AB RWC Squad
-
@canefan said in AB RWC Squad:
@bayimports said in AB RWC Squad:
@Bovidae said in AB RWC Squad:
I assume that there is still a stand-down period for replacement players? It will be interesting if Finau, Weber and Bell stay in the UK or return to NZ.
I suspect they will be touring..
Could be needed early too if a Fern sniper takes out the Ginger
Yup. Doesn't appear to be anything in the rules that stops us having a small group of players holed up somewhere in France, training by themselves, at least to keep fit just in case. That avoids the cross globe flight to join the squad if needed
The best thing is get them on a short term contract with a club, I don't think you can get away with having a few in country training, think the rules cover that.
-
@Chris-B said in AB RWC Squad:
@mariner4life said in AB RWC Squad:
@ACT-Crusader said in AB RWC Squad:
There are some pretty unlikely scenarios being thrown about. We have to operate with a smaller squad and yes the outside back contingency seems like overkill. But were they ever going to select 5 locks regardless? Nope. Hey we only took 3 locks to 2015!
i get this, but
As it stands, with Retallick out for 2 or 3 games, we have 3 locks and 5 loosies. You need a combination of 7 of these for every match. It just means that we're putting a lot of load on the first stringers early in the tournament.
It does help that the two hardest pool games are pretty early, and it's likely the top side plays them anyway. 1 more injury and you are out of options. two and you are out of players, not matter what their positions are.
I think the only significant problem is if one of the indispensable locks (or Frizell) gets a short run injury against South Africa. Then we'd go into the game against France with two big guys having to play 80 minutes and no proper injury cover.
Otherwise, we can surely manage short-handed vs the minnows and Italy - and Retallick hopefully back by then anyway.
But, why take the risk? The fifth wing will maximum play vs Namibia and Uruguay.
As much as anything it's the lack of logic that annoys me. I just can't see how you'd think this balance was the best idea (short of Will Jordan and a wing friend really are going by ship and they expect them to be stuck in Suez for some considerable time)!
Foster said it was all to do with training, which makes sense I guess. Even if the 33rd guy with a loose forward, he too would probably be limited to a couple of pool matches.
@frugby said in AB RWC Squad:
@Chris-B said in AB RWC Squad:
@mariner4life said in AB RWC Squad:
@ACT-Crusader said in AB RWC Squad:
There are some pretty unlikely scenarios being thrown about. We have to operate with a smaller squad and yes the outside back contingency seems like overkill. But were they ever going to select 5 locks regardless? Nope. Hey we only took 3 locks to 2015!
i get this, but
As it stands, with Retallick out for 2 or 3 games, we have 3 locks and 5 loosies. You need a combination of 7 of these for every match. It just means that we're putting a lot of load on the first stringers early in the tournament.
It does help that the two hardest pool games are pretty early, and it's likely the top side plays them anyway. 1 more injury and you are out of options. two and you are out of players, not matter what their positions are.
I think the only significant problem is if one of the indispensable locks (or Frizell) gets a short run injury against South Africa. Then we'd go into the game against France with two big guys having to play 80 minutes and no proper injury cover.
Otherwise, we can surely manage short-handed vs the minnows and Italy - and Retallick hopefully back by then anyway.
But, why take the risk? The fifth wing will maximum play vs Namibia and Uruguay.
As much as anything it's the lack of logic that annoys me. I just can't see how you'd think this balance was the best idea (short of Will Jordan and a wing friend really are going by ship and they expect them to be stuck in Suez for some considerable time)!
Foster said it was all to do with training, which makes sense I guess. Even if the 33rd guy with a loose forward, he too would probably be limited to a couple of pool matches.
It really doesn't make sense. It's Foster lip service again.
-
@frugby said in AB RWC Squad:
@Chris-B said in AB RWC Squad:
@mariner4life said in AB RWC Squad:
@ACT-Crusader said in AB RWC Squad:
There are some pretty unlikely scenarios being thrown about. We have to operate with a smaller squad and yes the outside back contingency seems like overkill. But were they ever going to select 5 locks regardless? Nope. Hey we only took 3 locks to 2015!
i get this, but
As it stands, with Retallick out for 2 or 3 games, we have 3 locks and 5 loosies. You need a combination of 7 of these for every match. It just means that we're putting a lot of load on the first stringers early in the tournament.
