New Zealand Out Half Crisis

First topic message reminder :

Damian McKenzie, who has not been ruled out of the rugby world cup, was seemingly Steve Hansen's back up 10 for the All Blacks. Bearing in mind that no New Zealand based back up 10 has much in the way of international experience has Hansen been guilty of putting all his eggs in one basket at 10?

Possible back up players.

Richie Mo'unga - 10 caps, mostly as sub
Brett Cameron - 1 cap
Otere Black - 0 caps, Blues 10

or

Stephen Donald - 24 caps

I think its fair to say that NZ's hopes revolve a bit around Beauden Barrett.

Taylorman wrote: Though barrett is far better than any NH 10. By a street.

His goalkicking is atrocious fgs...

Get the impression you don't actually watch and/or understand NH rugby outside the odd test match?

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Yes, so is and was Anscombe

Na

Taylorman wrote:Cruden is at his best better than any 6N 10 and proved it by outplaying every one he went up against. He's just not enjoying his rugby at the moment, time to come back where things are more important I say. Another lost to the backdrop of NH rugby.

Thiis completely guesswork, and because you don't actually know what he looks like over in France, your go-to response is predictable as ever. Had Carter not been injured Cruden would have been a 5-15 cap All Black himself, with Slade probably getting a longer run in the shirt after 2011. Circumstance, as much as planning, handed Cruden the caps he did. Get over it.

Cruden has been completely usless for a few years now. I hope for NZ's sake they arent relying on him. I saw that he is considering taking a 400k wage cut to go to Glasgow while some reports in Glasgow suggest fans arent particularly happy about the prospect.

The biggest issue facing NZ isn't the standard of their players, anyway. It never is. Mo'unga is quality, a bit loose maybe, but good enough for test level.

The issue is whether they're a team of champions or a champion team.

I look at Ireland and now, thankfully/slightly unbelievably, Wales, and I see two really, really good teams - with a few quality individuals as well, no doubt, who are some of the best in NH/perhaps even up there for the whole world. NZ have better players all round, no doubt but in terms of a team, I think some of the NH sides are really showing up the SANZAR sides - only NZ's holding the fort there with their winning streak.

Yet they lack something as a team. If you're playing SBW - as fantastic a player as he is - I think you're losing something in team dynamic. If you have to bring back Nonu as well...that's not a good sign in terms of progression planning as he's not just old but been dropping his shoulder in France for a bit too long as well. Who knows if the old disciplinary issues are back? Add in SBW's cheap shot on Watson and you have a dangerously precedent there.

It's more than that though. Back row balance looks off. Leadership not as good as it was - has Aaron Smith tainted himself in the eyes of the team, even though he's the best 9 in the world? Lots of questions relating to the sum of NZ's parts tbh. The big worry should have been failing to win the Lions Tour. 2 losses to Ireland, and being pushed close by a fairly limited attacking display from England last Autumn, might toughen them up...or it might be revealing gaps they can't bridge this close to the RWC.

You need good players who have experience not just good players.

Taylorman wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Taylorman wrote:What I dont get is why theres a crisis? We have Barrett and Mo'unga. Which country has two significantly better than that?

If thats a crisis then can we have some more of that please.

Wales, England, Ireland, Scotland and Australia would all argue. Some of them might not be right, but if you think Barrett and Mo’unga are lightyears ahead of the rest then you’re truly deluded.

Didnt say they were but if our situation is a ‘crisis’ surely others must have significantly better tens to ‘not be in a crisis’ surely. And i dont think that is the case. Though barrett is far better than any NH 10. By a street.

Though I get your point re Anscombe, he may have got tests assuming he retained his super rugby position and back then, that wasnt guaranteed. Other kiwis would disagree with me though. He started out full of promise then just went flat, many games with no impact. If anything, his northern move was the best thing for him, though as in NZ, struggled to make a huge impact, something we expect of our players, 10s especially.

One big difference I think is we make our players sink or swim. They either succeed, or go north because regardless of succeeding with the ABs, theyll always be good enough in NH sides with a bit of application.

Your players hang around forever waiting to get selected or not, and you often see the same names drift in and out of the side over the years.

Ours dont. Youre in, you play for a while, then youre out. there are a few exceptions, Matt Todd probably the best one, totally committed to NZ rugby and happy to take whatever tests he can get. Not many like him though. Failured or aged? Go north.

