World Player of the Year 2018 - UPDATED

by Collapse2005 Mon 15 Oct - 15:31

First topic message reminder :

Nominees Announced:

Beauden Barrett
Jonathan Sexton
Malcolm Marx
Faf de Klerk
Reiko Ioane

https://www.balls.ie/rugby/johnny-sexton-award-400031

Surprised to see Barrett make the list but all others not really unexpected. Sexton's to lose?

Previous article:

Young Player of the Year Nominees:

https://www.world.rugby/news/374327
Jordan Larmour (Ireland)
APHIWE DYANTYI (SOUTH AFRICA)
KARL TU’INUKUAFE (NEW ZEALAND)

by **Rugby Fan** Thu 18 Oct - 4:12

Taylorman wrote:...But funny how when they go well its because of the new environment but when theyre duds its because they were duds in the first place. Cant possibly be that the new environment makes them duds now can it?...

You also like to have it the other way too, though. If a southern hemisphere player fails, then it's put down to a poor environment, if he succeeds, then it's all down to what he learned in the south.

Just as in any walk of life, some people can respond well to different environments, while others struggle. Some continue to learn and improve, while others plateau, or get lazy.

by Taylorman Thu 18 Oct - 4:47

Rugby Fan wrote:
Taylorman wrote:...But funny how when they go well its because of the new environment but when theyre duds its because they were duds in the first place. Cant possibly be that the new environment makes them duds now can it?...
You also like to have it the other way too, though. If a southern hemisphere player fails, then it's put down to a poor environment, if he succeeds, then it's all down to what he learned in the south.

Just as in any walk of life, some people can respond well to different environments, while others struggle. Some continue to learn and improve, while others plateau, or get lazy.

Thats true, though the fact that players are still being headhunted in increasingly larger amounts must suggest on balance previous signings have on the whole proved worthwhile. Previously players that returned were on the whole less test worthy than when they left. Things seem to be improving on that front. Ive yet to see one play better than when he left.

by Collapse2005 Thu 18 Oct - 8:12

Lowe is a better winger now than Naholo. I think the ABs missed a trick letting him go. Their loss.

by The Great Aukster Thu 18 Oct - 13:36

Collapse2005 wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:

The individual award has no merit because any specific player's performance has to be taken in the context of his (or her) team. The promotion of one cog in a 15 part machine is arguably anti-rugby.

As a fantasy exercise with no objective basis to stimulate interminable debate - it is a success, and to be fair to WR it does get them into the news.

Maybe so but by that logic whoever wins the RWC has no merit either as international rugby isn't a level playing field when you consider some countries have vastly greater wealth and playing populations to others so it isn't a level playing field. You can apply the same argument you are making to almost any award. Even in individual sports there is often a large team behind the individual.

The RWC is machine against machine and the outcome is measured objectively in points. You could match the All Blacks against St Michael's under XVs and while it may not be a very even contest, you would know exactly (in rugby terms) how much better the winner was. What is the points difference between Brodie Retallick and Beauden Barratt?

by Pot Hale Thu 18 Oct - 13:40

The voting for Player of the Year Awards - Men’s and Women’s - were voted for during the summer by players and coaches who wanted to vote. Deadline was the 12 October. A shortlist will be announced shortly and voting on the nominees will occcur in November taking account of some of the Nov tests.

by Collapse2005 Thu 18 Oct - 13:42

The judging panel use documented scoring criteria too. Rugby matches are less objective when you factor in the fact that there are referees making subjective decisions just like a world player of the year panel makes subjective decisions.

by Pot Hale Thu 18 Oct - 13:53

The panel deliberates and allocates points to the players who have performed to an exceptional standard throughout the year. International players and coaches are also invited to vote with the vote carrying a 30% weighting. Votes are collated to determine the nominees. A final round of voting by the panel, players and coaches on the nominees only determines the winner.

Panel for Men’s, Women’s Xv and Team and Coach of the Year are:

Maggie Alphonsi (ENG)
Fabien Galthié (FRA)
George Gregan (AUS)
Richie McCaw (NZL)
Brian O’Driscoll (IRE)
Agustín Pichot (ARG)
John Smit (RSA)
Clive Woodward (ENG)

by SecretFly Thu 18 Oct - 13:56

Ritchie gets it again this year so. He even has the casting vote...

by The Great Aukster Thu 18 Oct - 14:13

Taylorman wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:Not starting a few games hasn't prevented players winning in the past but Retallick hasn't even had the best season of all locks in the world.

