Secret Super rugby review: Axe a team from Australia and South Africa

Unco

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hurricane" data-cid="609342" data-time="1472248519">
<div>
Fixed your post for you...
</div>
</blockquote>
That's your best response? How old are you? 10?

Frye

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="609362" data-time="1472251534">
<div>
That's your best response? How old are you? 10?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Most likely.
 
 
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">Behind Cane we have Savea who is very good I guess, but then who Matt Todd...Major LOL. I distinctly remember a super match towards the end where a wellington player ran straight over the top of him and Todd looked like chump.</blockquote>
 
Dismissing a bloody good player because he missed A tackle. 
 
Not really worth addressing.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hurricane" data-cid="609266" data-time="1472207165">
<div>
I think you are completely underselling Reid. He is a quality number 7. McMahon is also "isn't bad". That gives Australia 4 International quality number 7s. 
Hoopah, Pocock, Reid, McMahon not to mention Gill isn't bad either and by memory it was gill who had the most turnovers out of Australia's number 7s 
last year. 
Who does New Zealand have - Cane? I would have Hoopah and Pocock ahead of him anyday. Behind Cane we have Savea who is very good I guess, but then who 
Matt Todd...Major LOL. I distinctly remember a super match towards the end where a wellington player ran straight over the top of him and Todd looked like chump.
</div>
</blockquote>
How on earth was I underselling Reid? I didn't mention anything about his ability.
 
If Pocock was a Zim-Kiwi instead of an Zim-Aus I don't think he'd be the regular starter for Hansen coached teams for reasons that many have mentioned in this thread above (and in my response to Hydro below).
 
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="609281" data-time="1472210237">
<div>
I hardly think it is that ridiculous to think that Pocock/Hoopah are better than Cane. There are a lot of people who seem to think that every single All Black is better than every single Wallaby. I just don't think that is the case. If that is the case then there would almost be no way I could see us losing on Saturday. A lot of people on here don't like Pocock's "style" because he is always looking for the turnover and is a weak tackler. Okay. How much better would those turnovers look if he was turning the ball over and giving it to Barrett? Would Cane look anywhere near as good as a Wallaby?
</div>
</blockquote>
He probably would have last weekend because he likely would have tackled himself to a standstill - something the Wallabies seemed to actively avoid.
 
And on Pocock's style, as has been mentioned many times (Rancid in this thread) the ABs don't play a style that has one player constantly turnover ball and they haven't for ages even thought they had one of the best in the business at it. Would the ABs change their style for one player? I don't think so.

hurricane

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="609362" data-time="1472251534">
<div>
That's your best response? How old are you? 10?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Better than the foul langauage you come up with. Would you have preferred if I had sworn back at you. Is that the level of discourse you understand and respect?
 
Anyway - my response was designed to get a laugh out of you, and eventually get us to shake hands and move on. 
 
I do think you were OTT with your initial response, but perhaps I should call this quits and move on as a reconciliation does not appear likely.
 
Good luck to you.

Frank

Still not totally sure about Cane. But by fuck he was awesome last week.

Unco

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hurricane" data-cid="609369" data-time="1472252265">
<div>
Better than the foul langauage you come up with. Would you have preferred if I had sworn back at you. Is that the level of discourse you understand and respect?
 
Anyway - my response was designed to get a laugh out of you, and eventually get us to shake hands and move on. 
 
I do think you were OTT with your initial response, but perhaps I should call this quits and move on as a reconciliation does not appear likely.
 
Good luck to you.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
If you wanted us to shake hands and move on, you'd walk back some of the rubbish you said on the last page, not post a smart ass edit of my post. Hell, if you really didn't want things to go south, you could've started digging yourself out of your hole the minute you were called out but instead, all you did is dig yourself in deeper with more rubbish.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="609368" data-time="1472252219">
<div>
How on earth was I underselling Reid? I didn't mention anything about his ability.
 
If Pocock was a Zim-Kiwi instead of an Zim-Aus I don't think he'd be the regular starter for Hansen coached teams for reasons that many have mentioned in this thread above (and in my response to Hydro below).
 
 
He probably would have last weekend because he likely would have tackled himself to a standstill - something the Wallabies seemed to actively avoid.
 
And on Pocock's style, as has been mentioned many times (Rancid in this thread) the ABs don't play a style that has one player constantly turnover ball and they haven't for ages even thought they had one of the best in the business at it. Would the ABs change their style for one player? I don't think so.
</div>
</blockquote>
Well, Australia's top tacklers last week were Kuridrani with 17 and Hooper with 14. Both missed no tackles. No one has mentioned either of those feats in the post match wrap. Kuridrani was deservedly dropped as well. For his part Pocock missed 4 tackles last week.
 
Maybe the All Blacks would select Cane over Pocock because Cane fits their style more. I don't think that necessarily proves who is the better player, however. I have absolutely no doubt that Scotland would select A. Savea over Sam Cane because Scotland could do with a game breaker. Same with South Africa. South Africa would probably select Pocock over Cane as well. South Africa doesn't need a dominant tackler.
 