I would agree that it isn't really a crisis for NZ. I think it's maybe that people are referring back to your fly-half crisis in 2011 when you lost the three guys in that position, wasn't Donald a late call-up? It seemed like it was a bit of a curse. NZ now have time to bring the next in line into the set-up, and it's also advisable to bring in another utility who can also play 10 (like D-mac was able to). Barrett is a hell of a good player and at times has been the best by far; I think it's more debatable now given his goal-kicking, and the form of guys like Sexton and Farrell. All three have had their off days. I don't really remember Carter having a single off day.

Yeah it would have been difficult for Anscombe but he would have persisted in super rugby for a while and the call up probably would have come at some point. It's likely that it would have been just a handful of caps and that would have been enough for a big pay day with a French club. Also I'm not sure what his defence was like back then, but it's pretty poor now.

Yeah I get that final point, it's usually the case when you have a non-stop conveyor belt of talent. There have been a few more guys committed to NZ rugby though, choosing to stay at provincial and super rugby level for a while; like Jason Eaton.

Aah Jason, work with his cousin, how is the plonker, lovely bloke. Didnt know he was still playing. Must be a host of pre 2011 ABs still running around in dark corners up there.
What I think the north is getting now is the coaching expertise kiwis have picked up over the years. Since Henry theres been a model in place where all super sides play a particular style, initially to appease the AB selectors but also push the barriers in tbis game.

The latest crop of Rennie, Lam, Joseph, Robinson, Cotter etc are a ‘upgrade’ to the thinkings of henry, schmidt, hansen, gatland. As successful as that group were and still are the later version of coaching will push the game even further, particularly from a skills and strategy perspective. Gatland, jones, schmidt and co have brought NH rugby into the 21st century but its already moving on from their day. Now you have players from the pro era coaching. Razor for example.
Different breed of coaching. Think youll see rennie succeed eventually, along with cotter and pivac. Razors the best of the latest bunch.

"The latest crop" Lol, Schmidt is around the same age or younger than some of those guys. Clueless.

Collapse2005 wrote:"The latest crop" Lol, Schmidt is around the same age or younger than some of those guys. Clueless.

Not from a coaching perspective he isnt. He never coached super rugby between 2005 to the present when these guys have. That is the period NZ rugby has been the most successful in the pro era. Pivac and Cotter are fringe but Rennie, Lam, Razor, Boyd, Joseph, Blackadder have all been involved with sides that put players through to World cup winning sides, Blackadder and Lam failing to take titles but hey, theyre obviously better than northern coaches to be snapped up so easily.

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote: Though barrett is far better than any NH 10. By a street.

His goalkicking is atrocious fgs...

Get the impression you don't actually watch and/or understand NH rugby outside the odd test match?

Cool, glad you agree about the 10 then.

And who's talking about goalicking? And how many test matches has barrett lost directly from missed goals? 2-3 at most? Saw Sexton miss a sitter to beat the ABs. No good only kicking the ones that dont matter.

We dont need them as much as you guys do. Barrett puts them over for fun most of the time. And his goalkicking of late has been fine, look at the stats oiver the last 6months, think youll find hes up there with your best, but hey, mud sticks huh?

Barrett doesnt score tries against the good sides either. 1 contentious try v Ireland in all games. None v England. Hmm.

Yeah, because apparently the only test matches that matter are against NZ? And kicking percentages mean nothing? Barrett's good, but he's not Carter-good. A few clear weaknesses in his game. To say he's far better than any NH 10 when his goalkicking stats are in and around the 65-70% range is shocking. Every 10 has their strength but - get this! - it's a bit easier playing 10 for NZ than it is for, I don't know...let's say Montpellier. Just ask Cruden...

Collapse2005 wrote:Barrett doesnt score tries against the good sides either. 1 contentious try v Ireland in all games. None v England. Hmm.

aha, one try vs Ireland from 3 matches, 0 tries vs England from one test.

Overall 73 tests for 32 tries

Sexton vs NZ- 12 tests, 0 tries, vs England11 tests- 0 tries.

Overall, 89 tests for 11 tries.

I mean please, whats hes been doing?

miaow wrote:Yeah, because apparently the only test matches that matter are against NZ? And kicking percentages mean nothing? Barrett's good, but he's not Carter-good. A few clear weaknesses in his game. To say he's far better than any NH 10 when his goalkicking stats are in and around the 65-70% range is shocking. Every 10 has their strength but - get this! - it's a bit easier playing 10 for NZ than it is for, I don't know...let's say Montpellier. Just ask Cruden...

Don't need to, speaks for itself. Montpelliers rubbish, but thats what you get.
No one in history is Carter good, and I said NH 10's not carter Every one knows that so its kind of a redundant statement dont you think?

