Exodus
-
No mention of the length of Smith's contract.
NTT aren't one of the marquee teams but I see they have Marx, Tupou, Laidlaw and Leali'ifano in their squad. With the latter, Smith will have competition for the no.10 jersey unless they form a 10-12 combo.
-
that name just roles off the tongue
-
@mikey07 lol that 21 did not want a bar of him.
-
Signed with NTT Communications Shining Arcs in Japan:
-
Fletcher Smith
-
Piri Paraone (former Wellington Lions)
@Stargazer said in Exodus:
Signed with NTT Communications Shining Arcs in Japan:
-
Fletcher Smith
-
Piri Paraone (former Wellington Lions)
I don’t understand the Fletcher Smith going overseas
He is better than a few who have contracts. -
-
@Stargazer said in Exodus:
Signed with NTT Communications Shining Arcs in Japan:
-
Fletcher Smith
-
Piri Paraone (former Wellington Lions)
I don’t understand the Fletcher Smith going overseas
He is better than a few who have contracts.@Stargazer said in Exodus:
Signed with NTT Communications Shining Arcs in Japan:
-
Fletcher Smith
-
Piri Paraone (former Wellington Lions)
I don’t understand the Fletcher Smith going overseas
He is better than a few who have contracts.Ditto to that. Maybe it is a by-product of all franchises trying to complete squads way too early, at times when a lot of assumptions must be made. I wonder if NZRU will consider setting a date late in NPC after which a certain number of positions must be filled by each franchise. i.e. 3 to 5 positions must be open/unsigned as at the week between NPC semis and finals. That might lead to better options for the best of those players not already signed, with NZRU assisting with information on options. Just a thought... Seems a shame to have overseas players brought in each year when very good players are forced overseas.
-
-
@Stargazer said in Exodus:
Signed with NTT Communications Shining Arcs in Japan:
-
Fletcher Smith
-
Piri Paraone (former Wellington Lions)
I don’t understand the Fletcher Smith going overseas
He is better than a few who have contracts. -
-
@Chris I could understand if there were better players but to sign Hickey instead of Smith defies belief.
-
@Stargazer said in Exodus:
Signed with NTT Communications Shining Arcs in Japan:
-
Fletcher Smith
-
Piri Paraone (former Wellington Lions)
I don’t understand the Fletcher Smith going overseas
He is better than a few who have contracts.Ditto to that. Maybe it is a by-product of all franchises trying to complete squads way too early, at times when a lot of assumptions must be made. I wonder if NZRU will consider setting a date late in NPC after which a certain number of positions must be filled by each franchise. i.e. 3 to 5 positions must be open/unsigned as at the week between NPC semis and finals. That might lead to better options for the best of those players not already signed, with NZRU assisting with information on options. Just a thought... Seems a shame to have overseas players brought in each year when very good players are forced overseas.
@Stargazer said in Exodus:
Signed with NTT Communications Shining Arcs in Japan:
-
Fletcher Smith
-
Piri Paraone (former Wellington Lions)
I don’t understand the Fletcher Smith going overseas
He is better than a few who have contracts.Ditto to that. Maybe it is a by-product of all franchises trying to complete squads way too early, at times when a lot of assumptions must be made. I wonder if NZRU will consider setting a date late in NPC after which a certain number of positions must be filled by each franchise. i.e. 3 to 5 positions must be open/unsigned as at the week between NPC semis and finals. That might lead to better options for the best of those players not already signed, with NZRU assisting with information on options. Just a thought... Seems a shame to have overseas players brought in each year when very good players are forced overseas.
Maybe a good idea hopefully it would stop this sort of thing happening
-
-
Back in the day Peter Thorburn had the job of ensuring the top 145(?) players in NZ were playing Super Rugby.
Then people whinged about how the franchises could not directly contract their own players.
Now we get players who are better than those contracted missing out.
The old system was better.
-
I could understand Hickey over F. Smith if he was a good SR player who was also good overseas. But my understanding is he was a bit of a flop in both situations, which means his "experience" doesn't trump talent. Smith can possibly still get better, I very much doubt Hickey will.
-
Back in the day Peter Thorburn had the job of ensuring the top 145(?) players in NZ were playing Super Rugby.
Then people whinged about how the franchises could not directly contract their own players.
Now we get players who are better than those contracted missing out.
The old system was better.
Back in the day Peter Thorburn had the job of ensuring the top 145(?) players in NZ were playing Super Rugby.
Then people whinged about how the franchises could not directly contract their own players.
Now we get players who are better than those contracted missing out.
The old system was better.
The old system also had its flaws. Remember MacDonald being forced to move to the Chiefs in 1998? He played poorly that year at 1st 5 and the fans let him know it.
The big problem now is that the franchises have to sign players early to avoid one of the other 4 teams contracting that player before them. This doesn't apply to the established players, but the new young players and those making up positions 30-38 in the squad. I like @ARHS's proposal that a certain number of positions in each squad should remain open until after the NPC is finished to reward form.
