All Blacks XV 2022
-
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Nepia i dont think we have dont it to screw over another country...i definitely think we've done it "just in case" so we know they are available for us if 1st 2nd 3rd choice go down
I don't believe that is true at all. Coaches select players they think are good enough, and in most cases a player of PI heritage is just any other NZ player and their selection is based only on that. There's likely been many non PI heritage players selected like this as well.
@Nepia no one thought PGS was going to become a 100 test AB, at absolute best he was picked on current form but even then he didnt start and hasn't been seen since, definitely seems like a "just in case" kind of situation
-
@Nepia see Aumua has more right to be an AB than say Reece, and players who follow the path Reece, PGS et al have taken, is not ideal IMO, but these guys are adults and can make thier own decisions, although again you'd hope someone is giving them advice in that regard, although at that level, these guys must believe in thier ability and know that of others to the point they believe they can become a multi test AB than just a few?
Reece has played way more than I expected him to!
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks XV:
@Nepia see Aumua has more right to be an AB than say Reece
If you are available for selection it is because you have made yourself so.
No one available for selection has a greater “right” than others. -
@Nepia no one thought PGS was going to become a 100 test AB, at absolute best he was picked on current form but even then he didnt start and hasn't been seen since, definitely seems like a "just in case" kind of situation
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Nepia no one thought PGS was going to become a 100 test AB, at absolute best he was picked on current form but even then he didnt start and hasn't been seen since, definitely seems like a "just in case" kind of situation
I agree with @Nepia that players aren’t selected with a view to lock them in. They are selected because they are available to be and because the selectors think they will serve a purpose.
There’s no conspiracy here. -
@Nepia no one thought PGS was going to become a 100 test AB, at absolute best he was picked on current form but even then he didnt start and hasn't been seen since, definitely seems like a "just in case" kind of situation
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Nepia no one thought PGS was going to become a 100 test AB, at absolute best he was picked on current form but even then he didnt start and hasn't been seen since, definitely seems like a "just in case" kind of situation
That's just a poor selection. We didn't need to lock in a loose forward just in case, we pump them out frequently and there's a number of non AB loosies floating around who could have had that same punt taken on them.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Nepia no one thought PGS was going to become a 100 test AB, at absolute best he was picked on current form but even then he didnt start and hasn't been seen since, definitely seems like a "just in case" kind of situation
I agree with @Nepia that players aren’t selected with a view to lock them in. They are selected because they are available to be and because the selectors think they will serve a purpose.
There’s no conspiracy here.@Crucial i dont think its a conspiracy, no one is doing things in secret or underhand
I just dont think every single player we've capped had the potential to be a great and were selected as you say to serve a purpose, some obviously have little chance of started ahead of others in the position...so they have a certain extent of "just in case about them"
-
@Crucial i dont think its a conspiracy, no one is doing things in secret or underhand
I just dont think every single player we've capped had the potential to be a great and were selected as you say to serve a purpose, some obviously have little chance of started ahead of others in the position...so they have a certain extent of "just in case about them"
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial i dont think its a conspiracy, no one is doing things in secret or underhand
I just dont think every single player we've capped had the potential to be a great and were selected as you say to serve a purpose, some obviously have little chance of started ahead of others in the position...so they have a certain extent of "just in case about them"
I may be reading it wrong but back a few posts you suggested that some players were being selected to lock them in “just in case”.
I agree that some are selected with view of introducing them to higher levels just in case, but not to lock them in -
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial i dont think its a conspiracy, no one is doing things in secret or underhand
I just dont think every single player we've capped had the potential to be a great and were selected as you say to serve a purpose, some obviously have little chance of started ahead of others in the position...so they have a certain extent of "just in case about them"
I may be reading it wrong but back a few posts you suggested that some players were being selected to lock them in “just in case”.
I agree that some are selected with view of introducing them to higher levels just in case, but not to lock them in@Crucial feels like semantics now, yeah, i think some people are selected "just in case" as in building depth. and some times that depth goes past the obvious selections, i feel in the past the 4th or 5th choice or a bolter for a position was normally someone young so you were developing long term talent...but now it feels like we are just as likely to see a 28 year old come out of the blue...they cant be seen as a long term option
using PGS again as the example...it wasn;t a mistake, they didnt select him as an accident, he was chosen to at most play 20min, in the past i think we would have had someone younger come on to play 10 minute bursts and you could legitimately say they were selected with the potential to go on and play more.
So yeah, sometime i think they freak out that we might not have the depth they want and so they pick people just in case that depth is needed
im probably not wording it right, its not a conspiracy or underhanded, but my original point, theyre not telling 28 year olds they dont have a shot, because they want everyone to hold out for their shot at the best rugby team in history...just in case their needed
-
@Crucial feels like semantics now, yeah, i think some people are selected "just in case" as in building depth. and some times that depth goes past the obvious selections, i feel in the past the 4th or 5th choice or a bolter for a position was normally someone young so you were developing long term talent...but now it feels like we are just as likely to see a 28 year old come out of the blue...they cant be seen as a long term option
using PGS again as the example...it wasn;t a mistake, they didnt select him as an accident, he was chosen to at most play 20min, in the past i think we would have had someone younger come on to play 10 minute bursts and you could legitimately say they were selected with the potential to go on and play more.
