AB bolters thread

Unco

Ellison just seemed to use the ABs as a CV booster, got a couple of caps and then started looking overseas straight away. Came back, got another couple of caps and then did it again.

No Quarter

Yeah, he was on the verge of cracking the first 15 a couple of times but then randomly turned up playing overseas. I found his career difficult to follow. Done well for himself though so can't begrudge him.

ACT Crusader

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="574019" data-time="1461305642">
<div>
Probably shouldn't be with these guys, likely would have played a bunch more tests if he hadn't have left NZ, then left again.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
A bunch? GIven the two incumbents had a mortgage on the 12 and 13 jersey's it's hard to see where he would've got more test time. I think when you consider his age (only a year younger than Nonu) it's probably understandable that he wasn't going to 'wait around' for more opportunities. I thought he was an excellent player when he came back and had the versatility that AB coaches would be excited about for a bench option player.

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="574010" data-time="1461302182">
<div>
Anesi, Masaga, Stanley (Benson), Saili, Hamilton, Mathewson, Ellison, Senio, Delany ..
 
There are tons.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
None of whom were bolters and were all selections that were largely expected due to being a position where a lot of back up is required (Senio, Matthewson, Delany, many of the locks mentioned in this thread), split squad situations not unlike all the Samoa caps last year (Hamilton), or selections due to injury and they genuinely were next cab off the rank (Stanley, Ellison and to an extent Masaga).
 
In most of those cases the option was selecting those players or those of a similar caliber - or literally not picking a squad.
 
None of those selections were objectively as bad as say leaving Dagg/Sopoaga/Piatau back home and taking a crippled Naholo to a RWC for example.
 
Under Henry's tenure their main flaw was persevering with players that were proven not to be up to test level until it really bit them hard - Donald, Ellis, Flynn etc.

kiwiinmelb

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="574176" data-time="1461335379">
<div>
None of whom were bolters and were all selections that were largely expected due to being a position where a lot of back up is required (Senio, Matthewson, Delany, many of the locks mentioned in this thread), split squad situations not unlike all the Samoa caps last year (Hamilton), or selections due to injury and they genuinely were next cab off the rank (Stanley, Ellison and to an extent Masaga).
 
In most of those cases the option was selecting those players or those of a similar caliber - or literally not picking a squad.
 
None of those selections were objectively as bad as say leaving Dagg/Sopoaga/Piatau back home and taking a crippled Naholo to a RWC for example.
 
Under Henry's tenure their main flaw was persevering with players that were proven not to be up to test level until it really bit them hard - Donald, Ellis, Flynn etc.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I think in Donalds case he kept getting selected when there just wasnt any other options , the cupboard really was bare for a while there , but in the end , being the number 4 and having previous test experience probably saved our arse , its funny how it works out

Unco

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="574176" data-time="1461335379">
<div>
None of whom were bolters and were all selections that were largely expected due to being a position where a lot of back up is required (Senio, Matthewson, Delany, many of the locks mentioned in this thread), split squad situations not unlike all the Samoa caps last year (Hamilton), or selections due to injury and they genuinely were next cab off the rank (Stanley, Ellison and to an extent Masaga).
 
In most of those cases the option was selecting those players or those of a similar caliber - or literally not picking a squad.
 
None of those selections were objectively as bad as say leaving Dagg/Sopoaga/Piatau back home and taking a crippled Naholo to a RWC for example.
 
Under Henry's tenure their main flaw was persevering with players that were proven not to be up to test level until it really bit them hard - Donald, Ellis, Flynn etc.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
You try to make a point about players that weren't up to test level and backfired and two of your examples are guys who came on in the RWC final and played fucking well? Nice job. I'm guessing a lot of other countries teams wish they were bit that hard.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="574176" data-time="1461335379">
 
None of those selections were objectively as bad as say leaving Dagg/Sopoaga/Piatau back home and taking a crippled Naholo to a RWC for example. 
 </blockquote>
 
Yep, that was such a fatal error, so costly, especially how much they used some of the other players in the squad that were less controversial....

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="574181" data-time="1461353030">
<div>
You try to make a point about players that weren't up to test level and backfired and two of your examples are guys who came on in the RWC final and played fucking well? Nice job. I'm guessing a lot of other countries teams wish they were bit that hard.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
They played adequately that game, let's not get crazy here. They came on with a 5 point lead and managed to let it only erode to 1 point. I don't think you can let 60 minutes of admittedly high stakes rugby wash away what were otherwise largely poor careers. If you take Ellis for example - in a previous thread we figured out against decent opposition (i.e. teams that have beaten the ABs once) with him on the field we actually were outscored as a total and in all but a few games individually - which is an absolutely staggering achievement for any tenured AB - let alone one playing during such a dominant era.
 
