Super Rugby News
-
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby News:
I'm not sure what benefit it is having first fives who are older in years - the likes of Francis and Noakes were in their mid 20s when they played for the Blues - that didn't exactly help. I'd much rather have talented youngsters to take a punt on than mediocre 'veterans'
100%. Is 22 even old in first-five years?
I've been banging the drum for a while - but first fives pretty much are what they are at 21/2. All our best 10s were starting ABs before 22, even most of the good ones.
Ones that weren't carried the same flaws and idiosyncrasies throughout their career.
Unless the player isn't getting any game time, is part of a dysfunctional system or has been playing out of position - why expect them to improve?
They have one young 10 and two veterans for next year as far as I can tell.
-
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby News:
Norths and Aussie 20's Head Coach Simon Cron to join the Tahs as Assistant Coach.
Is this Mike Cron's son?
-
@rotated said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby News:
Norths and Aussie 20's Head Coach Simon Cron to join the Tahs as Assistant Coach.
Is this Mike Cron's son?
His nephew.
-
@rotated depends i think. you get guys like mehrts who read the game so well that they are great from the outset, and guys like carter whose skills are so good that they look like they've been playing for years - and both of those guys with very calm temperaments. but those are all-time greats to me.
beauden is what, 26? a really remarkable talent, but 2 years since he's been a good 10... mckenzie is 22, and is by no means a 10 yet - though he has the skills to be one.
i reckon guys like tony brown, steve bachop, simon culhane, nick evans, hill, holwell all got better with a bit of age. -
@rotated Barret got his first start at 10 for the All Blacks in 2014 after his 23rd birthday and it was only last year he semented his place. Cruden got thrown in to the deep end in 2011, but one could argue he also got the starting gig only in 2013after his 24th birthday due to DC being unavailable(injured, sabbatical?). Sopoaga is the same age as Barrett and will probably play second fiddle after Cruden departs, Richie Mo'unga has turned 23 and will probably get a cap at some point.
And no I don't know about All Black flyhalves before that, but recent history would suggest that they are what they are at abouts 23-25, but I do agree with the sentiment that flyhalves don't age like props.
-
@Sapetyvi said in Super Rugby News:
@rotated Barret got his first start at 10 for the All Blacks in 2014 after his 23rd birthday and it was only last year he semented his place. Cruden got thrown in to the deep end in 2011, but one could argue he also got the starting gig only in 2013after his 24th birthday due to DC being unavailable(injured, sabbatical?). Sopoaga is the same age as Barrett and will probably play second fiddle after Cruden departs, Richie Mo'unga has turned 23 and will probably get a cap at some point.
And no I don't know about All Black flyhalves before that, but recent history would suggest that they are what they are at abouts 23-25, but I do agree with the sentiment that flyhalves don't age like props.
Foxy didn't become the regular 10 until his mid 20s either. At any rate, looking at the past is hardly relevant as you note BB took a while to come through, and still, if not for an injury to Cruden last year and a Welsh series that BB took advantage of and then took that form back to Super Rugby and then beyond, he might still be the super sub now.
-
@Nepia said in Super Rugby News:
Foxy didn't become the regular 10 until his mid 20s either. At any rate, looking at the past is hardly relevant as you note BB took a while to come through, and still, if not for an injury to Cruden last year and a Welsh series that BB took advantage of and then took that form back to Super Rugby and then beyond, he might still be the super sub now.
Selection was very different back then, Fox was anointed as a future AB 10 back in his AGS days - tenure was a big deal.
I'm not saying that they are the finished product at 22. But by that age the talent is evident and being a test quality 10 seems like the most likely outcome for the player. Obviously you can have more than one at the same time, so people miss out - but there is a difference in comfort level between Cruden backing up Carter and Donald.
Players still develop from there and obviously game time and positional flexibility plays a big role in their development. Barrett and Cruden's trajectory is hardly a surprise given they were both stars at U20 level and dominated ITM Cup in their rookie seasons.
Maybe I have it wrong but I haven't seen a player go from unremarkable at 22 to a quality AB in my time. Sopoaga is possibly being the closest and that was mainly because Anscombe and Barrett outshone him at the U20s and then Cruden and Carter have been in the way - it didn't seem like there was an avenue for him.
-
@rotated I don't think anything is set in stone, and I don't think BB actually meets your starting before 22 standard either. BB was a 15 when in the U20s and it took him until last year to become a credible starter at 10, he was always a great super sub but didn't have a run of starting until he was 25.
D Mac was a star at U20 level too and then followed that up with a cracking NPC lets not forget and he has been playing out of position since then. He's another guy who could come through outside the 22 years that you set.
-
A problem with rotated's theory is that it's a pretty small sample size. Post-Fox, there was a period where Mehrts and Carlos fought out the job - then Danny-Boy had a mortgage on things for a decade - and most recently Cruden and Barrett.
There's obviously been a number of others who've had time at first five, but very few who've had a consistent run to develop them.
Reality, these days, though seems to be that there's a pretty clear pathway to being an AB and there's not many seem to make it without being on that path.
-
-
On July 7, SARU announce which of their two Super Rugby teams will be axed.
The two teams almost everyone is expecting to be axed are the Kings and the Cheetahs.
According to this BBC Report, in September the Kings and the Cheetahs will be playing in the Pro12 which will be increased to 14 teams.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/40448854
This, of course, had been suggested one or two months back, but now there seems to be more detail.
-
@Number-10 said in Super Rugby News:
According to this BBC Report, in September the Kings and the Cheetahs will be playing in the Pro12 which will be increased to 14 teams.
Which is a good solution for them. It would be even better if there was promotion/relegation for the Saffa teams between the two comps
-
-
that could actually work for SA, if they had a foot in both the NH and SH comps.
-
I thought the whole purpose of cutting the additional teams was to shore up the bank account which would allow for:
-
Improved quality in the remaining teams in that the best players from the cut teams would still find a home in one of the remaining teams
-
The removal of two franchises and all it's staff would allow the top up the remaining staff from the other franchises in order to keep them from leaving our shores.
Finding these two teams a home in Europe undermines the above, and to my mind only serves to rearrange the deck chairs on S.S. SARU. I'm not saying that the two unions need to be shut down - Free State has produced and despite it's poor Super Rugby results, continue to produce Springboks (Which then get lured to bigger unions). The Cheetahs and Kings franchises should top out at Vodacom Cup & Currie Cup level, and feed neighbouring SR Unions.
They should not be reallocated into a tournament that is (Almost) on par with Super Rugby, otherwise what would be the point?
-