So yeah, sometime i think they freak out that we might not have the depth they want and so they pick people just in case that depth is needed
im probably not wording it right, its not a conspiracy or underhanded, but my original point, theyre not telling 28 year olds they dont have a shot, because they want everyone to hold out for their shot at the best rugby team in history...just in case their needed
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial feels like semantics now, yeah, i think some people are selected "just in case" as in building depth. and some times that depth goes past the obvious selections, i feel in the past the 4th or 5th choice or a bolter for a position was normally someone young so you were developing long term talent...but now it feels like we are just as likely to see a 28 year old come out of the blue...they cant be seen as a long term option
using PGS again as the example...it wasn;t a mistake, they didnt select him as an accident, he was chosen to at most play 20min, in the past i think we would have had someone younger come on to play 10 minute bursts and you could legitimately say they were selected with the potential to go on and play more.
So yeah, sometime i think they freak out that we might not have the depth they want and so they pick people just in case that depth is needed
im probably not wording it right, its not a conspiracy or underhanded, but my original point, theyre not telling 28 year olds they dont have a shot, because they want everyone to hold out for their shot at the best rugby team in history...just in case their needed
I don’t have an argument with any of that and won’t accuse you of backtracking. Just thought the the discussion had veered into the use of selection to deliberately lock in players with other options. Apologies if I concluded incorrectly
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks XV:
@Nepia see Aumua has more right to be an AB than say Reece
If you are available for selection it is because you have made yourself so.
No one available for selection has a greater “right” than others. -
It's up to the players to make that personal decision, and you would hope that Aumua is getting the right advice from his agent etc. There are a number of midfielders ahead of him before he would get anywhere near the ABs.
@Bovidae said in All Blacks XV:
It's up to the players to make that personal decision, and you would hope that Aumua is getting the right advice from his agent etc. There are a number of midfielders ahead of him before he would get anywhere near the ABs.
I think a lot of us forget, that many players that have turned out for Samoa haven't got paid or waited a fair while to get any. I think perhaps his agent could just be advising him to hang off until he sees how wind blows.
-
@Crucial you know thats not how I was meaning it.
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial you know thats not how I was meaning it.
Hey, it was your words!
If that’s not what you meant that’s great but don’t blame me for what you wrote.
As I have told the missus for decades, I’m not a mind reader. -
@Crucial feels like semantics now, yeah, i think some people are selected "just in case" as in building depth. and some times that depth goes past the obvious selections, i feel in the past the 4th or 5th choice or a bolter for a position was normally someone young so you were developing long term talent...but now it feels like we are just as likely to see a 28 year old come out of the blue...they cant be seen as a long term option
using PGS again as the example...it wasn;t a mistake, they didnt select him as an accident, he was chosen to at most play 20min, in the past i think we would have had someone younger come on to play 10 minute bursts and you could legitimately say they were selected with the potential to go on and play more.
So yeah, sometime i think they freak out that we might not have the depth they want and so they pick people just in case that depth is needed
im probably not wording it right, its not a conspiracy or underhanded, but my original point, theyre not telling 28 year olds they dont have a shot, because they want everyone to hold out for their shot at the best rugby team in history...just in case their needed
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial feels like semantics now, yeah, i think some people are selected "just in case" as in building depth. and some times that depth goes past the obvious selections, i feel in the past the 4th or 5th choice or a bolter for a position was normally someone young so you were developing long term talent...but now it feels like we are just as likely to see a 28 year old come out of the blue...they cant be seen as a long term option
using PGS again as the example...it wasn;t a mistake, they didnt select him as an accident, he was chosen to at most play 20min, in the past i think we would have had someone younger come on to play 10 minute bursts and you could legitimately say they were selected with the potential to go on and play more.
On PGS has anyone heard much on the rumour, he perhaps played up a bit at training, and perhaps may have a lot to do with not making even AB XV
-
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial feels like semantics now, yeah, i think some people are selected "just in case" as in building depth. and some times that depth goes past the obvious selections, i feel in the past the 4th or 5th choice or a bolter for a position was normally someone young so you were developing long term talent...but now it feels like we are just as likely to see a 28 year old come out of the blue...they cant be seen as a long term option
using PGS again as the example...it wasn;t a mistake, they didnt select him as an accident, he was chosen to at most play 20min, in the past i think we would have had someone younger come on to play 10 minute bursts and you could legitimately say they were selected with the potential to go on and play more.
