AB bolters thread

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="nzzp" data-cid="574190" data-time="1461360534">
<div>
I'd disagree with this. Coles for me is an example of how the coaching team identified a player with attributes they liked, and a bunch of things they didn't and how they turned him into a world class rake. That is what really good coaches do - make players better, not just get them to play together.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The luck in that there was a hooker who was ready to step into the AB environment and play at a reasonable level in 2012. It wasn't as though they had identified him and had him come in for training camps or seasoned him in the preceding years.
 
You counter that with how guys like Fekitoa, Cane, Moody and even Sopoaga etc have been lightly seasoned over the past two years for what will be a seamless transition.

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="574236" data-time="1461395853">
<div>
I actually agree with you for the most part on Hansen being a better selector than Henry, I just think you're completely wrong on Donald and Ellis biting us back. They did not play adequately. The ABs made two line breaks TOTAL in that game, Dagg made one and Donald made the other. He kicked well, tackled well and ran well, pretty much everything you could've hoped for him to do. While Ellis overtook Cowan as the second choice halfback during the RWC and when Piri was playing like shit due to his illness, settled things down really well once he came on. I honestly don't give a shit about the points per cap ratio or whatever the fuck. You're wrong, both of them played bloody well in an extremely tight, high pressure game.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
First of all, despite Piri's diificulties with the boot the team looked significantly better for that first 20 minutes. That was when we actually were dominating the French and pinning them down their own end and... scoring tries! Once the Ellis/Donald nexus combined we did kind of give up the territory and possession battle. Also isn't the 2 linebreaks somewhat of an reflection on the first-five who steered us around the park for 75% of the game?
 
On a scale of Donald he played fantastic. On a scale of AB first fives there was nothing there that was terribly brilliant. The penalty shot was the perfect encapsulation of his performance - at least with ball in hand - bloody wobbly but got the job done, just.
 
Ellis played probably his best test. He was really combative at the breakdown and defensively strong - pretty much played a Cowanesque performance, however his delivery was stifiling to the backline as usual which you pointed out with the two line breaks and three points we mustered in 60 minutes. Not sure a Cowan perforamnce was what they wanted for the game plan - but in the last 15 minutes it was invaluable. But again the proof is in the pudding, if he played such an amazing test and proved he revelled in high pressure rugby - why was he then dropped from the squad completely the following year? A performance of the quality you saw on that night would certainly warrant immediate reselection - especially after his Super form the following year was same old for him.
 
I don't think we are too far apart. I'd probably have given Donald a 7/10 and Ellis a 7.5/10. Others seem to think Donad's effort rivals Carter at the second Lions test. But for me there is a limit to amount I can wax lyrical about a half/five-eighth combo who put up 3 wobbly points in 60 minutes and were outscored. For me it's like celebrating a makeshift opening pair for putting together a 52 run opening partnership and calling it match winning. It certainly didn't lose they game, but it sure as hell didn't win it.
 
The result plays huge in how his performance is rated that night. If unrelated to him a forward gave up a penalty in the last 5 mins and we lost the test I don't think we are saying that Donald was outstanding that game (we certainly didn't for Spencer and McAlister and they both certainly were for large chunks of their elimination performances).
 
Anyway we digress, it's nothing against Donald (Ellis on the other hand is a Cantab) I just don't think we focus enough on the performance of the forwards that night they were the ones that really won it IMO.

Milk

It's not fair to judge Donald's contribution to the final without context. Universally derided and in the international wilderness, hadn't played a competitive game for a while, been on holiday... then comes on in New Zealand's biggest game in decades with the world watching. We've seen far better players than him fall apart in easier situations. I would have fallen apart, not a doubt in my mind.

kiwiinmelb

I think Donald took the French by surprise a bit ,not through brilliance , they had planned for Cruden who is opposites in many ways, 
 
I can remember Donald with those ugly tuck the ball under his arm bullocking runs up the guts , getting over the advantage line , it wasnt pretty from your 10 , but in the context of the game it was effective

KiwiMurph

Fatialofa may have entered calculations after last night - he was brilliant. Fifita was good off the bench too.

bobily

I think it will take a few more performances like that before Fatialofa makes it, but he has certainly been impressive. He doesn't look too slow, either. Which I think he has been accused off. A big guy (118kg, so one of the heavier locks around) with some good ball skills.

