Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November
-
@NTA said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@nostrildamus said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I get this idea of a double playmaker but
a. it suggests the first playmaker can't do it on his own (unlike most if not all other int. teams) andNot everyone is Dan Carter, of course.
Regards AB 10s, I have standards. I expect them to make good decisions and be able to run a bit. Cruden could. Evans could.
And you might be forgetting he played with a few capable second fives - occasionally standing at 12 himself - in a dual playmaker setup. I believe his first few seasons at the crusaders he was 12 to Mehrts' 10
Carter was 12 in that AB game I don't remember.. but the argument is that a good 10 doesn't need a second playmaker not that a quality 10 cannot play at or learn from playing at 12..and I refer you to Mehrts tackling..
There's a reason Kiwis call 12 a second five and not inside centre.
Yes we aren't Australians, we have reasons and we respect history hence the lower sales of Pete Fizsimon's history as personal anecdote books (http://honesthistory.net.au/wp/peter-fitzsimons-gallipoli-reviewed/).
But we have had inside centres since Carter! JG, ALB, Laumape, Lucky Luke, Nonu.. -
@mariner4life said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
Broken record time but fark why can't they at least try JB at 12? He had a great midfield combo going with Goodhue at Canterbury. If they seriously think Rieko is a test standard 13 then it's hardly a stretch to think that giraffe can do the job at 12. Shit he'd be far better there than at bloody 14.
talk to your Hurricanes coach. That sort of change should absolutely NOT be made at test level
He won't answer my texts.
He doesn't get a go at 12 for the Canes because Laumape is there. Where else do you put that square shaped lump?For the sake of the ABs I wish JB had stayed down south. With Crotty injured every 2nd game he would have had heaps of chances to play 12 with Goodhue outside him. At any rate I can't recall him ever even playing wing for the Canes.
-
@taniwharugby said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I suspect if the AB coaches want JB to go there, they will ask/tell the 'canes to push him there, as seems the case with Goodhue at the 'saders
How much is the Canes coach going to accede to such a request if he believes that his success is dependent on having his clearly best fullback playing at fullback?
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
He won't answer my texts.
Have you tried organising breakfast with them?
-
@NTA said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
He won't answer my texts.
Have you tried organising breakfast with them?
Among other things.
-
@taniwharugby said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@No-Quarter but a transition from 15 to 14 is much different moving someone to the mid-field, particularly as he hasnt played there at any reasonable level for a couple of years that I can recall.
I suspect if the AB coaches want JB to go there, they will ask/tell the 'canes to push him there, as seems the case with Goodhue at the 'saders
I'm not so sure about that. The Super coaches will do what's best for their team. You want both Laumape and Giraffe on the paddock and no way Laumape is going to fullback.
-
@antipodean no idea, I guess ultimately they what they see best for the franchise, but I think the AB coaching do also make suggestions about where they want people
-
@taniwharugby said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I think the AB coaching do also make suggestions about where they want people
I thought that was also part of the post-2007 review: collective effort from the top down to ensure the ABs stay on top.
-
@NTA said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@taniwharugby said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I think the AB coaching do also make suggestions about where they want people
I thought that was also part of the post-2007 review: collective effort from the top down to ensure the ABs stay on top.
Suggestions but that’s it. It’s not diktat, and it can’t be. SR coaches get fucked around enough with camps and rests, telling them how to pick their team would be fucking ridiculous
-
@nostrildamus said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I get this idea of a double playmaker but
a. it suggests the first playmaker can't do it on his own (unlike most if not all other int. teams) and
b. is BB the only one who can be a "playmaker" at 15?
(PS I'm not trying to pick on him, just asking).We’ve been playing this way for years, under Mitch, Henry and Hansen it’s just had a couple of variations.
We used both Dagg and Ben Smith to come into the line as a playmaker. Under Henry we even used Sivivatu in this role (Fozzie used him at the Chiefs also).
Our 2nd 5s - Mauger, Lucky, Umaga, Nonu all had periods of being far more ball dominant in the way they dictated play.
Goodhue really isn’t that guy so we have Mo’unga and Barrett working in tandem.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Chris anyone remember who played 13 outside Carter? trying to get my head around how it worked, was it purely down to DC being DC
ABs:
He debuted at 12 with Tana at 13 and Spencer at 10, we smashed Wales by a thousand. We used the same combination to beat France.
We lost of England and he was in the reserves (didn't get on I don't think).Saders:
He debuted at 10 in round one 2003; I'm not sure how many times he was used at 12 with Mehrts at 10 (I remember him playing at FB for Canterbury a bit). -
I'm not sure why people think moving Beauden Barrett to first-five is the answer.
We have consistently looked poor in the backs when he has played there for us in the past -- he sometimes looks good, but the backline as a whole consistently has not fired with him.
After all, it was only the week before he looked very ordinary against Australia. How does that suddenly get overlooked, whereas Mo'unga has to take blame for a very similar outing against the Pumas?
(If you go back and start looking when the wheels started coming off the ABs, from Lions tours and losses to Ireland, it is when Barrett became a starter at #10 -- whereas Cruden never lost a game he started, and Dan Carter was Carter -- and somehow our backs could run in a couple of tries to save us. But Barrett's personal brilliance tends to overshadow how badly backs outside him seem to play.)
That's why coaches consistently play him at #15 nowadays.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I'm not sure why people think moving Beauden Barrett to first-five is the answer.
We have consistently looked poor in the backs when he has played there for us in the past -- he sometimes looks good, but the backline as a whole consistently has not fired with him.
