All Blacks XV 2022
-
@Tim said in All Blacks XV:
NZ Rugby granted the licence for Moana Pasifika to participate in Super Rugby Pacific, and it is understood that the All Blacks can select up to three players from the franchise.
this is an interesting case, and one that rams home how fucked up rugby is with regards to eligibility
Born in NZ. Lived in Aus for a long time. Played basically all his pro rugby in NZ. The only reason he got a decent crack at Super rugby was because MP was created. He's 28 years old and hasn't been capped, which probably means he wasn't on a radar 3 years ago when he couldn't get a game at the Chiefs.
I tend to think that MP was created to give these guys a gig and get them to the level to help build the pro ranks available to the Pacific nations. However, this guy is 100% a product of NZ rugby. NZ money and expertise has done all the heavy lifting here. He's played in the Country for like 6 years (barring an unsuccessful jaunt to Japan).
He's unlikely to have an anywhere near decent career in Black. Let him go
@mariner4life said in All Blacks XV:
Let him go
If he wants to go. From the article it appears he's turned down Mapusua twice already and at least one time was before selection in the ABXV.
-
@mariner4life said in All Blacks XV:
Let him go
If he wants to go. From the article it appears he's turned down Mapusua twice already and at least one time was before selection in the ABXV.
@Nepia said in All Blacks XV:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks XV:
Let him go
If he wants to go. From the article it appears he's turned down Mapusua twice already and at least one time was before selection in the ABXV.
yeah, i wonder if the AB's ever are so frank as to say to these guys "you might get some games...but its a long shot and probably only if several others are injured...where as Samoa wants you starting"
so not so much "let him go" as "give him a wee nudge"
or do we dangle that carrot out right until we capture their eligibility
-
@Nepia said in All Blacks XV:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks XV:
Let him go
If he wants to go. From the article it appears he's turned down Mapusua twice already and at least one time was before selection in the ABXV.
yeah, i wonder if the AB's ever are so frank as to say to these guys "you might get some games...but its a long shot and probably only if several others are injured...where as Samoa wants you starting"
so not so much "let him go" as "give him a wee nudge"
or do we dangle that carrot out right until we capture their eligibility
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Nepia said in All Blacks XV:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks XV:
Let him go
If he wants to go. From the article it appears he's turned down Mapusua twice already and at least one time was before selection in the ABXV.
yeah, i wonder if the AB's ever are so frank as to say to these guys "you might get some games...but its a long shot and probably only if several others are injured...where as Samoa wants you starting"
so not so much "let him go" as "give him a wee nudge"
or do we dangle that carrot out right until we capture their eligibility
I really don't think the ABs have ever selected a player to capture their eligibility, that's just a conspiracy theory.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Nepia said in All Blacks XV:
@mariner4life said in All Blacks XV:
Let him go
If he wants to go. From the article it appears he's turned down Mapusua twice already and at least one time was before selection in the ABXV.
yeah, i wonder if the AB's ever are so frank as to say to these guys "you might get some games...but its a long shot and probably only if several others are injured...where as Samoa wants you starting"
so not so much "let him go" as "give him a wee nudge"
or do we dangle that carrot out right until we capture their eligibility
I really don't think the ABs have ever selected a player to capture their eligibility, that's just a conspiracy theory.
-
@Nepia i dont think we have dont it to screw over another country...i definitely think we've done it "just in case" so we know they are available for us if 1st 2nd 3rd choice go down
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Nepia i dont think we have dont it to screw over another country...i definitely think we've done it "just in case" so we know they are available for us if 1st 2nd 3rd choice go down
I don't believe that is true at all. Coaches select players they think are good enough, and in most cases a player of PI heritage is just any other NZ player and their selection is based only on that. There's likely been many non PI heritage players selected like this as well.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Nepia i dont think we have dont it to screw over another country...i definitely think we've done it "just in case" so we know they are available for us if 1st 2nd 3rd choice go down
I don't believe that is true at all. Coaches select players they think are good enough, and in most cases a player of PI heritage is just any other NZ player and their selection is based only on that. There's likely been many non PI heritage players selected like this as well.
@Nepia see Aumua has more right to be an AB than say Reece, and players who follow the path Reece, PGS et al have taken, is not ideal IMO, but these guys are adults and can make thier own decisions, although again you'd hope someone is giving them advice in that regard, although at that level, these guys must believe in thier ability and know that of others to the point they believe they can become a multi test AB than just a few?
Reece has played way more than I expected him to!
-
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Nepia i dont think we have dont it to screw over another country...i definitely think we've done it "just in case" so we know they are available for us if 1st 2nd 3rd choice go down
I don't believe that is true at all. Coaches select players they think are good enough, and in most cases a player of PI heritage is just any other NZ player and their selection is based only on that. There's likely been many non PI heritage players selected like this as well.
