Baby Blacks
-
I think the thread title and name "Baby Blacks" causes some confusion.
"Baby Blacks" was a nickname originally used for the All Blacks team that beat France in Christchurch in 1986 with a lot of debutants in the line-up. This is something that very few younger and non-NZ rugby fans will remember.
In recent times, the nickname has been used and is far more widely known for the NZ Under 20s team.
When referring to the "Baby Blacks", I think most people will think of the NZ Under 20s team.
-
@Stargazer said in Baby Blacks:
I think the thread title and name "Baby Blacks" causes some confusion.
"Baby Blacks" was a nickname originally used for the All Blacks team that beat France in Christchurch in 1986 with a lot of debutants in the line-up. This is something that very few younger and non-NZ rugby fans will remember.
In recent times, the nickname has been used and is far more widely known for the NZ Under 20s team.
When referring to the "Baby Blacks", I think most people will think of the NZ Under 20s team.
not on here they won't given our demographic
-
@mariner4life I definitely think of the NZ Under20s first. I assume that may have to do with the fact that I have no memory of that 1986 game at all. I was very young and lived in Europe at the time.
-
@Stargazer said in Baby Blacks:
@mariner4life I definitely think of the NZ Under20s first. I assume that may have to do with the fact that I have no memory of that 1986 game at all. I was very young and lived in Europe at the time.
I don't. Maybe they could use a new name. Maybe the Black Diapers?
-
@nostrildamus said in Baby Blacks:
@Stargazer said in Baby Blacks:
@mariner4life I definitely think of the NZ Under20s first. I assume that may have to do with the fact that I have no memory of that 1986 game at all. I was very young and lived in Europe at the time.
I don't. Maybe they could use a new name. Maybe the Black Diapers?
Is that because they will shit themselves when they see the opposition?
-
@Stargazer said in Baby Blacks:
@mariner4life I definitely think of the NZ Under20s first. I assume that may have to do with the fact that I have no memory of that 1986 game at all. I was very young and lived in Europe at the time.
Can't say I've ever noticed the u20s being called the baby blacks. That's weird.
-
@Stargazer said in Baby Blacks:
I think the thread title and name "Baby Blacks" causes some confusion.
"Baby Blacks" was a nickname originally used for the All Blacks team that beat France in Christchurch in 1986 with a lot of debutants in the line-up. This is something that very few younger and non-NZ rugby fans will remember.
In recent times, the nickname has been used and is far more widely known for the NZ Under 20s team.
When referring to the "Baby Blacks", I think most people will think of the NZ Under 20s team.
Hence the point of the post. NZR was backed into a corner in punishing the Cavaliers and had no choice but to pick a bunch of (relative) youngsters who then belied their supposed lack of required experience and won with many of them going on to be the basis of a new team. Much of the dead wood was cut.
Apply that history to now and consider what a fresh exciting team with potential might look like.
-
-
@Stargazer said in Baby Blacks:
I think the thread title and name "Baby Blacks" causes some confusion.
"Baby Blacks" was a nickname originally used for the All Blacks team that beat France in Christchurch in 1986 with a lot of debutants in the line-up. This is something that very few younger and non-NZ rugby fans will remember.
In recent times, the nickname has been used and is far more widely known for the NZ Under 20s team.
When referring to the "Baby Blacks", I think most people will think of the NZ Under 20s team.
I refuse to use that name for anything other than the glorious XV that beat France in 1986.
"Most people" (which I dispute) are wrong.
Baby Blacks as a name is up there with The Originals and The Invincibles.
-
@Nepia said in Baby Blacks:
@Bovidae said in Baby Blacks:
@booboo The surprise selection at 6 was a Wairarapa Bush player (Lochore being the coach).
Harvey? Had a glorious mo IIRC.
Yep, Brett Harvey. He was involved in the Brewer try. Undefeated as an AB.
-
@Pepe said in Baby Blacks:
@nostrildamus said in Baby Blacks:
@Stargazer said in Baby Blacks:
@mariner4life I definitely think of the NZ Under20s first. I assume that may have to do with the fact that I have no memory of that 1986 game at all. I was very young and lived in Europe at the time.
