RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy
-
@gt12 said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 i feel there is a difference between unproven and effectively untested at the top level....and unproven but tested
how many tests did lomu have before the world cup? so showed himself at the lower level and was given his shot and performed....clarke has been given the same shot...and not stepped up IMO
This is fair, given that Clarke has had 25 tests.
I honestly wouldn't pick him, but my response was due to the wording/idea of your post. If we had Lomu talent, we shouldn't not pick it even if it is unproven (I think Lomu was still a big question mark after how the France team made him look a bit silly in 1994).
im not even sure about that, we see it with BB, no question he hasnt proven himself in the past...but if you're not bringing it on game day any time recently....then find someone else....im just not down for picking hoping they suddenly turn around
id rather pick someone thats going to give me 7-8 out of 10....than someone that has the potential of 10 out of 10...but regularly gives us 6
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 i feel there is a difference between unproven and effectively untested at the top level....and unproven but tested
how many tests did lomu have before the world cup? so showed himself at the lower level and was given his shot and performed....clarke has been given the same shot...and not stepped up IMO
This is fair, given that Clarke has had 25 tests.
I honestly wouldn't pick him, but my response was due to the wording/idea of your post. If we had Lomu talent, we shouldn't not pick it even if it is unproven (I think Lomu was still a big question mark after how the France team made him look a bit silly in 1994).
im not even sure about that, we see it with BB, no question he hasnt proven himself in the past...but if you're not bring it on game day....then find someone else....im just not down for picking hoping they suddenly turn around
Changing goalposts.
BB is not unproven nor untested. He's well-proven and well-tested. He just hasn't been exposed to severe competition ala Mils Muliana and Israel Dagg.
He is past it and if we had tested an alternative he should be dropped.
*btw, I hope he turns it around as I'm sure he will be picked.
-
McLeod confirmed all four previously injured players, in skipper Sam Cane, second five Jordie Barrett, No 6 Shannon Frizell and prop Tyrel Lomax, were fit and “selectable” after a quality Monday training hitout.
So only Groot not available, really got to play those guys as they need time in the saddle
@Machpants No doubt about that.
We need to play our strongest team - which includes all four - just quite how we deploy them (starting or bench) is a question for a couple.
-
Is this likely the most competitive game for a tier one nation this weekend? It seems the round is lacking any real crunch matches.
@antipodean said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
Is this likely the most competitive game for a tier one nation this weekend? It seems the round is lacking any real crunch matches.
Japan v Samoa
Fiji v GeorgiaHave massive implications for this RWC
-
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 i feel there is a difference between unproven and effectively untested at the top level....and unproven but tested
how many tests did lomu have before the world cup? so showed himself at the lower level and was given his shot and performed....clarke has been given the same shot...and not stepped up IMO
This is fair, given that Clarke has had 25 tests.
I honestly wouldn't pick him, but my response was due to the wording/idea of your post. If we had Lomu talent, we shouldn't not pick it even if it is unproven (I think Lomu was still a big question mark after how the France team made him look a bit silly in 1994).
im not even sure about that, we see it with BB, no question he hasnt proven himself in the past...but if you're not bring it on game day....then find someone else....im just not down for picking hoping they suddenly turn around
Changing goalposts.
BB is not unproven nor untested. He's well-proven and well-tested. He just hasn't been exposed to severe competition ala Mils Muliana and Israel Dagg.
He is past it and if we had tested an alternative he should be dropped.
*btw, I hope he turns it around as I'm sure he will be picked.
@gt12 said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 i feel there is a difference between unproven and effectively untested at the top level....and unproven but tested
how many tests did lomu have before the world cup? so showed himself at the lower level and was given his shot and performed....clarke has been given the same shot...and not stepped up IMO
This is fair, given that Clarke has had 25 tests.
I honestly wouldn't pick him, but my response was due to the wording/idea of your post. If we had Lomu talent, we shouldn't not pick it even if it is unproven (I think Lomu was still a big question mark after how the France team made him look a bit silly in 1994).
im not even sure about that, we see it with BB, no question he hasnt proven himself in the past...but if you're not bring it on game day....then find someone else....im just not down for picking hoping they suddenly turn around
Changing goalposts.
BB is not unproven nor untested. He's well-proven and well-tested. He just hasn't been exposed to severe competition ala Mils Muliana and Israel Dagg.
He is past it and if we had tested an alternative he should be dropped.
*btw, I hope he turns it around as I'm sure he will be picked.