Yes he has weaknesses, but so does everyone, doing 'not a lot at all' the main one NH 10's are guilty of.

They say Sexton is a better 'decision maker' than Barrett. That one makes me laugh. Must be really difficult to decide when NOT to go on a scithing 40 meter run off an off load to beat four or five players. I mean how Sexton manages to hold back from those 'decisions' soooooo often is such credit to the bloke. 'Shovel on 45 times' ...I mean...the dilemma of deciding between the two

Wilkinson wa much better than Carter, even DC would accept that.

Taylorman won't but then that says it all

Taylorman wrote:Don't need to, speaks for itself. Montpelliers rubbish, but thats what you get.

How would you know though?

Taylorman wrote:No one in history is Carter good, and I said NH 10's not carter Every one knows that so its kind of a redundant statement dont you think?

Partly, but you're bigging him up as if he's the best thing since sliced Warburton. He's a very good runinng fly-half who's also got a decent reading of the game and good basic skills. But he has his flaws - the very, very obvious one is his substandard goalkicking that has and will lose NZ test matches because it's so poor. Whether you like it or not - and I know you definitely don't - it's a key part of playing 10/being a pro player. So, no, not streets ahead. I'd put him up against Russell and say if you took Barrett's pace away there wouldn't be all that much in it. His talent is aided by his physical ability in a massive, massive way - but that doesn't mean he's the perfect 10, if you will...

Taylorman wrote:Yes he has weaknesses, but so does everyone, doing 'not a lot at all' the main one NH 10's are guilty of.

Partly fair. Think we're in a weak period for test 10s this decade - the reason why Sexton and Barrett are held up as the best, rather than just a good standard. Not helped by the way the game changed massively from playing off 10 to a very League-style flat, attacking structure off the 9. Took a while for the NH teams to adapt, for sure - some of the better attacking talents floundered, like James Hook, where some, like Cipriani, adapted without ever really getting the support/trust to actually use their skills in the way they would in the SH (there's literally no way Elton Jantjes would last more than a season or two at most NH clubs, wouldn't stand for the bullpoop he pulls out on a regular basis). But that doesn't mean some - like Biggar, Farrell - are very good at the basics in certain styles of rugby, which is much closer to most test games than Super Rugby is. I was relatively impressed by the way Barrett adapted against England in the autumn, as most of the ABs team did, but they didn't look comfortable and - evidently - nearly lost the game. Sometimes not doing a lot can be all it takes to win games - if Jantjes wouldn't get near a NH side, then Andy Goode wouldn't get near a SH one: doesn't mean he wasn't very good at what he did, eventhough, clearly, we know you don't understand why that is.

(I'll ask you again - you have RIDICULOUSLY high standards for rugby. What level did you play to, or are involved with the game at the moment? Or is this just some kind of vicarious superiority you're enjoying by living through the ABs?)

Taylorman wrote:They say Sexton is a better 'decision maker' than Barrett. That one makes me laugh. Must be really difficult to decide when NOT to go on a scithing 40 meter run off an off load to beat four or five players. I mean how Sexton manages to hold back from those 'decisions' soooooo often is such credit to the bloke. 'Shovel on 45 times' ...I mean...the dilemma of deciding between the two

Sexton's pretty good. I think he's overrated tbh. Was really poor this 6Ns. He's a bit like a Kiwi player, really - and a bit like Farrell/England's Saracens players. They're all too used to having things their own way, dominating the opposition, having a solid platform etc. It's why Farrell was shocking first Lions test, goes to pot when England struggle up front, and Sexton's the same - both Welsh games were great examples of that this 6Ns. Sexton in particular has become a bit of a primadonna - everything built around him at Leinster, and likewise Ireland in many ways. Carbery has more to his game than Sexton for sure. Does it make him a better 10? At the moment, no. Maybe never. Was Carlos Spencer better than Mehrtens? Talent alone, yes. Actual quantifiable performances: no. Same with Quade and Foley for Oz.

That said, Ireland have been a bit limited since the last RWC but they can clearly turn it on when they want to. 2/3 against the ABs, let's not forget, so it's a really strange thing to sneer at them - unless it's coming from a place of fear, of course. I've seen Sexton haul his team back into games and win them with maverick displays enough times to know that he can do more than just shipping it 2 yards, watching Murray boxkick, and then do his little loopy play. Just like Farrell can do more than hoof the a crossfield ball for Jonny May to try and get on the end of. Or Biggar to put an under and under to try and win another penalty in kickable range. Or Russell to throw ridiculous cutout passes for beautiful tries against England...