Donald is the perfect example really. He was weighed and measured during those two tests in South Africa in 2009 - and should have been exiled at that point. Instead they persevered with him on the 2009 EOYT (although they did take Delany and an injured McAlister - but Donald was the clear back up to Dan). He was underwhelming during Super Rugby in 2010 - people were begging for them to take Slade or Cruden on the 2010 EOYT as insurance - they didn't. Like a bad ex-lover they went back to him for the 2010 EOYT. Then Hong Kong happened and everyone knew he was out of the picture for RWC. Sivi (??) goes down after that game giving them a golden opportunity to call in another back (i.e. Cruden or Slade) and they don't call anyone in. Then when the penny drops during the 2011 Super Season after more chippy nonsense - you end up with 2 test starter Colin Slade backing up and 1 test starter Cruden after that. He had developed a similarly puzzling affection for Guildford that no doubt would have continued had he stayed on.
 
Great coach otherwise - I'm probably the biggest Ted fan on here and it is somewhat splitting hairs. And to be fair I thought the Thorn, Kaino & Nonu recalls in 2008 were similar selections at the time - and wanted him to look at newer, younger talent and they turned out to be pretty decent. But at least Kaino and Nonu showed flashes of brilliance in their first stints - it was just consistency. I never saw Ellis/Donald/Flynn and thought he was terribly dynamic even on his best day - Kahn on the other hand.
 
Hansen did a much better job spreading the love around and using trial and error to get guys into camp and have a look at them than Ted who kept going back to the same old guys and would only deviate when crisis struck. Flynn was another classic one where we could have been at least trying to groom guys under Hore/Mealamu so the cupboard wasn't totally bare. We only saw guys like de Melmanche or Elliott when injuries or the annual suspensions from the NH press for one of our hookers were handed out. We got lucky with Coles otherwise we would be in trouble. Rueben Thorne was a similar crutch in 2007.
 
The outside backs though we generally have been pretty spot on with giving guys enough chance to prove themselves (and in big tests too) and quickly deciding if they are keepers or moving onto the next option.

nzzp

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="574185" data-time="1461356174">
<div>
We got lucky with Coles otherwise we would be in trouble. Rueben Thorne was a similar crutch in 2007.
 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I'd disagree with this. Coles for me is an example of how the coaching team identified a player with attributes they liked, and a bunch of things they didn't and how they turned him into a world class rake. That is what really good coaches do - make players better, not just get them to play together.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="574076" data-time="1461313106">
<div>
A bunch? GIven the two incumbents had a mortgage on the 12 and 13 jersey's it's hard to see where he would've got more test time. I think when you consider his age (only a year younger than Nonu) it's probably understandable that he wasn't going to 'wait around' for more opportunities. I thought he was an excellent player when he came back and had the versatility that AB coaches would be excited about for a bench option player. 
</div>
</blockquote>
You're being pedantic about the word a bunch? Then you go on and finish your post discussing how much the coaches would like to use him as a bench player? I'd assume they'd use him from the bench a few times during those tests and give him the odd start, and they would add up to a bunch.

Unco

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="574185" data-time="1461356174">
<div>
They played adequately that game, let's not get crazy here. They came on with a 5 point lead and managed to let it only erode to 1 point. I don't think you can let 60 minutes of admittedly high stakes rugby wash away what were otherwise largely poor careers. If you take Ellis for example - in a previous thread we figured out against decent opposition (i.e. teams that have beaten the ABs once) with him on the field we actually were outscored as a total and in all but a few games individually - which is an absolutely staggering achievement for any tenured AB - let alone one playing during such a dominant era.
 
Donald is the perfect example really. He was weighed and measured during those two tests in South Africa in 2009 - and should have been exiled at that point. Instead they persevered with him on the 2009 EOYT (although they did take Delany and an injured McAlister - but Donald was the clear back up to Dan). He was underwhelming during Super Rugby in 2010 - people were begging for them to take Slade or Cruden on the 2010 EOYT as insurance - they didn't. Like a bad ex-lover they went back to him for the 2010 EOYT. Then Hong Kong happened and everyone knew he was out of the picture for RWC. Sivi (??) goes down after that game giving them a golden opportunity to call in another back (i.e. Cruden or Slade) and they don't call anyone in. Then when the penny drops during the 2011 Super Season after more chippy nonsense - you end up with 2 test starter Colin Slade backing up and 1 test starter Cruden after that. He had developed a similarly puzzling affection for Guildford that no doubt would have continued had he stayed on.
 