@Nepia no one thought PGS was going to become a 100 test AB, at absolute best he was picked on current form but even then he didnt start and hasn't been seen since, definitely seems like a "just in case" kind of situation
-
@Nepia see Aumua has more right to be an AB than say Reece, and players who follow the path Reece, PGS et al have taken, is not ideal IMO, but these guys are adults and can make thier own decisions, although again you'd hope someone is giving them advice in that regard, although at that level, these guys must believe in thier ability and know that of others to the point they believe they can become a multi test AB than just a few?
Reece has played way more than I expected him to!
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks XV:
@Nepia see Aumua has more right to be an AB than say Reece
If you are available for selection it is because you have made yourself so.
No one available for selection has a greater “right” than others. -
@Nepia no one thought PGS was going to become a 100 test AB, at absolute best he was picked on current form but even then he didnt start and hasn't been seen since, definitely seems like a "just in case" kind of situation
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Nepia no one thought PGS was going to become a 100 test AB, at absolute best he was picked on current form but even then he didnt start and hasn't been seen since, definitely seems like a "just in case" kind of situation
I agree with @Nepia that players aren’t selected with a view to lock them in. They are selected because they are available to be and because the selectors think they will serve a purpose.
There’s no conspiracy here. -
@Nepia no one thought PGS was going to become a 100 test AB, at absolute best he was picked on current form but even then he didnt start and hasn't been seen since, definitely seems like a "just in case" kind of situation
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Nepia no one thought PGS was going to become a 100 test AB, at absolute best he was picked on current form but even then he didnt start and hasn't been seen since, definitely seems like a "just in case" kind of situation
That's just a poor selection. We didn't need to lock in a loose forward just in case, we pump them out frequently and there's a number of non AB loosies floating around who could have had that same punt taken on them.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Nepia no one thought PGS was going to become a 100 test AB, at absolute best he was picked on current form but even then he didnt start and hasn't been seen since, definitely seems like a "just in case" kind of situation
I agree with @Nepia that players aren’t selected with a view to lock them in. They are selected because they are available to be and because the selectors think they will serve a purpose.
There’s no conspiracy here.@Crucial i dont think its a conspiracy, no one is doing things in secret or underhand
I just dont think every single player we've capped had the potential to be a great and were selected as you say to serve a purpose, some obviously have little chance of started ahead of others in the position...so they have a certain extent of "just in case about them"
-
@Crucial i dont think its a conspiracy, no one is doing things in secret or underhand
I just dont think every single player we've capped had the potential to be a great and were selected as you say to serve a purpose, some obviously have little chance of started ahead of others in the position...so they have a certain extent of "just in case about them"
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial i dont think its a conspiracy, no one is doing things in secret or underhand
I just dont think every single player we've capped had the potential to be a great and were selected as you say to serve a purpose, some obviously have little chance of started ahead of others in the position...so they have a certain extent of "just in case about them"
I may be reading it wrong but back a few posts you suggested that some players were being selected to lock them in “just in case”.
I agree that some are selected with view of introducing them to higher levels just in case, but not to lock them in -
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial i dont think its a conspiracy, no one is doing things in secret or underhand
I just dont think every single player we've capped had the potential to be a great and were selected as you say to serve a purpose, some obviously have little chance of started ahead of others in the position...so they have a certain extent of "just in case about them"
I may be reading it wrong but back a few posts you suggested that some players were being selected to lock them in “just in case”.
I agree that some are selected with view of introducing them to higher levels just in case, but not to lock them in@Crucial feels like semantics now, yeah, i think some people are selected "just in case" as in building depth. and some times that depth goes past the obvious selections, i feel in the past the 4th or 5th choice or a bolter for a position was normally someone young so you were developing long term talent...but now it feels like we are just as likely to see a 28 year old come out of the blue...they cant be seen as a long term option
using PGS again as the example...it wasn;t a mistake, they didnt select him as an accident, he was chosen to at most play 20min, in the past i think we would have had someone younger come on to play 10 minute bursts and you could legitimately say they were selected with the potential to go on and play more.
So yeah, sometime i think they freak out that we might not have the depth they want and so they pick people just in case that depth is needed
im probably not wording it right, its not a conspiracy or underhanded, but my original point, theyre not telling 28 year olds they dont have a shot, because they want everyone to hold out for their shot at the best rugby team in history...just in case their needed
-
@Crucial feels like semantics now, yeah, i think some people are selected "just in case" as in building depth. and some times that depth goes past the obvious selections, i feel in the past the 4th or 5th choice or a bolter for a position was normally someone young so you were developing long term talent...but now it feels like we are just as likely to see a 28 year old come out of the blue...they cant be seen as a long term option
using PGS again as the example...it wasn;t a mistake, they didnt select him as an accident, he was chosen to at most play 20min, in the past i think we would have had someone younger come on to play 10 minute bursts and you could legitimately say they were selected with the potential to go on and play more.