Anyway, I don't reckon you even like rugby. No rugby fan really dislikes a 'purist' game. It's all part of the game, particularly when it's out of defensive and tactical quality rather than poor skills. The England v NZ game in the autumn was still good eventhough it was low on invention and scoring.

Pie wrote:Wilkinson wa much better than Carter, even DC would accept that.

Taylorman won't but then that says it all

Think you'll stretch to get a common consensus on that. If barrett has weaknesses Wilko definitely had them. As a runner with ball in hand and as a distributor he was decidedly average to poor.

His strengths were his goalkicking, defence and ability to make decisons under pressure- perfect in the NH world, but lacking in say, an AB environment. Lacked creativity on attack but no probs with his professional approach, work ethic and standing in the game. Top notch.

Carter was not the best at any single skill, others could goal kick better, run better pass better and tackle better. But no one did them all to the level carter did. The complete all round 10, no one gets near him in that respect.

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Don't need to, speaks for itself. Montpelliers rubbish, but thats what you get.

How would you know though?  

Taylorman wrote:No one in history is Carter good, and I said NH 10's not carter Every one knows that so its kind of a redundant statement dont you think?

Partly, but you're bigging him up as if he's the best thing since sliced Warburton. He's a very good runinng fly-half who's also got a decent reading of the game and good basic skills. But he has his flaws - the very, very obvious one is his substandard goalkicking that has and will lose NZ test matches because it's so poor. Whether you like it or not - and I know you definitely don't - it's a key part of playing 10/being a pro player. So, no, not streets ahead. I'd put him up against Russell and say if you took Barrett's pace away there wouldn't be all that much in it. His talent is aided by his physical ability in a massive, massive way - but that doesn't mean he's the perfect 10, if you will...

Taylorman wrote:Yes he has weaknesses, but so does everyone, doing 'not a lot at all' the main one NH 10's are guilty of.

Partly fair. Think we're in a weak period for test 10s this decade - the reason why Sexton and Barrett are held up as the best, rather than just a good standard. Not helped by the way the game changed massively from playing off 10 to a very League-style flat, attacking structure off the 9. Took a while for the NH teams to adapt, for sure - some of the better attacking talents floundered, like James Hook, where some, like Cipriani, adapted without ever really getting the support/trust to actually use their skills in the way they would in the SH (there's literally no way Elton Jantjes would last more than a season or two at most NH clubs, wouldn't stand for the bullpoop he pulls out on a regular basis). But that doesn't mean some - like Biggar, Farrell - are very good at the basics in certain styles of rugby, which is much closer to most test games than Super Rugby is. I was relatively impressed by the way Barrett adapted against England in the autumn, as most of the ABs team did, but they didn't look comfortable and - evidently - nearly lost the game. Sometimes not doing a lot can be all it takes to win games - if Jantjes wouldn't get near a NH side, then Andy Goode wouldn't get near a SH one: doesn't mean he wasn't very good at what he did, eventhough, clearly, we know you don't understand why that is.

(I'll ask you again - you have RIDICULOUSLY high standards for rugby. What level did you play to, or are involved with the game at the moment? Or is this just some kind of vicarious superiority you're enjoying by living through the ABs?)

Taylorman wrote:They say Sexton is a better 'decision maker' than Barrett. That one makes me laugh. Must be really difficult to decide when NOT to go on a scithing 40 meter run off an off load to beat four or five players. I mean how Sexton manages to hold back from those 'decisions' soooooo often is such credit to the bloke. 'Shovel on 45 times' ...I mean...the dilemma of deciding between the two

Sexton's pretty good. I think he's overrated tbh. Was really poor this 6Ns. He's a bit like a Kiwi player, really - and a bit like Farrell/England's Saracens players. They're all too used to having things their own way, dominating the opposition, having a solid platform etc. It's why Farrell was shocking first Lions test, goes to pot when England struggle up front, and Sexton's the same - both Welsh games were great examples of that this 6Ns. Sexton in particular has become a bit of a primadonna - everything built around him at Leinster, and likewise Ireland in many ways. Carbery has more to his game than Sexton for sure. Does it make him a better 10? At the moment, no. Maybe never. Was Carlos Spencer better than Mehrtens? Talent alone, yes. Actual quantifiable performances: no. Same with Quade and Foley for Oz.

That said, Ireland have been a bit limited since the last RWC but they can clearly turn it on when they want to. 2/3 against the ABs, let's not forget, so it's a really strange thing to sneer at them - unless it's coming from a place of fear, of course. I've seen Sexton haul his team back into games and win them with maverick displays enough times to know that he can do more than just shipping it 2 yards, watching Murray boxkick, and then do his little loopy play. Just like Farrell can do more than hoof the a crossfield ball for Jonny May to try and get on the end of. Or Biggar to put an under and under to try and win another penalty in kickable range. Or Russell to throw ridiculous cutout passes for beautiful tries against England...