Great coach otherwise - I'm probably the biggest Ted fan on here and it is somewhat splitting hairs. And to be fair I thought the Thorn, Kaino & Nonu recalls in 2008 were similar selections at the time - and wanted him to look at newer, younger talent and they turned out to be pretty decent. But at least Kaino and Nonu showed flashes of brilliance in their first stints - it was just consistency. I never saw Ellis/Donald/Flynn and thought he was terribly dynamic even on his best day - Kahn on the other hand.
 
Hansen did a much better job spreading the love around and using trial and error to get guys into camp and have a look at them than Ted who kept going back to the same old guys and would only deviate when crisis struck. Flynn was another classic one where we could have been at least trying to groom guys under Hore/Mealamu so the cupboard wasn't totally bare. We only saw guys like de Melmanche or Elliott when injuries or the annual suspensions from the NH press for one of our hookers were handed out. We got lucky with Coles otherwise we would be in trouble. Rueben Thorne was a similar crutch in 2007.
 
The outside backs though we generally have been pretty spot on with giving guys enough chance to prove themselves (and in big tests too) and quickly deciding if they are keepers or moving onto the next option.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I actually agree with you for the most part on Hansen being a better selector than Henry, I just think you're completely wrong on Donald and Ellis biting us back. They did not play adequately. The ABs made two line breaks TOTAL in that game, Dagg made one and Donald made the other. He kicked well, tackled well and ran well, pretty much everything you could've hoped for him to do. While Ellis overtook Cowan as the second choice halfback during the RWC and when Piri was playing like shit due to his illness, settled things down really well once he came on. I honestly don't give a shit about the points per cap ratio or whatever the fuck. You're wrong, both of them played bloody well in an extremely tight, high pressure game.
 
They went back to Donald for the EOYT in 2010 because he'd played well in the ITM Cup and it was still FAR from decided on who should be second in line. Cruden and Slade had both had their own shockers in the Tri Nations that year and I think Wayne Smith came out later saying they'd given the both of them some work-ons. Besides, I don't really think the issue with Slade was the number of caps he had, it was that he'd barely even played rugby that year. He sat out almost the entire S15 season with injuries, the Cartel rushed him back in the squad and he never really showed that much form. I actually think we got pretty lucky he got injured when he did during the RWC.
 
I don't disagree that Flynn and Guildford were weak selections. They never even gave ADM or Elliot a chance, which was dumb. While Guildford got way more chances than other guys on the fringe like Hosea Gear and I still can't believe he was selected ahead of Sivi for the 2011 RWC. But Rueben Thorne? From what I remember, it was pretty bloody obvious why they picked him. He was the second choice lock/6 behind Jono Gibbes and Gibbes was injured (as he always was around that period).

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="nzzp" data-cid="574190" data-time="1461360534">
<div>
I'd disagree with this. Coles for me is an example of how the coaching team identified a player with attributes they liked, and a bunch of things they didn't and how they turned him into a world class rake. That is what really good coaches do - make players better, not just get them to play together.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The luck in that there was a hooker who was ready to step into the AB environment and play at a reasonable level in 2012. It wasn't as though they had identified him and had him come in for training camps or seasoned him in the preceding years.
 
You counter that with how guys like Fekitoa, Cane, Moody and even Sopoaga etc have been lightly seasoned over the past two years for what will be a seamless transition.

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="574236" data-time="1461395853">
<div>
I actually agree with you for the most part on Hansen being a better selector than Henry, I just think you're completely wrong on Donald and Ellis biting us back. They did not play adequately. The ABs made two line breaks TOTAL in that game, Dagg made one and Donald made the other. He kicked well, tackled well and ran well, pretty much everything you could've hoped for him to do. While Ellis overtook Cowan as the second choice halfback during the RWC and when Piri was playing like shit due to his illness, settled things down really well once he came on. I honestly don't give a shit about the points per cap ratio or whatever the fuck. You're wrong, both of them played bloody well in an extremely tight, high pressure game.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
First of all, despite Piri's diificulties with the boot the team looked significantly better for that first 20 minutes. That was when we actually were dominating the French and pinning them down their own end and... scoring tries! Once the Ellis/Donald nexus combined we did kind of give up the territory and possession battle. Also isn't the 2 linebreaks somewhat of an reflection on the first-five who steered us around the park for 75% of the game?
 