It does help that the two hardest pool games are pretty early, and it's likely the top side plays them anyway. 1 more injury and you are out of options. two and you are out of players, not matter what their positions are.
I think the only significant problem is if one of the indispensable locks (or Frizell) gets a short run injury against South Africa. Then we'd go into the game against France with two big guys having to play 80 minutes and no proper injury cover.
Otherwise, we can surely manage short-handed vs the minnows and Italy - and Retallick hopefully back by then anyway.
But, why take the risk? The fifth wing will maximum play vs Namibia and Uruguay.
As much as anything it's the lack of logic that annoys me. I just can't see how you'd think this balance was the best idea (short of Will Jordan and a wing friend really are going by ship and they expect them to be stuck in Suez for some considerable time)!
Foster said it was all to do with training, which makes sense I guess. Even if the 33rd guy with a loose forward, he too would probably be limited to a couple of pool matches.
It really doesn't make sense. It's Foster lip service again.
@Bones yep. Sure you need players to simulate in-game scenarios at training etc, but come on Fozzie, justifying your 5 wingers with that line is having a laff.
-
@Bones yep. Sure you need players to simulate in-game scenarios at training etc, but come on Fozzie, justifying your 5 wingers with that line is having a laff.
-
@Bones yep. Sure you need players to simulate in-game scenarios at training etc, but come on Fozzie, justifying your 5 wingers with that line is having a laff.
@ACT-Crusader said in AB RWC Squad:
@Bones yep. Sure you need players to simulate in-game scenarios at training etc, but come on Fozzie, justifying your 5 wingers with that line is having a laff.
Maybe LF's selection is based on the fact he can replicate wing/centre and blindside/skinny prop at a pinch in in-game situations?
-
@ACT-Crusader makes a huuuuuge difference having Roigard on the wing in defence situations you know, it's just not realistic is it?
@Bones said in AB RWC Squad:
@ACT-Crusader makes a huuuuuge difference having Roigard on the wing in defence situations you know, it's just not realistic is it?
it's funny you should say that, because that try of the year from a little while ago that featured both Weber and TJ Perenara in the play came up on my youtube feed just yesterday. Halfbacks make decent wingers when they have to be
-
@ACT-Crusader said in AB RWC Squad:
@Bones yep. Sure you need players to simulate in-game scenarios at training etc, but come on Fozzie, justifying your 5 wingers with that line is having a laff.
Maybe LF's selection is based on the fact he can replicate wing/centre and blindside/skinny prop at a pinch in in-game situations?
@Nepia said in AB RWC Squad:
@ACT-Crusader said in AB RWC Squad:
@Bones yep. Sure you need players to simulate in-game scenarios at training etc, but come on Fozzie, justifying your 5 wingers with that line is having a laff.
Maybe LF's selection is based on the fact he can replicate wing/centre and blindside/skinny prop at a pinch in in-game situations?
Jordie to lock?
-
heard an interview with Shag, he said lots of positive things on how we are going,
He highlighted the tight 5 as the big improvement on the 2019 squad, we can now exchange up front with the big boys as well as play expansive,
in regards to the number of outside backs, he said something like ,they are intelligent men they would have discussed it at length and will have their reasons, it could be in relation to the way they want to play , it could be they want to keep the likes of Reiko and Jordan in the roles they have been given and not have to be moved .
there was some shag sarcasm on the public always thinking they know better
-
Interesting fact from the last game
Note how Smith, at the completion of his 118th Test match, the last at his home ground, an occasion where he might reasonably have been celebrating with family and friends on the sideline, chose to do extra run-throughs with the non-playing Barrett family and other squad members.
-
Can they not bring in a winger to simply train with the team but no intention of playing or being part of the 33? Or is that against the rules? There must be plenty of NZ wingers floating around France.