So yeah, sometime i think they freak out that we might not have the depth they want and so they pick people just in case that depth is needed
im probably not wording it right, its not a conspiracy or underhanded, but my original point, theyre not telling 28 year olds they dont have a shot, because they want everyone to hold out for their shot at the best rugby team in history...just in case their needed
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial feels like semantics now, yeah, i think some people are selected "just in case" as in building depth. and some times that depth goes past the obvious selections, i feel in the past the 4th or 5th choice or a bolter for a position was normally someone young so you were developing long term talent...but now it feels like we are just as likely to see a 28 year old come out of the blue...they cant be seen as a long term option
using PGS again as the example...it wasn;t a mistake, they didnt select him as an accident, he was chosen to at most play 20min, in the past i think we would have had someone younger come on to play 10 minute bursts and you could legitimately say they were selected with the potential to go on and play more.
So yeah, sometime i think they freak out that we might not have the depth they want and so they pick people just in case that depth is needed
im probably not wording it right, its not a conspiracy or underhanded, but my original point, theyre not telling 28 year olds they dont have a shot, because they want everyone to hold out for their shot at the best rugby team in history...just in case their needed
I don’t have an argument with any of that and won’t accuse you of backtracking. Just thought the the discussion had veered into the use of selection to deliberately lock in players with other options. Apologies if I concluded incorrectly
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks XV:
@Nepia see Aumua has more right to be an AB than say Reece
If you are available for selection it is because you have made yourself so.
No one available for selection has a greater “right” than others. -
It's up to the players to make that personal decision, and you would hope that Aumua is getting the right advice from his agent etc. There are a number of midfielders ahead of him before he would get anywhere near the ABs.
@Bovidae said in All Blacks XV:
It's up to the players to make that personal decision, and you would hope that Aumua is getting the right advice from his agent etc. There are a number of midfielders ahead of him before he would get anywhere near the ABs.
I think a lot of us forget, that many players that have turned out for Samoa haven't got paid or waited a fair while to get any. I think perhaps his agent could just be advising him to hang off until he sees how wind blows.
-
@Crucial you know thats not how I was meaning it.
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial you know thats not how I was meaning it.
Hey, it was your words!
If that’s not what you meant that’s great but don’t blame me for what you wrote.
As I have told the missus for decades, I’m not a mind reader. -
@Crucial feels like semantics now, yeah, i think some people are selected "just in case" as in building depth. and some times that depth goes past the obvious selections, i feel in the past the 4th or 5th choice or a bolter for a position was normally someone young so you were developing long term talent...but now it feels like we are just as likely to see a 28 year old come out of the blue...they cant be seen as a long term option
using PGS again as the example...it wasn;t a mistake, they didnt select him as an accident, he was chosen to at most play 20min, in the past i think we would have had someone younger come on to play 10 minute bursts and you could legitimately say they were selected with the potential to go on and play more.
So yeah, sometime i think they freak out that we might not have the depth they want and so they pick people just in case that depth is needed
im probably not wording it right, its not a conspiracy or underhanded, but my original point, theyre not telling 28 year olds they dont have a shot, because they want everyone to hold out for their shot at the best rugby team in history...just in case their needed
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial feels like semantics now, yeah, i think some people are selected "just in case" as in building depth. and some times that depth goes past the obvious selections, i feel in the past the 4th or 5th choice or a bolter for a position was normally someone young so you were developing long term talent...but now it feels like we are just as likely to see a 28 year old come out of the blue...they cant be seen as a long term option
using PGS again as the example...it wasn;t a mistake, they didnt select him as an accident, he was chosen to at most play 20min, in the past i think we would have had someone younger come on to play 10 minute bursts and you could legitimately say they were selected with the potential to go on and play more.
On PGS has anyone heard much on the rumour, he perhaps played up a bit at training, and perhaps may have a lot to do with not making even AB XV
-
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial feels like semantics now, yeah, i think some people are selected "just in case" as in building depth. and some times that depth goes past the obvious selections, i feel in the past the 4th or 5th choice or a bolter for a position was normally someone young so you were developing long term talent...but now it feels like we are just as likely to see a 28 year old come out of the blue...they cant be seen as a long term option
using PGS again as the example...it wasn;t a mistake, they didnt select him as an accident, he was chosen to at most play 20min, in the past i think we would have had someone younger come on to play 10 minute bursts and you could legitimately say they were selected with the potential to go on and play more.
On PGS has anyone heard much on the rumour, he perhaps played up a bit at training, and perhaps may have a lot to do with not making even AB XV
@Dan54 said in All Blacks XV:
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial feels like semantics now, yeah, i think some people are selected "just in case" as in building depth. and some times that depth goes past the obvious selections, i feel in the past the 4th or 5th choice or a bolter for a position was normally someone young so you were developing long term talent...but now it feels like we are just as likely to see a 28 year old come out of the blue...they cant be seen as a long term option
using PGS again as the example...it wasn;t a mistake, they didnt select him as an accident, he was chosen to at most play 20min, in the past i think we would have had someone younger come on to play 10 minute bursts and you could legitimately say they were selected with the potential to go on and play more.
On PGS has anyone heard much on the rumour, he perhaps played up a bit at training, and perhaps may have a lot to do with not making even AB XV
It was mentioned in a press article that there were some minor indiscretions when in camp but it was also stated that they had no impact on his selections (or not). That’s all I have heard.
