Which Northern Hem Players Would Make An Impact In Super Rugby?

First topic message reminder :

Title says it all really. There are already a few playing down there in the guise of Delve, Cipriani, Haskell and Michalak. But without wanting to sound rude, they haven't exactly set the competition alight, well not for the right reasons anyway.

So do you think would make a big impact? Here are two of my own choices and I'll leave the rest to you-

Stephen Ferris- Probably one of the most powerful and dynamic backrowers in the game. Would be interesting to see how Super sides utilised his speed and dynamism in the sometimes more open pastures of Southern Hemisphere rugby.

Mamukha Gorgodze- Would just love to see the Georgian be just like he is up here, a real wrecking ball on the pitch.

Flair can sometimes be another word for lack of defence.

If flair is the name of the game then players go for it and believe more in the ideal of scoring more than their opponents than in the one that promotes the ideal of stopping your opponent scoring.

I think SH is, in a sense, impatient rugby whilst NH rugby is pragmatic rugby.

I think the real problem arises when people say the players create the difference. No, the coaching systems and traditions do.

Jonathan Spratt did quite well over there, although not in the Super XV

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6lh1k_spratt-1st-2nd-tries-taranaki-v-nor_sport

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6lh6y_spratt-3rd-try-taranaki-v-northland_sport

SecretFly wrote:Flair can sometimes be another word for lack of defence.

If flair is the name of the game then players go for it and believe more in the ideal of scoring more than their opponents than in the one that promotes the ideal of stopping your opponent scoring.

I think SH is, in a sense, impatient rugby whilst NH rugby is pragmatic rugby.

I think the real problem arises when people say the players create the difference. No, the coaching systems and traditions do.

I think the term you're looking for is "conservative" rather than "pragmatic"

Ball handling skills do seem better down south - a result of a climates and cultures that have kids outside throwing oval balls about (I was a pretty useless tight forward, but I can throw spiral spin-passes off either hand, a legacy of lots of social touch rugby. Based on my limited 5-a-side football experience in the UK I'm well outclassed by the locals).

The main difference is at the breakdown. It is a lot easier to defend slow ball. Down south teams are more prepared to risk losing the ball if it speeds up the ball they do get. Up north (particularly in England) teams try to secure their ball at all costs at the expense of speed.

SecretFly wrote:Flair can sometimes be another word for lack of defence.

If flair is the name of the game then players go for it and believe more in the ideal of scoring more than their opponents than in the one that promotes the ideal of stopping your opponent scoring.

I think SH is, in a sense, impatient rugby whilst NH rugby is pragmatic rugby.

I think the real problem arises when people say the players create the difference. No, the coaching systems and traditions do.

True,but that is not the context in what I mean, you can check tackle statistics in both HC and Super XV, the completion rates are very similar, so there is certainly not a lck of defence, there are more linebreaks due to speed of breakdown where defences haven't had the opportunity to organise, there are a greater willingness to offload or alternatively seek out the supporting runners.

Ah kiwi, we posted the same time, once again you are.245 seconds faster than me, but then I havebeen out working for a change.

But essentially I agree with what you said.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Flair can sometimes be another word for lack of defence.

If flair is the name of the game then players go for it and believe more in the ideal of scoring more than their opponents than in the one that promotes the ideal of stopping your opponent scoring.

I think SH is, in a sense, impatient rugby whilst NH rugby is pragmatic rugby.

I think the real problem arises when people say the players create the difference. No, the coaching systems and traditions do.

I think the term you're looking for is "conservative" rather than "pragmatic"

No, no..I'll stick with 'pragmatic, Kiwi. Pragmatic is the knowledge that you're often not as good as the opposition but that you're prepared to do a bit of 'dying on the field' to stop the basterauds proving it!

Conservative is really not suited to a discussion on rugby at all as in the SH running/flair rugby is the norm and, therefore, IT is the 'conservative' brand there.

Ah, Fly, competent in word play you are, I see.

The Leinster team in general seem to play a game comparable to that of a SH team, or like a French team (on their day). Ireland play the game described by biltongbek and kiwireddevil.. slower at the breakdown, wanting to secure pristine ball at the ruck.

Oh for sure, biltong and kiwi are right about how NH rugby rolls...but yes, I'm dealing in the general. Leinster and a few other NH sides don't run with the general swing.

Well, you'll always find progressive teams breaking from the norm.

biltongbek wrote:Well, you'll always find progressive teams breaking from the norm.