You are right however if you miss as many as Retallick has I dont think it would be right to win the award. I think James Ryan has had a bigger year than Retallick but Ryan is not established enough yet to win. Ryan played every test of the year too.

"Established". That being a perceived criteria doesn't say much for the award in my opinion. Ryan has played what, 25+ games of rugby all year? Lost one. Stats off the charts. Beat the best club sides in Europe; Montpellier, Racing, Exeter, Saracens, Scarlets, Munster, Glasgow. Won the Grand Slam. Beat Australia, South Africa and Argentina. Man of the Match in the European final and player of the tour down under yet won't be considered because he is not a name yet.

Yeah he must be good if he beat all those teams, I guess the rest of the team just made up the numbers.

That's exactly why this award is a crock of sh!t!

Rugby is a team sport so singling out an individual is contrary to the very ethos of the game. Players from the ABs should win the award every year because they have the best XV. Any player will 'look' good with 14 ABs around him, whereas in reality it may be the players who carry teams that win nothing who may be the real players of the year. Why should Barrett win the award when he has to rely on Smith to give him the ball, who has to rely on Read, who has to rely on Retallick, who has to rely on Taylor, etc...

This award is just another excuse for a black-tie junket and an excuse for WR to rack up some expenses in pursuit of self-promotion. If they were really wanting to promote the game they should be picking a player for every position, 1 to 15 and then make the overall winner Captain. It would still be the ABs team though but at least would go some way to assuage New Zealander fears that rugby is in any danger of not being the most important thing in the world.

Its why they pay the quarterbacks more. Fact is in team sports individuals can and will stand out. Why does Carter earn more than most if its a team game? Why have man of the match awards? Because rugby players are still people, individuals trying to the best for themselves and their team.

And the anyone would look good in an AB side is your biggest crock of all. Its as though youre saying none of them are good individually, they just have great individuals around them. Well thats logical...not.

ABs have a standard individuals have to meet to even be in the team, so its actually the reverse. The team is good because of the individuals within it. Not the reverse. They represnt the best of the system that has put them there. Players striving to make the side could harp on and moan that they cant get in because theres 14 others helping the player theyre trying to replace keep them out. Thats a crock too, yet the only ones that seem to complain are those from not within that system...like you for instance.

To be better, you have to have a better system that is able to bring better players through. Sitting there moaning about the end result without acknowledging the work done is the biggest crock of all.

Quarterbacks are competing against quarterbacks and they get their market value for a quarterback. That's comparing apples with apples. Comparing Peyton Manning against Beauden Barratt is just as fatuous as comparing Barratt against Retallick. If the measure of greatness is contract value then the shortlist for POTY would look considerably different.

Most MOTM awards go to the highest scorer because it's the easiest one to justify (often it is just one pundit's opinion), and even if it is voted for by whatever demographic have the electronic inclination to vote, the outcome does not credit the team that allowed an individual to shine.

by Collapse2005 Thu 18 Oct - 14:23

In other words anything that is awarded by vote should be scrapped as it isn't scientific enough? Including:

Governmental elections
Presidential elections
Referendums
Eurovision song contest
Any singing contest
Common Law legal process with a jury

I'm sorry but just because World player of the year is quite subjective doesn't mean it isn't without its merits because almost everything including rugby matches themselves have elements of subjectivity. By putting in place criteria and rules and expert judges they reduce subjectivity as much as possible which works just fine for me.

by The Great Aukster Thu 18 Oct - 14:32

Pot Hale wrote:The panel deliberates and allocates points to the players who have performed to an exceptional standard throughout the year. International players and coaches are also invited to vote with the vote carrying a 30% weighting. Votes are collated to determine the nominees. A final round of voting by the panel, players and coaches on the nominees only determines the winner.

Panel for Men’s, Women’s Xv and Team and Coach of the Year are:

Maggie Alphonsi (ENG)
Fabien Galthié (FRA)
George Gregan (AUS)
Richie McCaw (NZL)
Brian O’Driscoll (IRE)
Agustín Pichot (ARG)
John Smit (RSA)
Clive Woodward (ENG)

So three scrumhalfs on that panel, and 4 of the 15 field positions represented
One woman and seven men
All of the RC nations represented yet only half of the 6N on the panel.

