Chiefs 2021
-
@gt12 said in Chiefs 2021:
@Bovidae said in Chiefs 2021:
I hope not. The Chiefs need to fill holes in other positions.
Me too, terrible call if they go down that route.
It would probably make us stronger but at the expense of developing a local talent. Yuck.
So he would make us stronger but you don't want it because it is at the expense of developing local talent?
Now your banging on about dressing room concerns?
Can we get in other talented people at the expense of local talent or not?
@Hooroo said in Chiefs 2021:
@gt12 said in Chiefs 2021:
@Bovidae said in Chiefs 2021:
I hope not. The Chiefs need to fill holes in other positions.
Me too, terrible call if they go down that route.
It would probably make us stronger but at the expense of developing a local talent. Yuck.
So he would make us stronger but you don't want it because it is at the expense of developing local talent?
Now your banging on about dressing room concerns?
Can we get in other talented people at the expense of local talent or not?
I think I'm allowed a number of reasons for objecting to the signing?
The local talent thing (as I explained above) is that we (NZ rugby) only has 5 starting spots available to develop AB 10s, so regardless of the team, if you can sign someone of Super quality level (we have at least three IMO), then that's what you get.
Furthermore, we also have already signed three 10s plus Dmac , so I don't see the point of the signing - we'll have either Gatland or Trask sitting around, and the Reihana signing will have been a waste of a spot.
-
@gt12 said in Chiefs 2021:
Finally, we signed three 10s, so now our balance is wrong unless we play him in the midfield, where again he'll slow down a younger player
and yet you want to play a proven failure at 10 who is signed as a fullback.
these types of signings make the comp better, using it as a development program for ABs has made it worse.
If Trask is as good as you think, he'll be starting by the end of the comp anyway. I personally can't see that happening
I would rather we bought a big fuck off South African lock, and a #8, and Tupou. But i'll take a talented and proven 10 if i can get one.
@mariner4life said in Chiefs 2021:
@gt12 said in Chiefs 2021:
Finally, we signed three 10s, so now our balance is wrong unless we play him in the midfield, where again he'll slow down a younger player
and yet you want to play a proven failure at 10 who is signed as a fullback.
these types of signings make the comp better, using it as a development program for ABs has made it worse.
If Trask is as good as you think, he'll be starting by the end of the comp anyway. I personally can't see that happening
I would rather we bought a big fuck off South African lock, and a #8, and Tupou. But i'll take a talented and proven 10 if i can get one.
Then I hope you are also arguing for a change in AB selection, because that means we have four to choose from.
Is Super rugby worse because it is the only pathway for ABs? Does the requirement to play in Super rugby for an NZ team continue to be the best way to develop and retain talent?
The answer is yes.
I know that the team and comp would be better, but under the current model, that could (will) make the ABs worse.
Also, those signings you mentioned would all make sense to strengthen the Chiefs. But, who should pay for them? NZ rugby? At the cost of keeping future potential ABs?
-
@mariner4life said in Chiefs 2021:
@gt12 said in Chiefs 2021:
Finally, we signed three 10s, so now our balance is wrong unless we play him in the midfield, where again he'll slow down a younger player
and yet you want to play a proven failure at 10 who is signed as a fullback.
these types of signings make the comp better, using it as a development program for ABs has made it worse.
If Trask is as good as you think, he'll be starting by the end of the comp anyway. I personally can't see that happening
I would rather we bought a big fuck off South African lock, and a #8, and Tupou. But i'll take a talented and proven 10 if i can get one.
Then I hope you are also arguing for a change in AB selection, because that means we have four to choose from.
Is Super rugby worse because it is the only pathway for ABs? Does the requirement to play in Super rugby for an NZ team continue to be the best way to develop and retain talent?
The answer is yes.
I know that the team and comp would be better, but under the current model, that could (will) make the ABs worse.
Also, those signings you mentioned would all make sense to strengthen the Chiefs. But, who should pay for them? NZ rugby? At the cost of keeping future potential ABs?
-
I expect it is all speculation (I know the article implies otherwise) with who the Chiefs have already, surely they have no room in thier squad anyway?
I think he would be great value for the likes of Reihana and Trask to learn off, but I expect Gatland was being lined up as the starting 10, surely?
Be very surprised if he does end up there, especially in 2021.
-
I expect it is all speculation (I know the article implies otherwise) with who the Chiefs have already, surely they have no room in thier squad anyway?
I think he would be great value for the likes of Reihana and Trask to learn off, but I expect Gatland was being lined up as the starting 10, surely?
Be very surprised if he does end up there, especially in 2021.
@taniwharugby said in Chiefs 2021:
I expect it is all speculation, with who the Chiefs have already, surely they have no room in thier squad anyway?
I think he would be great value for the likes of Reihana and Trask to learn off, but I expect Gatland was being lined up as the starting 10, surely?
Be very surprised if he does end up there, especially in 2021.
It’s got to be click bait doesn’t it ? why would the chiefs want him
-
@taniwharugby said in Chiefs 2021:
I expect it is all speculation, with who the Chiefs have already, surely they have no room in thier squad anyway?