On a scale of Donald he played fantastic. On a scale of AB first fives there was nothing there that was terribly brilliant. The penalty shot was the perfect encapsulation of his performance - at least with ball in hand - bloody wobbly but got the job done, just.
 
Ellis played probably his best test. He was really combative at the breakdown and defensively strong - pretty much played a Cowanesque performance, however his delivery was stifiling to the backline as usual which you pointed out with the two line breaks and three points we mustered in 60 minutes. Not sure a Cowan perforamnce was what they wanted for the game plan - but in the last 15 minutes it was invaluable. But again the proof is in the pudding, if he played such an amazing test and proved he revelled in high pressure rugby - why was he then dropped from the squad completely the following year? A performance of the quality you saw on that night would certainly warrant immediate reselection - especially after his Super form the following year was same old for him.
 
I don't think we are too far apart. I'd probably have given Donald a 7/10 and Ellis a 7.5/10. Others seem to think Donad's effort rivals Carter at the second Lions test. But for me there is a limit to amount I can wax lyrical about a half/five-eighth combo who put up 3 wobbly points in 60 minutes and were outscored. For me it's like celebrating a makeshift opening pair for putting together a 52 run opening partnership and calling it match winning. It certainly didn't lose they game, but it sure as hell didn't win it.
 
The result plays huge in how his performance is rated that night. If unrelated to him a forward gave up a penalty in the last 5 mins and we lost the test I don't think we are saying that Donald was outstanding that game (we certainly didn't for Spencer and McAlister and they both certainly were for large chunks of their elimination performances).
 
Anyway we digress, it's nothing against Donald (Ellis on the other hand is a Cantab) I just don't think we focus enough on the performance of the forwards that night they were the ones that really won it IMO.

Milk

It's not fair to judge Donald's contribution to the final without context. Universally derided and in the international wilderness, hadn't played a competitive game for a while, been on holiday... then comes on in New Zealand's biggest game in decades with the world watching. We've seen far better players than him fall apart in easier situations. I would have fallen apart, not a doubt in my mind.

kiwiinmelb

I think Donald took the French by surprise a bit ,not through brilliance , they had planned for Cruden who is opposites in many ways, 
 
I can remember Donald with those ugly tuck the ball under his arm bullocking runs up the guts , getting over the advantage line , it wasnt pretty from your 10 , but in the context of the game it was effective

KiwiMurph

Fatialofa may have entered calculations after last night - he was brilliant. Fifita was good off the bench too.

bobily

I think it will take a few more performances like that before Fatialofa makes it, but he has certainly been impressive. He doesn't look too slow, either. Which I think he has been accused off. A big guy (118kg, so one of the heavier locks around) with some good ball skills.

Cantab79

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="bobily" data-cid="574471" data-time="1461459942">
<div>
I think it will take a few more performances like that before Fatialofa makes it, but he has certainly been impressive. He doesn't look too slow, either. Which I think he has been accused off. A big guy (118kg, so one of the heavier locks around) with some good ball skills.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
What's going to count against Fatialofa is the fact that lock is arguably our strongest position. We have two world class incumbents in Brodie and Whitelock, two excellent backup specialists in Romano and Tuipulotu (who have both just re-signed with the NZRU) and two very promising utility players in Luatua and Thompson.

Dice

There are a few uncapped locks putting their hand up this season.
 
There also seems to be more good 6/lock utilities around too. A few years ago, Luatua seemed like the only proper 6/lock going around, now there's about 4 or 5.

bobily

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Cantab79" data-cid="574474" data-time="1461461245">
<div>
What's going to count against Fatialofa is the fact that lock is arguably our strongest position. We have two world class incumbents in Brodie and Whitelock, two excellent backup specialists in Romano and Tuipulotu (who have both just re-signed with the NZRU) and two very promising utility players in Luatua and Thompson. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yep, and Barrett, Bird, Wheeler and Franklin aren't bad, either (they wouldn't be much worse than guys we've had fill in before). What a difference 5 years makes.

The Silver Fern

AB bolters thread