@chimoaus said in AB RWC Squad:
Can they not bring in a winger to simply train with the team but no intention of playing or being part of the 33? Or is that against the rules? There must be plenty of NZ wingers floating around France.
They don't need to. Heck even one of the 47 coaches can stand on the blindside wing.
-
What worries me as well as being down one lock is Whitelocks Achilles if that flares up we are really exposed.
-
@Chris said in AB RWC Squad:
What worries me as well as being down one lock is Whitelocks Achilles if that flares up we are really exposed.
I assume he won't play the lesser teams, they might use a flanker as a lock
@canefan said in AB RWC Squad:
I assume he won't play the lesser teams, they might use a flanker as a lock
Maybe even a tall prop like Hayman in 2007. Lomax is taller than him
In two of the pool games it really doesn’t matter who we pick
-
What worries me as well as being down one lock is Whitelocks Achilles if that flares up we are really exposed.
@Chris said in AB RWC Squad:
What worries me as well as being down one lock is Whitelocks Achilles if that flares up we are really exposed.
Literally the ABs Achilles heel
-
@Chris-B said in AB RWC Squad:
@mariner4life said in AB RWC Squad:
@ACT-Crusader said in AB RWC Squad:
There are some pretty unlikely scenarios being thrown about. We have to operate with a smaller squad and yes the outside back contingency seems like overkill. But were they ever going to select 5 locks regardless? Nope. Hey we only took 3 locks to 2015!
i get this, but
As it stands, with Retallick out for 2 or 3 games, we have 3 locks and 5 loosies. You need a combination of 7 of these for every match. It just means that we're putting a lot of load on the first stringers early in the tournament.
It does help that the two hardest pool games are pretty early, and it's likely the top side plays them anyway. 1 more injury and you are out of options. two and you are out of players, not matter what their positions are.
I think the only significant problem is if one of the indispensable locks (or Frizell) gets a short run injury against South Africa. Then we'd go into the game against France with two big guys having to play 80 minutes and no proper injury cover.
Otherwise, we can surely manage short-handed vs the minnows and Italy - and Retallick hopefully back by then anyway.
But, why take the risk? The fifth wing will maximum play vs Namibia and Uruguay.
As much as anything it's the lack of logic that annoys me. I just can't see how you'd think this balance was the best idea (short of Will Jordan and a wing friend really are going by ship and they expect them to be stuck in Suez for some considerable time)!
Foster said it was all to do with training, which makes sense I guess. Even if the 33rd guy with a loose forward, he too would probably be limited to a couple of pool matches.
@frugby said in AB RWC Squad:
@Chris-B said in AB RWC Squad:
@mariner4life said in AB RWC Squad:
@ACT-Crusader said in AB RWC Squad:
There are some pretty unlikely scenarios being thrown about. We have to operate with a smaller squad and yes the outside back contingency seems like overkill. But were they ever going to select 5 locks regardless? Nope. Hey we only took 3 locks to 2015!
i get this, but
As it stands, with Retallick out for 2 or 3 games, we have 3 locks and 5 loosies. You need a combination of 7 of these for every match. It just means that we're putting a lot of load on the first stringers early in the tournament.
It does help that the two hardest pool games are pretty early, and it's likely the top side plays them anyway. 1 more injury and you are out of options. two and you are out of players, not matter what their positions are.
I think the only significant problem is if one of the indispensable locks (or Frizell) gets a short run injury against South Africa. Then we'd go into the game against France with two big guys having to play 80 minutes and no proper injury cover.
Otherwise, we can surely manage short-handed vs the minnows and Italy - and Retallick hopefully back by then anyway.
But, why take the risk? The fifth wing will maximum play vs Namibia and Uruguay.
As much as anything it's the lack of logic that annoys me. I just can't see how you'd think this balance was the best idea (short of Will Jordan and a wing friend really are going by ship and they expect them to be stuck in Suez for some considerable time)!
Foster said it was all to do with training, which makes sense I guess. Even if the 33rd guy with a loose forward, he too would probably be limited to a couple of pool matches.