Anyway, I don't reckon you even like rugby. No rugby fan really dislikes a 'purist' game. It's all part of the game, particularly when it's out of defensive and tactical quality rather than poor skills. The England v NZ game in the autumn was still good eventhough it was low on invention and scoring.

The trouble with your comparisons are you always refer to AI matches. Ireland are 2/3 for one reason, and one reason only. None were in NZ during our season. If they were they wouldnt be 2 from 3. Compare last year vs Oz and NZ vs Oz. Chalk and cheese. You stretch reality from carefully selected scenarios.

Do it when it counts. In 2015 it counted, in 2019 it will count. The rest is smoke and mirrors, trawling through data to find positives.

Not really. NZ played the Lions at the peak of their season, the end of the NH season (which, let's be real, flogs players far harder than the management SH players get). Lions bettered them in many aspects: NZ failed to put away a team that both contained them well for the most part, but also cut them to shreds at times as well. 5-4 in terms of tries scored over 3 tests. Not exactly a great indictment, is it.

Were it not for that, you might have a point. But as it is, you don't.

Answer the other points. What level of rugby are/were you involved in?

Taylorman wrote:

Pie wrote:Wilkinson wa much better than Carter, even DC would accept that.

Taylorman won't but then that says it all

Think you'll stretch to get a common consensus on that. If barrett has weaknesses Wilko definitely had them. As a runner with ball in hand and as a distributor he was decidedly average to poor.

His strengths were his goalkicking, defence and ability to make decisons under pressure- perfect in the NH world, but lacking in say, an AB environment. Lacked creativity on attack but no probs with his professional approach, work ethic and standing in the game. Top notch.

Carter was not the best at any single skill, others could goal kick better, run better pass better and tackle better. But no one did them all to the level carter did. The complete all round 10, no one gets near him in that respect.

Wilkinson exceeds that by a country mile. DC was good, no doubt, in a great team. But what you're saying - as usual - makes little sense. DC wasn't excellent at anything but because he was a good allrounder he was a bette player. Nah thats BS.

JW was a sublime kicker, an awesome defender and tackler of back row standard. He was quick and had impeccable hands

And since as usual you're spouting whilst knowing very little about your subject try watching this little lesson in playmaking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqoEHjR4MxY

Here we go...

No worries Tman.

Pie wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Pie wrote:Wilkinson wa much better than Carter, even DC would accept that.

Taylorman won't but then that says it all

Think you'll stretch to get a common consensus on that. If barrett has weaknesses Wilko definitely had them. As a runner with ball in hand and as a distributor he was decidedly average to poor.

His strengths were his goalkicking, defence and ability to make decisons under pressure- perfect in the NH world, but lacking in say, an AB environment. Lacked creativity on attack but no probs with his professional approach, work ethic and standing in the game. Top notch.

Carter was not the best at any single skill, others could goal kick better, run better pass better and tackle better. But no one did them all to the level carter did. The complete all round 10, no one gets near him in that respect.

Wilkinson exceeds that by a country mile. DC was good, no doubt, in a great team. But what you're saying - as usual - makes little sense. DC wasn't excellent at anything but because he was a good allrounder he was a bette player. Nah thats BS.

JW was a sublime kicker, an awesome defender and tackler of back row standard. He was quick and had impeccable hands

And since as usual you're spouting whilst knowing very little about your subject try watching this little lesson in playmaking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqoEHjR4MxY

Pie, what Ive said makes perfect sense. That you dont think so is actually interesting, though not surprising.

miaow wrote:Not really. NZ played the Lions at the peak of their season, the end of the NH season (which, let's be real, flogs players far harder than the management SH players get). Lions bettered them in many aspects: NZ failed to put away a team that both contained them well for the most part, but also cut them to shreds at times as well. 5-4 in terms of tries scored over 3 tests. Not exactly a great indictment, is it.

Were it not for that, you might have a point. But as it is, you don't.

Answer the other points. What level of rugby are/were you involved in?

What level. At best? Senior club rugby in Auckland and counties in the 80s and Auckland B and auckland under age 20 and 18. Played with and against the likes of kirwan, stanley, bunce and others at various ages and levels. Busted my wrist at 23 and pursued other sports and ventures. Was coached under john hart under age a few times.

