Secret Super rugby review: Axe a team from Australia and South Africa
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="609403" data-time="1472259150"><p>
Fucking hell. Pretty obvious troll when a negative point that's crapped out is Cane isn't aggressive enough at the breakdown.</p></blockquote>
<br>
I was thinking the same thing this morning when I was reading this thread while having breakfast with Damien Mackenzie , Jerome Kaino, Joe Moody and Liam Squire. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="609385" data-time="1472255393">
<div>
<p>Well, Australia's top tacklers last week were Kuridrani with 17 and Hoopah 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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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, Hoopah 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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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. <strong>Just as most other teams would have had Barrett ahead of Cruden years ago</strong>. I don't think that answers the question though.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Well, that last part is just rubbish. This is the first season that Barrett has totally made the 10 his own jersey, this is the first season (when they're both playing) he's actually been a better 10 than Cruden - you need a memory re-fit if you think otherwise.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But to the 'better player' point, just because someone rates what Pocock brings to the table it doesn't make Pocock the better player, I personally favour the NZ style of game so rate Cane better. I also think if you asked them to play each other's role that Cane would be way more successful in adapting to the fetcher style than Pocock would to a more aggressive NZ style. And in no way am I saying that Pocock is a bad rugby player.</p> -
<p>Some people are being way too harsh on Hurricane. He posts an opinion which leads to a discussion and is called "out of his fucking mind" and a "troll". Now he is being called puerile for calling Sam Cane a "fine defender". I didn't know that there were mandated adjectives you had to use to describe Cane's rugby. He made some missteps as well - saying major LOL at Todd and saying people only rate Cane because he wears the black aren't very conducive to a good discussion. I mean M4L gets 3 likes for posting something which is directly contradicted by Hurricane's last post.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="609412" data-time="1472261571">
<div>
<p>Well, that last part is just rubbish. This is the first season that Barrett has totally made the 10 his own jersey, this is the first season (when they're both playing) he's actually been a better 10 than Cruden - you need a memory re-fit if you think otherwise.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But to the 'better player' point, just because someone rates what Pocock brings to the table it doesn't make Pocock the better player, I personally favour the NZ style of game so rate Cane better. I also think if you asked them to play each other's role that Cane would be way more successful in adapting to the fetcher style than Pocock would to a more aggressive NZ style. And in no way am I saying that Pocock is a bad rugby player.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I think Cruden has been a better player than Barrett. In fact, I probably would have started Cruden over Barrett last week because Cruden is the incumbent. I am just saying that another country probably would have started Barrett over Cruden years ago (lets ignore Carter for this conversation). If you are Scotland then a more solid first-five like Cruden is probably going to be of less of a benefit than someone like Barrett. That isn't to say Cruden isn't a fantastic attacking player either (he is). I'm just saying that a team like Italy or Scotland badly need game breakers who can tear the other side apart. Barrett offers more of that than Cruden so he is probably going to be more valuable to those teams. A team that already has great outside backs would have far preferred Cruden. Maybe you disagree with the example but I think the overarching point still stands that a player isn't better than another player just because they fit one team's structure.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Perhaps it is all academic as other teams would probably just start Cruden at 10 with Barrett at fullback.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As to the second part I agree mostly. However, I also think any other style of rugby can be effective too if you have the right players.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="609404" data-time="1472259375">
<div>
<p>
What a childish response. A <em>'fine defender'</em> 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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I think this is a bit unfair. I meant my final sentences about Cane purely as positives. :(</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Anyway - starting to get pumped now about tonight. Quade Cooper starting at 1st 5 which promises something will happen. And we all get to watch Sam Cane to see how many turn overs/penalties/thumping tackles he delivers. I have $20 on the ABs to win this by 30 points.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Fire up Black!</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="609388" data-time="1472256105"><p>
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.<br><br>
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.</p></blockquote>
<br>
He didn't look like an intelligent footballer last week while he was debating with the ref while still wrestling for the ball that the ref was telling him to let go of. That is very much in the category of stupid penalty that Cane is getting marked down for. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="609416" data-time="1472261930">
<div>
<p>Some people are being way too harsh on Hurricane. He posts an opinion which leads to a discussion and is called "out of his fucking mind" and a "troll". Now he is being called puerile for calling Sam Cane a "fine defender". I didn't know that there were mandated adjectives you had to use to describe Cane's rugby. He made some missteps as well - saying major LOL at Todd and saying people only rate Cane because he wears the black aren't very conducive to a good discussion. I mean M4L gets 3 likes for posting something which is directly contradicted by Hurricane's last post.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>As a side note, number of likes has no relation to the quality of post. Just how many agree with you. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="609503" data-time="1472276574">
<div>
