All Blacks vs Wallabies 2
-
@Chris said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
That backline really does suck TJ and BB and ALB Fuck me we have lost the plot.
At least Havili aint at 12....
-
Japan would appear to be the test some of the other squad players will get their chance. TJP starting this test shouldn't be a surprise, especially if it is his last. Then we move on.
@Bovidae said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
Japan would appear to be the test some of the other squad players will get their chance. TJP starting this test shouldn't be a surprise, especially if it is his last. Then we move on.
I wonder if the other thing behind TJ starting is the desire to do finish the test off better than we have done lately - and that Ratima can bring that spark we need.
Same theory for DMac I guess - those 2 guys running at tired forwards (to the extent those still exist in the modern game) to try and spark something late
-
@Machpants TJP was always going to be in the 23 as I doubt they'd select Hotham. Of course I prefer Ratima, but perversely I'm looking forward to seeing BB operate with slow ball. It could backfire spectacularly.
-
Japan would appear to be the test some of the other squad players will get their chance. TJP starting this test shouldn't be a surprise, especially if it is his last. Then we move on.
@Bovidae said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
Japan would appear to be the test some of the other squad players will get their chance. TJP starting this test shouldn't be a surprise, especially if it is his last. Then we move on.
Same with Cane IMO. Roigard and Lakai coming into the squad for the EOYT is a must in my view. We need to start building for the future.
-
@Chris said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
That backline really does suck TJ and BB and ALB Fuck me we have lost the plot.
At least Havili aint at 12....
@JK said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@Chris said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
That backline really does suck TJ and BB and ALB Fuck me we have lost the plot.
At least Havili aint at 12....
But he's not a 13 either so why the fuck is he there? Oh yeah, because he's a Crusader.
-
@JK said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@Chris said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
That backline really does suck TJ and BB and ALB Fuck me we have lost the plot.
At least Havili aint at 12....
But he's not a 13 either so why the fuck is he there? Oh yeah, because he's a Crusader.
@Canes4life said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@JK said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@Chris said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
That backline really does suck TJ and BB and ALB Fuck me we have lost the plot.
At least Havili aint at 12....
But he's not a 13 either so why the fuck is he there? Oh yeah, because he's a Crusader.
He can cover 12 if ALB has to come off.
ALB can shift to 13 if Ioane has to come off.
It makes sense to have a 12 on the bench - less so a 13.
Proctor needs to be given the best possible chance to succeed when he gets another run. Bringing him on out of position wouldn't do that.
-
@JK said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@Chris said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
That backline really does suck TJ and BB and ALB Fuck me we have lost the plot.
At least Havili aint at 12....
But he's not a 13 either so why the fuck is he there? Oh yeah, because he's a Crusader.
@Canes4life said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@JK said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@Chris said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
That backline really does suck TJ and BB and ALB Fuck me we have lost the plot.
At least Havili aint at 12....
But he's not a 13 either so why the fuck is he there? Oh yeah, because he's a Crusader.
But why was he there under Foster then? Havili in the squad is not really a biased selection - he's not featured in the 23 until injury - AJ Lam would have been my pick for that role, but it is about Havili's level and he's got a heap more experience so it's not hard to see the logic in the selection.
Fihaki on the other hand is well worth having a whinge about.
-
@Chris said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
That backline really does suck TJ and BB and ALB Fuck me we have lost the plot.
At least Havili aint at 12....
@JK said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@Chris said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
That backline really does suck TJ and BB and ALB Fuck me we have lost the plot.
At least Havili aint at 12....
.....yet
-
im starting it wonder if Razor was more pissed off about missing out on the job to fozzie than we thought....and he's now deliberately trying to take his revenge.....
i mean seriously! Ratima plays amazing....straight to the bench....why?! cant be to rest him surely!
-
@Canes4life said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@JK said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@Chris said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
That backline really does suck TJ and BB and ALB Fuck me we have lost the plot.
At least Havili aint at 12....
But he's not a 13 either so why the fuck is he there? Oh yeah, because he's a Crusader.
But why was he there under Foster then? Havili in the squad is not really a biased selection - he's not featured in the 23 until injury - AJ Lam would have been my pick for that role, but it is about Havili's level and he's got a heap more experience so it's not hard to see the logic in the selection.
Fihaki on the other hand is well worth having a whinge about.
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
But why was he there under Foster then? Havili in the squad is not really a biased selection - he's not featured in the 23 until injury - AJ
He was a stop-gap in a RWC year as ALB was injured as was Goodhue. He was either OK or shit depending on which Test you looked at. Personally he tried his best and you can't ask for more.