How am I changing goalposts? even in the post you quoted I say there is no doubt he has proven himself In the past
I was replying to you point about still picking people that have proven themselves i the past and said unless the proof is recent I still wouldn’t
-
@gt12 said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 i feel there is a difference between unproven and effectively untested at the top level....and unproven but tested
how many tests did lomu have before the world cup? so showed himself at the lower level and was given his shot and performed....clarke has been given the same shot...and not stepped up IMO
This is fair, given that Clarke has had 25 tests.
I honestly wouldn't pick him, but my response was due to the wording/idea of your post. If we had Lomu talent, we shouldn't not pick it even if it is unproven (I think Lomu was still a big question mark after how the France team made him look a bit silly in 1994).
im not even sure about that, we see it with BB, no question he hasnt proven himself in the past...but if you're not bring it on game day....then find someone else....im just not down for picking hoping they suddenly turn around
Changing goalposts.
BB is not unproven nor untested. He's well-proven and well-tested. He just hasn't been exposed to severe competition ala Mils Muliana and Israel Dagg.
He is past it and if we had tested an alternative he should be dropped.
*btw, I hope he turns it around as I'm sure he will be picked.
How am I changing goalposts? even in the post you quoted I say there is no doubt he has proven himself In the past
I was replying to you point about still picking people that have proven themselves i the past and said unless the proof is recent I still wouldn’t
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 i feel there is a difference between unproven and effectively untested at the top level....and unproven but tested
how many tests did lomu have before the world cup? so showed himself at the lower level and was given his shot and performed....clarke has been given the same shot...and not stepped up IMO
This is fair, given that Clarke has had 25 tests.
I honestly wouldn't pick him, but my response was due to the wording/idea of your post. If we had Lomu talent, we shouldn't not pick it even if it is unproven (I think Lomu was still a big question mark after how the France team made him look a bit silly in 1994).
im not even sure about that, we see it with BB, no question he hasnt proven himself in the past...but if you're not bring it on game day....then find someone else....im just not down for picking hoping they suddenly turn around
Changing goalposts.
BB is not unproven nor untested. He's well-proven and well-tested. He just hasn't been exposed to severe competition ala Mils Muliana and Israel Dagg.
He is past it and if we had tested an alternative he should be dropped.
*btw, I hope he turns it around as I'm sure he will be picked.
How am I changing goalposts? even in the post you quoted I say there is no doubt he has proven himself In the past
I was replying to you point about still picking people that have proven themselves i the past and said unless the proof is recent I still wouldn’t
I'm completely lost.
You brought up Beauden Barrett who has more than 100 tests as an AB. I replied by citing Mils Muliana who brought up 100 tests and was replaced - during a WC - by Israel Dagg.
Having runs on the board (i.e., being proven and tested) is not the same as being the best player available.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
When is the team really named?
About now....
Tuúngafasi
Taylor
Laulala
Retallick
SBarrett
Frizell
Cane
Savea
Smith
Mo'unga
Telea
JBarrett
Ioane
Jordan
BBarrettTaukei'aho
Williams
Lomax
Whitelock
Blackadder
Roigard
McKenzie
ALBActually, I'm not that confident about a few of these.
Lomax may well start. Coles is something of a possibility on the bench. Blackadder vs Paps is a toss-up. Big Leicester may take DMac's slot - or, if Fozzie really gets adventurous, maybe Telea's - but, nah... Christie may hold onto the 21 jersey.
@Chris-B said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
Big Leicester may take DMac's slot - or, if Fozzie really gets adventurous, maybe Telea's - but, nah... Christie may hold onto the 21 jersey.
Seriously?
Based on what other than Foster's stubbornness? -
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 i feel there is a difference between unproven and effectively untested at the top level....and unproven but tested
how many tests did lomu have before the world cup? so showed himself at the lower level and was given his shot and performed....clarke has been given the same shot...and not stepped up IMO
This is fair, given that Clarke has had 25 tests.
I honestly wouldn't pick him, but my response was due to the wording/idea of your post. If we had Lomu talent, we shouldn't not pick it even if it is unproven (I think Lomu was still a big question mark after how the France team made him look a bit silly in 1994).
im not even sure about that, we see it with BB, no question he hasnt proven himself in the past...but if you're not bring it on game day....then find someone else....im just not down for picking hoping they suddenly turn around
Changing goalposts.
BB is not unproven nor untested. He's well-proven and well-tested. He just hasn't been exposed to severe competition ala Mils Muliana and Israel Dagg.
He is past it and if we had tested an alternative he should be dropped.
*btw, I hope he turns it around as I'm sure he will be picked.