Not a great cv but playing at a time when auckland rugby was the best on the planet was great to be in the toughest school i have seen, before or since.

You?

Oh and now you mention the lions?

So weve now established barretts better but not a goalkicker, and that non lions teams are average until they combine.

At least we’re making progress.

Oh, and from memory, the lions didnt actually win, nor score more points did they? Yet they were somehow... better?
Hmmm

Taylorman wrote:

Pie wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Pie wrote:Wilkinson wa much better than Carter, even DC would accept that.

Taylorman won't but then that says it all

Think you'll stretch to get a common consensus on that. If barrett has weaknesses Wilko definitely had them. As a runner with ball in hand and as a distributor he was decidedly average to poor.

His strengths were his goalkicking, defence and ability to make decisons under pressure- perfect in the NH world, but lacking in say, an AB environment. Lacked creativity on attack but no probs with his professional approach, work ethic and standing in the game. Top notch.

Carter was not the best at any single skill, others could goal kick better, run better pass better and tackle better. But no one did them all to the level carter did. The complete all round 10, no one gets near him in that respect.

Wilkinson exceeds that by a country mile. DC was good, no doubt, in a great team. But what you're saying - as usual - makes little sense. DC wasn't excellent at anything but because he was a good allrounder he was a bette player. Nah thats BS.

JW was a sublime kicker, an awesome defender and tackler of back row standard. He was quick and had impeccable hands

And since as usual you're spouting whilst knowing very little about your subject try watching this little lesson in playmaking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqoEHjR4MxY

Pie, what Ive said makes perfect sense. That you dont think so is actually interesting, though not surprising.

To you it makes sense, not to anyone else I doubt which is and of itself completely uninteresting and very revealing about your knowledge of the game versus your myopic bias. Watch the video laddie and learn something about playmaking.

I dont need to watch a video about play making. I see it every weekend in Super rugby. The issue with NH playmaking is its frequency and quality. You rarely see it, and its generally not reflective of a high level of skills.

When you get it several times a match across a variation of plays in an effort to seal the result that is when its effective. Players like Sexton shovel the ball on all day 'and have the occasional' play.

As good as Wilko was, regular, highly skilled, varied playmaking was not up there in terms of his major contributions to winning a match. Goal kicks were always his no. 1 weapon, next was keeping his pack in good position around the park.

Carter, and Barrett, used far more strings to their bows, they ran key lines, offloaded, made telling breaks, kicked with variation, long, short, high and low- they key being- often.

Wilko didnt. What he did he did well, he just didn't have an accomplished variation of play making.

For play making to be a critical factor in winning it needs to be done well, often and with variety. You don't get the likes of Sexton doing that.

Mind you, he's an improvement on the O'Gara, Stephen Jones kick kick kick days.

Taylorman wrote:I dont need to watch a video about play making. I see it every weekend in Super rugby. The issue with NH playmaking is its frequency and quality. You rarely see it, and its generally not reflective of a high level of skills.

When you get it several times a match across a variation of plays in an effort to seal the result that is when its effective. Players like Sexton shovel the ball on all day 'and have the occasional' play.

As good as Wilko was, regular, highly skilled, varied playmaking was not up there in terms of his major contributions to winning a match. Goal kicks were always his no. 1 weapon, next was keeping his pack in good position around the park.

Carter, and Barrett, used far more strings to their bows, they ran key lines, offloaded, made telling breaks, kicked with variation, long, short, high and low- they key being- often.

Wilko didnt. What he did he did well, he just didn't have an accomplished variation of play making.

For play making to be a critical factor in winning it needs to be done well, often and with variety. You don't get the likes of Sexton doing that.

Mind you, he's an improvement on the O'Gara, Stephen Jones kick kick kick days.

I love how you change your argument when it gets blown away

Watch the video. Learn smoothing for once

No change pie. Video wont change anything. I could put carters 2005 lions test, his french, SA and final in 2015 or barretts 2018 oz effort up as proper examples of winning playmaking when it counts, but I wont.

A NHer telling a SHer how to learn something about playmaking.

Stop it please.

Oh and i did watch it. Confirms my point. He didnt do that every game and given it was a thrashing easily done when one side aint tackling. Trick is to get all sides not tackling well, all the time.

Can you some beers for tomorrow bbz?

Cruden could be signing with Glasgow apparently. That would be a relink with Dave Rennie and probably a better club to be at in terms of culture and the style of play. It's a tough one for him I think, I'm sure he'd love to play for the All Blacks again, would the Chiefs take him back as cover for Mckenzie? https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12223346

He would have to take a huge pay cut to go to Glasgow and I don't think they will want him anyway.

