McKenzie, Mo'unga etc
-
@Chris said in McKenzie, Mo'unga etc:
@reprobate said in All Blacks Vs England, Twickenham:
The more I think about the Barrett selection the grumpier I get. It now genuinely looks like Robertson's plan for the All Blacks is simply to bide time until his pet Mo'unga comes back. What a fucking dud move. The legacy of the All Blacks, the most successful team of all time, put on hold while some never-was glorified touch player makes some coin offshore.
He has given D Mac 8 starts in a row and he didn't take the chance.Barrett nah not for me but he needs results on this tour
this is what i dont get and see it mentioned a lot....is barrett actually the difference between wining and loosing? as ive said before its not like we're talking about DC coming back for a few games...im honeslty not far off thinking hes just as likely to lose us a game with a fucking cross field kick in our own 22 or something
we should have game plans that mean we can bring in rookies, hell sopoaga debuted against SA in SA and was almost man of the match, he didnt exactly go on to be a world beater, we should maybe have faith that these guys can also lift for a big game
-
@nzzp said in McKenzie, Mo'unga etc:
@Chris genuine question - you're really going hard for Mo'unga at 10. What do you see in him that we're missing?
As you say, it's like we're seeing different players. I know you're hooked into the CHC mafia, but do you really rate Mo'unga that highly?
And the thing I really can't figure out is why he left, knowing that one of his biggest fans would be takign the reins. It staggers me; did he not like the AB environment?
Yeah but I am not going hard out for Mounga just that another option is good and I don’t rate Barrett there as I said,
I don’t see D Mac is the answer either.
More responding to the cheap shot of Mounga is a pet shit.
More competition the better I also have mentioned Plummer and Jacomb as potential options in the future.
Money was the factor 4 million for 3 years is not to shabby. -
@Kiwiwomble said in McKenzie, Mo'unga etc:
@Chris said in McKenzie, Mo'unga etc:
@reprobate said in All Blacks Vs England, Twickenham:
The more I think about the Barrett selection the grumpier I get. It now genuinely looks like Robertson's plan for the All Blacks is simply to bide time until his pet Mo'unga comes back. What a fucking dud move. The legacy of the All Blacks, the most successful team of all time, put on hold while some never-was glorified touch player makes some coin offshore.
He has given D Mac 8 starts in a row and he didn't take the chance.Barrett nah not for me but he needs results on this tour
this is what i dont get and see it mentioned a lot....is barrett actually the difference between wining and loosing? as ive said before its not like we're talking about DC coming back for a few games...im honeslty not far off thinking hes just as likely to lose us a game with a fucking cross field kick in our own 22 or something
we should have game plans that mean we can bring in rookies, hell sopoaga debuted against SA in SA and was almost man of the match, he didnt exactly go on to be a world beater, we should maybe have faith that these guys can also lift for a big game
No Barrett is far from the answer but D Mac for me hasn’t been the answer either I would not pick either,but then who do we pick there is the problem atm.
-
@Chris said in McKenzie, Mo'unga etc:
@nzzp said in McKenzie, Mo'unga etc:
@Chris genuine question - you're really going hard for Mo'unga at 10. What do you see in him that we're missing?
As you say, it's like we're seeing different players. I know you're hooked into the CHC mafia, but do you really rate Mo'unga that highly?
And the thing I really can't figure out is why he left, knowing that one of his biggest fans would be takign the reins. It staggers me; did he not like the AB environment?
Money was the factor 4 million for 3 years is not to shabby.
I think it was $2.2 million per year = $6.6 million if he stays for 3 years.
-
@Chris It's really far more criticism of Robertson than Mounga. Selecting Barrett is just a bullshit holding pattern. It's not investing in the future, it's not even picking the best player right now - it's picking the old guy to scrape through a few games then bring your favourite back regardless of form / playing Super etc - the criticism of Mounga is just a corollary to that in that he's not exactly Dan Carter, and he is someone who jumped ship for money as a first choice starting all black - so he's not someone you should do that for.
If he picked Plummer, or Jacomb then great - I'd disagree with the selection but at least he'd be trying to build something. But he's not. -
@reprobate problem is, he has gone from having the ability to make some bold selections and if we had any losses, not really shrugged off, but begrudgingly accepted looking at the big picture, to the same boat as Fozzie was where he had suffered losses and was always in damage limitation needing to win but not really pushing the boat out.
