@rotated said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
Guess we can lock this thread then?
The title was too long, and the content of the first post, really.
One try that wasn't a break out from their own half wasn't it? Conceded three.
Problem solved.
Huh?
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
Guess we can lock this thread then?
The title was too long, and the content of the first post, really.
Tl;dr
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@rotated said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
Guess we can lock this thread then?
The title was too long, and the content of the first post, really.
One try that wasn't a break out from their own half wasn't it? Conceded three.
Problem solved.
Huh?
A shit ton of broken field tries in a single game doesn't address the main issues discussed in this thread.
@rotated said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@rotated said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
Guess we can lock this thread then?
The title was too long, and the content of the first post, really.
One try that wasn't a break out from their own half wasn't it? Conceded three.
Problem solved.
Huh?
A shit ton of broken field tries in a single game doesn't address the main issues discussed in this thread.
I agree. Just not sure why you're quoting me about it.
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@rotated said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@rotated said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
Guess we can lock this thread then?
The title was too long, and the content of the first post, really.
One try that wasn't a break out from their own half wasn't it? Conceded three.
Problem solved.
Huh?
A shit ton of broken field tries in a single game doesn't address the main issues discussed in this thread.
I agree. Just not sure why you're quoting me about it.
I interpreted the lock the thread comment as being due to the win on Saturday night. If not my mistake.
@rotated said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@rotated said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@rotated said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
Guess we can lock this thread then?
The title was too long, and the content of the first post, really.
One try that wasn't a break out from their own half wasn't it? Conceded three.
Problem solved.
Huh?
A shit ton of broken field tries in a single game doesn't address the main issues discussed in this thread.
I agree. Just not sure why you're quoting me about it.
I interpreted the lock the thread comment as being due to the win on Saturday night. If not my mistake.
Ah gotcha!
Look it is hard to keep up with exactly where the bitching starts and stops with you guys. 35 point flogging and people still want to yeet a bloke.
Tough crowd.
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@rotated said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@rotated said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@rotated said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
Guess we can lock this thread then?
The title was too long, and the content of the first post, really.
One try that wasn't a break out from their own half wasn't it? Conceded three.
Problem solved.
Huh?
A shit ton of broken field tries in a single game doesn't address the main issues discussed in this thread.
I agree. Just not sure why you're quoting me about it.
I interpreted the lock the thread comment as being due to the win on Saturday night. If not my mistake.
Ah gotcha!
Look it is hard to keep up with exactly where the bitching starts and stops with you guys. 35 point flogging and people still want to yeet a bloke.
Tough crowd.
When you've been knocked out of three consecutive World Cups by a side that you put 50+ on earlier in the year you learn to take those wins with a grain of salt.
@rotated said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@rotated said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@rotated said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@rotated said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
Guess we can lock this thread then?
The title was too long, and the content of the first post, really.
One try that wasn't a break out from their own half wasn't it? Conceded three.
Problem solved.
Huh?
A shit ton of broken field tries in a single game doesn't address the main issues discussed in this thread.
I agree. Just not sure why you're quoting me about it.
I interpreted the lock the thread comment as being due to the win on Saturday night. If not my mistake.
Ah gotcha!
Look it is hard to keep up with exactly where the bitching starts and stops with you guys. 35 point flogging and people still want to yeet a bloke.
Tough crowd.
When you've been knocked out of three consecutive World Cups by a side that you put 50+ on earlier in the year you learn to take those wins with a grain of salt.
Never put your gift in a horse's mouth. Or something.
@nta said in [Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the > Look it is hard to keep up with exactly where the bitching starts and stops with you guys. 35 point flogging and people still want to yeet a bloke.
Tough crowd.
Spot on. All black dominance is built on high standards. I don't think we're improving much at the moment, and the coaching is showing all the issues we had oer the last few years. Foster is a serviceable coach, but we should not accept 'serviceable'... and the manner of his appointment means that some change is needed.
I'm in the wrong thread, but while stoked with the win, it papers over some of the issues we have struggled with for a few years
back to the title of the topic, there is one other question (at least) and sorry if already discussed: but was it a good idea to name Cane captain? Seems to me Sam Whitelock has a. been good and b. consistently starting.
