Bay 84 - 09 Wellington
-
@Nepia Poor form from you as the score in 1926 was an even bigger thrashing than the tally you quoted.
Hawkes Bay 58 (Bert Grenside (5), Jackie Blake (2), Bert Cooke, Cyril Brownlie, John Swain, Edward Single and Lance Johnnson all with tries. George Nepia (7) and Grenside (1) knocked over conversions whilst Nepia also did the honours with a penalty.)
Wellington 08Inflation adjusted for 2020 points values that scoreline translates to
Hawkes Bay 84 - 09 Wellington
@Higgins said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
@Nepia Poor form from you as the score in 1926 was an even bigger thrashing than the tally you quoted.
Hawkes Bay 58 (Bert Grenside (5), Jackie Blake (2), Bert Cooke, Cyril Brownlie, John Swain, Edward Single and Lance Johnnson all with tries. George Nepia (7) and Grenside (1) knocked over conversions whilst Nepia also did the honours with a penalty.)
Wellington 08Inflation adjusted for 2020 points values that scoreline translates to
Hawkes Bay 84 - 09 Wellington
Genuine question. How were Wellie's points made up?
Was there a goal from a mark or something?
Because tries back then were 3pts right?
So I had assumed try(3) + con(2) + pen(3) = 8, and nowadays that would be 10 (5+2+3). Unless you meant 10?
Thanks in anticipation.
-
@Higgins said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
@Nepia Poor form from you as the score in 1926 was an even bigger thrashing than the tally you quoted.
Hawkes Bay 58 (Bert Grenside (5), Jackie Blake (2), Bert Cooke, Cyril Brownlie, John Swain, Edward Single and Lance Johnnson all with tries. George Nepia (7) and Grenside (1) knocked over conversions whilst Nepia also did the honours with a penalty.)
Wellington 08Inflation adjusted for 2020 points values that scoreline translates to
Hawkes Bay 84 - 09 Wellington
Genuine question. How were Wellie's points made up?
Was there a goal from a mark or something?
Because tries back then were 3pts right?
So I had assumed try(3) + con(2) + pen(3) = 8, and nowadays that would be 10 (5+2+3). Unless you meant 10?
Thanks in anticipation.
@booboo said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
@Higgins said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
@Nepia Poor form from you as the score in 1926 was an even bigger thrashing than the tally you quoted.
Hawkes Bay 58 (Bert Grenside (5), Jackie Blake (2), Bert Cooke, Cyril Brownlie, John Swain, Edward Single and Lance Johnnson all with tries. George Nepia (7) and Grenside (1) knocked over conversions whilst Nepia also did the honours with a penalty.)
Wellington 08Inflation adjusted for 2020 points values that scoreline translates to
Hawkes Bay 84 - 09 Wellington
Genuine question. How were Wellie's points made up?
Was there a goal from a mark or something?
Because tries back then were 3pts right?
So I had assumed try(3) + con(2) + pen(3) = 8, and nowadays that would be 10 (5+2+3). Unless you meant 10?
Thanks in anticipation.
You are correct.
-
@booboo said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
@Higgins said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
@Nepia Poor form from you as the score in 1926 was an even bigger thrashing than the tally you quoted.
Hawkes Bay 58 (Bert Grenside (5), Jackie Blake (2), Bert Cooke, Cyril Brownlie, John Swain, Edward Single and Lance Johnnson all with tries. George Nepia (7) and Grenside (1) knocked over conversions whilst Nepia also did the honours with a penalty.)
Wellington 08Inflation adjusted for 2020 points values that scoreline translates to
Hawkes Bay 84 - 09 Wellington
Genuine question. How were Wellie's points made up?
Was there a goal from a mark or something?
Because tries back then were 3pts right?
So I had assumed try(3) + con(2) + pen(3) = 8, and nowadays that would be 10 (5+2+3). Unless you meant 10?
Thanks in anticipation.
You are correct.
-
@Higgins said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
Some players like Bryn Gatland, James Marshall, and JGB must be possesses of some sort of special rugby talent yet to be unleashed to the general viewing rugby public if they deemed to be of better quality than McLutchie when it comes to awarding Super Rugby pay cheques.
I know right! It can't be something tangible or just that they're better players - obviously if all these guys from HB think that the HB player is waaaay better then there must be a conspiracy afoot I reckon. It can't be that others (probably not from HB) think they're a better investment this year.
@Bones Michael Little is a good counter-example to the idea that the best players are signed into Super Rugby squads. He was much better than many midfield players in NZ squads (especially at the Blues), but had to go to Japan to get a full contract.
