All Blacks vs Wallabies I
-
@kpkanz said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@kpkanz said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
As I said before, seems odd to spend time on a guy for the ABs who wasnt even the preferred starting 10 at his own club.
Why do you care so much how he got the role?
He got an opportunity - he caught fire in career best form - he deserves a chance.
You're missing the Point. He only got the role due to injury and only kept it due to injury. Perofeta was the first choice 10 from start to finish.
And the Blues were just as dominant when Perofeta was leading the team before getting injured.
The coaches who see Plummer day in and day out at the Blues preferred Perofeta as the starting 10.
That's the point.
Hmmm unsure about that. Perofeta missed an easy penalty against the Canes which cost us top spot in the end (didn't matter thankfully), then had possibly the worst game you'll ever see from a 10 against the Tahs which nearly cost us the game and then got injured after the Crusders game the next week.
I'd almost say that Plummer moving to 10 was a blessing in disguise for the Blues 2024 campaign.
-
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@kpkanz said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
He only got the role due to injury and only kept it due to injury. Perofeta was the first choice 10 from start to finish.
That's not entirely true
Forbes was very good for the Blues at fullback in Zarn's absence
Blues could have easily put Perofeta to 10 and put Forbes at 15
Plummer played so well they shifted Perofeta to 15.
Perofeta was the best 10, and probably the best fullback at the Blues.
The gap between Perofeta and Forbes at fullback was a bigger gap in experience than Perofeta and Plummer at 10 since Plummer has 5 years at the Blues.
If Sullivan didn't get injured, he would have been fullback and Perofeta the starting 10.
-
@kpkanz said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@kpkanz said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
He only got the role due to injury and only kept it due to injury. Perofeta was the first choice 10 from start to finish.
That's not entirely true
Forbes was very good for the Blues at fullback in Zarn's absence
Blues could have easily put Perofeta to 10 and put Forbes at 15
Plummer played so well they shifted Perofeta to 15.
Perofeta was the best 10, and probably the best fullback at the Blues.
The gap between Perofeta and Forbes at fullback was a bigger gap in experience than Perofeta and Plummer at 10 since Plummer has 5 years at the Blues.
If Sullivan didn't get injured, he would have been fullback and Perofeta the starting 10.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because that's not how I saw it. Plummer was no chancer who got a free ride at 10. He made a big contribution to the Blues winning the title, including lights out goalkicking
-
@kpkanz said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
Perofeta was the best 10, and probably the best fullback at the Blues.
On reputation at the start of the season? Yes
On form at the end of the season? No
Anyway - let's agree to disagree and move on.
-
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@kpkanz said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@kpkanz said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
He only got the role due to injury and only kept it due to injury. Perofeta was the first choice 10 from start to finish.
That's not entirely true
Forbes was very good for the Blues at fullback in Zarn's absence
Blues could have easily put Perofeta to 10 and put Forbes at 15
Plummer played so well they shifted Perofeta to 15.
Perofeta was the best 10, and probably the best fullback at the Blues.
The gap between Perofeta and Forbes at fullback was a bigger gap in experience than Perofeta and Plummer at 10 since Plummer has 5 years at the Blues.
If Sullivan didn't get injured, he would have been fullback and Perofeta the starting 10.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because that's not how I saw it. Plummer was no chancer who got a free ride at 10. He made a big contribution to the Blues winning the title, including lights out goalkicking
Fair, we just see the season differently.
It does seem likely Plummer will be dropped once Perofeta is back (perhaps an assumption).
So feels difficult to justify giving a full test to someone who may just be temporary injury cover when we need to grow the first choicers combination and experience together.
That's my perspective on it
-
@kpkanz said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@kpkanz said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@kpkanz said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
He only got the role due to injury and only kept it due to injury. Perofeta was the first choice 10 from start to finish.
That's not entirely true
Forbes was very good for the Blues at fullback in Zarn's absence
Blues could have easily put Perofeta to 10 and put Forbes at 15
Plummer played so well they shifted Perofeta to 15.
Perofeta was the best 10, and probably the best fullback at the Blues.
The gap between Perofeta and Forbes at fullback was a bigger gap in experience than Perofeta and Plummer at 10 since Plummer has 5 years at the Blues.
If Sullivan didn't get injured, he would have been fullback and Perofeta the starting 10.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because that's not how I saw it. Plummer was no chancer who got a free ride at 10. He made a big contribution to the Blues winning the title, including lights out goalkicking
Fair, we just see the season differently.
It does seem likely Plummer will be dropped once Perofeta is back (perhaps an assumption).
So feels difficult to justify giving a full test to someone who may just be temporary injury cover when we need to grow the first choicers combination and experience together.