-
@reprobate Razor will obviously know more than us, but it seems like far from a done deal that Mo'unga really will be back next year. I don't imagine Toyota are just going to let him go without a bit of a fight.
In the meantime, I've been quite pleased with how DMac's gone - and a bit surprised with this selection, though obviously it was telegraphed.
What I do wonder is whether DMac is a bit jaded. It's his first year in 10 hotseat - and that's a pretty searing seat to sit in. There's no doubt that his last couple of starts (vs Oz and Japan) have had a lot more little errors than earlier in the season. Maybe they're nursing him a bit to the end of the year?
Don't think you'd willingly start any of Perofeta, Plummer or Jacomb in these tests. Have any of them had even a minute at 10 for the ABs yet?
Danny Boy had a season and a half playing 12 before they gave him a start at 10. Got to ease people in there - off the bench, vs minnows, and via playing in less pressured positions.
-
-
-
@JayCee said in McKenzie, Mo'unga etc:
Is RM a done deal, do we know when he's back?
Edit: 2026 his contract expires. Yikes.
jeez....so unlikely to have a truly experience new 10 before the next RWC
-
@reprobate said in McKenzie, Mo'unga etc:
@Chris-B I'd love to believe that, but if he were jaded then you would rest him vs Japan.
Maybe - but, maybe they wanted to give him a game in a lower pressure game. It's just a theory.
Seems pretty evident that the plan was that BB would start this England game.
Sir Ted used to have a theory that you couldn't play well in three hard tests in a row, so maybe they'll start DMac vs Ireland and France.
One thing I'm pretty sure about is that the coaches want to win. They didn't have any qualms about picking Ardie, Beaudy and Sam Cane after a season in Japan, and I don't reckon they'd have any qualms about picking RM next year if he's back - without needing to play silly games now.
-
@JayCee said in McKenzie, Mo'unga etc:
Is RM a done deal, do we know when he's back?
Edit: 2026 his contract expires. Yikes.
There's an expectation that he has an out-clause in his contract with Toyota, so could be back at the end of Japan's next season - July 2025.
I think he only needs to be signed with an NPC/Super team to become available for the ABs - similar deal to Ardie, Sam and Beaudy this year.
-
I can't be bothered reading through the entire thread, so what I am about to say might have already been said. I read comments from some (Chris is the only one that springs to mind) that try to say Razor is in a tough spot and that justifies BBs inclusion at 10 due to a dearth of options. I call bullshit on that. Razor has fucked around with all of his selections, everything lacks direction. He had Plummer, who offers something different but along with other players in the squad Razor has shown no appetite to at least try them out in a proper game situation. Giving guys like Proctor, Plummer and others a serious audition, for example a start in the final Bledisloe test, would have been easy enough to do. He has done much the same as what Foster did, wasting valuable reps on known quantities that aren't going to provide a realistic answer to his problems, instead of rolling the dice and trying to find out exactly what he has
-
@canefan said in McKenzie, Mo'unga etc:
I can't be bothered reading through the entire thread, so what I am about to say might have already been said. I read comments from some (Chris is the only one that springs to mind) that try to say Razor is in a tough spot and that justifies BBs inclusion at 10 due to a dearth of options. I call bullshit on that. Razor has fucked around with all of his selections, everything lacks direction. He had Plummer, who offers something different but along with other players in the squad Razor has shown no appetite to at least try them out in a proper game situation. Giving guys like Proctor, Plummer and others a serious audition, for example a start in the final Bledisloe test, would have been easy enough to do. He has done much the same as what Foster did, wasting valuable reps on known quantities that aren't going to provide a realistic answer to his problems, instead of rolling the dice and trying to find out exactly what he has
Yeah the problem with that is They had to give D Mac more and more game time because he wasn’ t getting the job done,they keep playing him against Fiji and Japan etc hoping he would show something but he didn’t.
So we are where we are with 2 shit fucking options.
And they may have known what they had in the other options playing them against Fiji and Japan would have shown fuck all.
So I call BS on that as well. -
Etc for me. Super ten, reads the game well, makes good decisions, accurate kicking, fearless in the tackle.
-
It's funny isn't it, because Wayne Smith is arguing that in the Japan game they were better than earlier in the year:
“A case in point of how this can be effective was the second quarter of the All Blacks’ game against Japan.