Cantab79

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="bobily" data-cid="574471" data-time="1461459942">
<div>
I think it will take a few more performances like that before Fatialofa makes it, but he has certainly been impressive. He doesn't look too slow, either. Which I think he has been accused off. A big guy (118kg, so one of the heavier locks around) with some good ball skills.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
What's going to count against Fatialofa is the fact that lock is arguably our strongest position. We have two world class incumbents in Brodie and Whitelock, two excellent backup specialists in Romano and Tuipulotu (who have both just re-signed with the NZRU) and two very promising utility players in Luatua and Thompson.

Dice

There are a few uncapped locks putting their hand up this season.
 
There also seems to be more good 6/lock utilities around too. A few years ago, Luatua seemed like the only proper 6/lock going around, now there's about 4 or 5.

bobily

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Cantab79" data-cid="574474" data-time="1461461245">
<div>
What's going to count against Fatialofa is the fact that lock is arguably our strongest position. We have two world class incumbents in Brodie and Whitelock, two excellent backup specialists in Romano and Tuipulotu (who have both just re-signed with the NZRU) and two very promising utility players in Luatua and Thompson. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yep, and Barrett, Bird, Wheeler and Franklin aren't bad, either (they wouldn't be much worse than guys we've had fill in before). What a difference 5 years makes.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="574430" data-time="1461419483">
<div>
Ellis played probably his best test. He was really combative at the breakdown and defensively strong - pretty much played a Cowanesque performance, however his delivery was stifiling to the backline as usual which you pointed out with the two line breaks and three points we mustered in 60 minutes. Not sure a Cowan perforamnce was what they wanted for the game plan - but in the last 15 minutes it was invaluable. But again the proof is in the pudding, if he played such an amazing test and proved he revelled in high pressure rugby - why was he then dropped from the squad completely the following year? A performance of the quality you saw on that night would certainly warrant immediate reselection - especially after his Super form the following year was same old for him.
 
I don't think we are too far apart. I'd probably have given Donald a 7/10 and Ellis a 7.5/10. Others seem to think Donad's effort rivals Carter at the second Lions test. But for me there is a limit to amount I can wax lyrical about a half/five-eighth combo who put up 3 wobbly points in 60 minutes and were outscored. For me it's like celebrating a makeshift opening pair for putting together a 52 run opening partnership and calling it match winning. It certainly didn't lose they game, but it sure as hell didn't win it.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Ellis played only the final 31 minutes, so for at least half the 60 minutes you mention it must have been Piri's delivery that was stifling the backline.
 
In fact, I just flicked through a tape of the last 31 minutes of that game, because your memory of Ellis stifling the backline was so different to what I recall and I found we really only ran the ball through one set of phases while he was on the field - starting with Donald's celebrated charge upfield and ending after half a dozen crisp Ellis passes with Nonu losing the ball in a tackle.
 
The rest of the time Ellis box kicked - kicked for territory - or couple of times sent it to a first receiver to kick. Most of the time France had the ball. Until the final four minutes when we wound down the clock.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="bobily" data-cid="574477" data-time="1461462888">
<div>
Yep, and Barrett, Bird, Wheeler and Franklin aren't bad, either (they wouldn't be much worse than guys we've had fill in before). What a difference 5 years makes.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
And Broadhurst is still floating around - though with a pretty serious concussion issue.

Billy Tell

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Cantab79" data-cid="574474" data-time="1461461245">
<div>
What's going to count against Fatialofa is the fact that lock is arguably our strongest position.
</div>
</blockquote>
Weird isn't it. A while back it was really thin on the ground. Based on what I've seen we easily have at least 6 locks who wouldn't disgrace international rugby. Would be nice to bring back an ABs B side.