The original discussion, as I saw it, wasn't actually about whether Pocock would start for the All Blacks. It was who is a better player: Pocock, Hooper or Cane? I just used the fact that Pocock would look better in the All Blacks than he does in the Wallabies to back up my point. I wasn't saying Hansen would select Pocock ahead of Cane. Just because the All Blacks prioritise certain skill sets, it doesn't mean that everyone else prioritises those skill sets and a player is automatically better for fitting into the All Blacks system.
 
As to who is the best player out of those three, I really can't say. I think that most international teams would take Pocock or A.Savea over Sam Cane. Just as most other teams would have had Barrett ahead of Cruden years ago. I don't think that answers the question though.

antipodean

I've said this before and it's worth pointing out again that the All Blacks play a style of defence that is offensive in nature. Anyone who has watched them play over the last decade should have noticed this. They seek to drive their opponents behind the advantage line until they either make a mistake or have no options left but to kick under pressure where our back three are unmatched in their ability to exploit a transitioning defence. For all his skills, that is why Cane is first choice now; his tackling and motor are better than the alternatives. 
Pocock has never tackled someone in that manner. Given he can't run with the ball either, there is no way he would make the All Blacks the way he plays the game and his obvious deficiencies. Whenever I hear the myth that the average New Zealander possesses an astute rugby brain, I just refer to the number of them who claim Pocock would walk into the All Blacks. 
According to the ESPN stats I saw for last weekend Pocock missed four tackles and coughed up the ball twice. I don't know what basis there is for the claim he's intelligent either, apart from his talent for self promotion. 
Watching the RWC I formed the opinion that Fardy and Hoopah (in that order) were more instrumental in the Wallabies victories as well. Now the Wallabies may overlook the negative aspects of his play for his undoubted strength, but it compromises them. 
And on topic, the ARU would be well served having one less team in Super Rugby, particularly with the introduction of the NRC achieving much the same goal of adding depth.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="609387" data-time="1472255777">
<div>
I've said this before and it's worth pointing out again that theAll Blacks play a style of defence that is offensive in nature. Anyone who has watched them play over the last decade should have noticed this. They seek to drive their opponents behind the advantage line until they either make a mistake or have no options left but to kick under pressure where our back three are unmatched in their ability to exploit a transitioning defence. For all his skills, that is why Cane is first choice now; his takling and motor are better than the alternatives. 
Pocock has never tackled someone in that manner. Given he can't run with the ball either, there is no way he would make the All Blacks given the way he plays the game and his obvious deficiencies. Whenever I hear the myth that the average New Zealander possesses an astute rugby brain, I just refer to the number ofthem who claim Pocock would walk into the All Blacks. 
According to the ESPN stats I saw for last weekend Pocock missed four tackles and coughed up the ball twice. I don't know what basis there is for the claim he's intelligent either, apart from his talent for self promotion. 
Watching the RWC I formed the opinion that Fardy and Hoopah (in that order) were more instrumental in the Wallabies victories as well. Now the Wallabies may overlook the negative aspects of his play for his undoubted strength, but it compromises them. 
And on topic, the ARU would be well served having one less team in Super Rugby, particulalry with the introduction of the NRC achieving much the same goal of adding depth.
</div>
</blockquote>
Pocock is a hugely intelligent footballer. The quick conversion taken by the Brumbies gained his team 7 points and exposed a glaring loop hole in the rules. I never saw any other captain give such an order over the season.
 
As I said Pocock may not make the All Blacks but Sam Cane probably wouldn't make the Wallabies. Pocock ha a different skill set to Cane which may fit the way some teams want to play.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="609388" data-time="1472256105">
Pocock is a hugely intelligent footballer. The quick conversion taken by the Brumbies gained his team 7 points and exposed a glaring loop hole in the rules. I never saw any other captain give such an order over the season.</blockquote>
Yes it showed an astute appreciation for the laws but, how often did those circumstances eventuate? I recall one other time where the ref was quick enough to instruct the kicker not to attempt the conversion.

Baron Silas Greenback

Pocock isn't fit to carry Canes water bottle. 
He is just pulls out a couple of ruck steals and then does nothing much else. I used to buy into the hype and get worried about him, and then realised that he never had much impact.
Pocock is the new myth. In a test match team I want a 7 that tackles hard and hits rucks... not someone who floats around the game looking for the very occasional steal.
 