What if Foster actually isn't that good a head coach and decent assistant coaches don't want that risk to their reputation?
I don't have much to go on here, just the playing of the Chiefs and the ABs..
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nzzp you haven't had a decent first-phase attack since the McCaw era. Living off counterattack works until nobody gives you the ball.
Who would’ve thought Eddie Jones could have successfully deployed that exact game plan in 2003 AND in 2019
@junior said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nzzp you haven't had a decent first-phase attack since the McCaw era. Living off counterattack works until nobody gives you the ball.
Who would’ve thought Eddie Jones could have successfully deployed that exact game plan in 2003 AND in 2019
Mils scored in 2003. We wuz robbed.
@junior said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nta said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@nzzp you haven't had a decent first-phase attack since the McCaw era. Living off counterattack works until nobody gives you the ball.
Who would’ve thought Eddie Jones could have successfully deployed that exact game plan in 2003 AND in 2019
In terms of us having no answer to the two opensides was particularly annoying given that Hansen had made the call to have Cane and Ardie together which yielded good results in prior matches and then did not stick to it. That said we got basically three of the worst AB outings from Read, Rettalick and Whitelock individually and collectively and it was always going to be uphill. Ardie was probably our best forward at the World Cup and plays way above his weight, and I am liking the combination with him and Akira in particular, not really understanding the Ardie hate.
Mo'unga seems liberated by the confidence of being told that he is the undisputed10 rather than all this pussy fotting about trying to cram all the glittering guys into the same side.
I totally agree with the sentiments expressed. Nice result saturday but our balance in the loosies and from 12 out is still fucked.
Ruby is effectively a simple game and that's the way the best teams play it.
@dogmeat said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
Mo'unga seems liberated by the confidence of being told that he is the undisputed10 rather than all this pussy fotting about trying to cram all the glittering guys into the same side.
I totally agree with the sentiments expressed. Nice result saturday but our balance in the loosies and from 12 out is still fucked.
Ruby is effectively a simple game and that's the way the best teams play it.
Yes I think he played well, I do question whether he should hide in the backline though.
@nostrildamus said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@dogmeat said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
Mo'unga seems liberated by the confidence of being told that he is the undisputed10 rather than all this pussy fotting about trying to cram all the glittering guys into the same side.
I totally agree with the sentiments expressed. Nice result saturday but our balance in the loosies and from 12 out is still fucked.
Ruby is effectively a simple game and that's the way the best teams play it.
Yes I think he played well, I do question whether he should hide in the backline though.
I hate watching AB teams do that.
I don't think players are actually hidden out in backline, I have impression that most coaches are using their 10s as second 15 for opposition kicks, and so put 10 out on wing so he can more available at back. RMo seems to be a pretty handy tackler etc. If you keep an eye on a lot of teams in defence that is what they do, don't think it hiding but keeping attacking players available to set up counter attack or to kick back.
@dan54 said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
I don't think players are actually hidden out in backline, I have impression that most coaches are using their 10s as second 15 for opposition kicks, and so put 10 out on wing so he can more available at back. RMo seems to be a pretty handy tackler etc. If you keep an eye on a lot of teams in defence that is what they do, don't think it hiding but keeping attacking players available to set up counter attack or to kick back.
I hate to say it, but I actually agree with you on this one.
For all my criticism of RM being hidden on the wing, it was interesting to note that he was being put at centre defending from set piece (DH was at 10, RI, then RM) and when BB came on they did the same with him.
They weren't doing that in the first test were they? Was that the reponse for RM's bad miss from the lineout in Bled 1?
@kirwan said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
For all my criticism of RM being hidden on the wing, it was interesting to note that he was being put at centre defending from set piece (DH was at 10, RI, then RM) and when BB came on they did the same with him.
They weren't doing that in the first test were they? Was that the reponse for RM's bad miss from the lineout in Bled 1?
I don’t think it was a bad missed tackle at that lineout, more that he misread it by going for an intercept but was caught out. That was a high risk option.