I think he would be great value for the likes of Reihana and Trask to learn off, but I expect Gatland was being lined up as the starting 10, surely?
Be very surprised if he does end up there, especially in 2021.
It’s got to be click bait doesn’t it ? why would the chiefs want him
@Chris I can understand why a professional rugby team that does not have an International 10, would want an International 10 to play for them, but I'd be very surprised if it happened.
-
@gt12 BB plays 15 for the Blues and that didn't stop him being the backup 10. So does that mean we actually have 10 starting spots to look at 10s? You were advocating for Trask to play 15 as well.
@mariner4life said in Chiefs 2021:
@gt12 BB plays 15 for the Blues and that didn't stop him being the backup 10. So does that mean we actually have 10 starting spots to look at 10s? You were advocating for Trask to play 15 as well.
It's funny, because I think that highlights the issue - right now 10 is a bit of a position of weakness and we should be doing as much as we can to bring through young 10s - not put them behind non-eligible players.
If we think about how many 10s we went through in 2011, we'd likely be using Dmac at 10 for the ABs if we had two injuries, with Joane on the bench. At a minimum I'd expect Dmac to be the 10 cover on the bench in that situation, which given that he is now primarily a 15, doesn't fill me with confidence. Behind that, we have Black and Hunt and maybe Gats or Perofeta and not much at the Canes. Yikes.
So with my AB development hat on (which is what Super rugby is really for, whether we like it or not), I'm saying that Trask (and probably Dmac) should be getting time at 10 in Super rugby.
My preference is probably Trask 10, Dmac 15, with Gatland on the bench and some minutes for Reihana, but we may end up with Gatland starting, knowing the Chiefs coaches.
On Trask at 15 btw, my point was that with Bieber, he'll be lucky to get any game time at all (Dmac will be at 15), but if we don't sign Bieber, we could use Dmac at 10, which would mean that at least Trask could get game time at 15, where he is also pretty dangerous.
He's also possibly the back-up 15, so if Dmac gets injured or is rested, I'd say he will get a run there. He was excellent for the Bay and the Maori there too.
-
https://www.ultimaterugby.com/news/toulouse-target-wallabies-playmaker/633069
O'Connor reportedly has a clause in his contract with the Reds and Rugby Australia which would allow him to join the French club for the remainder of the season.
Would they release him to play over here?
-
That all makes a lot more sense than the previous article. I hope Rettalick is the extra player to be signed for 2021
-
@mariner4life said in Chiefs 2021:
@gt12 BB plays 15 for the Blues and that didn't stop him being the backup 10. So does that mean we actually have 10 starting spots to look at 10s? You were advocating for Trask to play 15 as well.
It's funny, because I think that highlights the issue - right now 10 is a bit of a position of weakness and we should be doing as much as we can to bring through young 10s - not put them behind non-eligible players.
If we think about how many 10s we went through in 2011, we'd likely be using Dmac at 10 for the ABs if we had two injuries, with Joane on the bench. At a minimum I'd expect Dmac to be the 10 cover on the bench in that situation, which given that he is now primarily a 15, doesn't fill me with confidence. Behind that, we have Black and Hunt and maybe Gats or Perofeta and not much at the Canes. Yikes.
So with my AB development hat on (which is what Super rugby is really for, whether we like it or not), I'm saying that Trask (and probably Dmac) should be getting time at 10 in Super rugby.
My preference is probably Trask 10, Dmac 15, with Gatland on the bench and some minutes for Reihana, but we may end up with Gatland starting, knowing the Chiefs coaches.
On Trask at 15 btw, my point was that with Bieber, he'll be lucky to get any game time at all (Dmac will be at 15), but if we don't sign Bieber, we could use Dmac at 10, which would mean that at least Trask could get game time at 15, where he is also pretty dangerous.
He's also possibly the back-up 15, so if Dmac gets injured or is rested, I'd say he will get a run there. He was excellent for the Bay and the Maori there too.
-
The Chiefs have instead signed former Hamilton Boys’ High first XV captain Rameka Poihipi as the final member of their 2021 squad.
-
The Chiefs have instead signed former Hamilton Boys’ High first XV captain Rameka Poihipi as the final member of their 2021 squad.
@Yeetyaah said in Chiefs 2021:
The Chiefs have instead signed former Hamilton Boys’ High first XV captain Rameka Poihipi as the final member of their 2021 squad.
Other than having ties to the region, this makes little more sense than signing Bieber did. Poihipi is a 10/12, and the Chiefs aren't short of those in the squad.
-
I think this is an ok solution. I see him more as a 12. Is Nankivell fit from the outset? More potential than Matt Garland, who is likely the best local option.
@ARHS said in Chiefs 2021:
I think this is an ok solution. I see him more as a 12. Is Nankivell fit from the outset? More potential than Matt Garland, who is likely the best local option.
He’s is a 12 lot of ability but for me he has lost a lot of confidence due to a heap of injuries over the last 2 years.
The Crusaders opted for Isia Punivai over Him as more X factor so I heard.
