World Cup Squad Positions
-
I agree that selectors likely to shoot for four locks, which means Patty T competing with Hemopo. Also expect that they'll go with two 10s and look for a fullback who can play 10 against Canada. Jordie seems to have the inside running. As for Luke W, he only gets in if Read is crocked. More likely he's only a plane trip away.
-
@Duluth Well Blues players are hardly the most loved on this forum haha (apart from Rieko) but yeah, Pat's fitness seems to have improved a lot this season and is looking a lot busier around the field. He's certainly hitting much harder in the tackle to go with his strong ball carrying.
-
@African-Monkey said in World Cup Squad Positions:
Well Blues players are hardly the most loved on this forum
Yeah, a reflection on the team they play for, not the individual's playing ability. Provincial bias is rife - and stupid - we all want the AB's to be as good as they can.
As for locks - world cup winning teams had a pretty much world best (for the time) lock in it.
Whetton (maybe a little debatable but certainly up there).
Eales
Weise and Strydom (that is debatable but that match was a bit "different")
Eales
Johnson
Matfield
Whitelock (and Thorn)
Rettalick and WhitelockWe will have to take specialist locks and hope that our top two stay fit IMO.
Obviously other positions are just as important but if your lineout isn't working, the kicking game falls apart and options become more limited. Scrums are largely a tight 5 effort and 2 of them are locks. Without even mentioning the ball running and passing game of our top 2 guys.
Barrett covering 6 (at a push) is a bonus. -
@Snowy said in World Cup Squad Positions:
@African-Monkey said in World Cup Squad Positions:
Well Blues players are hardly the most loved on this forum
Yeah, a reflection on the team they play for, not the individual's playing ability. Provincial bias is rife - and stupid - we all want the AB's to be as good as they can.
As for locks - world cup winning teams had a pretty much world best (for the time) lock in it.
Whetton (maybe a little debatable but certainly up there).
Eales
Weise and Strydom (that is debatable but that match was a bit "different")
Eales
Johnson
Matfield
Whitelock (and Thorn)
Rettalick and WhitelockWe will have to take specialist locks and hope that our top two stay fit IMO.
Obviously other positions are just as important but if your lineout isn't working, the kicking game falls apart and options become more limited. Scrums are largely a tight 5 effort and 2 of them are locks. Without even mentioning the ball running and passing game of our top 2 guys.
Barrett covering 6 (at a push) is a bonus.I agree. Particularly as an ex-lock.
All great teams have had great locks.
Hill/White, Meads/Meads, Meads/Strahan, McBride/Thomas etc etc .... -
@Wally said in World Cup Squad Positions:
@Snowy said in World Cup Squad Positions:
@African-Monkey said in World Cup Squad Positions:
Well Blues players are hardly the most loved on this forum
Yeah, a reflection on the team they play for, not the individual's playing ability. Provincial bias is rife - and stupid - we all want the AB's to be as good as they can.
As for locks - world cup winning teams had a pretty much world best (for the time) lock in it.
Whetton (maybe a little debatable but certainly up there).
Eales
Weise and Strydom (that is debatable but that match was a bit "different")
Eales
Johnson
Matfield
Whitelock (and Thorn)
Rettalick and WhitelockWe will have to take specialist locks and hope that our top two stay fit IMO.
Obviously other positions are just as important but if your lineout isn't working, the kicking game falls apart and options become more limited. Scrums are largely a tight 5 effort and 2 of them are locks. Without even mentioning the ball running and passing game of our top 2 guys.
Barrett covering 6 (at a push) is a bonus.I agree. Particularly as an ex-lock.
All great teams have had great locks.
Hill/White, Meads/Meads, Meads/Strahan, McBride/Thomas etc etc ....Not sure about that. Gray/Gray have been let down by some of the Scots teams they’ve been in
-
@Wally said in World Cup Squad Positions:
All great teams have had great locks.
Hill/White, Meads/Meads, Meads/Strahan, McBride/Thomas etc etc ....Yeah, I chose an arbitrary starting point of RWCs.
When I had this discussion with my father in law (Welsh trialist in the 70s, but by no means a lock) we went back a bit further. Came to the same conclusion. AW Jones is pretty bloody good and Wales are now ranked #2.
7s and 10s get most of the hype / talk (in NZ anyway).
-
@Snowy said in World Cup Squad Positions:
@Wally said in World Cup Squad Positions:
All great teams have had great locks.
Hill/White, Meads/Meads, Meads/Strahan, McBride/Thomas etc etc ....Yeah, I chose an arbitrary starting point of RWCs.
When I had this discussion with my father in law (Welsh trialist in the 70s, but by no means a lock) we went back a bit further. Came to the same conclusion. AW Jones is pretty bloody good and Wales are now ranked #2.