In relation to the broader point about our setup, it has been a feature for some time, probably half way during the Carter era, that we have dropped our 1st 5 back in hope to get 4 of our best attacking players (1st 5, fullback and wings) back behind the ball to attack with. Been a pretty successful ploy and one that other teams for the most part have struggled to emulate.
Agree with this long winded post with regards to lack of balance, sectorial pig-rootery and guys being shoe-horned in.
I think we all know I believe Savea is our best 7, including when Cane is available. He's certainly not an international 8. And if you believe he's not good enough defensively at 7 then he's far from an 8, and probably not even in the 23. But I'd have him as my 7 as I value highly his skills over the ball and as a link man. I don't see Papali'i as a 7 any more than the likes of Blackadder, but at the moment he's a fantastic utility loosie.
At 8 I'm starting to like Jacobson, but I also think they should invest in Papali'i getting a crack there. I've gone off Sotutu and was never much of a Ioane fan although credit to his improvement at 6. I'll be interested to see if Grace comes back strongly next year with some time off now to build into it. But Jacobson appears our best option here.
At 6 I think Frizzel has had plenty of opportunity and hasnt converted. I had high hopes for Fifita but he's now goooone. I'm also keener on Papali'i here than 7. Ioane seems to have done enough to hold this spot though and offers the requisite height which few if any other candidates have. Blackadder is another who can be considered here.
So my current trio is Jasobsen, Savea and Ioane with Papali'i off the bench.
@shark said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
I think we all know I believe Savea is our best 7, including when Cane is available.
Doing what though? Offensively and over the ball, probably. But defensively, Cane and Papali'i are much better. So much depends on the other two, and the game plan you want to play.
If you have tall defensive 6+8, then Savea's the man. If not, then you'd be looking at Cane or Dalton.
Separately, I've been very impressed with Papali'i - this year. He's quietly put together an absolutely storming season and slotted well into the Black jersey
@nzzp said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@shark said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
I think we all know I believe Savea is our best 7, including when Cane is available.
Doing what though? Offensively and over the ball, probably. But defensively, Cane and Papali'i are much better. So much depends on the other two, and the game plan you want to play.
If you have tall defensive 6+8, then Savea's the man. If not, then you'd be looking at Cane or Dalton.
Separately, I've been very impressed with Papali'i - this year. He's quietly put together an absolutely storming season and slotted well into the Black jersey
You shouldn't have to rely on the 7 for defense to the same extent as the 6 and 8, for whom it's an absolute pre requisite. If we're happy with Ioane's offering at 6 and Jacobsen's at 8 then Savea slots in perfectly at 7. If we're not happy with the D from the 6 and 8 then we need to review our options there and Papali'i becomes a real possibility.
It is interesting at 8, and I'm not sure everyone here thinks Savea is ahead of Cane at 7 or that doesnt suit Paps (I think he had a good and so-so game there and I'd say Savea and Cane suit different types of 7 play) but anyway I'd sugget our main problem isn't really the loosies but the selection, management, and depth of the tight forwards.
We're definitely flush with options in the loosies but lack clear specialists, and we lack experience across the board aside from Ardie and Cane.
We don’t want to be debating about the now but more about the goal which I assume would be 2023. Ask ourselves what sort of players will Ardie and Cane be in two years as opposed to Paps and Jacobson. Hopefully we will get to play the Boks this year to see where we are really at. Two years out from the WC we are rapidly running out of time to blood new players in the backline so apart from DMac who is off to Japan would suggest the current backline is probably it just not sure in what combinations. Not even sure Goodhue will be back in the mix but hope so
@dmx said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
How about we change nothing and tell Ardie to have 7 on his jersey , Ioane 8 and Papali'i 6 and I am guessing that would make everyone happy.
Ioane 6, Cane/Papali'i 7, Jacobson 8, Savea 20.
@shark said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
Agree with this long winded post with regards to lack of balance, sectorial pig-rootery and guys being shoe-horned in.