That's my perspective on it
The major philosophical difference is how we see Perofeta. I don't see him as being good enough for the ABs as a specialist 10 or 15, that's just my opinion. He could make it as a utility, but there are others who can also compete for that spot who have upside as well. I don't know if Plummer can make the jump. But based on his SR form I'd take a punt on him because he offers something different, I see him in more of a traditional AB 10 mold. And if he fails at least we won't die wondering
-
@kpkanz said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@kpkanz said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@kpkanz said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
As I said before, seems odd to spend time on a guy for the ABs who wasnt even the preferred starting 10 at his own club.
Why do you care so much how he got the role?
He got an opportunity - he caught fire in career best form - he deserves a chance.
You're missing the Point. He only got the role due to injury and only kept it due to injury. Perofeta was the first choice 10 from start to finish.
And the Blues were just as dominant when Perofeta was leading the team before getting injured.
The coaches who see Plummer day in and day out at the Blues preferred Perofeta as the starting 10.
That's the point.
Adding further to this point he is only in the All Blacks due to Perofeta getting injured.
We only have 8 more tests, we should be giving time to actual long term ABs that we need to gain experience, not people that are literally injury cover temporarily.
Plummer will be gone immediately when Perofeta is back from injury.
So Perofeta gets injured a lot and Plummer is tougher so more suitable for test footy. Got it. Thanks!
-
id say we will probably come out and pump the Wallabies and look ok doing it and not get really tested until the NH games, so we are probably not going to find out too much
-
Yeah it will be great to look good and retain the Bledisloe but will ultimately be a false dawn - we know we can beat up OZ so what. The policy should be to expose some players and give them experience but somehow I expect the same 23 bar 1 or 2 to roll out.
-
@kiwiinmelb said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
id say we will probably come out and pump the Wallabies and look ok doing it and not get really tested until the NH games, so we are probably not going to find out too much
Even after they got fucking humped, I still have some trepidations that we're entirely capable of playing down to their level and making it a cripple fight.
-
trashing aussie also feels slightly hollow, all the talk about super rugby not being good enough anymore...and how rough rugby in aussie is....we need them to be strong so thrashing them doesnt help much
-
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
trashing aussie also feels slightly hollow, all the talk about super rugby not being good enough anymore...and how rough rugby in aussie is....we need them to be strong so thrashing them doesnt help much
Honest opinion: the move by NZ and RSA to resume tours is basically the death knell for Super Rugby.
And it has served its purpose. It got professionalism going and stood up a product that was the envy of the rugby world.
However, I think we can all agree Fox paid overs for the game out of the blocks, and the sport is experiencing withdrawal symptoms, particularly here.
Time to do something different, and for Australia that probably means getting through the next TV deal and then using some RWC profits to develop a national club competition. It will, necessarily, be focused on Sydney, Brisbane, and Canberra - at least to begin with.
Between now and then, we'll need to have realigned our pathways to ensure clubs sit ahead of schools, or we condemn ourselves to terminal decline. Even if that means little clubs like mine get absorbed into Premier Clubs, for the good of the game it is the price to pay
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
Because let's be honest here, McKenzie was really fucking average on the weekend. And good results come from competition for spots.
What did he do wrong? Or at least what did he do average? Genuine question.
I did not get negative vibes watching live.
-
@booboo said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@antipodean said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
Because let's be honest here, McKenzie was really fucking average on the weekend. And good results come from competition for spots.
What did he do wrong? Or at least what did he do average? Genuine question.
I did not get negative vibes watching live.
IMO he consistently placed others under pressure through hesitation or poor execution. The two times I considered he was good were in the first half but those moments were started by other players. His much vaunted ability to "unlock defences", with the arguably better service from Ratima didn't eventuate.
I haven't seen an All Black backline play that consistently poorly in a long time. Not all his fault, but as the 10 he bears some responsibility.
-
I wouldn't have picked Perofeta for the squad but he played really well against England in both games. He showed far more composure than what we've seen from BB and Jordan at fullback and made things happen without resorting to low percentage plays.
On that basis he deserves to be higher in the pecking order than the unproven Love. Perofeta is also a better defender than Love.
-
@george33 said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
@Canes4life Aumua, Numia, Williams, Sotutu, Lakai, Roigard, Sullivan
Any tightheads?
-
@brodean said in All Blacks vs Wallabies I:
I wouldn't have picked Perofeta for the squad but he played really well against England in both games. He showed far more composure than what we've seen from BB and Jordan at fullback and made things happen without resorting to low percentage plays.
On that basis he deserves to be higher in the pecking order than the unproven Love. Perofeta is also a better defender than Love.
eactaly what i was thinking...wouldnt have picked him at the start but if people are given half a chance and they run with it then it should be rewarded