-
Back in the day Peter Thorburn had the job of ensuring the top 145(?) players in NZ were playing Super Rugby.
Then people whinged about how the franchises could not directly contract their own players.
Now we get players who are better than those contracted missing out.
The old system was better.
The old system also had its flaws. Remember MacDonald being forced to move to the Chiefs in 1998? He played poorly that year at 1st 5 and the fans let him know it.
The big problem now is that the franchises have to sign players early to avoid one of the other 4 teams contracting that player before them. This doesn't apply to the established players, but the new young players and those making up positions 30-38 in the squad. I like @ARHS's proposal that a certain number of positions in each squad should remain open until after the NPC is finished to reward form.
Back in the day Peter Thorburn had the job of ensuring the top 145(?) players in NZ were playing Super Rugby.
Then people whinged about how the franchises could not directly contract their own players.
Now we get players who are better than those contracted missing out.
The old system was better.
The old system also had its flaws. Remember MacDonald being forced to move to the Chiefs in 1998? He played poorly that year at 1st 5 and the fans let him know it.
The big problem now is that the franchises have to sign players early to avoid one of the other 4 teams contracting that player before them. This doesn't apply to the established players, but the new young players and those making up positions 30-38 in the squad. I like @ARHS's proposal that a certain number of positions in each squad should remain open until after the NPC is finished to reward form.
Yeah but what positions?
In that case you've got to assume that there is a squad spot open to that specific position.
In MacDonald's case he wasn't good enough (at that time) to be protected by the Crusaders, but instead of missing out in Super Rugby he was drafted to the Chiefs.
At least he was playing as he was one one the in his position(s).
-
Back in the day Peter Thorburn had the job of ensuring the top 145(?) players in NZ were playing Super Rugby.
Then people whinged about how the franchises could not directly contract their own players.
Now we get players who are better than those contracted missing out.
The old system was better.
The old system also had its flaws. Remember MacDonald being forced to move to the Chiefs in 1998? He played poorly that year at 1st 5 and the fans let him know it.
The big problem now is that the franchises have to sign players early to avoid one of the other 4 teams contracting that player before them. This doesn't apply to the established players, but the new young players and those making up positions 30-38 in the squad. I like @ARHS's proposal that a certain number of positions in each squad should remain open until after the NPC is finished to reward form.
Yeah but what positions?
In that case you've got to assume that there is a squad spot open to that specific position.
In MacDonald's case he wasn't good enough (at that time) to be protected by the Crusaders, but instead of missing out in Super Rugby he was drafted to the Chiefs.
At least he was playing as he was one one the in his position(s).
-
@booboo I agree, no system is perfect as the needs for each team will be different. So the status quo then.
-
Back in the day Peter Thorburn had the job of ensuring the top 145(?) players in NZ were playing Super Rugby.
Then people whinged about how the franchises could not directly contract their own players.
Now we get players who are better than those contracted missing out.
The old system was better.
The old system also had its flaws. Remember MacDonald being forced to move to the Chiefs in 1998? He played poorly that year at 1st 5 and the fans let him know it.
The big problem now is that the franchises have to sign players early to avoid one of the other 4 teams contracting that player before them. This doesn't apply to the established players, but the new young players and those making up positions 30-38 in the squad. I like @ARHS's proposal that a certain number of positions in each squad should remain open until after the NPC is finished to reward form.
Yeah but what positions?
In that case you've got to assume that there is a squad spot open to that specific position.
In MacDonald's case he wasn't good enough (at that time) to be protected by the Crusaders, but instead of missing out in Super Rugby he was drafted to the Chiefs.
At least he was playing as he was one one the in his position(s).
-
The thing with Fletcher Smith and the Canes is he was with the Hurricanes this year - and didn't get many chances - so obviously the current Canes coaching set up just don't rate him that highly.
I'd take Smith over Hickey but clearly the Canes feel differently.
-
@Bovidae current system while not perfect is still better than the old one where players were typically enticed to move provinces as well.
@taniwharugby said in Exodus:
@Bovidae current system while not perfect is still better than the old one where players were typically enticed to move provinces as well.
Yep.
Players still move (e.g. Hammington to Otago, Aso to Wellington, Reece to Ta$man). However, it seems to be the players themselves that instigate it, largely to avoid having two bases during the season, than the SR franchises as in the past.
-
The thing with Fletcher Smith and the Canes is he was with the Hurricanes this year - and didn't get many chances - so obviously the current Canes coaching set up just don't rate him that highly.
I'd take Smith over Hickey but clearly the Canes feel differently.
@KiwiMurph said in Exodus:
I'd take Smith over Hickey but clearly the Canes feel differently.
The Canes selectors also rate JGB ahead of him for some apparent reason so that tends to indicate they can't see the obvious things they way 99% of us experts on here do. THeir love affair with Reed Princep is another example of this.
