Who embodies your team at the moment

First topic message reminder :

Waiting for people to arrive to play poker. If you could pick one player who embodies your team at the moment who would it be? I don't mean who your best player is. For example I could pick Richie not because he is a rugby legend but because he is ageing and we don't really know what the form is going to be this RC.

But I'll go for Dan Carter for similar reasons. At the top in his category but no one quite knows for how long and plenty of contenders. Doubtful for 2015 RWC but if he can play a part in the latter stages you wouldn't want to bet against him. Capable of mastery but also prone to breaking down occasionally, he represents NZ at the top of his game but his duff drop goals show we are capable of buckling under pressure.

Who would you choose and Kiwis feel free to pick your own.

GloriousEmpire wrote:NZ were at the last football World Cup - I don't recall seeing Wales. NZ also play international cricket without limpeting on to the leg of their neighbour. So interns of competition for sport I'd say its at least even.

If New Zealand had to qualify for the football world cup through the European conference I doubt they would ever make it there. Wales arent great but with players like Gareth Bale and Ryan Giggs (retired I think) I'd say they would be a bit better than NZ.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Nice post Guns. I was thinking of Ogara along those same lines for Ireland.

Thanks. Yes O'Gara also fits the bill and again my favorite thing about O'Gara was probabaly his mind rather than any physical attribute. He really did believe that he could and should achieve absolutly anything and feared nothing it seems. He set no limits. I love that.

We took on the might of Bahrain and Tahiti (they conceded 12 against Spain whereas we only conceded 5 in the Confederations Cup). Only unbeaten team at the last World Cup. Despite our white shirts we're dark horses. Or dark donkeys. Wales can thank their stars they only have to play Germany Spain Holland and Italy.  

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:We took on the might of Bahrain and Tahiti (they conceded 12 against Spain whereas we only conceded 5 in the Confederations Cup). Only unbeaten team at the last World Cup. Despite our white shirts we're dark horses. Or dark donkeys. Wales can thank their stars they only have to play Germany Spain Holland and Italy.  

NZ actually did well at the last WC. Didnt they come close v Italy?

GloriousEmpire wrote:
NZ were at the last football World Cup - I don't recall seeing Wales. NZ also play international cricket without limpeting on to the leg of their neighbour. So interns of competition for sport I'd say its at least even.

Also NZ can only select those of Polynesian descent who are actually NZers. Much like Wales select Englishmen on the same basis (North et al), so I'd say your Arguments hold about as much water as a sieve.

Also the population of Samoa and tonga combined is around 260,000 which I suspect you didn't know. 

Which makes it all the more surprising that Samoa (apparently denuded of their first line talent by the evil NZ) have managed to account for Wales so regularly...?

New Zealand are in a fifa qualifying pool with fiji, samoa and solomon islands so ofcourse their football team will always qualify for the world cup!

My point is that the all blacks get first pick of their country's sporting talent because all youngsters dream of playing rugby, not cricket or football. That is not the case in Wales or England for that matter where football has an equal if not greater pull. Maybe you should engage your brain a little before posting on here.

Also, George North has lived in Wales since the age of 2! His mother is welsh and he speaks welsh!

Samoa have beaten Wales a number of times because they produce more rugby talent per capita than Wales and indeed more than any other rugby nation and New Zealand exploit this.

GunsGerms wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:We took on the might of Bahrain and Tahiti (they conceded 12 against Spain whereas we only conceded 5 in the Confederations Cup). Only unbeaten team at the last World Cup. Despite our white shirts we're dark horses. Or dark donkeys. Wales can thank their stars they only have to play Germany Spain Holland and Italy.  

NZ actually did well at the last WC. Didnt they come close v Italy?

1-1 and a NZ shot just went wide.

I think you'd make a better argument with league Scrum Down but we wouldn't want to tax that brain of yours. It'd also blow your argument out of the water as league is a huge drain on NZ rugby.  

I've often thought with Giggs on the right wing and Bale at halfback, Wales would be unstoppable.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I've often thought with Giggs on the right wing and Bale at halfback, Wales would be unstoppable.

Thats some pair to have however, the rest by contrast are weak enough arent they? Not too sure as I dont watch much football anymore.

The games require and consequently shape different physiques. All that running around and football players require slimmer frames. Had they been found rugby at an early age, they would've developed bigger physiques and wouldn't stand so much out. Of course I'm being facetious but even taking into account the change in size difference, football is not exactly brimming with tall men. Crouch was a tall stick insect up front and centre backs in football are tall enough but that's about it. League is way more of a threat on rugby than football.

Scrumdown wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:
NZ were at the last football World Cup - I don't recall seeing Wales. NZ also play international cricket without limpeting on to the leg of their neighbour. So interns of competition for sport I'd say its at least even.

Also NZ can only select those of Polynesian descent who are actually NZers. Much like Wales select Englishmen on the same basis (North et al), so I'd say your Arguments hold about as much water as a sieve.