And as for the prediction of who not be playing in 2 years time.... the new rules suit a player like Cane, not a player like Pocock.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="609389" data-time="1472256419">
<div>
Yes it showed an astute appreciation for the laws but, how often did those circumstances eventuate? I recall one other time where the ref was quick enough to instruct the kicker not to attempt the conversion.
</div>
</blockquote>
I understand that that was post the Pocock incident. He caused the referees to change.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="609393" data-time="1472257459">I understand that that was post the Pocock incident. He caused the referees to change.</blockquote>
Yes, but how many times previously had a referee awarded a try just to begin the process of reviewing it?

hurricane

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="609379" data-time="1472253426">
<div>
If you wanted us to shake hands and move on, you'd walk back some of the rubbish you said on the last page, not post a smart ass edit of my post. Hell, if you really didn't want things to go south, you could've started digging yourself out of your hole the minute you were called out but instead, all you did is dig yourself in deeper with more rubbish.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
@Unco - IF digging myself further in includes posting stats that claim Cane is not as good as Pocock and Hoopah then I am not sure what to say. I am allowed to defend my position, you are allowed to debate my position and fervantly disagree with it. I reckon my position had merit enough not to be dismissed out of hand. Anyway I need to move on from this now, I think we have gone forth and back enough. I have to clean the house thoroughly and it will take a while. You know how it is on a weekend.
 
@everyone else.
One point I will confess to, and this addresses something Booboo threw at me. I am in the camp that Savea is a better 7 than Cane. I think Cane is the starting 7 as he is the incumbent player and we are very reluctant, with good reasons, to mess with a winning formula. If Savea was our starting 7 I might be more defensive of him in match ups against 7s from other teams in the world. I am particularly down on Cane for two reasons:
1) He is not aggressive at the ruck area from a competing for the ball perspective
2) His discipline is extremely juvenile at times, more so in Super Rugby perhaps. But yes as another poster said, this may be a growing phase and he may move on.
That said I grant that he is a fine defender and plays to the full capacity that his frame allows him to. I also acknowledged that in no way does he let his team mates down in the All Blacks and I do believe he adds value to the team.

Frank

Cane's tighter playing style than Ardie Savea (along with Kaino ) allows our trump card - Read - to play wider, where I think he is more effective than being confined to play tight.
 
You put Ardie in there to start, you then have two players who like to range more. This is alright for the last 20 minutes, but might not be ideal for the whole game.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="609395" data-time="1472257717">
<div>
Yes, but how many times previously had a referee awarded a try just to begin the process of reviewing it?
</div>
</blockquote>
Never? If the referee wants to review it, they review it. If the referee awards a try, they can later call time out if they see something on the big screen. Now referees will stop you from taking the drop kick if you go to do it do it quickly.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="609387" data-time="1472255777">
<div>
I've said this before and it's worth pointing out again that the All Blacks play a style of defence that is offensive in nature. Anyone who has watched them play over the last decade should have noticed this. They seek to drive their opponents behind the advantage line until they either make a mistake or have no options left but to kick under pressure where our back three are unmatched in their ability to exploit a transitioning defence. For all his skills, that is why Cane is first choice now; his tackling and motor are better than the alternatives.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Spot on!
 
Jerome Kaino pretty much epitomises what the AB's defence is all about. It's part of the reason IMO why McCaw was never really under significant threat - even from a technical perspective - from a young Sam Cane. They would want their openside flanker to be big enough to knock big midfield backs backwards in the tackle - and stop people effectively even when not perfectly positioned to make the tackle. I reckon it's noticeable than Cane has become a much bigger unit in the past 12-18 months - big enough that the Chiefs could use him at 8.
 
Despite what Hoopah's Wiki page says (108kgs - tell him he's dreaming!) I think his size would largely disqualify him from the AB equation.
 
Pocock vs Cane - would be more interesting. I rate both of them very highly and would have Pocock playing 7 for the Wallabies. He'd doubtless have to alter his game a bit.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Frank" data-cid="609398" data-time="1472258381">
<div>
Cane's tighter playing style than Ardie Savea (along with Kaino ) allows our trump card - Read - to play wider, where I think he is more effective than being confined to play tight.
 
You put Ardie in there to start, you then have two players who like to range more. This is alright for the last 20 minutes, but might not be ideal for the whole game.
</div>
</blockquote>
If I take all of this is true, it provides a good justification of why Cane should start for the All Blacks ahead of A. Savea. It doesn't show that Cane is a better player than A. Savea. Many international teams don't have a number 8 who roams wide so could give a number 7 more freedom.

Bones

Fucking hell. Pretty obvious troll when a negative point that's crapped out is Cane isn't aggressive enough at the breakdown.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="609400" data-time="1472258889">Never? If the referee wants to review it, they review it. If the referee awards a try, they can later call time out if they see something on the big screen. Now referees will stop you from taking the drop kick if you go to do it do it quickly.</blockquote>
 
That is my point; how often had a ref awarded it and then reviewed it? <blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hurricane" data-cid="609396" data-time="1472257787">
That said I grant that he is a fine defender and plays to the full capacity that his frame allows him to. I also acknowledged that in no way does he let his team mates down in the All Blacks and I do believe he adds value to the team.</blockquote>
 
What a childish response. A 'fine defender' as if he isn't excellent. As if his frame prevents him from playing Test level rugby, he's not a midget ffs. You might have an Ardie poster in your bedroom, but your response is unbelievably puerile and detracts from whatever other points you may make.

The Silver Fern

Secret Super rugby review: Axe a team from Australia and South Africa