Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread
Prev 1 | ... | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | ... | 354 Next
networkn
# 1606431 8-Aug-2016 16:46
JonnyCam:
networkn:
I wonder what happens with our #10's now. If BB gets a starting position, where does that leave Cruden? Our third choice (Injury cover)? He isn't a bench player since he has no utility value, so I am thinking potentially Sopoaga goes on the pine. Bit tough on Cruden as I think he had a pretty good
season with the Chiefs.
Sapoaga - does he also have utility value? Sure, he moved out to 12 vs the Lions once Osborne went off, and I think he's played at FB once in a pinch, but he's just a straight number 10.
Yeah I'd be inclined to agree actually, but are we going to put 2 dedicated 10's out of a job to make way for Barrett? (And realistically who would then be promoted?) There have been rumors that Barrett has said that if he earns a starting position (Which I think he has easily done this year) and doesn't get one, he is going to consider his overseas options, which it would be hard not to agree with. Having said that, the AB's are about team first, and Barrett's impact from the bench is undeniable. As good as the Hurricanes have been, I don't think they have had too many battles where they have really had to grind for 60+ minutes to get an opening in the last 10-20 minutes, and I don't really see Barrett in that grind role. Maybe that's wrong or unfair, but it's my impression.
Yeah, the grind is essentially the Cane vs Savea argument. Cane does a lot less of the running stuff, but gets stuck in to tackling / hitting rucks etc (not that Ardie doesn't)
Right, which is why I prefer Cane (Todd) over Savea to start. Difference is, I don't think (at least for now) Savea is going to mind coming off the bench.
tukapa1
Why are we putting two dedicated 10's out of a job if Barrett starts?
I don't think there's any doubt that Barrett is the form 10 at the moment. But you don't consider him a 10? We're only puttng one 10 out of a job if Barrett starts and Cruden/Sopoaga are on the bench (personally I hope it's Sopoaga). All three of them are 10's.
If you want to bring one off the pine you drop Barrett back to fullback.
tukapa1:
The bench is not merely for subs taking the place of unexpected injury.
You have 3 backs on the bench to make a big impact to shake the opposition. One of them has to be a half back, that leaves 2.
Unfortunately Cruden and Sopoaga neither of them are impact players.
Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.
joker97:
I don't think there's any doubt that Barrett is the form 10 at the moment. But you don't consider him a 10? We're only putting one 10 out of a job if Barrett starts and Cruden/Sopoaga are on the bench (personally I hope it's Sopoaga). All three of them are 10's.
Presuming you take the 5/3 split, you have a halfback, a first five and a midfielder. Either one, or preferably both, of the first five/midfielder have to be able to cover an outside back. For example - subs Perenara, Sopoaga and Moala. Barrett can drop to the back and provide impact even if he starts at 10. Moala can play midfield or on the wing. Smith can play on the wing if Barrett is at fullback. Sopoaga could play 12 at a push (not that you'd want that)...
I'm saying that Barrett can provide impact moving to the back with 20-30 minutes to go. Clearly I wasn't talking about somebody to replace Barrett if he gets injured, because he will be at fullback (the only time I would move Ben Smith to the wing).
I don't believe, with a 5/3 split, that you can afford to take a specialist outside back on the bench.
The ABs have been doing 5/3 for about a decade, so I don't see them changing.
Secondly, I don't know how amazing BB is, but I doubt any normal human can be running around like crazy for 60 minutes and then give impact by switching to fullback. Impact is by definition fresh legs.
Look you can come up with whatever line up you want, but I'm saying I think that's how Steve thinks, but I actually don't know how he thinks.
More bad news for Zac Guilford. I really feel for this guy, I hope he can find a way to live with his demons.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/provincial/82977063/tasman-makos-part-ways-with-winger-zac-guildford
The AB's have not traditionally played 2 specialist 10's in their 23. It's usually specialist 10 to start and utility 10 off the bench, at least for the past quite a number of years.
If Barrett starts then based on that, Soponga and Cruden don't have a place.
I do consider Barrett a 10 (But a utility 10 rather than a specialist 10), and certainly a better 10 than a 15, though he is good in both places. I also think he would be handy on the wing.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/provincial/82983703/provincial-rugbys-new-laws-get-tentative-thumbs-up-from-coaches
I'll be interested to see a game where these rules are applied.
I need to see an animation. Don't quite get it. sounds the same to me, only different.
Anyone seen the Australia womens' 7s try that supposedly wasn't?
I thought it was ok, it left her hand momentarily, but she got to it and slammed it to the ground .... ??
I'd have disallowed it, even if the shoe had been on the other foot. Australia still won it. We had a brainfart which cost us a player, that was the difference.
Ok ignore my post just saw it from a proper angle definitely list forwards. Oops don't trust one angle.
Handle9
This is 100% incorrect. The All blacks always have two specialist fly halves/goal kickers in their squad - anyone remember Steven Donald in 2011? It's just in the last couple of years that it's been Barrett who has another dimension to his play.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Tri_Nations_Series
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Rugby_Championship
Well, I guess it's up to Hansen to use him as impact or find another suitor ... we'll just have to wait and find out!