But there's zero logic in having him in the 23 when you're in the first season of developing a squad as a new coach, and in a game which is an ideal opportunity to try new players. No reflection on DH, but if this really is the backline and bench, its shortsighted bollocks.
-
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
But why was he there under Foster then? Havili in the squad is not really a biased selection - he's not featured in the 23 until injury - AJ
He was a stop-gap in a RWC year as ALB was injured as was Goodhue. He was either OK or shit depending on which Test you looked at. Personally he tried his best and you can't ask for more.
But there's zero logic in having him in the 23 when you're in the first season of developing a squad as a new coach, and in a game which is an ideal opportunity to try new players. No reflection on DH, but if this really is the backline and bench, its shortsighted bollocks.
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
But why was he there under Foster then? Havili in the squad is not really a biased selection - he's not featured in the 23 until injury - AJ
He was a stop-gap in a RWC year as ALB was injured as was Goodhue. He was either OK or shit depending on which Test you looked at. Personally he tried his best and you can't ask for more.
But there's zero logic in having him in the 23 when you're in the first season of developing a squad as a new coach, and in a game which is an ideal opportunity to try new players. No reflection on DH, but if this really is the backline and bench, its shortsighted bollocks.
Goodhue is a stretch.
I do agree, and I wouldn't have picked him - but I see it as conservatism rather than jumping on everything and calling it Crusader bias. Cantablacks? with TJ, BB, ALB, RI, CC and WJ?
If Sititi were a Crusader and had been picked off 2 or 3 good games over Hoskins all of the Blues guys would be screaming Crusaders bias on that too. If Sam Cane or TJ or BB were Crusaders, same deal. It's just boring. -
im starting it wonder if Razor was more pissed off about missing out on the job to fozzie than we thought....and he's now deliberately trying to take his revenge.....
i mean seriously! Ratima plays amazing....straight to the bench....why?! cant be to rest him surely!
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
im starting it wonder if Razor was more pissed off about missing out on the job to fozzie than we thought....and he's now deliberately trying to take his revenge.....
i mean seriously! Ratima plays amazing....straight to the bench....why?! cant be to rest him surely!
Well, maybe...just maybe...Razor's thought "Hmmm, we haven't scored any points in the final quarter...maybe I'll put a bit more offensive firepower on the bench".
Though, more likely you're right - he's thinking fuck the All Blacks, I'm going to burn the house down - but, very slowly, I'll start by beating England a couple of times so no-one will suspect.....
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
But why was he there under Foster then? Havili in the squad is not really a biased selection - he's not featured in the 23 until injury - AJ
He was a stop-gap in a RWC year as ALB was injured as was Goodhue. He was either OK or shit depending on which Test you looked at. Personally he tried his best and you can't ask for more.
But there's zero logic in having him in the 23 when you're in the first season of developing a squad as a new coach, and in a game which is an ideal opportunity to try new players. No reflection on DH, but if this really is the backline and bench, its shortsighted bollocks.
Goodhue is a stretch.
I do agree, and I wouldn't have picked him - but I see it as conservatism rather than jumping on everything and calling it Crusader bias. Cantablacks? with TJ, BB, ALB, RI, CC and WJ?
If Sititi were a Crusader and had been picked off 2 or 3 good games over Hoskins all of the Blues guys would be screaming Crusaders bias on that too. If Sam Cane or TJ or BB were Crusaders, same deal. It's just boring.@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
But why was he there under Foster then? Havili in the squad is not really a biased selection - he's not featured in the 23 until injury - AJ
He was a stop-gap in a RWC year as ALB was injured as was Goodhue. He was either OK or shit depending on which Test you looked at. Personally he tried his best and you can't ask for more.
But there's zero logic in having him in the 23 when you're in the first season of developing a squad as a new coach, and in a game which is an ideal opportunity to try new players. No reflection on DH, but if this really is the backline and bench, its shortsighted bollocks.
Goodhue is a stretch.
I do agree, and I wouldn't have picked him - but I see it as conservatism rather than jumping on everything and calling it Crusader bias. Cantablacks? with TJ, BB, ALB, RI, CC and WJ?