Also the population of Samoa and tonga combined is around 260,000 which I suspect you didn't know. 

Which makes it all the more surprising that Samoa (apparently denuded of their first line talent by the evil NZ) have managed to account for Wales so regularly...?

New Zealand are in a fifa qualifying pool with fiji, samoa and solomon islands so ofcourse their football team will always qualify for the world cup!

My point is that the all blacks get first pick of their country's sporting talent because all youngsters dream of playing rugby, not cricket or football.  That is not the case in Wales or England for that matter where football has an equal if not greater pull.  Maybe you should engage your brain a little before posting on here.  

Also, George North has lived in Wales since the age of 2! His mother is welsh and he speaks welsh!  

Samoa have beaten Wales a number of times because they produce more rugby talent per capita than Wales and indeed more than any other rugby nation and New Zealand exploit this.

Is RU NZ's top spectator sport? I had imagined that even they have capitulated to the 'beautiful game'
Is RU NZ's top participant sport even?
Someone will know.

Rugby easily tops spectator numbers in NZ but in terms of registered players is only the 5th most played sport. Golf, swimming, netball (number one for women in both players and spectators) and football have higher participants.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Rugby easily tops spectator numbers in NZ but in terms of registered players is only the 5th most played sport. Golf, swimming, netball (number one for women in both players and spectators) and football have higher participants.

Dont believe those figures. I expect that those figures include anyone that uses swimming or golf as a pastime or form of excercise. Id imagine there are more registered amature and professional rugby players in NZ than there are in any other sport.

How do you register as a swimmer anyway? There is no way that there are more competitive swimmers in NZ than rugby players.

I guess Chris Robshaw is a pretty good metaphor for England at the moment.

Inexperienced on the international stage but learning fast. Not noted for flair, but does the basics well and works hard. Capable of great performances, and also of grinding out wins, but vulnerable under certain conditions (in England's case, when form or injuries force an unbalanced selection; in Robshaw's case when he's part of an unbalanced back row, or with certain referees). If nothing else, more consistent than his immediate predecessors. Opinion is divided over whether he's the real deal or there are better players out there.

For both of them, time will tell.

(At the club level, Robshaw definitely personifies Quins - academy graduate, leads by example, hard-working, versatile, playing rugby rather than arm-wrestling, occasionally vulnerable to power - so much so that they aren't the same team without him).

Poorfour wrote:I guess Chris Robshaw is a pretty good metaphor for England at the moment.

Inexperienced on the international stage but learning fast. Not noted for flair, but does the basics well and works hard. Capable of great performances, and also of grinding out wins, but vulnerable under certain conditions (in England's case, when form or injuries force an unbalanced selection; in Robshaw's case when he's part of an unbalanced back row, or with certain referees). If nothing else, more consistent than his immediate predecessors. Opinion is divided over whether he's the real deal or there are better players out there.

For both of them, time will tell.

(At the club level, Robshaw definitely personifies Quins - academy graduate, leads by example, hard-working, versatile, playing rugby rather than arm-wrestling, occasionally vulnerable to power - so much so that they aren't the same team without him).

Spot on if you ask me.

Yeah great post poorfour.  

Those are the statistics Guns. We have Susan Boyle and not many other competitive swimmers (the last time a NZer won 3 bronze medals at a world championship was Daynon Loader who got Olympic golds ). You can question golf and swimming as hobbies rather than sports but just because our football team is shoite doesn't mean there aren't more registered players than rugby ones.

I'm pretty sure more kids play soccer than rugby.
I did. And definitely golf is pretty big here especially for us oldies.

Scrumdown wrote:

Also, George North has lived in Wales since the age of 2! His mother is welsh and he speaks welsh!  

Then this?

Samoa have beaten Wales a number of times because they produce more rugby talent per capita than Wales and indeed more than any other rugby nation and New Zealand exploit this.

Seriously, you're kidding right? Oh sorry Mr Jones, carry on. Didn't know who that was for a second.

Come on Scrumdown, don't be shy - give us your views on genetics. Please?

disneychilly wrote:

Scrumdown wrote:

Also, George North has lived in Wales since the age of 2! His mother is welsh and he speaks welsh!  

Then this?

Samoa have beaten Wales a number of times because they produce more rugby talent per capita than Wales and indeed more than any other rugby nation and New Zealand exploit this.

Seriously, you're kidding right? Oh sorry Mr Jones, carry on. Didn't know who that was for a second.

 No he's serious. It's ok for the welsh to prop up their apparently inadequate gene pool with English players provided they were "naturalised" to Wales before they get their English indoctrination at 3...

On the NZ only play rugby point- that's just not true.

On who encompasses England- I liked Miaow using Farrell as an example, can't do better than that really.

Quins is Danny Care- high tempo, not the biggest and capable of excellent attack but some silly decision making. When they fire they are formidable but need more consistency across longer periods of time to become truly great

For the Wallabies, I think it could be Ben Mowen who embodies the attitude of Oz rugby fans if not the team itself.