As a panel of referees it wouldn't pass Lord Dowlais, but since everything is so fair all their scoring will presumably be published post event on a scoreboard somewhere?
The losers' agents will be waiting with baited breath.

by Collapse2005 Thu 18 Oct - 14:33

There aren't enough trannys on the panel for my liking. They would add much more gender balance.

by SecretFly Thu 18 Oct - 14:34

It's being human? Yes, Collapse. I agree. We like heroes (or at least in the olde worlde we did, before the age when even invincible Superheroes needed a ton of other superheroes to beat a single villain (socialism in the movies? Wink

)

But yes, human beings, when they are being normal, like heroes and try to give them awards and stars and big contracts and stuff. It's the human condition to fixate on the individual, the genius, the star.

Of course too, that game is very corruptible. Just as long as we appreciate both truths at all times.

by SecretFly Thu 18 Oct - 14:36

The Great Aukster wrote:
So three scrumhalfs on that panel, and 4 of the 15 field positions represented
One woman and seven men

Hi HO!
Hi HO!

Hi Ho, hi ho,
it's off to work we go....

by The Great Aukster Thu 18 Oct - 14:37

Collapse2005 wrote:In other words anything that is awarded by vote should be scrapped as it isn't scientific enough? Including:

Governmental elections
Presidential elections
Referendums
Eurovision song contest
Any singing contest
Common Law legal process with a jury

I'm sorry but just because World player of the year is quite subjective doesn't mean it isn't without its merits because almost everything including rugby matches themselves have elements of subjectivity. By putting in place criteria and rules and expert judges they reduce subjectivity as much as possible which works just fine for me.

Democracy is great. PH seemed to think the process was weighted somehow.
Good to know that every person on the planet has a vote for World Player of the Year and each vote carries the same weight. What's the name of that Chinese rugby player who keeps winning it?

by SecretFly Thu 18 Oct - 14:39

The Great Aukster wrote:What's the name of that Chinese rugby player who keeps winning it?

His country won't let him go collect it so................... what's the point. Ritchie will accept it on China's behalf.

by The Great Aukster Thu 18 Oct - 14:40

Collapse2005 wrote:There aren't enough trannys on the panel for my liking. They would add much more gender balance.

Exactly.

(although there might be at least one)

by The Great Aukster Thu 18 Oct - 14:41

SecretFly wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
So three scrumhalfs on that panel, and 4 of the 15 field positions represented
One woman and seven men

Hi HO!
Hi HO!

Hi Ho, hi ho,
it's off to work we go....

Three scrumhalfs don't count when they're all called Grumpy

by Collapse2005 Thu 18 Oct - 14:42

The Great Aukster wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:In other words anything that is awarded by vote should be scrapped as it isn't scientific enough? Including:

Governmental elections
Presidential elections
Referendums
Eurovision song contest
Any singing contest
Common Law legal process with a jury

I'm sorry but just because World player of the year is quite subjective doesn't mean it isn't without its merits because almost everything including rugby matches themselves have elements of subjectivity. By putting in place criteria and rules and expert judges they reduce subjectivity as much as possible which works just fine for me.

Democracy is great. PH seemed to think the process was weighted somehow.
Good to know that every person on the planet has a vote for World Player of the Year and each vote carries the same weight. What's the name of that Chinese rugby player who keeps winning it?

Eh? Why would everyone on the planet have a vote on anything? Youve well and truly lost me on that one.

by SecretFly Thu 18 Oct - 14:47

If aliens land and say "We come in peace, shoot to kill"................ would not everyone on the planet have the right to vote on kicking their asses back to Kaffoonarah 6?

by The Great Aukster Thu 18 Oct - 17:23

Collapse2005 wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:In other words anything that is awarded by vote should be scrapped as it isn't scientific enough? Including:

Governmental elections
Presidential elections
Referendums
Eurovision song contest
Any singing contest
Common Law legal process with a jury

I'm sorry but just because World player of the year is quite subjective doesn't mean it isn't without its merits because almost everything including rugby matches themselves have elements of subjectivity. By putting in place criteria and rules and expert judges they reduce subjectivity as much as possible which works just fine for me.

Democracy is great. PH seemed to think the process was weighted somehow.
Good to know that every person on the planet has a vote for World Player of the Year and each vote carries the same weight. What's the name of that Chinese rugby player who keeps winning it?

Eh? Why would everyone on the planet have a vote on anything? Youve well and truly lost me on that one.

There's a clue in the thread title.

by The Great Aukster Thu 18 Oct - 17:37

SecretFly wrote:If aliens land and say "We come in peace, shoot to kill"................ would not everyone on the planet have the right to vote on kicking their asses back to Kaffoonarah 6?

