AB RWC Squad

Stargazer

Ennor the centre/wing (according to AB selectors) would probably be in for the wing/centre LF

Ennor has played more on the right wing than the left wing. I think if Ennor had made the squad, Narawa would have missed out, not LF.

mariner4life

@ACT-Crusader said in AB RWC Squad:

There are some pretty unlikely scenarios being thrown about. We have to operate with a smaller squad and yes the outside back contingency seems like overkill. But were they ever going to select 5 locks regardless? Nope. Hey we only took 3 locks to 2015!

i get this, but

As it stands, with Retallick out for 2 or 3 games, we have 3 locks and 5 loosies. You need a combination of 7 of these for every match. It just means that we're putting a lot of load on the first stringers early in the tournament.

It does help that the two hardest pool games are pretty early, and it's likely the top side plays them anyway. 1 more injury and you are out of options. two and you are out of players, not matter what their positions are.

Nepia

@Billy-Tell said in AB RWC Squad:

@Nepia said in AB RWC Squad:

No Finau! FFS.

Christie.

Havilli.

🤮

Ah well, time to shut off my phone and hopefully watch a good movie over the Ta$man.

Drama queens a plenty on this forum. You’d think these guys are disabled cripples. Sure Christie is no world-beater but he’s hardly dreadful. I don’t think Webber is so amazingly good that it’s a shocking decision. And I don’t think ennor is so incredible that Havili is lucky. Besides ennor is probably injured. As for finau he had an anonymous first half then showed up better against a tiring Aussie pack.

Quite a dramatic knight in shining armour response to another poster's preference (well non preference) of players. So yes, I agree, drama queens a plenty on this forum.

frugby

I think it is pretty clear that because of the week long breaks, the selectors were more worried about having a full backline to train against than having extra depth in the forwards in the case of emergency...

The coaches won't say it, but if we lose 2 of Retallick, Whitelock and Barrett we are finished anyway - as would most countries. I thought they may have taken six loose forwards, but the reasoning from Foster is fair. One of the outside backs (Likely Clarke or Fainga'anuku) is likely to barely see the field I'd think.

Mapping it out, say this is the 23 v France:

de Groot
Taylor
Lomax
Whitelock
S Barrett
Frizell
Cane
Savea
Smith
Mo'unga
Telea
J Barrett
Ioane
Jordan
B Barrett
Taukei'aho
Tu'ungafasi
Newell
Va'ai
Papalii
Roigard (?)
Lienert-Brown
Clarke/Fainga'anuku

They'll probably work it so most of these guys only start 1 other pool game I'd think? They might just about clear the deck v Namibia (Similar team to the one that played the Aussies last weekend) then I think v Italy it'll be dependent on whether we beat France. If we lose the first game, they'll probably want to make sure we avoid any potential banana skin, so it'll be strong, before rotating out v Uruguay.

I think in an ideal world, they'd want to keep most of the starting pack on ice for the two weeks following France before letting them loose on Uruguay. They won't want too many of them to have a week off heading into the quarters, so I think you could just about see the top side v Uruguay... if you can go to a bookmaker, I think a nudge at the ABs breaking the record for biggest winning margin is well and truly on.

ACT Crusader

@mariner4life there’s the option to play Frizell at lock if need be. Here’s my take on how they can manage the back 5.

France
4- Whitelock
5- Scooter
6- Frizell
7- Cane
8- Savea

19- Vaa’i
20- Papali’i

Namibia
4- Vaa’i
5- Scooter
6- Jacobson
7- Papali’i
8- Savea

19- Whitelock
20- Cane

Italy
4- Retallick
5- Scooter
6- Frizell
7- Cane
8- Savea

19- Vaa’i
20- Papali’i

Uruguay
4- Whitelock
5- Retallick
6- Frizell
7- Papali’i
8- Jacobson

19- Vaa’i
20- Cane

frugby

@ACT-Crusader said in AB RWC Squad:

@mariner4life there’s the option to play Frizell at lock if need be. Here’s my take on how they can manage the back 5.

France
4- Whitelock
5- Scooter
6- Frizell
7- Cane
8- Savea

19- Vaa’i
20- Papali’i

Namibia
4- Vaa’i
5- Scooter
6- Jacobson
7- Papali’i
8- Savea

19- Whitelock
20- Cane

Italy
4- Retallick
5- Scooter
6- Frizell
7- Cane
8- Savea

19- Vaa’i
20- Papali’i

Uruguay
4- Whitelock
5- Retallick
6- Frizell
7- Papali’i
8- Jacobson

19- Vaa’i
20- Cane

Not a million miles off... here is my guess:

France

I agree

Whitelock
S Barrett
Frizell
Cane
Savea

19 Vaa'i
20 Papalii

Nambia

Vaa'i
S Barrett
Jacobson
Papalii
Savea

19 Frizell
20 Cane

Italy

Depends a bit on how we went v France.

If we lost it will be:

Whitelock
S Barrett
Frizell
Cane
Savea

19 Retallick
20 Papalii

If we won it will be:

Vaa'i
Whitelock
Frizell
Cane
Jacobson

19 Retallick
20 Savea

Uruguay

Conceivably if things went tits up, we could be allover red rover by this stage. I'm going to assume we are qualified for the next round

Barrett
Retallick
Papalii
Cane
Savea

19 Vaa'i
20 Frizell

Bovidae

@ACT-Crusader I wouldn't be surprised to see Vaa'i used at 6 in one of the lesser pool games. Ryan and Foster both mentioned that two of the locks can also play 6 to justify selecting one less loose forward.

frugby

@Bovidae I thought about this, but I doubt he starts there in any game.

