All Blacks vs Argentina I

@canefan said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

@Bones said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

I'm gonna be sick a little but look at Ireland when they were good, they had JGP with quick service in close, not just passing but movement too - and then forward runners at pace and angled. Not forward runners standing still running straight with supporting runners hesitating whilst also running straight.

When they beat us in the series at home they totally schooled us

Did they though?

We beat them first up. I argued Foster got dudded as with decent refereeing we don't see the imbalance in red cards.

They sneaked over the top of us with 14 in test 2, then beat us fair and square in 3 ... Although we got to learn about soaking tackles that break cheek bones

They were slightly better over three tests.i don't think that's schooled.

They schooled us first half of Test 3. Other than that, spot on.

Chester Draws

@LatsToTheMax said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

@Chester-Draws said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

We entered this year super thin in a few positions because the last two years every game was a must win and the same old side rolled out.

We have to start playing some new guys, or we will enter the next RWC with some broken old men and lots of barely-played newbs.

Edit: and by "playing" I mean playing under red hot conditions, like in South Africa. Merely giving the next tier of players a spell or two in lighter games simply is not preparing them, or the team, properly.

Whose to say that the new guys aren't better? We'll never know if we never give them a chance.

You realise we have something like 45 tests before the next WC right?

Yeah, and I also know we won a RWC with our fourth-string 1st-5 who had played 24 tests by that point. We may not even get our reserve 1st-5 to that many tests at this rate by the next RWC, given that it won't be Beauden Barrett and even Mo'unga will be 33.

At some point we have to stop being conservative. It's not Razor's fault that Foster didn't want to try any new players, but it is his responsibility to deal with the problem.

BerniesCorner

With the use of subs any player can have a decent showing now.

Nepia

@Chester-Draws said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

At some point we have to stop being conservative. It's not Razor's fault that Foster didn't want to try any new players, but it is his responsibility to deal with the problem.

At some point we have to stop using Foster as an excuse.

Why is he being expected to try new players for Razor?

Who are these new players he should have tried for Razor?

MN5

@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

@Chester-Draws said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

At some point we have to stop being conservative. It's not Razor's fault that Foster didn't want to try any new players, but it is his responsibility to deal with the problem.

At some point we have to stop using Foster as an excuse.

Why is he being expected to try new players for Razor?

Who are these new players he should have tried for Razor?

When Razor loses his first test it will be 100% Fosters fault, that’s just common knowledge.

The three wins so far are all Razor though.

Chester Draws

@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

@Chester-Draws said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

At some point we have to stop being conservative. It's not Razor's fault that Foster didn't want to try any new players, but it is his responsibility to deal with the problem.

At some point we have to stop using Foster as an excuse.

Why is he being expected to try new players for Razor?

Who are these new players he should have tried for Razor?

I'm not using Foster as an excuse, because there is a very simple solution -- blood some new players. If he doesn't do that, it is on him, and him only.

He has been given a decent squad -- right up until injury strikes. He isn't responsible for that, it's the deal he got given.

But if we go the route of the original post that started this, that situation will get worse and worse.

As for who might have been tried, well I don't really want to get into that to specifically, because it opens a whole can of worms about provincial favourites, and derails my argument. If I name anyone, it will just go off on a tangent about that person. We could frame the question the other way -- if Foster did select and play lots of players, why are we so thin in experienced centres? (Chosen because, unlike lock, there have been no retirements).

mariner4life

Midfield? There are shiploads!

The two first choice. ALB is basically a veteran. Havili played the while world cup cycle. That's two very experienced players in each spot.

Then the next guy they chose had his knee wrecked. Ennor got a few games as well. And the other Crusaders guy who kept getting hurt. That's 6-8 guys getting tests in 2 spots.

The fucking revisionism on here needs to be seen to be believed at times.

Chester Draws

Are we really saying that Havili is an option at centre? He's a pretty marginal choice at 2nd-5.

Ennor got a eight games under Foster, most of them minor nations or as reserve. McLeod got one game. One.

Tupea I'll grant might have got a few more games, but for his injury. Although that's not necessarily a given as Foster got more conservative over time.

In reality we have at centre two experienced players, and then only very much noobs and one guy (Ennor) who has a bit of experience.

It's a little bit better at 2nd-5, but only a little bit, because our play got significantly better when the third of the experienced players was replaced.

So I don't get where you think we have lots of experience in the centres. Currently t's Ioane, Barrett, ALB and noobs, with the possible addition of Ennor if he gets back into form.

antipodean

@Chester-Draws said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

Are we really saying that Havili is an option at centre?

Certainly. Like I am an option. At my age, speed, skill and strength probably not a candidate for discussion of best ever... But still an option.

Nepia

@Chester-Draws said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

@Nepia said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

@Chester-Draws said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

At some point we have to stop being conservative. It's not Razor's fault that Foster didn't want to try any new players, but it is his responsibility to deal with the problem.

At some point we have to stop using Foster as an excuse.

Why is he being expected to try new players for Razor?

Who are these new players he should have tried for Razor?

I'm not using Foster as an excuse, because there is a very simple solution -- blood some new players. If he doesn't do that, it is on him, and him only.

He has been given a decent squad -- right up until injury strikes. He isn't responsible for that, it's the deal he got given.

But if we go the route of the original post that started this, that situation will get worse and worse.

As for who might have been tried, well I don't really want to get into that to specifically, because it opens a whole can of worms about provincial favourites, and derails my argument. If I name anyone, it will just go off on a tangent about that person. We could frame the question the other way -- if Foster did select and play lots of players, why are we so thin in experienced centres? (Chosen because, unlike lock, there have been no retirements).

For someone claiming to not be using Foster as an excuse the bold is weird. Yes Razor is responsible, he chose his squad, it wasn't given to him and he didn't have to pick the players he has.

Your comments on experienced centres makes no sense. If some other random player is picked at centre then it means that another one gets less experience. Also, lets look at a guy like Proctor. He's been a 7 year project at the Canes, and only really this year has he been in pick me form for the ABs. Was Foster supposed to pick him for development ... for the next guy?

MN5

@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

@Chester-Draws said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

Are we really saying that Havili is an option at centre?

Certainly. Like I am an option. At my age, speed, skill and strength probably not a candidate for discussion of best ever... But still an option.

Are you good on both sides of the ball though ? That might get you up the pecking order

canefan

@MN5 said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

@Chester-Draws said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

Are we really saying that Havili is an option at centre?

Certainly. Like I am an option. At my age, speed, skill and strength probably not a candidate for discussion of best ever... But still an option.

Are you good on both sides of the ball though ? That might get you up the pecking order

Or if you look good in red 🪝

No Quarter

@Chester-Draws you are reaching a bit now with the anti Fozzie stuff. Havili, McLeod, Ennor and Tupea were the next best midfielders, all given chances, and all were found to not be test standard. That's very unlikely to change regardless of who coaches the ABs. What was Fozzie meant to do? Keep selecting the "next best" in the line and hope someone magically goes well? The ABs is not a development side.

canefan

@No-Quarter said in All Blacks vs Argentina I - 10 August:

@Chester-Draws you are reaching a bit now with the anti Fozzie stuff. Havili, McLeod, Ennor and Tupea were the next best midfielders, all given chances, and all were found to not be test standard. That's very unlikely to change regardless of who coaches the ABs. What was Fozzie meant to do? Keep selecting the "next best" in the line and hope someone magically goes well? The ABs is not a development side.

Now that they have been found wanting, why are we going backwards? I know, he's Razor's boy

The Silver Fern

All Blacks vs Argentina I