What and leave their donkeys? Apparently in any referendum it's the wording of the question that really matters.

by Collapse2005 Thu 18 Oct - 18:52

The Great Aukster wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:In other words anything that is awarded by vote should be scrapped as it isn't scientific enough? Including:

Governmental elections
Presidential elections
Referendums
Eurovision song contest
Any singing contest
Common Law legal process with a jury

I'm sorry but just because World player of the year is quite subjective doesn't mean it isn't without its merits because almost everything including rugby matches themselves have elements of subjectivity. By putting in place criteria and rules and expert judges they reduce subjectivity as much as possible which works just fine for me.

Democracy is great. PH seemed to think the process was weighted somehow.
Good to know that every person on the planet has a vote for World Player of the Year and each vote carries the same weight. What's the name of that Chinese rugby player who keeps winning it?

Eh? Why would everyone on the planet have a vote on anything? Youve well and truly lost me on that one.

There's a clue in the thread title.

No not really.

by The Great Aukster Thu 18 Oct - 22:01

Collapse2005 wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:In other words anything that is awarded by vote should be scrapped as it isn't scientific enough? Including:

Governmental elections
Presidential elections
Referendums
Eurovision song contest
Any singing contest
Common Law legal process with a jury

I'm sorry but just because World player of the year is quite subjective doesn't mean it isn't without its merits because almost everything including rugby matches themselves have elements of subjectivity. By putting in place criteria and rules and expert judges they reduce subjectivity as much as possible which works just fine for me.

Democracy is great. PH seemed to think the process was weighted somehow.
Good to know that every person on the planet has a vote for World Player of the Year and each vote carries the same weight. What's the name of that Chinese rugby player who keeps winning it?

Eh? Why would everyone on the planet have a vote on anything? Youve well and truly lost me on that one.

There's a clue in the thread title.

No not really.

It begins with a W.

by Taylorman Thu 18 Oct - 23:09

Collapse2005 wrote:Lowe is a better winger now than Naholo. I think the ABs missed a trick letting him go. Their loss.

Garbage. Its amazing how good NZers get when they get to Europe. Here theyre no good, but when they play for NH clubs, suddenly theyre up there. All Lowe is doing is what he was contracted for. To be better than those available around him.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 19 Oct - 7:41

I'm not sure anyone at wasps is agreeing with that statement at the moment.

by Collapse2005 Fri 19 Oct - 8:31

Taylorman wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:Lowe is a better winger now than Naholo. I think the ABs missed a trick letting him go. Their loss.

Garbage. Its amazing how good NZers get when they get to Europe. Here theyre no good, but when they play for NH clubs, suddenly theyre up there. All Lowe is doing is what he was contracted for. To be better than those available around him.

Nah to be honest quite a few of your own country men disagree with you based on the comments on the NZ newspaper article you posted and others. A lot of Kiwis come to NH clubs when their careers are winding down. Lowe on the other hand was still young and still learning when he left and now he is even better than when he first arrived. He would almost certainly be an AB if he stayed in NZ especially given the 51 man squad Hansen has just selected. Your loss lol.

by SecretFly Fri 19 Oct - 9:51

I must have scanned past that 'link'. The NZ newspaper article...can't seem to find it now. Can anyone give me the page that it's on, please?

by Collapse2005 Fri 19 Oct - 9:53

SecretFly wrote:I must have scanned past that 'link'. The NZ newspaper article...can't seem to find it now. Can anyone give me the page that it's on, please?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/107897804/why-ireland-can-really-trouble-the-all-blacks

Kiwi 1 - "James Lowe was a sad loss to the Chiefs and NZ footy"

Kiwi 2 - "He's only getting better as well"

Kiwi 3 - "I'd much rather have him in the ABs than Naholo"

by Guest Fri 19 Oct - 10:07

Collapse2005 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:I must have scanned past that 'link'. The NZ newspaper article...can't seem to find it now. Can anyone give me the page that it's on, please?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/107897804/why-ireland-can-really-trouble-the-all-blacks

Oh dear, you’ve made the amateurish mistake of assuming that came out of NZ. It is actually an article from an Australian hack called Paul Cully that works for Fairfax that owns the Sydney Morning Herald and Stuff. Stuff also present a bunch of nonsense from an English f**kwit called Mark Reason. It’s white ant grain of salt stuff and if you buy into it, have a cigar, lol.