On PGS has anyone heard much on the rumour, he perhaps played up a bit at training, and perhaps may have a lot to do with not making even AB XV
@Dan54 said in All Blacks XV:
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial feels like semantics now, yeah, i think some people are selected "just in case" as in building depth. and some times that depth goes past the obvious selections, i feel in the past the 4th or 5th choice or a bolter for a position was normally someone young so you were developing long term talent...but now it feels like we are just as likely to see a 28 year old come out of the blue...they cant be seen as a long term option
using PGS again as the example...it wasn;t a mistake, they didnt select him as an accident, he was chosen to at most play 20min, in the past i think we would have had someone younger come on to play 10 minute bursts and you could legitimately say they were selected with the potential to go on and play more.
On PGS has anyone heard much on the rumour, he perhaps played up a bit at training, and perhaps may have a lot to do with not making even AB XV
It was mentioned in a press article that there were some minor indiscretions when in camp but it was also stated that they had no impact on his selections (or not). That’s all I have heard.
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial you know thats not how I was meaning it.
Hey, it was your words!
If that’s not what you meant that’s great but don’t blame me for what you wrote.
As I have told the missus for decades, I’m not a mind reader.@Crucial well if you take just that line you quoted and not read all of what I said, then yeah it could be taken how you thought I did.
-
Drummond, of course.
On form, I'd pick Roe over Ratima. He would also offer something different to TJP and Roigard.
@Bovidae said in All Blacks XV:
Drummond, of course.
On form, I'd pick Roe over Ratima. He would also offer something different to TJP and Roigard.
On NPC season form I’d agree. I thought that Ratima played much better after a while though.
What I like about Ratima is that when on song he brings a more robust game. The ABs obviously prefer a certain style though and Roe fits that better -
Not Willi Heinz? Thought they would rush him in. I think Ratima became a bit hesitant this season but improved at the end. I think Roe has best kicking game in nz for a 9 but do admit he could be more robust.
@ARHS said in All Blacks XV:
Not Willi Heinz? Thought they would rush him in. I think Ratima became a bit hesitant this season but improved at the end. I think Roe has best kicking game in nz for a 9 but do admit he could be more robust.
Hasn't he played for England?
Edit: 13 times
-
@Crucial feels like semantics now, yeah, i think some people are selected "just in case" as in building depth. and some times that depth goes past the obvious selections, i feel in the past the 4th or 5th choice or a bolter for a position was normally someone young so you were developing long term talent...but now it feels like we are just as likely to see a 28 year old come out of the blue...they cant be seen as a long term option
using PGS again as the example...it wasn;t a mistake, they didnt select him as an accident, he was chosen to at most play 20min, in the past i think we would have had someone younger come on to play 10 minute bursts and you could legitimately say they were selected with the potential to go on and play more.
So yeah, sometime i think they freak out that we might not have the depth they want and so they pick people just in case that depth is needed
im probably not wording it right, its not a conspiracy or underhanded, but my original point, theyre not telling 28 year olds they dont have a shot, because they want everyone to hold out for their shot at the best rugby team in history...just in case their needed
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks XV:
@Crucial feels like semantics now, yeah, i think some people are selected "just in case" as in building depth. and some times that depth goes past the obvious selections, i feel in the past the 4th or 5th choice or a bolter for a position was normally someone young so you were developing long term talent...but now it feels like we are just as likely to see a 28 year old come out of the blue...they cant be seen as a long term option
I guess it depends on what your definition of long term option is. Let’s say Aumua makes the ABs because of a combination of his form and injury to one or two others (not an unusual path) and he finds his feet in test footy quickly. He could still have 5 or even 6 years of test footy (some recent ABs have played till 34 or 35).
That would be a lot more than past ABs who were selected at 22 or 23 who have played a few tests, been on the fringe for a year or two and then gone overseas to play club footy as an “All Black International”.
The thing with pro team sport selections is that it’s subjective and each is on its merits for the particular circumstances. Let’s not forget we have had injuries galore in the midfield over a number of years so building depth would be a priority for any coach/selector.
using PGS again as the example...it wasn;t a mistake, they didnt select him as an accident, he was chosen to at most play 20min, in the past i think we would have had someone younger come on to play 10 minute bursts and you could legitimately say they were selected with the potential to go on and play more.
One could easily argue that the PGS was a genuine look because we had for arguments sake player X who was in and out because of injury and player Y who they weren’t sure about and player Z playing lock and filling in. Again this sort of selection has been a feature on the past. If you start looking at other factors like who the player is also eligible to play for or worrying about “will they actually be long term”, then you might miss something that will help you immediately.
So yeah, sometime i think they freak out that we might not have the depth they want and so they pick people just in case that depth is needed
Been happening for the last 15 years since the evolution of the full use of the 22/23. I’d say but don’t have any hard data to back it up, but injuries are far more common so not being caught out is pretty important.
