Chiefs v Blues

pakman

@KiwiMurph said in Chiefs v Blues:

@Dan54 said in Chiefs v Blues:

@Mr-Fish said in Chiefs v Blues:

Finlay Christie has (rightfully) copped a lot of criticism on here but Sam Nock's kicking was abysmal on Saturday.

I agree really , not really a Christie fan, but in general would start him ahead of Nock. I don't get the Nock love , he's ok ,but in I don't think he anything special by any means.
I do suspect we mark players who are or have been ABs a lot harder? Understand why up to a point, but for some players don't seem to be makred the same.

This feels like gaslighting. Christie doesn't get marked hard because he was an All Black.

The Blues attack when Christie starts looks really poor because he has real issues on attack - he's both a slow and poor decision maker from the breakdown, he has a high error rate and he struggles with messy ball.

That's not to say Nock is perfect - Nock has issues on defence and his kicking game is weak.

However - on balance I'd prefer Nock to keep starting. I'm willing to roll with Nock's weaknesses and get the benefit of the attacking shape.

I not a Blues man, so I don't probably really examine how some of their players go. But just my opinion is that Nock and Plummer are handbrakes on Blues if they trying to play anything but power style they played last year. I also said same about BB, he wasn't Blues'problem in first few games (neither were Nock,Chistie etc) , the problem in first games were forwards, and their ability to support.
Mind you that's just how I saw it, and as I say I pretty neutral on how Blues go.

I am an admirer of Harry Plummer as a great asset in the Blues squad. That said, it is obvious that BB and SP have dramatically upped the Blues’s tempo when they’ve been at 10. That has significantly improved the effectiveness of the Blues backs.

Crazy Horse

@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues:

@Dan54 said in Chiefs v Blues:

@KiwiMurph said in Chiefs v Blues:

@Dan54 said in Chiefs v Blues:

@Mr-Fish said in Chiefs v Blues:

Finlay Christie has (rightfully) copped a lot of criticism on here but Sam Nock's kicking was abysmal on Saturday.

I agree really , not really a Christie fan, but in general would start him ahead of Nock. I don't get the Nock love , he's ok ,but in I don't think he anything special by any means.
I do suspect we mark players who are or have been ABs a lot harder? Understand why up to a point, but for some players don't seem to be makred the same.

This feels like gaslighting. Christie doesn't get marked hard because he was an All Black.

The Blues attack when Christie starts looks really poor because he has real issues on attack - he's both a slow and poor decision maker from the breakdown, he has a high error rate and he struggles with messy ball.

That's not to say Nock is perfect - Nock has issues on defence and his kicking game is weak.

However - on balance I'd prefer Nock to keep starting. I'm willing to roll with Nock's weaknesses and get the benefit of the attacking shape.

I not a Blues man, so I don't probably really examine how some of their players go. But just my opinion is that Nock and Plummer are handbrakes on Blues if they trying to play anything but power style they played last year. I also said same about BB, he wasn't Blues'problem in first few games (neither were Nock,Chistie etc) , the problem in first games were forwards, and their ability to support.
Mind you that's just how I saw it, and as I say I pretty neutral on how Blues go.

I am an admirer of Harry Plummer as a great asset in the Blues squad. That said, it is obvious that BB and SP have dramatically upped the Blues’s tempo when they’ve been at 10. That has significantly improved the effectiveness of the Blues backs.

This might explain why Plummer's AB chances were somewhat limited.

Duluth

He’s playing worse than he has for a few years. Probably checked out a bit

Dan54

@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues:

@Dan54 said in Chiefs v Blues:

@KiwiMurph said in Chiefs v Blues:

@Dan54 said in Chiefs v Blues:

@Mr-Fish said in Chiefs v Blues:

Finlay Christie has (rightfully) copped a lot of criticism on here but Sam Nock's kicking was abysmal on Saturday.

I agree really , not really a Christie fan, but in general would start him ahead of Nock. I don't get the Nock love , he's ok ,but in I don't think he anything special by any means.
I do suspect we mark players who are or have been ABs a lot harder? Understand why up to a point, but for some players don't seem to be makred the same.

This feels like gaslighting. Christie doesn't get marked hard because he was an All Black.

The Blues attack when Christie starts looks really poor because he has real issues on attack - he's both a slow and poor decision maker from the breakdown, he has a high error rate and he struggles with messy ball.

That's not to say Nock is perfect - Nock has issues on defence and his kicking game is weak.

