@Victor-Meldrew Agreed. It's as if the previous two AB coaching regimes (Shag and the guy whose name may not be spoken) have brainwashed the public and media into believing that 4 years isn't long enough to develop new 10s.
Henry showed that you can use up to FOUR 10s during a regular 4-year cycle and two of them could be new + very different to your 1st choice.
I not sure what problem is, he has got a new contract , I sure Razor etc have their thoughts on what he will be used for in team and for how long. I said before and don't mind saying again, I am pleased he has signed back here. I my opinion for what it's worth the more competition we have for places in ABs is only good for the team.
The big loser in this could be Perofeta as the article says that the Blues needed convincing that BB would add value to their squad. They will be competing for the no.10 jersey from 2025.
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks 2024 - no interminable Foster arguments:
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks 2024 - no interminable Foster arguments:
Julian Savea signed a 4 year deal through to 2019.
It didn't guarantee Savea was at the 2019 RWC.
Yeah, but Savea was young (25) when he signed and arguably the best winger in rugby -BB is neither.
And yet despite all this by 2019 Savea gone. So - as I said - just being signed through to the World Cup is no guarantee you will be at the World Cup
I think DMac deserves decent time as the AB 10. He's been seriously good over the last few years.
True, but the point I'm making is the circumstances are very different. A 4 year deal for BB makes less sense
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks 2024 - no interminable Foster arguments:
True, but the point I'm making is the circumstances are very different. A 4 year deal for BB makes less sense
Think you are missing the wider point. Is keeping our best players in New Zealand not a good thing for keeping Super Rugby strong? Even if he isn't still at his peak, he is still a great pro to have playing locally.
I'd trust Razor to make the tough calls, and to use Barrett how he sees fit in the environment. Rightly or wrongly, I think there is every chance Razor backs himself to get Beauden back playing to the best of his abilities as a 10.
@frugby said in All Blacks 2024 - no interminable Foster arguments:
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks 2024 - no interminable Foster arguments:
True, but the point I'm making is the circumstances are very different. A 4 year deal for BB makes less sense
Think you are missing the wider point. Is keeping our best players in New Zealand not a good thing for keeping Super Rugby strong? Even if he isn't still at his peak, he is still a great pro to have playing locally.
I'd trust Razor to make the tough calls, and to use Barrett how he sees fit in the environment. Rightly or wrongly, I think there is every chance Razor backs himself to get Beauden back playing to the best of his abilities as a 10.
No, not missing the wider point at all. As I've said, have zero problems or concerns with BB being signed up to provide continuity. I will have concerns if Robertson doesn't develop options at 10 & 15 and a 36yr-old BB is the incumbent
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks 2024 - no interminable Foster arguments:
@frugby said in All Blacks 2024 - no interminable Foster arguments:
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks 2024 - no interminable Foster arguments:
True, but the point I'm making is the circumstances are very different. A 4 year deal for BB makes less sense
Think you are missing the wider point. Is keeping our best players in New Zealand not a good thing for keeping Super Rugby strong? Even if he isn't still at his peak, he is still a great pro to have playing locally.
I'd trust Razor to make the tough calls, and to use Barrett how he sees fit in the environment. Rightly or wrongly, I think there is every chance Razor backs himself to get Beauden back playing to the best of his abilities as a 10.
No, not missing the wider point at all. As I've said, have zero problems or concerns with BB being signed up to provide continuity. I will have concerns if Robertson doesn't develop options at 10 & 15 and a 36yr-old BB is the incumbent
That's such a sweeping statement though. Absolutely possible that Razor gives him a second wind... it's not like he is 36 now, he is 32.
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks 2024 - no interminable Foster arguments:
@frugby i guess concern was DC retired at 32/33...and he was still in pretty good form at the time from memory unlike BB who has been patchy for a while...backs just dont generally have that late carrier resurgence like a hooker might, so im thinking why 4 years? why not two?
Because he will still be good for Super Rugby at the very least. As many others have said, just because he is under contract, does not mean he has to play for the All Blacks.
As far as I am concerned, it isn't good to see anyone going overseas.
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks 2024 - no interminable Foster arguments:
@frugby but he's been given an AB contract has he not? not just a super one?
There is no real such thing. All the players who play Super Rugby are contracted to NZR. NZR pay the salaries... All Blacks contracts are then worked into one big salary to go with performance bonuses etc.
The contract does not guarantee selection, see J Savea, Dagg in the past.
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks 2024 - no interminable Foster arguments:
@frugby what i mean he'll be getting paid the same as last year (or more) when he was a nailed on starter....so paying someone that way when they might not get selected seems poor business
Yup. But maybe Razor sees more than we do, maybe he has value in a leadership role in the squad, and perhaps he will be the bridge to the third and fourth years of Razor's tenure
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks 2024 - no interminable Foster arguments:
@canefan of course, i think everything said is with the caveat of we may be proven wrong, can only base it on what weve seen to date
But I agree with you about the money. He'll be paid a lot if he ends up missing out on selection at some stage
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks 2024 - no interminable Foster arguments:
@frugby what i mean he'll be getting paid the same as last year (or more) when he was a nailed on starter....so paying someone that way when they might not get selected seems poor business
Will he? I thought a large part of it was a blues benefactor? Plus I'm pretty sure you only get the big bucks if you get selected and played for the ABs, isn't it? A payout for selection, then per game played?