<p>As a side note, number of likes has no relation to the quality of post. Just how many agree with you. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That's the way it is but not the way it should be. I will try to like a well reasoned post I disagree with more than a poorly reasoned post I agree with. It's only internet points but still. "You're out of your fucking mind" adds nothing to a conversation and I think it was that comment and others which lead to increasingly defensive posts from Hurricane (which didn't add anything to the conversation either).</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="609521" data-time="1472278032">
<div>
<p>That's the way it is but not the way it should be. I will try to like a well reasoned post I disagree with more than a poorly reasoned post I agree with. It's only internet points but still. "You're out of your fucking mind" adds nothing to a conversation and I think it was that comment and others which lead to increasingly defensive posts from Hurricane (which didn't add anything to the conversation either).</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I was also told that if I didn't like being sworn at that I should join stuff.co.nz's comment section instead because being sworn at was par for the course apparently around here for putting forward a dissenting opinion. That was an off putting message as well.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The only point I would like to close on is that Hoopah and Pocock are world class number 7s and it should be "normal" on discussion forums to compare world class players against each other. It was not like I was comparing and contrasting Sam Cane with the team captain of Horowhenua. Yet the reaction I was given was as if I had done that by 2-3 posters. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I will probably be careful before I suggest that an All Black is not the best in the world in his position on this web site in the future. Which is a shame as some people made some very good rejoinders to my position such as the Baron's post and about 10-20 other people who responded in a normal tone.</p> -
<p>Oh bugger off with this "woe is me, you're mean" bullshit. You said you'd pick Hooper and Pocock over Cane any day of the week, a week after Cane comprehensively outplayed the other two. Then when you were called out for it, you doubled down with more stupid shit, saying Cane is a journeyman at best and that the only reason he's rated on here is because we're biased. And then, after all this, you FINALLY posted your grand proof of that, a biased G&G article. That's not a reasoned argument, that's trolling.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Funnily enough, Cane just outplayed the wonder twins for a second week in a row. Farkin useless, that guy is.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="609742" data-time="1472290475">
<div>
<p>Oh bugger off with this "woe is me, you're mean" bullshit. You said you'd pick Hoopah and Pocock over Cane any day of the week, a week after Cane comprehensively outplayed the other two. Then when you were called out for it, you doubled down with more stupid shit, saying Cane is a journeyman at best and that the only reason he's rated on here is because we're biased. And then, after all this, you FINALLY posted your grand proof of that, a biased G&G article. That's not a reasoned argument, that's trolling.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Funnily enough, Cane just outplayed the wonder twins for a second week in a row. Farkin useless, that guy is.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This is how it went:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Hurricane: <strong>Who does New Zealand have - Cane? I would have Hoopah and Pocock ahead of him anyday.</strong> Behind Cane we have Savea who is very good I guess, but then who<br>
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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Unco: You're out of your fucking mind.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Hurricane: Well whatever. At least I don't rate players just because they wear a black jersey. Cane is destined to be a journeyman player at best.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Hurricane resorted to calling Cane a journeyman after your post that he was out of his fucking mind. Is calling someone out of their fucking mind actually calling someone out? It seems more like blatant verbal abuse. Calling someone out from my position would be engaging in a reasoned argument. If Hurricane hadn't been sworn at, then I doubt he would have reacted in that way. You just called him "out of his fucking mind" for suggesting that Pocock or Hooper are better players than Cane. That might be a wrong opinion but I hardly think it is controversial. Would you really have reacted in a different way if he had left out "anyday"?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hurricane" data-cid="609529" data-time="1472278556"><p>
I will probably be careful before I suggest that an All Black is not the best in the world in his position on this web site in the future.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Somewhat unnecessary and I'd suggest childish quip Hurricane (in line with a post by M4L above). I think you could find plenty of Ferners who would agree that our midfielders aren't there yet ... -
<p>If I say I'd pick these players over that player any day of the week, I'm not just saying those players are better than the other one, I'm saying they're far better. That even on that players best day, he still won't be as good as the other two. So yeah, I probably would've reacted differently. Would you have run to his defence if I'd left "fuckng" out of my post?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And why exactly should I waste my time "engaging in a reasoned argument" with someone who's shown about as much reasoning as Donald Trump? If I see a troll, I'll post a one sentence dismissal because that's all it deserves. If he wants to have a real argument, maybe he should have posted something to actually argue with, not just spewed forth his unreasoned opinions.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="609926" data-time="1472331469">
<div>
<p>Somewhat unnecessary and I'd suggest childish quip Hurricane (in line with a post by M4L above). I think you could find plenty of Ferners who would agree that our midfielders aren't there yet ...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>99% of the Ferners would make that concession. A vocal 1% would take offence and get abusive. Someone else can put themselves out there next time. My whole goal for my participation on this web site was just to make the odd interesting comment here and there, I don't really want to be in the spot light so will take some learnings away from this. That is all my post was meant to mean rather than being shot at the Fern. For the record I thought that was his (Malakai's) best night in a black jersey by some distance last night.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>@Unco - I don't really care you had a crack at me. I am not sitting at home throwing darts at a picture with your avatar on it. To be honest on a scale of 1 to 10 it was a 7. I have had way worse said to me and I am sure everyone has. If you come online you risk someone swearing at you. Just seems to be how it works. So yeah - if you don't want to apologise even though in my view you were OTT that is your call. I won't be crying into my beer over the incident. Let's all move on. Who really cares. This is not the biggest incident the Silver Fern has ever seen or will see. Let's end the autopsy. Yes if you had said "You are out of your mind". I probably would have laughed.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For my part I have noted down don't say "any day" in case that helps.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thanks </p> -