Taylorman wrote:Mind you, he's an improvement on the O'Gara, Stephen Jones kick kick kick days.

Two totally different 10s. Clearly no idea what you're talking about.

Taylorman wrote:No change pie. Video wont change anything. I could put carters 2005 lions test, his french, SA and final in 2015 or barretts 2018 oz effort up as proper examples of winning playmaking when it counts, but I wont.

A NHer telling a SHer how to learn something about playmaking.

Stop it please.

There you go, there's the arrogance. Why therefore do you even partake on this forum....you know it all anyway.

Watch the video (make a change from the type you usually watch )

Pie wrote:

Taylorman wrote:No change pie. Video wont change anything. I could put carters 2005 lions test, his french, SA and final in 2015 or barretts 2018 oz effort up as proper examples of winning playmaking when it counts, but I wont.

A NHer telling a SHer how to learn something about playmaking.

Stop it please.

There you go, there's the arrogance. Why therefore do you even partake on this forum....you know it all anyway.

Watch the video (make a change from the type you usually watch   )

No not arrogance, its the simple truth. Few class playmakers come from the home unions. Mind you, you can add wings and fullbacks to that as well. Very plain, with the odd exception. England for example, would be lucky to get a back in the first ten world xvs after wilko.

I did watch the video, and what I saw was a rare instance of wilkos ability to open his game up. What it doesnt show is the never ending monologue, of kick, kick, pass, kick, kick that dominated his time on the field, that is, in the games that counted.

Taylorman wrote:No not arrogance, its the simple truth. Few class playmakers come from the home unions.

Not the issue though, is it, becase that's not what you're saying. You're saying by the mere fact someone lives in one hemisphere or the other, they either know it all already, or know nothing. Or something to that effect.

You've obviously played to a decent standard by you seem to be living a bit vicariously through the ABs a bit too much. Or the SH in general, when it fits the narrative. A bit too much us v them talk. Not even joking, I saw this without taking the piece, but it sounds like you're letting feelings about something else come pouring out into rugby. Because honestly, the last few months have been strange, you're getting more and more defiant about how crap the NH is. Not sure if it's because most of the older SH posters have left but it's a bit weird.

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:No not arrogance, its the simple truth. Few class playmakers come from the home unions.

Not the issue though, is it, becase that's not what you're saying. You're saying by the mere fact someone lives in one hemisphere or the other, they either know it all already, or know nothing. Or something to that effect.

You've obviously played to a decent standard by you seem to be living a bit vicariously through the ABs a bit too much. Or the SH in general, when it fits the narrative. A bit too much us v them talk. Not even joking, I saw this without taking the piece, but it sounds like you're letting feelings about something else come pouring out into rugby. Because honestly, the last few months have been strange, you're getting more and more defiant about how crap the NH is. Not sure if it's because most of the older SH posters have left but it's a bit weird.

Inferiority complex.

Pie wrote:

Taylorman wrote:No change pie. Video wont change anything. I could put carters 2005 lions test, his french, SA and final in 2015 or barretts 2018 oz effort up as proper examples of winning playmaking when it counts, but I wont.

A NHer telling a SHer how to learn something about playmaking.

Stop it please.

There you go, there's the arrogance. Why therefore do you even partake on this forum....you know it all anyway.

Watch the video (make a change from the type you usually watch   )

Yes I usually watch good sides but using your logic if i post a link to barrett getting six from six in a test match, which hes done on occasion, that makes him a good goal kicker does it?

Taylorman wrote:

Pie wrote:

Taylorman wrote:No change pie. Video wont change anything. I could put carters 2005 lions test, his french, SA and final in 2015 or barretts 2018 oz effort up as proper examples of winning playmaking when it counts, but I wont.

A NHer telling a SHer how to learn something about playmaking.

Stop it please.

There you go, there's the arrogance. Why therefore do you even partake on this forum....you know it all anyway.

Watch the video (make a change from the type you usually watch   )

Yes I usually watch good sides but using your logic if i post a link to barrett getting six from six in a test match, which hes done on occasion, that makes him a good goal kicker does it?

Yes. And yet we know he is not. But of course comparing goalkicking with playmaking is a really dumbass argument

Pie wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Pie wrote:

Taylorman wrote:No change pie. Video wont change anything. I could put carters 2005 lions test, his french, SA and final in 2015 or barretts 2018 oz effort up as proper examples of winning playmaking when it counts, but I wont.

A NHer telling a SHer how to learn something about playmaking.

Stop it please.

There you go, there's the arrogance. Why therefore do you even partake on this forum....you know it all anyway.