If Sititi were a Crusader and had been picked off 2 or 3 good games over Hoskins all of the Blues guys would be screaming Crusaders bias on that too. If Sam Cane or TJ or BB were Crusaders, same deal. It's just boring.I don't think his match day selections are affected by saders bias, more experience bias, when it shoul dbe performance bias. He's picking past it old gits that need to be moved on.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
But why was he there under Foster then? Havili in the squad is not really a biased selection - he's not featured in the 23 until injury - AJ
He was a stop-gap in a RWC year as ALB was injured as was Goodhue. He was either OK or shit depending on which Test you looked at. Personally he tried his best and you can't ask for more.
But there's zero logic in having him in the 23 when you're in the first season of developing a squad as a new coach, and in a game which is an ideal opportunity to try new players. No reflection on DH, but if this really is the backline and bench, its shortsighted bollocks.
Goodhue is a stretch.
I do agree, and I wouldn't have picked him - but I see it as conservatism rather than jumping on everything and calling it Crusader bias. Cantablacks? with TJ, BB, ALB, RI, CC and WJ?
If Sititi were a Crusader and had been picked off 2 or 3 good games over Hoskins all of the Blues guys would be screaming Crusaders bias on that too. If Sam Cane or TJ or BB were Crusaders, same deal. It's just boring.@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
But why was he there under Foster then? Havili in the squad is not really a biased selection - he's not featured in the 23 until injury - AJ
He was a stop-gap in a RWC year as ALB was injured as was Goodhue. He was either OK or shit depending on which Test you looked at. Personally he tried his best and you can't ask for more.
But there's zero logic in having him in the 23 when you're in the first season of developing a squad as a new coach, and in a game which is an ideal opportunity to try new players. No reflection on DH, but if this really is the backline and bench, its shortsighted bollocks.
Goodhue is a stretch.
I do agree, and I wouldn't have picked him - but I see it as conservatism rather than jumping on everything and calling it Crusader bias. Cantablacks? with TJ, BB, ALB, RI, CC and WJ?
If Sititi were a Crusader and had been picked off 2 or 3 good games over Hoskins all of the Blues guys would be screaming Crusaders bias on that too. If Sam Cane or TJ or BB were Crusaders, same deal. It's just boring.I think we are confusing things. If Sititi had been a Sader and been picked for the ABs after an unheralded SR campaign, and then performed the way he has, I don't think there would be anywhere near the level of discord that EB got because his performances are perceived to be less convincing
-
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
But why was he there under Foster then? Havili in the squad is not really a biased selection - he's not featured in the 23 until injury - AJ
He was a stop-gap in a RWC year as ALB was injured as was Goodhue. He was either OK or shit depending on which Test you looked at. Personally he tried his best and you can't ask for more.
But there's zero logic in having him in the 23 when you're in the first season of developing a squad as a new coach, and in a game which is an ideal opportunity to try new players. No reflection on DH, but if this really is the backline and bench, its shortsighted bollocks.
Goodhue is a stretch.
I do agree, and I wouldn't have picked him - but I see it as conservatism rather than jumping on everything and calling it Crusader bias. Cantablacks? with TJ, BB, ALB, RI, CC and WJ?
If Sititi were a Crusader and had been picked off 2 or 3 good games over Hoskins all of the Blues guys would be screaming Crusaders bias on that too. If Sam Cane or TJ or BB were Crusaders, same deal. It's just boring.I think we are confusing things. If Sititi had been a Sader and been picked for the ABs after an unheralded SR campaign, and then performed the way he has, I don't think there would be anywhere near the level of discord that EB got because his performances are perceived to be less convincing
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
But why was he there under Foster then? Havili in the squad is not really a biased selection - he's not featured in the 23 until injury - AJ
He was a stop-gap in a RWC year as ALB was injured as was Goodhue. He was either OK or shit depending on which Test you looked at. Personally he tried his best and you can't ask for more.
But there's zero logic in having him in the 23 when you're in the first season of developing a squad as a new coach, and in a game which is an ideal opportunity to try new players. No reflection on DH, but if this really is the backline and bench, its shortsighted bollocks.
Goodhue is a stretch.
I do agree, and I wouldn't have picked him - but I see it as conservatism rather than jumping on everything and calling it Crusader bias. Cantablacks? with TJ, BB, ALB, RI, CC and WJ?
If Sititi were a Crusader and had been picked off 2 or 3 good games over Hoskins all of the Blues guys would be screaming Crusaders bias on that too. If Sam Cane or TJ or BB were Crusaders, same deal. It's just boring.I think we are confusing things. If Sititi had been a Sader and been picked for the ABs after an unheralded SR campaign, and then performed the way he has, I don't think there would be anywhere near the level of discord that EB got because his performances are perceived to be less convincing
Disagree mate. EB has been pretty good, which is why I changed my mind about him being a poor selection. Seems to me the anti-Crusaders mob are so caught up in their outrage over him being selected that they can't / won't see it.
