Bledisloe II
-
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
-
@mikethesnow Really? Remove your biase and look at things objectively. It happened twice early in the 1st half. Scrum goes down referee penalising Wallabies (not sure if it was both times the loosehead) but both times the loosehead is unstable and ass in the air. I mean from the outset he looked like packing in a shit position. So what must the referee do other then penalise him. And based on the scrum during the rest of the game one would say the referee got his calls right
-
@rebound said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow Really? Remove your biase and look at things objectively. It happened twice early in the 1st half. Scrum goes down referee penalising Wallabies (not sure if it was both times the loosehead) but both times the loosehead is unstable and ass in the air. I mean from the outset he looked like packing in a shit position. So what must the referee do other then penalise him. And based on the scrum during the rest of the game one would say the referee got his calls right
Those early calls were against Kepu no?
-
@jegga said in Bledisloe II:
@crucial said in Bledisloe II:
@bovidae said in Bledisloe II:
At least Ngani hasn't resorted to wearing mascara. We used to have fun calling him Ma'ascara.
Which was a bit silly as he didn’t wear mascara.
I don’t feel silly calling him that but I clearly lack your extensive knowledge of makeup and where it’s applied . What’s your preferred pronoun?
I admit that 'Eyeliner Nonu' doesn't work as well as it doesn't offer the same play on words but still, he didn't wear mascara so is was just made up.
PS: if those deleted posts were clever insults in my direction feel free to PM them too me. I'm not sensitive. If they weren't, then, as you were.
-
@majorrage said in Bledisloe II:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe II:
@crucial said in Bledisloe II:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe II:
@crucial said in Bledisloe II:
@mariner4life said in Bledisloe II:
@crucial re laumape why play an inferior player for 2/4 of the game? That doesn't make sense
Depends on whether they view him as inferior and the gameplan in mind. I doubt they have him in the squad to carry bags and would be looking to put him on the field.
He's inferior
I have to agree. I'm an ALB fan. I just wonder if the attack may look at a change up in tactic to unsettle the Wobs rush defence. Tell Laumape to do the one thing he probably isn't inferior at which is hard angled running (at Beale/Foley)
I completely understand the reasoning there. I just think it's silly to pick a guy because he likes running in to people really hard.
The early version of Nonu was just that.
Which may go someway to explaining that it took until 2008 for Nonu to become a regular starter.
Having said that, I do really like Laumape and want to see him get a shot. He's pretty bloody quick too, so could well be fighting out ALB for his place. Which means he may get a shot this weekend on the bench.
Noun had and used a step in his early days at 12.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
-
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
Richie was pretty average. Pocock is dreadful. He had one good run in that test, and I think that's the first I've ever seen from him. He's Owen Franks like in just hitting the ground on first contact.
-
Richie did work on that aspect of his game and in those last couple of seasons he did alot of carrying.
-
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
He was not just pretty average. He wasn't Read awesome, but he made decent carries and had good ball skills.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
He was not just pretty average. He wasn't Read awesome, but he made decent carries and had good ball skills.
Ritchie McCaw? He did not have good ball skills. He was an amazing player but good ball skills and running game did not add to his greatness.
-
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
He was not just pretty average. He wasn't Read awesome, but he made decent carries and had good ball skills.
Ritchie McCaw? He did not have good ball skills. He was an amazing player but good ball skills and running game did not add to his greatness.
Not at the start but he worked on these things and became very good. Regardless, even early career McCaw made more yards and did more with ball in hand than Pocock. It's not a valid comparison.
-
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@hooroo said in Bledisloe II:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
@mikethesnow said in Bledisloe II:
@no-quarter said in Bledisloe II:
Wallabies would be better to start Pocock and have Hooper on the bench to up the anti in the final 20. Like Ardie I don't think he's big/physical enough but could be effective against tired legs.
Looked to me that Hooper was more effective in taking the ball forward than Pocock and similar in defence.
If both are in the 23 then Pocock really has to start as I can't see him making much of an impact from the bench.
Both players are vastly overrated.