He has arrived to international rugby very late (debut at 29) and he's just a decent bloke with a brain in his head. We had Quade, Beale, JOC, Ioane ... and Genia / Pocock (deliberately separated) ... emerge at the same time a few years ago and we became enchanted with the exciting young talent. Australian Rugby hadn't had many genuine top end talents for a few years and we all got a bit too excited. Being young, they proved to be young.

Now I think we have swung to admire the older less flighty, less dramatic players as I think there is a desire for the drama to dry up for a while and just to get on with following the rugby.

Good choice booma. I liked the look of Mowen in the Lions series. I always thought Higganbotham was a ludicrous name but a talented footy player. Yet somehow I always thought he fell into the too flash for his boots category. Not so much off the field but on it.

IanBru wrote:Come on Scrumdown, don't be shy - give us your views on genetics. Please?

It is hardly controversial to state that being able to draw your talent from a diverse mix of races, resulting in a diversity of genes, might be beneficial not just in sports but in all walks of life. Darwin suggested this himself.

Inbreeding results in bad health.

ChequeredJersey wrote:On the NZ only play rugby point- that's just not true.

On who encompasses England- I liked Miaow using Farrell as an example, can't do better than that really.

Quins is Danny Care- high tempo, not the biggest and capable of excellent attack but some silly decision making. When they fire they are formidable but need more consistency across longer periods of time to become truly great

But it is true that in new zealand, rugby gets first pick of the countries sporting talent. We all know from our days at school that the same people excel in all sports. The star of the football team is often also the star of the rugby team, so having first pick is important.

In the past this was certainly true. Apparently League are poaching a lot of NZ youngsters now though

Scrumdown wrote:

IanBru wrote:Come on Scrumdown, don't be shy - give us your views on genetics. Please?

It is hardly controversial to state that being able to draw your talent from a diverse mix of races, resulting in a diversity of genes, might be beneficial not just in sports but in all walks of life.  Darwin suggested this himself.

Inbreeding results in bad health.

 There we have it. The first person in the modern era of considering England to be too homogenous.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Scrumdown wrote:

IanBru wrote:Come on Scrumdown, don't be shy - give us your views on genetics. Please?

It is hardly controversial to state that being able to draw your talent from a diverse mix of races, resulting in a diversity of genes, might be beneficial not just in sports but in all walks of life.  Darwin suggested this himself.

Inbreeding results in bad health.

 There we have it. The first person in the modern era of considering England to be too homogenous.

Scrumdown is Welsh.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:The games require and consequently shape different physiques. All that running around and football players require slimmer frames. Had they been found rugby at an early age, they would've developed bigger physiques and wouldn't stand so much out. Of course I'm being facetious but even taking into account the change in size difference, football is not exactly brimming with tall men. Crouch was a tall stick insect up front and centre backs in football are tall enough but that's about it. League is way more of a threat on rugby than football.

I don't know, Danny Care was told he was too short to play football which is why he is now a rugby player

Too short for football? He should've gone to Spain...

For England i'd say Chris Robshaw.

A huge work effort...great alround at the basics, disciplined, committed, still very inexperienced at international level, but causes certain debate about his actual ability at the top level (which to me is absurd but there you go).

ChequeredJersey wrote:On the NZ only play rugby point- that's just not true.

On who encompasses England- I liked Miaow using Farrell as an example, can't do better than that really.

Quins is Danny Care- high tempo, not the biggest and capable of excellent attack but some silly decision making. When they fire they are formidable but need more consistency across longer periods of time to become truly great

Great call there. Care is definitely the heart beat of the side.

Brad Barritt best embodies England.

Solid, dependable, surely capable of more than he does and most importantly born overseas.



in a similar vein surely George North embodies Wales?

Huge, runs well and has to leave Wales to progress

I'd say Ruaridh Jackson for Scotland - capable of pulling a big performance out of the bag on occasion, but has never been able to find the consistency to achieve any real success

Last season it would have to be David Denton for Edinburgh. Undoubted potential, but when the hard yards were required, found wanting.

Hoping that some South African grit can knock our squad into shape.

disneychilly wrote:

Scrumdown wrote:

Also, George North has lived in Wales since the age of 2! His mother is welsh and he speaks welsh!  

Then this?

Samoa have beaten Wales a number of times because they produce more rugby talent per capita than Wales and indeed more than any other rugby nation and New Zealand exploit this.

Seriously, you're kidding right? Oh sorry Mr Jones, carry on. Didn't know who that was for a second.

What exactly is your point? George North is as English as Ronan O'Gara is American (place of birth) or Jamie Heaslip is an Israeli (place of birth)!

In rugby terms, England and Wales are competing on a level playing field.

Samoa on the otherhand are severely handicapped due to poor finances and opportunities for players to progress and this is partly due to the fact that New Zealand will not allow the pacific island nations to compete in the rugby championsip or the super 15 competitions.