With Little it was a poor Blues organisation missing out, perhaps McClutchie has missed out at the Highlanders due to their pretty average coaches?
-
@Bones Michael Little is a good counter-example to the idea that the best players are signed into Super Rugby squads. He was much better than many midfield players in NZ squads (especially at the Blues), but had to go to Japan to get a full contract.
With Little it was a poor Blues organisation missing out, perhaps McClutchie has missed out at the Highlanders due to their pretty average coaches?
@Tim I think he mainly missed out on Hurricanes selection. They should have offered McClutchie a (full) contract instead of James Marshall, who didn't even play NPC in 2019! The Canes made more dubious selections, such as the Kobus van Wyk signing that they didn't need.
-
@Tim I think he mainly missed out on Hurricanes selection. They should have offered McClutchie a (full) contract instead of James Marshall, who didn't even play NPC in 2019! The Canes made more dubious selections, such as the Kobus van Wyk signing that they didn't need.
@Stargazer yeah the Canes had some odd selections this year so I can see your frustration. They seem to have their mind made up no matter who is in form. Case and point with Teariki Ben-Nicholas, he should have earned himself a Canes contract after playing the house down for two years at NPC and for the Canes development, however they decided to give it to Murphy Taramai which was a left field decision.
-
@Higgins said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
@Nepia Poor form from you as the score in 1926 was an even bigger thrashing than the tally you quoted.
Hawkes Bay 58 (Bert Grenside (5), Jackie Blake (2), Bert Cooke, Cyril Brownlie, John Swain, Edward Single and Lance Johnnson all with tries. George Nepia (7) and Grenside (1) knocked over conversions whilst Nepia also did the honours with a penalty.)
Wellington 08Inflation adjusted for 2020 points values that scoreline translates to
Hawkes Bay 84 - 09 Wellington
Genuine question. How were Wellie's points made up?
Was there a goal from a mark or something?
Because tries back then were 3pts right?
So I had assumed try(3) + con(2) + pen(3) = 8, and nowadays that would be 10 (5+2+3). Unless you meant 10?
Thanks in anticipation.
@booboo Oops you are quite right, forgot to credit Wellington with the two additional points to the try awarded to E. F.. Barry. Mark Nicholls contributed the extra points with a conversion and a penalty. My error is simply put dowen to the fact that the opposition side of the scoreboard contained just the one nail to hang their tally on such was the dominance of the Bay in those days.
-
@booboo Oops you are quite right, forgot to credit Wellington with the two additional points to the try awarded to E. F.. Barry. Mark Nicholls contributed the extra points with a conversion and a penalty. My error is simply put dowen to the fact that the opposition side of the scoreboard contained just the one nail to hang their tally on such was the dominance of the Bay in those days.
@Higgins said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
@booboo Oops you are quite right, forgot to credit Wellington with the two additional points to the try awarded to E. F.. Barry. Mark Nicholls contributed the extra points with a conversion and a penalty. My error is simply put dowen to the fact that the opposition side of the scoreboard contained just the one nail to hang their tally on such was the dominance of the Bay in those days.
How old are you?! You are either ancient and remember the match, or better at googling results than me. Both quite likely.
I actually did look to see where the mathS was wrong and couldn't find how Wellington's paltry points were scored.
-
@Higgins said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
@booboo Oops you are quite right, forgot to credit Wellington with the two additional points to the try awarded to E. F.. Barry. Mark Nicholls contributed the extra points with a conversion and a penalty. My error is simply put dowen to the fact that the opposition side of the scoreboard contained just the one nail to hang their tally on such was the dominance of the Bay in those days.
How old are you?! You are either ancient and remember the match, or better at googling results than me. Both quite likely.
I actually did look to see where the mathS was wrong and couldn't find how Wellington's paltry points were scored.
@Snowy said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
@Higgins said in Lincoln McClutchie article:
@booboo Oops you are quite right, forgot to credit Wellington with the two additional points to the try awarded to E. F.. Barry. Mark Nicholls contributed the extra points with a conversion and a penalty. My error is simply put dowen to the fact that the opposition side of the scoreboard contained just the one nail to hang their tally on such was the dominance of the Bay in those days.
How old are you?! You are either ancient and remember the match, or better at googling results than me. Both quite likely.
I actually did look to see where the mathS was wrong and couldn't find how Wellington's paltry points were scored.
Wiki is your friend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranfurly_Shield_1920–29#1926