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="573853" data-time="1461230434">
<div>
Cue an MN5 reminisce about Kronfeld or A N Other HB player from yesteryear...
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The name's MN5 not Nepia.

Canerbry

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="574430" data-time="1461419483">
<div>
 Others seem to think Donad's effort rivals Carter at the second Lions test. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Straw MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN Waiting in the sky.
 
Just because someone says "hey, no you Donad, Eliis wasn't shit", doesn't mean the total complete opposite is their position. You Gonald.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="574536" data-time="1461484369">
<div>
The name's MN5 not Nepia.
</div>
</blockquote>
Clearly you have a reputation for HB fluffing.

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Canerbry" data-cid="574575" data-time="1461495773">
<div>
Straw MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN Waiting in the sky.
 
Just because someone says "hey, no you Donad, Eliis wasn't shit", doesn't mean the total complete opposite is their position. You Gonald.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Similarly when someone said they played adequately - they aren't saying they played shit (in that game).

Unco

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rotated" data-cid="574430" data-time="1461419483">
<div>
First of all, despite Piri's diificulties with the boot the team looked significantly better for that first 20 minutes. That was when we actually were dominating the French and pinning them down their own end and... scoring tries! Once the Ellis/Donald nexus combined we did kind of give up the territory and possession battle. Also isn't the 2 linebreaks somewhat of an reflection on the first-five who steered us around the park for 75% of the game?
 
On a scale of Donald he played fantastic. On a scale of AB first fives there was nothing there that was terribly brilliant. The penalty shot was the perfect encapsulation of his performance - at least with ball in hand - bloody wobbly but got the job done, just.
 
Ellis played probably his best test. He was really combative at the breakdown and defensively strong - pretty much played a Cowanesque performance, however his delivery was stifiling to the backline as usual which you pointed out with the two line breaks and three points we mustered in 60 minutes. Not sure a Cowan perforamnce was what they wanted for the game plan - but in the last 15 minutes it was invaluable. But again the proof is in the pudding, if he played such an amazing test and proved he revelled in high pressure rugby - why was he then dropped from the squad completely the following year? A performance of the quality you saw on that night would certainly warrant immediate reselection - especially after his Super form the following year was same old for him.
 
I don't think we are too far apart. I'd probably have given Donald a 7/10 and Ellis a 7.5/10. Others seem to think Donad's effort rivals Carter at the second Lions test. But for me there is a limit to amount I can wax lyrical about a half/five-eighth combo who put up 3 wobbly points in 60 minutes and were outscored. For me it's like celebrating a makeshift opening pair for putting together a 52 run opening partnership and calling it match winning. It certainly didn't lose they game, but it sure as hell didn't win it.
 
The result plays huge in how his performance is rated that night. If unrelated to him a forward gave up a penalty in the last 5 mins and we lost the test I don't think we are saying that Donald was outstanding that game (we certainly didn't for Spencer and McAlister and they both certainly were for large chunks of their elimination performances).
 
Anyway we digress, it's nothing against Donald (Ellis on the other hand is a Cantab) I just don't think we focus enough on the performance of the forwards that night they were the ones that really won it IMO.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
That's your response to what I posted? Just blame the entire AB team freezing up and making a shitload of mistakes on Ellis and Donald? Don't be fucking ridiculous. Donald wasn't on for even close to 75% of the game (more like 55%), while Ellis was only on for an odd 30 minutes after Weepu basically gifted the French their try. So if all this is on either one of those two not running the backline well enough, why didn't that first 35 minutes result in even one try or even more than one line break? On top of that, what's your excuse when Dagg was at first receiver?
 
Ellis' dropping in 2012 should be obvious, shouldn't it? Hansen wanted to start building his 2015 squad, Weepu was kept around as the veteran but once they were comfortable with Aaron Smith and the alternatives, he was dropped too.
 
7/10 and 7.5/10? I wouldn't disagree with those scores but I'd point out that it was a collective 6/10 performance.
 