I don't. Maybe they could use a new name. Maybe the Black Diapers?
Is that because they will shit themselves when they see the opposition?
Nappy rash is some scary shit!
-
@FakatavaAllBlack said in Baby Blacks:
@Stargazer George Bell will be the first to make the all blacks out of that group I think, it's just a prediction I could very well be wrong
He’s having some trouble making the Canterbury team. McAllister/Klein are pretty handy. I watched all the U20’s game live and Bell would have to be player of the series IMO.
-
Sullivan brothers. Zarn has a game made for test rugby and Bailyn is an excellent utility.
-
@TheMojoman said in Baby Blacks:
Sullivan brothers. Zarn has a game made for test rugby and Bailyn is an excellent utility.
Bailyn’s game against Ireland has blotted his copybook in my opinion. Needs to put a run of excellent games together again.
I hope it was an off night because it was really off. -
@Crucial said in Baby Blacks:
@TheMojoman said in Baby Blacks:
Sullivan brothers. Zarn has a game made for test rugby and Bailyn is an excellent utility.
Bailyn’s game against Ireland has blotted his copybook in my opinion. Needs to put a run of excellent games together again.
I hope it was an off night because it was really off.I'm happy to have an "only 1 brother starting at a time in the ABs" rule.
20% of starting ABs have been Barretts lately and I'm not sure that is working out.
Last time two or more brothers worked well as starters IMO was the Whettons (is somebody going to mention 2 Whitelocks? I recall one game that went well and not with the most recent non-Sam one). -
@nostrildamus said in Baby Blacks:
@Crucial said in Baby Blacks:
@TheMojoman said in Baby Blacks:
Sullivan brothers. Zarn has a game made for test rugby and Bailyn is an excellent utility.
Bailyn’s game against Ireland has blotted his copybook in my opinion. Needs to put a run of excellent games together again.
I hope it was an off night because it was really off.I'm happy to have an "only 1 brother starting at a time in the ABs" rule.
20% of starting ABs have been Barretts lately and I'm not sure that is working out.
Last time two or more brothers worked well as starters IMO was the Whettons (is somebody going to mention 2 Whitelocks? I recall one game that went well and not with the most recent non-Sam one).You forget about the Brookes?
-
@Nepia said in Baby Blacks:
@nostrildamus said in Baby Blacks:
@Crucial said in Baby Blacks:
@TheMojoman said in Baby Blacks:
Sullivan brothers. Zarn has a game made for test rugby and Bailyn is an excellent utility.
Bailyn’s game against Ireland has blotted his copybook in my opinion. Needs to put a run of excellent games together again.
I hope it was an off night because it was really off.I'm happy to have an "only 1 brother starting at a time in the ABs" rule.
20% of starting ABs have been Barretts lately and I'm not sure that is working out.
Last time two or more brothers worked well as starters IMO was the Whettons (is somebody going to mention 2 Whitelocks? I recall one game that went well and not with the most recent non-Sam one).You forget about the Brookes?
I only liked one of them! I guess the other was ok on the field but no so great off it..
-
@nostrildamus said in Baby Blacks:
@Nepia said in Baby Blacks:
@nostrildamus said in Baby Blacks:
@Crucial said in Baby Blacks:
@TheMojoman said in Baby Blacks:
Sullivan brothers. Zarn has a game made for test rugby and Bailyn is an excellent utility.
Bailyn’s game against Ireland has blotted his copybook in my opinion. Needs to put a run of excellent games together again.
I hope it was an off night because it was really off.I'm happy to have an "only 1 brother starting at a time in the ABs" rule.
20% of starting ABs have been Barretts lately and I'm not sure that is working out.
Last time two or more brothers worked well as starters IMO was the Whettons (is somebody going to mention 2 Whitelocks? I recall one game that went well and not with the most recent non-Sam one).You forget about the Brookes?
I only liked one of them! I guess the other was ok on the field but no so great off it..
Your post seemed to be discussing on field play, and you can't argue they worked well as starters even if you don't like on of them.