How am I changing goalposts? even in the post you quoted I say there is no doubt he has proven himself In the past
I was replying to you point about still picking people that have proven themselves i the past and said unless the proof is recent I still wouldn’t
I'm completely lost.
You brought up Beauden Barrett who has more than 100 tests as an AB. I replied by citing Mils Muliana who brought up 100 tests and was replaced - during a WC - by Israel Dagg.
Having runs on the board (i.e., being proven and tested) is not the same as being the best player available.
@gt12 said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@Kiwiwomble said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@gt12 i feel there is a difference between unproven and effectively untested at the top level....and unproven but tested
how many tests did lomu have before the world cup? so showed himself at the lower level and was given his shot and performed....clarke has been given the same shot...and not stepped up IMO
This is fair, given that Clarke has had 25 tests.
I honestly wouldn't pick him, but my response was due to the wording/idea of your post. If we had Lomu talent, we shouldn't not pick it even if it is unproven (I think Lomu was still a big question mark after how the France team made him look a bit silly in 1994).
im not even sure about that, we see it with BB, no question he hasnt proven himself in the past...but if you're not bring it on game day....then find someone else....im just not down for picking hoping they suddenly turn around
Changing goalposts.
BB is not unproven nor untested. He's well-proven and well-tested. He just hasn't been exposed to severe competition ala Mils Muliana and Israel Dagg.
He is past it and if we had tested an alternative he should be dropped.
*btw, I hope he turns it around as I'm sure he will be picked.
How am I changing goalposts? even in the post you quoted I say there is no doubt he has proven himself In the past
I was replying to you point about still picking people that have proven themselves i the past and said unless the proof is recent I still wouldn’t
I'm completely lost.
You brought up Beauden Barrett who has more than 100 tests as an AB. I replied by citing Mils Muliana who brought up 100 tests and was replaced - during a WC - by Israel Dagg.
Having runs on the board (i.e., being proven and tested) is not the same as being the best player available.
I was making a point about being proven in the past isn’t enough for me using bb as an example of someone who have proven himself in the past but currently out of form but you seemed to take it the other way telling me he have proven himself…which I had already said, maybe we just leave it
-
@Machpants No doubt about that.
We need to play our strongest team - which includes all four - just quite how we deploy them (starting or bench) is a question for a couple.
@Chris-B said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@Machpants No doubt about that.
We need to play our strongest team - which includes all four - just quite how we deploy them (starting or bench) is a question for a couple.
I think there is room for experimentation with wings, but otherwise strongest fit team starts.
-
@Chris-B said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
Big Leicester may take DMac's slot - or, if Fozzie really gets adventurous, maybe Telea's - but, nah... Christie may hold onto the 21 jersey.
Seriously?
Based on what other than Foster's stubbornness?@Frank said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
@Chris-B said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
Big Leicester may take DMac's slot - or, if Fozzie really gets adventurous, maybe Telea's - but, nah... Christie may hold onto the 21 jersey.
Seriously?
Based on what other than Foster's stubbornness?Am not sure @Chris-B is stating his own preference.
-
@ARHS said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
Papalii starting - you must be kidding
Captain starting from the bench, how many games has he been out? It hasn’t been that long so if he’s a hundred I can’t imagine he needs to be eased in too much…so not a hundred?
-
@ARHS said in RWC Week 4: All Blacks v Italy:
Papalii starting - you must be kidding
Why? Who would you have?
-
@KiwiMurph solid 23, I’d prefer Blackadder over Papali’i’ though.
Papali’i must be counting his lucky stars. He completely lacks any impact at this level.
Good to see Christie has been given the boot, and good to see McKenzie on the bench.
@george33 you were way off the money once again.
-
@KiwiMurph solid 23, I’d prefer Blackadder over Papali’i’ though.
Papali’i must be counting his lucky stars. He completely lacks any impact at this level.
Good to see Christie has been given the boot, and good to see McKenzie on the bench.
@george33 you were way off the money once again.
@Canes4life if cane isn’t 100% I’d rather have Blackadder
-
Good team, I’m happy
Backline sorted.
Forwards close - Cane will get 30 mins and likely start agains Ireland
Locks settled.
Reserve have some punch
Great to se Roigard there
Only thing for me is whether Sami is injured!
️️@voodoo The Samisoni conundrum.
Has he fallen down the pecking order? I still feel he is most suited to the pick and go, up the guts style of forward play. But not necessarily the wide channel Fitzy like style that Taylor and Coles are more adept at.
If that is true that he hasn't been selected because the hooker isn't going to be going up the Italian pack's guts, then I'm a tad concerned.