I think we all know I believe Savea is our best 7, including when Cane is available. He's certainly not an international 8. And if you believe he's not good enough defensively at 7 then he's far from an 8, and probably not even in the 23. But I'd have him as my 7 as I value highly his skills over the ball and as a link man. I don't see Papali'i as a 7 any more than the likes of Blackadder, but at the moment he's a fantastic utility loosie.
At 8 I'm starting to like Jacobson, but I also think they should invest in Papali'i getting a crack there. I've gone off Sotutu and was never much of a Ioane fan although credit to his improvement at 6. I'll be interested to see if Grace comes back strongly next year with some time off now to build into it. But Jacobson appears our best option here.
At 6 I think Frizzel has had plenty of opportunity and hasnt converted. I had high hopes for Fifita but he's now goooone. I'm also keener on Papali'i here than 7. Ioane seems to have done enough to hold this spot though and offers the requisite height which few if any other candidates have. Blackadder is another who can be considered here.
So my current trio is Jasobsen, Savea and Ioane with Papali'i off the bench.
At Super rugby level Sotutu was a stand out 8. He has an X factor, which I can’t say about Jacobson, and in style is a little like a bigger version of Ardie.
I hope they persevere with him at test level, because he has the potential to become a world class 8.
@pakman said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
@shark said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
Agree with this long winded post with regards to lack of balance, sectorial pig-rootery and guys being shoe-horned in.
I think we all know I believe Savea is our best 7, including when Cane is available. He's certainly not an international 8. And if you believe he's not good enough defensively at 7 then he's far from an 8, and probably not even in the 23. But I'd have him as my 7 as I value highly his skills over the ball and as a link man. I don't see Papali'i as a 7 any more than the likes of Blackadder, but at the moment he's a fantastic utility loosie.
At 8 I'm starting to like Jacobson, but I also think they should invest in Papali'i getting a crack there. I've gone off Sotutu and was never much of a Ioane fan although credit to his improvement at 6. I'll be interested to see if Grace comes back strongly next year with some time off now to build into it. But Jacobson appears our best option here.
At 6 I think Frizzel has had plenty of opportunity and hasnt converted. I had high hopes for Fifita but he's now goooone. I'm also keener on Papali'i here than 7. Ioane seems to have done enough to hold this spot though and offers the requisite height which few if any other candidates have. Blackadder is another who can be considered here.
So my current trio is Jasobsen, Savea and Ioane with Papali'i off the bench.
At Super rugby level Sotutu was a stand out 8. He has an X factor, which I can’t say about Jacobson, and in style is a little like a bigger version of Ardie.
I hope they persevere with him at test level, because he has the potential to become a world class 8.
Jacobsen has very similar attributes to Papali'i. Fast, strong in contact, always around the ball and he's a natural leader, being a former 2017 NZ-U20 captain.
He seems made for test rugby, tireless worker & doesn't ever go missing in matches unlike Sotutu.
Jacobson! (Swedish spelling rather than Danish -sen).
Jacobson Paps and Ioane can all (arguably) 6/8. Not sure you want to play Ioane at 8 as he has done well at 6. I like Sotutu as well but he didn't play that well recently. I'm guessing we should bracket players starting at 7, 8 then 6:
7 Cane Ardie Paps (seems the recent order, perhaps Paps challenged that but his last game wasn't perfect)
8 Ardie (coach rating not mine) Jacobson Sotutu (possibly Ioane or someone else)
6 Ioane Frizell [?] Jacobson possibly Paps or Blackadder and Cane or maybe Ardie? [logjam]
It's not gonna happen, but I'd be quite interested to see how Sotutu goes at 7 (not at test level necessarily, so I guess he could potentially get a run there for the blues if Paps is out/rested).
@bones said in Hansen/Foster's recent selection philosophy & the consequences it has on team balance (back-row, back-three, bench etc..):
It's not gonna happen, but I'd be quite interested to see how Sotutu goes at 7 (not at test level necessarily, so I guess he could potentially get a run there for the blues if Paps is out/rested).
I guess it could confuse the opposition if the AB loosies play musical chairs..
Foster team motto).