Watch the video (make a change from the type you usually watch   )

Yes I usually watch good sides but using your logic if i post a link to barrett getting six from six in a test match, which hes done on occasion, that makes him a good goal kicker does it?

Yes. And yet we know he is not. But of course comparing goalkicking with playmaking is a really dumbass argument

No, its typical of your selective reasoning. You pick a rare occasion in a thrashing to portray it as the norm. Thats dumbarse, and typical. Carter used all his skills, all the time, wilko did not. He leaned more heavily on a couple.

That you need ten posts to be told the point from the first, reflects your inability to understand the point. But as i said originally...understandable.

Carter will go down as one of the all time greats. Comparing him to Wilkinson as a 'standard' for playmaking is pointless. Doubt NZ will have a better 10 than Carter in the next 30 years.

Cipriani was/still is a very good playmaker.

This is often cited as DC's best....mostly kicking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLQSc1sp4dE

miaow wrote:Carter will go down as one of the all time greats. Comparing him to Wilkinson as a 'standard' for playmaking is pointless. Doubt NZ will have a better 10 than Carter in the next 30 years.

Cipriani was/still is a very good playmaker.

Non test players are now entering the equation?.

Cips is a nut case, complete tool when he was out here with the rebels, demanding he get into nightclubs... ‘don’t you know who I am?!’ and the only one I know who managed to actually get hit by the proverbial ‘red bus’
And I’ve heard he’s playing well lately but England don’t touch him because they view his style as high risk. He’d probably have done better if a kiwi as we encourage and develop that style. England? Nah. Have to dot the i’s and cross the t’s first. Jones might pick him up as he tends to like loose cannons but probably to late bar injuries.
I’d like to see him there though, bit of a wasted talent.

Pie wrote:This is often cited as DC's best....mostly kicking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLQSc1sp4dE

Yeah everyone went nuts over that one and although a great performance it was more about how complete he is. Beat players through running chipping and passing on the way to the line, the goal kicks a bonus. I thought Barrett’s oz match last year was a better performance in terms of ball in hand. His MOTM against Ireland a couple of years ago was impressive. Did everything including hauling both SOB and van der flier down, scored and set up tries. Different players with Barrett the higher risk higher outcome value.

Thought this was interesting...have no idea how the input data into this can be accurate enough to gauge players of different positions...and Mo’unga has only just started playing well after a poor start. Must track the full list down.

Oh...its been out for a while, news to me...

https://index.rugbypass.com/

Taylorman wrote:Non test players are now entering the equation?.

He's more of a test player than Cruden is you drongo.

Benetton apparently a better team than both the Highlanders and the Chiefs. Hmmmm...

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Non test players are now entering the equation?.

He's more of a test player than Cruden is you drongo.

Aha...
Cruden- 50 tests, 3 losses, 91%
Cipriani- 16 tests, 8 losses, 50%

Cruden also spearheaded the only 100% calendar year to date in 2013 in Carters absence and as a test starter, won every test match he ever played.

Cips as a player, and person, isnt fit to tie crudens laces. Ones done it all at test level, the others a failed journeyman...at best. At least Cruden knew when to pick a time in his career to play less than hes capable of...later years when the moneys rolling in anyway. Cips? Partied and ran after buses when he should have focussed on being a good rugby player, and role model, where hes largely failed at both.

Your lack of knowledge and appreciation in this sport continues to astound.

Strike ten...

And persistent name calling, tut tut, no need for that now, I do try to keep to the topic. Ive the feeling youre trying to manifest some other personal issue here...these last few weeks have been a bit weird...now where did i read that?

Perhaps Folaus hit a nerve?

miaow wrote:Benetton apparently a better team than both the Highlanders and the Chiefs. Hmmmm...

Well theyre both struggling a bit this year. Never heard of benetton, thought it was a car or something like that.

Reiko at 72% is a tad low no matter what the criteria is.

Hahaha, na, just like discussing ideas, Taylor. You, on the other hand, are just spewing xenophobic turds on this forum.

Cipriani: Last cap - South Africa v England at Cape Town, Jun 23, 2018
Cruden: New Zealand v British and Irish Lions at Auckland, Jul 8, 2017

Pretty easy call in terms of whether one's currently more of a test player than the other...

Who said anything about current, we were discussing playmakers, namely carter and wilko, and pretty sure they arent current either. Cips is his own worse enemy so isnt even part of the discussion. Not good being a good playmaker when youre a crap professional. Standards miaow, standards. Cips doesnt have them, wilko, DC, cruden and barrett have them in spades.