Will be in 19 v France so could conceivably replace Frizell but unlikely
Will start v Nambia at lock
Will either start at lock v Italy, or potentially be out the 23 if we need to win the game
Last game v Uruguay... maybe? I think it is unlikely to happen though unless there are injuries.

Machpants

@Victor-Meldrew said in AB RWC Squad:

@Machpants said in AB RWC Squad:

Whereas now we have 3 locks and 5 loosies, fucking Muppet

Don't we have 4 - Sam, BBBR (assuming he gets over his injury) , Scooter & Vai'i?

RWC, the ideal place for excitements. Did a lot of that in the run up to the quarters in 07

Fair point, they have spent much of the last 12 months sorting out the top 15 & 23 and haven't had much chance to tweak things around the edges.

BBBR is in the squad but he can't play, so we have 3 locks. Until/if he gets fit we have 3 which is stupid. What if he takes longer to recover?

kiwiinmelb

Is there anything that would’ve prevented them from naming another lock like lord , and as soon as Brodie is right to go , lord picks up an injury at training and you swap them over ?

Machpants

Nope but then Lord can't come back if there is another injury. Brodie also can't be in camp

Chris B.

@mariner4life said in AB RWC Squad:

@ACT-Crusader said in AB RWC Squad:

There are some pretty unlikely scenarios being thrown about. We have to operate with a smaller squad and yes the outside back contingency seems like overkill. But were they ever going to select 5 locks regardless? Nope. Hey we only took 3 locks to 2015!

i get this, but

As it stands, with Retallick out for 2 or 3 games, we have 3 locks and 5 loosies. You need a combination of 7 of these for every match. It just means that we're putting a lot of load on the first stringers early in the tournament.

It does help that the two hardest pool games are pretty early, and it's likely the top side plays them anyway. 1 more injury and you are out of options. two and you are out of players, not matter what their positions are.

I think the only significant problem is if one of the indispensable locks (or Frizell) gets a short run injury against South Africa. Then we'd go into the game against France with two big guys having to play 80 minutes and no proper injury cover.

Otherwise, we can surely manage short-handed vs the minnows and Italy - and Retallick hopefully back by then anyway.

But, why take the risk? The fifth wing will maximum play vs Namibia and Uruguay.

As much as anything it's the lack of logic that annoys me. I just can't see how you'd think this balance was the best idea (short of Will Jordan and a wing friend really are going by ship and they expect them to be stuck in Suez for some considerable time)!

frugby

@Chris-B said in AB RWC Squad:

@mariner4life said in AB RWC Squad:

@ACT-Crusader said in AB RWC Squad:

There are some pretty unlikely scenarios being thrown about. We have to operate with a smaller squad and yes the outside back contingency seems like overkill. But were they ever going to select 5 locks regardless? Nope. Hey we only took 3 locks to 2015!

i get this, but

As it stands, with Retallick out for 2 or 3 games, we have 3 locks and 5 loosies. You need a combination of 7 of these for every match. It just means that we're putting a lot of load on the first stringers early in the tournament.

It does help that the two hardest pool games are pretty early, and it's likely the top side plays them anyway. 1 more injury and you are out of options. two and you are out of players, not matter what their positions are.

I think the only significant problem is if one of the indispensable locks (or Frizell) gets a short run injury against South Africa. Then we'd go into the game against France with two big guys having to play 80 minutes and no proper injury cover.

Otherwise, we can surely manage short-handed vs the minnows and Italy - and Retallick hopefully back by then anyway.

But, why take the risk? The fifth wing will maximum play vs Namibia and Uruguay.

As much as anything it's the lack of logic that annoys me. I just can't see how you'd think this balance was the best idea (short of Will Jordan and a wing friend really are going by ship and they expect them to be stuck in Suez for some considerable time)!

Foster said it was all to do with training, which makes sense I guess. Even if the 33rd guy with a loose forward, he too would probably be limited to a couple of pool matches.

canefan

I'd imagine they will have another half a dozen players in France ready just in case someone is ruled out and they need a replacement

ACT Crusader

@Chris-B I'm in two minds about where they go for the Boks test. Whilst there would be the temptation to wrap Smith, one of Scooter or Whitelock and Jordie in cotton wool, you also don't want to get embarrassed out there on Twickers. Plus this is a money spinner for all intents and purposes.

Bovidae

I assume that there is still a stand-down period for replacement players? It will be interesting if Finau, Weber and Bell stay in the UK or return to NZ.

ACT Crusader

@canefan said in AB RWC Squad:

I'd imagine they will have another half a dozen players in France ready just in case someone is ruled out and they need a replacement

There are rules around replacement times etc to make it fair for those non-cashed up nations that can't afford to have extra players sightseeing in France

kiwiinmelb

@Machpants said in AB RWC Squad:

Nope but then Lord can't come back if there is another injury. Brodie also can't be in camp

Sounds a bit like a law waiting to be manipulated, the faking on an injury part to swap players I mean

ACT Crusader

Can't find the exact rule for 2023 RWC, this is the rule from previous World Cups

Once teams have named their final 31 man squad players can only be replaced for medical or compassionate reasons. Teams must complete the relevant paperwork and send it to World Rugby along with a medical certificate where appropriate. Once signed off the replacement is not allowed to play for 48 hours. The replacement is permanent.

bayimports

@Bovidae said in AB RWC Squad:

I assume that there is still a stand-down period for replacement players? It will be interesting if Finau, Weber and Bell stay in the UK or return to NZ.

I suspect they will be touring..

Could be needed early too if a Fern sniper takes out the Ginger

The Silver Fern

AB RWC Squad