No-one said Donald's effort rivalled Carter, as Canerbry said, that's a straw man. Personally, I'm fine with waxing lyrical about anyone who plays well, no matter how many points they score, let alone well in the RWC Final in a 15 point total game, where 3 points is fucking huge. If a makeshift opening pair put together 52 runs in a winning total of 138 in the CWC Final, you can bet your fucking ass I and most of the Fern would be waxing lyrical about them too.
 
The forwards were immense that night (though the protection at the ruck was dodgy, which let the French constantly disrupt our ball) but what's that got to do with this? No-one said they didn't. The issue was over calling Ellis and Donald poor selections that ended up backfiring, when in reality they were the complete opposite. Who else would you have brought on once DC, Slade and Cruden all went down? A Donald who hadn't been in the team for a couple of years and with less tests to his name? Stephen Brett? And at halfback, would you've just kept Cowan on the bench even though he was playing like shit?

rotated

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="574588" data-time="1461506633">
<div>The forwards were immense that night (though the protection at the ruck was dodgy, which let the French constantly disrupt our ball) but what's that got to do with this? No-one said they didn't. The issue was over calling Ellis and Donald poor selections that ended up backfiring, when in reality they were the complete opposite. Who else would you have brought on once DC, Slade and Cruden all went down? A Donald who hadn't been in the team for a couple of years and with less tests to his name? Stephen Brett? And at halfback, would you've just kept Cowan on the bench even though he was playing like shit?</div>
</blockquote>
 
I think we are largely arguing in the margins on this one. The selectorial mistake was that they went into the RWC with a Carter, Slade, Cruden, Donald pecking order - with clearly no faith in Donald with no faith in any of the the back ups because they did not give Cruden/Slade adequate experience because they kept pouring game time into Donald even after Hong Kong. Slade had performed admirably off the bench in Sydney but had no other high-pressure situations other than that and Cruden had kicked poorly on debut but was carrying a leg injury that left others wondering.
 
For a selection panel that was normally so methodical and calculated - it looked like once when Dan went down and Slade was positively underwhelming against Canada that they had gotten things massively wrong. Cruden performed outstanding in the semi in a performance that should be heralded far more than Donald's - but that was only allowed to happen due to Slade's unforeseen injury.
 
Donald rightly was selected as fourth cab off the rank (as by that stage McAlister had broken his contract and headed north from memory) that isn't the selection that I'm criticizing. It was not making a priority of properly blooding players in 2010, realising that Donald had been weighed and measured.
 
The 2011 final is a weird one though. You say it was a 6/10 performance, but we'd both agree Donald/Ellis were above a 7, and the forward pack were immense (McCaw, Woodcock, O Franks and Thorn were all 9+ for me) - and the midfield made a shitload of tackles and shone bright too. So I'm not quite sure who the contributors were who underperformed so dramatically to get a 6/10 performance. An injured Weepu is obvious and Dagg wasn't his best, but past that you can't kill Kahui for lack of opportunities. The 2007 QF is weird like that too - general consensus is we played terribly that game, but it's certainly tough for anyone to point the finger at anyone specifically.

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Canerbry" data-cid="574575" data-time="1461495773">
Straw MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN Waiting in the sky. 
Just because someone says "hey, no you Donad, Eliis wasn't shit", doesn't mean the total complete opposite is their position. You Gonald.</blockquote>
 
Poor old Davidav. If you recall his meltdown was exactly that: 
TSF: "Yay! Beaver is awesome for doing enough to win the game." 
Dav: "But he's not as good as Carter..." 
TSF: "Oh shut up smile and celebrate." 
Dav: "But he's not as good as Carter ..." 
TSF: "Nobody said that. Lighten up..." 
DAV: "BUT HE'S NOT AS GOOD AS CARTER ! FUCK! TOEAVA! AAAAAAAHHH! ...." 
And so on for 10 pages ... 
... Never to be heard from again ...

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="574578" data-time="1461497292">
<div>
Clearly you have a reputation for HB fluffing.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Well no, not at all, can only assume Bones was pissed when he posted ? he's usually much better with his banter.

The Silver Fern

AB bolters thread