After all, it was only the week before he looked very ordinary against Australia. How does that suddenly get overlooked, whereas Mo'unga has to take blame for a very similar outing against the Pumas?
(If you go back and start looking when the wheels started coming off the ABs, from Lions tours and losses to Ireland, it is when Barrett became a starter at #10 -- whereas Cruden never lost a game he started, and Dan Carter was Carter -- and somehow our backs could run in a couple of tries to save us. But Barrett's personal brilliance tends to overshadow how badly backs outside him seem to play.)
That's why coaches consistently play him at #15 nowadays.
The stark difference in class between the two halfbacks in those 2 games might have something to do with it.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I'm not sure why people think moving Beauden Barrett to first-five is the answer.
We have consistently looked poor in the backs when he has played there for us in the past -- he sometimes looks good, but the backline as a whole consistently has not fired with him.
After all, it was only the week before he looked very ordinary against Australia. How does that suddenly get overlooked, whereas Mo'unga has to take blame for a very similar outing against the Pumas?
(If you go back and start looking when the wheels started coming off the ABs, from Lions tours and losses to Ireland, it is when Barrett became a starter at #10 -- whereas Cruden never lost a game he started, and Dan Carter was Carter -- and somehow our backs could run in a couple of tries to save us. But Barrett's personal brilliance tends to overshadow how badly backs outside him seem to play.)
That's why coaches consistently play him at #15 nowadays.
My thoughts too. I have been saying for years, while BB is an outstanding footy player, he is not an outstanding 10.
-
@Crazy-Horse whats worse is he doesn;t see it...and just coasts a bit when put at 15...if he really gives 15 a go he'd be away
reminds me of nick evans...wanted to be a 10...even went head to head with DC to prove it...didn't win
Mils hadnt made the 15 jersey his yet...there was an opening for someone to go for it
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@Chester-Draws said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I'm not sure why people think moving Beauden Barrett to first-five is the answer.
We have consistently looked poor in the backs when he has played there for us in the past -- he sometimes looks good, but the backline as a whole consistently has not fired with him.
After all, it was only the week before he looked very ordinary against Australia. How does that suddenly get overlooked, whereas Mo'unga has to take blame for a very similar outing against the Pumas?
(If you go back and start looking when the wheels started coming off the ABs, from Lions tours and losses to Ireland, it is when Barrett became a starter at #10 -- whereas Cruden never lost a game he started, and Dan Carter was Carter -- and somehow our backs could run in a couple of tries to save us. But Barrett's personal brilliance tends to overshadow how badly backs outside him seem to play.)
That's why coaches consistently play him at #15 nowadays.
My thoughts too. I have been saying for years, while BB is an outstanding footy player, he is not an outstanding 10.
Not sure I really get that logic. Apart from Carter all players have their strengths and weaknesses.
Wilkinson was an absolute gun kicker and very strong defender, but had no real passing or running game to speak of. World class and England built their team and game plan around him with great success, but he's not the kind of 10 the ABs have favoured as he'd stifle our attack.
Beauden at the other end of the spectrum doesn't have the kicking game but is a strong passer and has probably the best running game of any AB 10.
Cruden was somewhere in the middle. Good running game, amazing passing game due to his vision for putting players away, not a great kicking game. Again world class but a very different type of player.
We'd all love another Carter that can just do it all but in the meantime we have to make do with what we have and ensure our game plan compliments that.
Our biggest problems go way beyond either Beauden or RM though. Both of those players need some space to work their magic, but at the moment our plan of attack is to just spin it to them in the face of a rush defense and hope for the best. We just need to get a bit of go forward through numbers 1 - 8 before we start throwing it wide.
I actually think Beauden's ability to pull something out of his arse so regularly has papered over just how had out tactics have been. He used to do it all the time for the Canes, winning us matches despite our powder puff forwards getting smacked all over the park. He's done it for the ABs too but with less success obviously as you can't get away with dumb fuck tactics against the best players in the world.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
I'm not sure why people think moving Beauden Barrett to first-five is the answer.
We have consistently looked poor in the backs when he has played there for us in the past -- he sometimes looks good, but the backline as a whole consistently has not fired with him.
After all, it was only the week before he looked very ordinary against Australia. How does that suddenly get overlooked, whereas Mo'unga has to take blame for a very similar outing against the Pumas?
(If you go back and start looking when the wheels started coming off the ABs, from Lions tours and losses to Ireland, it is when Barrett became a starter at #10 -- whereas Cruden never lost a game he started, and Dan Carter was Carter -- and somehow our backs could run in a couple of tries to save us. But Barrett's personal brilliance tends to overshadow how badly backs outside him seem to play.)
That's why coaches consistently play him at #15 nowadays.
I think Shag and co really mis-managed that little period in 2016 when Cruden was for all intents and purposes the incumbent, but Barrett was electric taking over late on in games. That should have been the plan going forward, but instead they decided to give BB the 10 shirt and give Cruden the message that he was only ever going to be a bit part player in that team.
-
@NTA said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
@NTA said in Argentina One: Parramatta, 14 November:
That's a crap call
Just looked at it again - it is a fucking hollywood, and still isn't a great call. AFG says "could have pulled out".
The issue that makes it look bad is Barrett coming in from the side of the kicker is the problem. Never in a position to charge down and his path was in no way going to look good from end-on.
Genuine question to a qualified ref (you are aren't you?). Is that an actual thing you look for?
I would have thought unless there was an actual charge directly on the player. If he's going for a charge down and there is incidental contact is that really a penalty.
(Nearly had another rant about Angus's first half performance ... But too little too late...)