7s and 10s get most of the hype / talk (in NZ anyway).
True. Much as he tried Ali Williams could never get his face in as many woman’s magazines as Richie and Dan could.
-
@MN5 said in World Cup Squad Positions:
Not sure about that. Gray/Gray have been let down by some of the Scots teams they’ve been in
You are looking at it in reverse - not all great locks got to play in great teams but most great teams had at least one great lock.
-
@Snowy said in World Cup Squad Positions:
@MN5 said in World Cup Squad Positions:
Not sure about that. Gray/Gray have been let down by some of the Scots teams they’ve been in
You are looking at it in reverse - not all great locks got to play in great teams but most great teams had at least one great lock.
Um can’t you argue this about every single position ?
-
@MN5 said in World Cup Squad Positions:
@Snowy said in World Cup Squad Positions:
@MN5 said in World Cup Squad Positions:
Not sure about that. Gray/Gray have been let down by some of the Scots teams they’ve been in
You are looking at it in reverse - not all great locks got to play in great teams but most great teams had at least one great lock.
Um can’t you argue this about every single position ?
I don't think so really. The Aussies for example had some pretty shit props for years but still manged to put out some greatish teams. Obviously they would have been a lot better with great props too but guys that could do the job were good enough. Just doesn't have the recurring theme that locks do. Not going to go through all positions.
-
@Snowy so props don't really matter! I knew it!
-
@Crazy-Horse said in World Cup Squad Positions:
@Snowy so props don't really matter! I knew it!
I was really trying not to imply that!
-
@Snowy said in World Cup Squad Positions:
@Crazy-Horse said in World Cup Squad Positions:
@Snowy so props don't really matter! I knew it!
I was really trying not to imply that!
Still a bit of a weird statement. What you should be saying is teams that win World Cups have great players in a number of positions with the odd not so great player in between.
-
-
@Snowy said in World Cup Squad Positions:
@MN5 With the common denominator over all positions is a great lock (and 1st 5). Chances are you can get away with being weak somewhere on the field but the pattern is that the great teams have a great lock.
No. That's bollocks.
Lock just isn't the second most important position in a team.
You've taken some teams, and advanced a theory that fits those small number of teams. It's a bad case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
But the rest of us watch rugby. And lock isn't more important than prop or hooker or halfback. Or second five or fullback.
Great teams have great players. Odds are, one of them is a lock. That's hardly proof you need a great lock to be a great team. It's proof you need great players to be a great team.
-
@Chester-Draws said in World Cup Squad Positions:
@Snowy said in World Cup Squad Positions:
@MN5 With the common denominator over all positions is a great lock (and 1st 5). Chances are you can get away with being weak somewhere on the field but the pattern is that the great teams have a great lock.
No. That's bollocks.
Lock just isn't the second most important position in a team.
You've taken some teams, and advanced a theory that fits those small number of teams. It's a bad case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
But the rest of us watch rugby. And lock isn't more important than prop or hooker or halfback. Or second five or fullback.
Great teams have great players. Odds are, one of them is a lock. That's hardly proof you need a great lock to be a great team. It's proof you need great players to be a great team.
Bang goes the oft quoted theory that a champion team will always beat a team of champions.
-
@rotated said in World Cup Squad Positions:
@shark said in World Cup Squad Positions:
I don't think for a second that they'll take four specialist locks.
I think they almost certainly will; Whitelock, Rettalick, Barrett and probably Patty T.
Rettalick and Whitelock are on a shortlist of players who would be given the Richie treatment and retained in the squad if they picked up a serious injury with a questionable prognosis where they might be able to return later in the tournament. I'll take either at 85% with a five week layoff in a potential semi-final and final over most other options. The selectors are unlikely to put themselves in a situation where they could be forced to make a call to send either one home because of inadequate cover. Along those lines Chicago was a good reality check on how grim things can be without legitimate locking.
They might take that group, but Barrett would be the utility
My last comment on the potential make-up was:
There's a chance they'll take Tuipulotu and Barrett could take the Fifita/Hemopo spot.italicised text
I thought he looked good when shifted to 6 on Saturday night, and also earlier proved his mobility with that 40m try. However there was a piece on Stuff yesterday saying Hansen still regards him as a lock. That being the case, revert to my prior assertion re Whitelock, Retallick, Barrett and one of Fifita or Hemopo.
-
@Higgins said in World Cup Squad Positions:
Odds are, one of them is a lock.
Yep.
I never said lock was second most important. I never assigned rankings to any position. I said that there was a theme of great locks being in great teams (and I watch an awful lot of rugby and have done for 45+ years).