by Collapse2005 Fri 19 Oct - 10:12

ebop wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:I must have scanned past that 'link'. The NZ newspaper article...can't seem to find it now. Can anyone give me the page that it's on, please?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/107897804/why-ireland-can-really-trouble-the-all-blacks
Oh dear, you’ve made the amateurish mistake of assuming that came out of NZ. It is actually an article from an Australian hack called Paul Cully that works for Fairfax that owns the Sydney Morning Herald and Stuff. Stuff also present a bunch of nonsense from a fookwit called Mark Reason. It’s white ant grain of salt stuff and if you buy into it. Then have a cigar.

No, nobody made that mistake. You made your usual mistake of commenting on something that wasn't said at all and making yourself look like a fool once again. The point made with respect to the article was that some fans in the comments section have been stating how much of a loss to NZ rugby Lowe is.

Duh, go back to bed Ebop.

by SecretFly Fri 19 Oct - 10:16

Collapse2005 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:I must have scanned past that 'link'. The NZ newspaper article...can't seem to find it now. Can anyone give me the page that it's on, please?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/107897804/why-ireland-can-really-trouble-the-all-blacks

Thanks Guns.

by SecretFly Fri 19 Oct - 10:18

Collapse2005 wrote:

Duh, go back to bed Ebop.

Hmmm...on the subject of bed.

Ebop, do Kiwi's count white sheep or black sheep? It's always been on my mind, finding the answer to that important question.

by Guest Fri 19 Oct - 10:21

Collapse2005 wrote:
ebop wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:I must have scanned past that 'link'. The NZ newspaper article...can't seem to find it now. Can anyone give me the page that it's on, please?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/107897804/why-ireland-can-really-trouble-the-all-blacks
Oh dear, you’ve made the amateurish mistake of assuming that came out of NZ. It is actually an article from an Australian hack called Paul Cully that works for Fairfax that owns the Sydney Morning Herald and Stuff. Stuff also present a bunch of nonsense from a fookwit called Mark Reason. It’s white ant grain of salt stuff and if you buy into it. Then have a cigar.

No, nobody made that mistake. You made your usual mistake of commenting on something that wasn't said at all and making yourself look like a fool once again. The point made with respect to the article was that some fans in the comments section have been stating how much of a loss to NZ rugby Lowe is.

Duh, go back to bed Ebop.

Wow, that is amazing. Some fans in the comments section have been stating how much of a loss to NZ rugby Lowe is. That is really touching. Really emotional.

by Collapse2005 Fri 19 Oct - 10:25

Well done Ebop you were able to read and understand the post this time.

by SecretFly Fri 19 Oct - 10:49

Onions ebop. Boy, you are isolated down there, ain't you. Onions in the pockets have been the Millennial Emoto Trick for the entire...................... well, the entire Millennium so far.

Joe has his rations at the ready for the WC win, don't you worry.

by SecretFly Fri 19 Oct - 10:50

I'm imaginng those voices again! Better take my meds.

by Guest Fri 19 Oct - 10:57

I don’t know what you’re on SecretFly but I wish I had some myself. To be fair, Guns is basing his James Lowe argument on some comments in a comments section from an Aussie owned website. Sorry but on a scale of 1-10 in credibility it ranks about a number 2 (poo).

by Collapse2005 Fri 19 Oct - 11:00

ebop wrote:I don’t know what you’re on SecretFly but I wish I had some myself. To be fair, Guns is basing his James Lowe argument on some comments in a comments section from an Aussie owned website. Sorry but on a scale of 1-10 in credibility it ranks about a number 2 (poo).

Hardly matters who owns the website if the commenters are Kiwis. Spectacularly missing the point as usual.

by Guest Fri 19 Oct - 11:04

Collapse2005 wrote:
ebop wrote:I don’t know what you’re on SecretFly but I wish I had some myself. To be fair, Guns is basing his James Lowe argument on some comments in a comments section from an Aussie owned website. Sorry but on a scale of 1-10 in credibility it ranks about a number 2 (poo).

Hardly matters who owns the website if the commenters are Kiwis. Spectacularly missing the point as usual.

And you typically assume “kiwi3” in the comments section of a Stuff article represents the general consensus. You’re a simpleton Guns. Always have been and always will be.

by Collapse2005 Fri 19 Oct - 11:06

ebop wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:
ebop wrote:I don’t know what you’re on SecretFly but I wish I had some myself. To be fair, Guns is basing his James Lowe argument on some comments in a comments section from an Aussie owned website. Sorry but on a scale of 1-10 in credibility it ranks about a number 2 (poo).