Pocock's running game is an absolute joke. He'd be great in NFL with just one specifically defined role, but in rugby you should have both attacking and defending skills, particularly if you're essentially an open side flanker.
Do you mean running game with ball in hand? Because Ritchie was pretty average with ball in hand as well.
He was not just pretty average. He wasn't Read awesome, but he made decent carries and had good ball skills.
Ritchie McCaw? He did not have good ball skills. He was an amazing player but good ball skills and running game did not add to his greatness.
I'm not sure what your point is, but he was a much better player than Pocock is.
-
@billy-tell said in Bledisloe II:
@shark said in Bledisloe II:
Plenty of people saw it in Nonu. The problem was he was a spare part from 2003 until after RWC 2007. As mentioned, he had serious competition for the 12 jersey when Mauger and McAlister were around - and prior to that, Tana also - but once he was given a few opportunities at 12 he flourished quickly and his game developed rapidly. I don't see that early level of flourishment or development in the 12 jersey at the top level in Laumape's game and therefore I don't see him kicking on.
What a load of crap. Laumape is only 2nd season Super Rugby if I’m not mistaken. Once again it’s flavour of the month to diss him. Tuipolotou and Saiili were extremely average ABs.
3rd season, as someone said, and wholly at 12 I think. I'd be very surprised if he's had any less time in the 12 jersey at all levels than Nonu had before Nonu settled in.
It's the Nonu at 12 vs Laumape comparison that's relevant.
-
@shark said in Bledisloe II:
@billy-tell said in Bledisloe II:
@shark said in Bledisloe II:
Plenty of people saw it in Nonu. The problem was he was a spare part from 2003 until after RWC 2007. As mentioned, he had serious competition for the 12 jersey when Mauger and McAlister were around - and prior to that, Tana also - but once he was given a few opportunities at 12 he flourished quickly and his game developed rapidly. I don't see that early level of flourishment or development in the 12 jersey at the top level in Laumape's game and therefore I don't see him kicking on.
What a load of crap. Laumape is only 2nd season Super Rugby if I’m not mistaken. Once again it’s flavour of the month to diss him. Tuipolotou and Saiili were extremely average ABs.
3rd season, as someone said, and wholly at 12 I think. I'd be very surprised if he's had any less time in the 12 jersey at all levels than Nonu had before Nonu settled in.
It's the Nonu at 12 vs Laumape comparison that's relevant.
Not really just the at 12, Nonu matured as a player as he got older, his game developed and that was irrelevant to the position he played, he likely would have become a great centre if we didn't already have one there.
This discussion has all gone a bit weird, Laumape has been one of the best midfielders in NZ for the past few years. Is he at Nonu level, no, no midfielder playing in NZ currently is, even Crotty doesn't come close.
I also think a myth is developing that Laumape is only crash and bash but again that's not true.
Will Laumpae develop to be as good as Nonu, probably not, but he's still got some development in him. Nonu was playing Super Rugby for 6 years (and nearly 20 test matches) before he became the Nonu we all love.
-
I just don't see the Wallabies being that bad the week after. The lineout is solvable and even if you lose a couple, try something else... The scrum will be bolstered with Sio back and Tupou on the bench. A couple of sessions on running lines and catch-pass for the backs. Hey presto, they're competitive.
-
@antipodean said in Bledisloe II:
I just don't see the Wallabies being that bad the week after. The lineout is solvable and even if you lose a couple, try something else... The scrum will be bolstered with Sio back and Tupou on the bench. A couple of sessions on running lines and catch-pass for the backs. Hey presto, they're competitive.
They were damn good for the first half. Aggressive hard defence, straight running. On a different night with a different ref, you're looking at a healthy half time lead.
I keep saying it; ther'es not much between these sides at the top level. I don't think the Wobbles will be as bad at set piece, and I reckon supporters should be heartened by the non-set piece effort last week.
-
@nzzp I guess it also depends on how out of sorts we were in that first half too. We're we average because things weren't quite clicking or because of Oz pressure? I think we'll go up a gear also but like you say I don't think there's that much between the two teams.
image url)