A whine so good Stephen Moore would be proud of it
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="609973" data-time="1472336851">
<div>
<p>Hurricane I'm calling bullshit on any Ferner saying our midfield is settled or close to being the finished product without it being pointed out they are wrong by the rest of us .</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Is Sam Cane the finished product? Is he is as good as he will end up being? Or is he still on a learning curve? I saw some people making points like that last night but a vocal 1% not conceeding any ground about him and insisting he is the best open side in the world already despite this being his first year as a regular starter.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am generalising from the Cane discussion to a potential discussion on the midfield.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hurricane" data-cid="609975" data-time="1472337103"><p>
Is Sam Cane the finished product? Is he is as good as he will end up being? Or is he still on a learning curve? I saw some people making points like that last night but a vocal 1% not conceeding any ground about him and insisting he is the best open side in the world already despite this being his first year as a regular starter.<br><br>
I am generalising from the Cane discussion to a potential discussion on the midfield.</p></blockquote>
<br>
This behaviour is horribly familiar. Are you my ex wife? -
Hey SANZAAR, just bury your head in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong with the Super Rugby format. Just add a North American team in the future for your extra $$$ and ignore that rugby fans in the SH don't want more easy to beat teams that dilute the competition and make it less competitive in sporting terms. I don't think anybody is asking for an extra NZ team. We want fewer teams! Especially fewer weak teams. Seriously, what's wrong with these people that they think we will keep on watching if we get more teams at Western Force or Kings level? Are they so absorbed by the business side of Super Rugby that they can't see the rugby side of it anymore? Sheeeeeeeessshhhh
Rant over. I've had a frustrating morning and I can't handle nonsense like this today:
Super Rugby eyes USA franchise as no changes made for 2017
A North American team in Super Rugby? That's more likely to happen than a new team in New Zealand according to SANZAAR boss Andy Marinos. Speaking on the unchanged Super Rugby format for next year, Marinos says any expansion to Super Rugby would come in areas like North America instead of within the current nations. With six franchises in South Africa and five each in Australia and New Zealand, Marinos has said the markets in those countries had reached saturation point and suggested any competition expansion would come in other regions. He said the United States was one area that could be looked at given some strategic investment over a number of years, as happened with Argentina before it entered the Super tournament this year with the Jaguares. Marinos admitted Super Rugby needs to improve its competitiveness, but said the hotly debated conference system which made its debut in 2016 is here to stay. He said the amount of money being spent by English and French teams represented a significant threat to the game in the southern hemisphere. "We've already seen a mass exodus of players out of Africa and Australia and if it continues at the rate it is, I think it could impact all the other markets in SANZAAR." Marinos said.The first year of the conference format drew plenty of criticism, especially around the draw with some sides not playing New Zealand teams and some teams hosting finals against sides which accumulated more points. "The format is going to stay in conferences for the foreseeable future given our geographical challenges we've got," Marinos said in Sydney on Monday. 'It's more 'how do we get the competitiveness in the teams and understanding that it's not easy'. This is a blooming tough competition." The draw for 2017 will be released today.Australian representatives had the chance to air any grievances at this week's two-day meeting of coaches, CEOs and other stakeholders at the 2016 Super Rugby review in Sydney, but were apparently diplomatic. "They were quite quiet to be honest but they understand where we are in the strategy," Marinos said. Several Australian and South African sides struggled in the 2016 Super tournament, which was dominated by New Zealand teams, who took three of the four semi-final placings. "It is a concern. It's been a concern for a while, but that's a national union objective around high performance plans and how they are getting their squads together," Marinos said.Despite some of the negativity surrounding Super Rugby, Marinos was adamant there wasn't much wrong with the product, pointing to viewing figures and game statistics. "I do tend to get the feeling especially in this market [Australia] and New Zealand and probably even in South Africa to a degree, people think the whole thing is broken, but it's not," Marinos said. "It's a damn good competition."http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11713051
-
I wouldn't take this seriously until there are reports from outside of Ireland
Revealed: The Irish provinces could be playing Super Rugby giants in a blockbuster new tournament
Exploratory talks have taken place between northern and southern hemisphere rugby bodies regarding a cross-hemisphere tournament that could feature the Iri...
Independent.ie has learned that one of the other options being floated is a cross-hemisphere tournament involving the Super Rugby sides and the Pro12 teams. Although such a competition is only in the early proposal stage, SANZAR - the organisers of Super Rugby - have met with officials from the Pro12 countries to discuss the prospect. A possible format would be the Pro12 sides competing with the South African and Argentine Super Rugby outfits in a northern hemisphere conference, with the Australia, New Zealand and Japanese sides comprising the southern hemisphere conference. Any possible tournament is predicated by the agreement of a global rugby calendar, with changes to the season's structure expected to be announced.