Hardly matters who owns the website if the commenters are Kiwis. Spectacularly missing the point as usual.
And you typically assume “kiwi3” in the comments section of a Stuff article represents the general consensus. You’re a simpleton Guns. Always have been and always will be.

Eh no I don't you dope. You assumed that all by yourself. As usual if you read what I actually said you wouldn't come to that conclusion. I really hope you don't have a job that requires any sort of attention to detail.

by Guest Fri 19 Oct - 11:11

Collapse2005 wrote:
ebop wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:
ebop wrote:I don’t know what you’re on SecretFly but I wish I had some myself. To be fair, Guns is basing his James Lowe argument on some comments in a comments section from an Aussie owned website. Sorry but on a scale of 1-10 in credibility it ranks about a number 2 (poo).

Hardly matters who owns the website if the commenters are Kiwis. Spectacularly missing the point as usual.
And you typically assume “kiwi3” in the comments section of a Stuff article represents the general consensus. You’re a simpleton Guns. Always have been and always will be.

Eh no I don't you dope. You assumed that all by yourself. As usual if you read what I actually said you wouldn't come to that conclusion. I really hope you don't have a job that requires any sort of attention to detail.

Lol, back tracking, weak.

by SecretFly Fri 19 Oct - 11:18

ebop wrote:I don’t know what you’re on SecretFly but I wish I had some myself.

Oh don't worry about me. I just keep seeing posts appear and then disappear before my very eyes. Shocked

Maybe the Russians have hacked your comp, ebop? Cool

Ring Trump, he'll help you out with the disappearing posts.

by Guest Fri 19 Oct - 11:19

SecretFly wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:

Duh, go back to bed Ebop.

Hmmm...on the subject of bed.

Ebop, do Kiwi's count white sheep or black sheep? It's always been on my mind, finding the answer to that important question.

We don’t count sheep

We count RWC trophies

by SecretFly Fri 19 Oct - 11:44

ebop wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:

Duh, go back to bed Ebop.

Hmmm...on the subject of bed.

Ebop, do Kiwi's count white sheep or black sheep? It's always been on my mind, finding the answer to that important question.
We don’t count sheep

We count RWC trophies

You missed a good few years of sleep then?

Me? I'm of course an insomniac Whistle

by Guest Fri 19 Oct - 13:46

SecretFly wrote:
ebop wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:

Duh, go back to bed Ebop.

Hmmm...on the subject of bed.

Ebop, do Kiwi's count white sheep or black sheep? It's always been on my mind, finding the answer to that important question.
We don’t count sheep

We count RWC trophies

You missed a good few years of sleep then?

Me? I'm of course an insomniac

Reckon you should probably just count sheep Fly, any colour

by Taylorman Fri 19 Oct - 21:03

Collapse2005 wrote:
Taylorman wrote:
Collapse2005 wrote:Lowe is a better winger now than Naholo. I think the ABs missed a trick letting him go. Their loss.

Garbage. Its amazing how good NZers get when they get to Europe. Here theyre no good, but when they play for NH clubs, suddenly theyre up there. All Lowe is doing is what he was contracted for. To be better than those available around him.

Nah to be honest quite a few of your own country men disagree with you based on the comments on the NZ newspaper article you posted and others. A lot of Kiwis come to NH clubs when their careers are winding down. Lowe on the other hand was still young and still learning when he left and now he is even better than when he first arrived. He would almost certainly be an AB if he stayed in NZ especially given the 51 man squad Hansen has just selected. Your loss lol.

Yes he was told early he was never going to be good enough to be an All Black. Hes better now, especially in lower company, thats a gimme, but still not good enough for the ABs. Naholo himself only just manages to hold his position. If lowe was he good enough have fought it out. He didnt, gave up the chase, settled for second best, easy money. We dont want players like that.

by Collapse2005 Fri 19 Oct - 21:43

Except he is bette than Naholo now. Your loss.

by Guest Fri 19 Oct - 21:49

No. James Lowe is flakey and is why he never made the ABs. He is a good player and that’s about it. The fact he’s celebrated in Europe is pretty funny though.

by Collapse2005 Fri 19 Oct - 21:54

Yeah he was flaky and then he moved to Leinster. Youre welcome.

by Sponsored content