Don't forget Sititi's first run off the bench was pretty bloody poor, and everybody was pretty forgiving - I'm damn sure that would not have been the case if he were a Crusader. -
"hey, we're scoring lots of points early but none late. We need to fix that. By jove I've got it! we'll take the guys who score all the points early, and get them off the field until the end, and get the guys who don't score any points late, and put them on the field early. Genius"
This isn't trying new things, this is retreading old mistakes.
-
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
But why was he there under Foster then? Havili in the squad is not really a biased selection - he's not featured in the 23 until injury - AJ
He was a stop-gap in a RWC year as ALB was injured as was Goodhue. He was either OK or shit depending on which Test you looked at. Personally he tried his best and you can't ask for more.
But there's zero logic in having him in the 23 when you're in the first season of developing a squad as a new coach, and in a game which is an ideal opportunity to try new players. No reflection on DH, but if this really is the backline and bench, its shortsighted bollocks.
Goodhue is a stretch.
I do agree, and I wouldn't have picked him - but I see it as conservatism rather than jumping on everything and calling it Crusader bias. Cantablacks? with TJ, BB, ALB, RI, CC and WJ?
If Sititi were a Crusader and had been picked off 2 or 3 good games over Hoskins all of the Blues guys would be screaming Crusaders bias on that too. If Sam Cane or TJ or BB were Crusaders, same deal. It's just boring.I think we are confusing things. If Sititi had been a Sader and been picked for the ABs after an unheralded SR campaign, and then performed the way he has, I don't think there would be anywhere near the level of discord that EB got because his performances are perceived to be less convincing
Disagree mate. EB has been pretty good, which is why I changed my mind about him being a poor selection. Seems to me the anti-Crusaders mob are so caught up in their outrage over him being selected that they can't / won't see it.
Don't forget Sititi's first run off the bench was pretty bloody poor, and everybody was pretty forgiving - I'm damn sure that would not have been the case if he were a Crusader.@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
@reprobate said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
But why was he there under Foster then? Havili in the squad is not really a biased selection - he's not featured in the 23 until injury - AJ
He was a stop-gap in a RWC year as ALB was injured as was Goodhue. He was either OK or shit depending on which Test you looked at. Personally he tried his best and you can't ask for more.
But there's zero logic in having him in the 23 when you're in the first season of developing a squad as a new coach, and in a game which is an ideal opportunity to try new players. No reflection on DH, but if this really is the backline and bench, its shortsighted bollocks.
Goodhue is a stretch.
I do agree, and I wouldn't have picked him - but I see it as conservatism rather than jumping on everything and calling it Crusader bias. Cantablacks? with TJ, BB, ALB, RI, CC and WJ?
If Sititi were a Crusader and had been picked off 2 or 3 good games over Hoskins all of the Blues guys would be screaming Crusaders bias on that too. If Sam Cane or TJ or BB were Crusaders, same deal. It's just boring.I think we are confusing things. If Sititi had been a Sader and been picked for the ABs after an unheralded SR campaign, and then performed the way he has, I don't think there would be anywhere near the level of discord that EB got because his performances are perceived to be less convincing
Disagree mate. EB has been pretty good, which is why I changed my mind about him being a poor selection. Seems to me the anti-Crusaders mob are so caught up in their outrage over him being selected that they can't / won't see it.
Don't forget Sititi's first run off the bench was pretty bloody poor, and everybody was pretty forgiving - I'm damn sure that would not have been the case if he were a Crusader.I didn't think EB had been that effective. Although when they pick he and Cane in the same back row I don't think it helps as they are similar players
-
"hey, we're scoring lots of points early but none late. We need to fix that. By jove I've got it! we'll take the guys who score all the points early, and get them off the field until the end, and get the guys who don't score any points late, and put them on the field early. Genius"
This isn't trying new things, this is retreading old mistakes.
@mariner4life said in All Blacks vs Wallabies 2:
"hey, we're scoring lots of points early but none late. We need to fix that. By jove I've got it! we'll take the guys who score all the points early, and get them off the field until the end, and get the guys who don't score any points late, and put them on the field early. Genius"
This isn't trying new things, this is retreading old mistakes.
It just feels lazy and uninspiring. And wasteful, it is a test match after all, so one of a handful of chances to try out players each season