However - on balance I'd prefer Nock to keep starting. I'm willing to roll with Nock's weaknesses and get the benefit of the attacking shape.

I not a Blues man, so I don't probably really examine how some of their players go. But just my opinion is that Nock and Plummer are handbrakes on Blues if they trying to play anything but power style they played last year. I also said same about BB, he wasn't Blues'problem in first few games (neither were Nock,Chistie etc) , the problem in first games were forwards, and their ability to support.
Mind you that's just how I saw it, and as I say I pretty neutral on how Blues go.

I am an admirer of Harry Plummer as a great asset in the Blues squad. That said, it is obvious that BB and SP have dramatically upped the Blues’s tempo when they’ve been at 10. That has significantly improved the effectiveness of the Blues backs.

Mate, I always been a Plummer fan, would be in my squad too. Remember he was mainly at 12 for Blues until Perofeta and Sullivan were out last year.
Not against him, but he not what I would call a creative 10.

KiwiMurph

@Dan54 said in Chiefs v Blues:

But just my opinion is that Nock and Plummer are handbrakes on Blues if they trying to play anything but power style they played last year.

I can understand the comment regarding Plummer

I don't understand how Nock is a handbrake and Finlay Christie isn't?

Dan54

@KiwiMurph said in Chiefs v Blues:

@Dan54 said in Chiefs v Blues:

But just my opinion is that Nock and Plummer are handbrakes on Blues if they trying to play anything but power style they played last year.

I can understand the comment regarding Plummer

I don't understand how Nock is a handbrake and Finlay Christie isn't?

I not sure Nock is more of a handbrake than Christie, although maybe Christie is a little quicker. I maybe thinking of the Christie/Nock battle being a couple of similar ability 9s, so no sure why only one gets pointed at. Once again, both are capable players at super level, I believe.

ARHS

Nock has a great pass, just not a great tactician or kicker. I don't get the heavy criticism of Christie.
I assume that team tactics mean having the collision points in the opposition half, so a lot more kicks by 9. But they need to get contestable to work.

Tim

@ARHS said in Chiefs v Blues:

Nock has a great pass, just not a great tactician or kicker.

Nock has all the skills, but has never been able to execute them. despite excelling at times - the turnover at Eden Park against the Hurricanes last year was a notable example.

His passing is excellent, he has sometime been very good to the ruck or poor, same with his box kicking which has been good or poor.

A very frustrating player. That was the performance profile that we expected from the Blues for a long time. Reversion to that mean is unacceptable.

Mr Fish

Nock can't kick, Christie can't pass. It's a tough world.

African Monkey

@Mr-Fish said in Chiefs v Blues:

Nock can't kick, Christie can't pass. It's a tough world.

I wouldn't say Nock can't kick. He's got a big box kick. Just tends to overcook his kicks sometimes.

taniwharugby

@African-Monkey yea he certainly has a.kicking game, but like most of his game, inconsistent.

nzzp

Crikey!

Kick in the teeth: Chiefs fined for interference in win over Blues

Machpants

That should be a points loss, disgusting

nzzp

@Machpants said in Chiefs v Blues:

That should be a points loss, disgusting

You can't ding the team for that. The individual should lose pitchside privileges for some time though - it's a muppet thing to do... twice!

Machpants

@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues:

@Machpants said in Chiefs v Blues:

That should be a points loss, disgusting

You can't ding the team for that. The individual should lose pitchside privileges for some time though - it's a muppet thing to do... twice!

Disagree, they're part of the team. It affected the game, and it's cheating.

Duluth

I looked at the footage. You can't see the incidents because they are showing replays. But you can tell that the trainer had to move a decent distance to get to the ball, particularly the second time

I hope they checked previous matches too

Yeetyaah

Some supreme shithousery really. But is what it is and the club has been fined.

Bones

Dick thing to do and I wouldn't be against it being reclassified as a loss for the chiefs... but I don't really understand players getting rid of the ball post try anyway, so lesson learned on both sides.

antipodean

@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues:

@Machpants said in Chiefs v Blues:

That should be a points loss, disgusting

You can't ding the team for that. The individual should lose pitchside privileges for some time though - it's a muppet thing to do... twice!

The rot starts at the top: “We have co-operated fully with Sanzaar on this matter and accept responsibility for the technical breach and the outcome of this process,” Graafhuis said. “As this is an employment matter, we will not be making any further comment.”

What a great catch-all comment that is as practically everything can be considered an employment matter.

The Silver Fern

Chiefs v Blues