I kind of struggle to see that having a 15th back to help out with training is going to outweigh the value of having someone like Josh Lord available to sit on the bench if we were to end up with only two locks available vs France.
Usually, I can at least see the logic behind Fozzie's selections, but this one has me beat.
-
@frugby said in AB RWC Squad:
@Chris-B said in AB RWC Squad:
@mariner4life said in AB RWC Squad:
@ACT-Crusader said in AB RWC Squad:
There are some pretty unlikely scenarios being thrown about. We have to operate with a smaller squad and yes the outside back contingency seems like overkill. But were they ever going to select 5 locks regardless? Nope. Hey we only took 3 locks to 2015!
i get this, but
As it stands, with Retallick out for 2 or 3 games, we have 3 locks and 5 loosies. You need a combination of 7 of these for every match. It just means that we're putting a lot of load on the first stringers early in the tournament.
It does help that the two hardest pool games are pretty early, and it's likely the top side plays them anyway. 1 more injury and you are out of options. two and you are out of players, not matter what their positions are.
I think the only significant problem is if one of the indispensable locks (or Frizell) gets a short run injury against South Africa. Then we'd go into the game against France with two big guys having to play 80 minutes and no proper injury cover.
Otherwise, we can surely manage short-handed vs the minnows and Italy - and Retallick hopefully back by then anyway.
But, why take the risk? The fifth wing will maximum play vs Namibia and Uruguay.
As much as anything it's the lack of logic that annoys me. I just can't see how you'd think this balance was the best idea (short of Will Jordan and a wing friend really are going by ship and they expect them to be stuck in Suez for some considerable time)!
Foster said it was all to do with training, which makes sense I guess. Even if the 33rd guy with a loose forward, he too would probably be limited to a couple of pool matches.
I kind of struggle to see that having a 15th back to help out with training is going to outweigh the value of having someone like Josh Lord available to sit on the bench if we were to end up with only two locks available vs France.
Usually, I can at least see the logic behind Fozzie's selections, but this one has me beat.
@Chris-B said in AB RWC Squad:
@frugby said in AB RWC Squad:
@Chris-B said in AB RWC Squad:
@mariner4life said in AB RWC Squad:
@ACT-Crusader said in AB RWC Squad:
There are some pretty unlikely scenarios being thrown about. We have to operate with a smaller squad and yes the outside back contingency seems like overkill. But were they ever going to select 5 locks regardless? Nope. Hey we only took 3 locks to 2015!
i get this, but
As it stands, with Retallick out for 2 or 3 games, we have 3 locks and 5 loosies. You need a combination of 7 of these for every match. It just means that we're putting a lot of load on the first stringers early in the tournament.
It does help that the two hardest pool games are pretty early, and it's likely the top side plays them anyway. 1 more injury and you are out of options. two and you are out of players, not matter what their positions are.
I think the only significant problem is if one of the indispensable locks (or Frizell) gets a short run injury against South Africa. Then we'd go into the game against France with two big guys having to play 80 minutes and no proper injury cover.
Otherwise, we can surely manage short-handed vs the minnows and Italy - and Retallick hopefully back by then anyway.
But, why take the risk? The fifth wing will maximum play vs Namibia and Uruguay.
As much as anything it's the lack of logic that annoys me. I just can't see how you'd think this balance was the best idea (short of Will Jordan and a wing friend really are going by ship and they expect them to be stuck in Suez for some considerable time)!
Foster said it was all to do with training, which makes sense I guess. Even if the 33rd guy with a loose forward, he too would probably be limited to a couple of pool matches.
I kind of struggle to see that having a 15th back to help out with training is going to outweigh the value of having someone like Josh Lord available to sit on the bench if we were to end up with only two locks available vs France.
Usually, I can at least see the logic behind Fozzie's selections, but this one has me beat.
Especially when they can and are taking extra players. So, why not take an extra outside to help with training and guarantee having enough locks/loosies?
Got me beat.
I wonder whether it is as simple as that they couldn't decide between Leicester, Emoni, and Caleb so took them all.