And aren't I glad to be from a place where one of them operates!

Rdw
There is a lot of interest in the Heineken Cup in New Zealand,our rugby channel makes a weekly programme "Northern Exposure" which is 99%about the Heineken cup,and the discussion panels are made up of Kiwis who are ex players of the Clubs that are the subject of discussion.

I dont understand these people who make bizzare conclusions by trying to compare the two competitions,because that is what they are,two different competitions,addressing very different needs under very different circumstances.

I know Jerome Kaino is real keen to get up there and play in HC next year,some of the good things I see in the Heineken are.

The size of the squads,it must be brilliant training in those environments,and because you run across acouple of other competitions with the same coaches and coaching staff the consistency would be a players dream.(The dumb guys only have to remember one set of calls and moves) In NZ some top players can play with as many as three or four coaching outfits.
We always go on down here about demanding the travel is in Super xv,but what I see in the HC is it not only offers much more quality time and opportunity for the coaches to spend with their squads,but also for rehab for those nagging injuries.
Finally and probably the best opinion of all is the players themselves, All Kiwis that return after doing a stint in HC rave about it,(except the length of it) but they really enjoy it,they are looked after superbly,and they develop lasting affiliations to the teams/areas that they play for.Chainsaw Lainey is beside himself with Edinburghs recent success.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Rdw
There is a lot of interest in the Heineken Cup in New Zealand,our rugby channel makes a weekly programme "Northern Exposure" which is 99%about the Heineken cup,and the discussion panels are made up of Kiwis who are ex players of the Clubs that are the subject of discussion.

I dont understand these people who make bizzare conclusions by trying to compare the two competitions,because that is what they are,two different competitions,addressing very different needs under very different circumstances.

I know Jerome Kaino is real keen to get up there and play in HC next year,some of the good things I see in the Heineken are.

The size of the squads,it must be brilliant training in those environments,and because you run across acouple of other competitions with the same coaches and coaching staff the consistency would be a players dream.(The dumb guys only have to remember one set of calls and moves) In NZ some top players can play with as many as three or four coaching outfits.
We always go on down here about demanding the travel is in Super xv,but what I see in the HC is it not only offers much more quality time and opportunity for the coaches to spend with their squads,but also for rehab for those nagging injuries.
Finally and probably the best opinion of all is the players themselves, All Kiwis that return after doing a stint in HC rave about it,(except the length of it) but they really enjoy it,they are looked after superbly,and they develop lasting affiliations to the teams/areas that they play for.Chainsaw Lainey is beside himself with Edinburghs recent success.

So what's their view of the different teams that have qualified such as Edinburgh and Ulster? Which Kiwis from which clubs do the talking?

well Glenn Jackson wasnt overly impressed at all as he is ex saracens and as for chainsaw(ex edinburgh) well he reckons its a done deal and that Edinburgh have won the Cup already.
Next week there will be different guests,and not just players,often guys who have coached in HC.

I should also point out that there is a lot of interest in the HC coaches as there are still two Kiwi coaches whose teams are still live,Leinster and Clermont.

Who's coaching Clermont? Havnt checked myself...

Vern Cotter ex Bay of Plenty.

Danny Care would go well in a new Zealand team, Mike Brown in South Africa could be lethal with his boot and new found attacking. Outside of Twickenham, I think Tait would do better than he has in the UK, and Dwayne Peel could do well too

I think there are actually oodles of players who would do well down there.

I think Paul O'Connell would struggle in Super Rugby though. I am surprised so many have touted him highly.

red_stag wrote:I think there are actually oodles of players who would do well down there.

I think Paul O'Connell would struggle in Super Rugby though. I am surprised so many have touted him highly.

You mean because he can’t pass and his meters gained per carry ratio is fairly poor?*

*he’s still a ligind in my eyes though…

Mickado wrote:

red_stag wrote:I think there are actually oodles of players who would do well down there.

I think Paul O'Connell would struggle in Super Rugby though. I am surprised so many have touted him highly.

You mean because he can’t pass and his meters gained per carry ratio is fairly poor?*

*he’s still a ligind in my eyes though…

Basically yes. I think that when he was about 26-27, O'Connell was an outstanding player. However what new skills has he got now that he didn't have in say the 2007 RWC? When Drico lost a yard or two of pace he found other skills.

And yes he can't pass well and his meters gained per carry ratio is quite poor.