“This was high octane, attacking rugby with clarity of thought. The All Blacks attacked through precise passes and offloads and seemed to be learning where the space was next. This is critical.”
Attackers pressing forward across the field, forcing defenders to advance, limit their ability to step in and gang tackle. Playing this way, off fast ruck ball or offloads, allows teams to attack a retreating defensive line.
“Effective attacking rugby is based on shaping the enemy defence so that you can attack areas that are poorly defended. I saw glimpses of this from the All Blacks, and it’s exciting to think where they can go with it.”He contrasted that with where we were earlier in the year:
As one example, Smith points to the All Blacks exposing the Springboks in the wide channels in their first test in South Africa at Ellis Park before the defence adjusted. The All Blacks then didn’t identify that the space shifted elsewhere, to the blindside and around the ruck. The same applied to their kicking strategy.
“They’ve still got a bit of learning to do about where the space is once they’ve been successful in certain areas. Those areas get covered, so where’s the space now?”My feeling is that they have decided they want Dmac to finish the game, and have Mo'unga positioned to come back as the starting 10.
I believe they'll be looking for a new finisher if Mo'unga comes back though.
-
@gt12 said in McKenzie, Mo'unga etc:
It's funny isn't it, because Wayne Smith is arguing that in the Japan game they were better than earlier in the year:
“A case in point of how this can be effective was the second quarter of the All Blacks’ game against Japan.
“This was high octane, attacking rugby with clarity of thought. The All Blacks attacked through precise passes and offloads and seemed to be learning where the space was next. This is critical.”
Attackers pressing forward across the field, forcing defenders to advance, limit their ability to step in and gang tackle. Playing this way, off fast ruck ball or offloads, allows teams to attack a retreating defensive line.
“Effective attacking rugby is based on shaping the enemy defence so that you can attack areas that are poorly defended. I saw glimpses of this from the All Blacks, and it’s exciting to think where they can go with it.”He contrasted that with where we were earlier in the year:
As one example, Smith points to the All Blacks exposing the Springboks in the wide channels in their first test in South Africa at Ellis Park before the defence adjusted. The All Blacks then didn’t identify that the space shifted elsewhere, to the blindside and around the ruck. The same applied to their kicking strategy.
“They’ve still got a bit of learning to do about where the space is once they’ve been successful in certain areas. Those areas get covered, so where’s the space now?”My feeling is that they have decided they want Dmac to finish the game, and have Mo'unga positioned to come back as the starting 10.
I believe they'll be looking for a new finisher if Mo'unga comes back though.
I suppose until they bed in the way they want to play we will not know.
Do you think it is a more traditional finisher solid player they will look for if is not a D Mac type player? -
@Chris said in McKenzie, Mo'unga etc:
@canefan said in McKenzie, Mo'unga etc:
I can't be bothered reading through the entire thread, so what I am about to say might have already been said. I read comments from some (Chris is the only one that springs to mind) that try to say Razor is in a tough spot and that justifies BBs inclusion at 10 due to a dearth of options. I call bullshit on that. Razor has fucked around with all of his selections, everything lacks direction. He had Plummer, who offers something different but along with other players in the squad Razor has shown no appetite to at least try them out in a proper game situation. Giving guys like Proctor, Plummer and others a serious audition, for example a start in the final Bledisloe test, would have been easy enough to do. He has done much the same as what Foster did, wasting valuable reps on known quantities that aren't going to provide a realistic answer to his problems, instead of rolling the dice and trying to find out exactly what he has
Yeah the problem with that is They had to give D Mac more and more game time because he wasn’ t getting the job done,they keep playing him against Fiji and Japan etc hoping he would show something but he didn’t.
So we are where we are with 2 shit fucking options.
And they may have known what they had in the other options playing them against Fiji and Japan would have shown fuck all.
So I call BS on that as well.McKenzie showed plenty: for once we've looked like we have the ability to beat a rush defence, and have a ten who can pass and put other players into space. Mistakes? Sure, but he was also the source of about 90% of the good things we did.
What actually happened as far as results go is that the team didn't get the job done in the last 20. Oh except for the 2nd Bledisloe, where McKenzie came on.
That's shit coaching, shit use of the bench, and shit on-field leadership, but somehow I don't expect you to call the two Scotts 2 shit fucking options.
