All Blacks v Argentina II
-
@Bones said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
They'd be better off saying fuck it and give Plummer the 10 shirt
Not if they are going to use the same game plan. I am all for Plummer, but if they want to play the way they have been Plummer's game doesn't suit.
Why not?
See @Frank's post above. That's why we have had B Barrett, RM and now DMac. Much of our backline play requires the 10 to be a running threat. DMac and to a lesser extent RM are also a passing threat. Unfortunately I think Perofeta is more likely to get a run at 10 if something was to happen to DMac and BB. So far he has shown he is closer to that style than Plummer (doesn’t mean I think Perofeta is a better option)
I may be wrong, but I don't think it's a coincidence that Plummer looked the goods with the Blues this year. The Blues style suited him. Prior to this year, when the Blues played more like the other NZ teams, Plummer wasn't even always getting a start.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
They'd be better off saying fuck it and give Plummer the 10 shirt
Not if they are going to use the same game plan. I am all for Plummer, but if they want to play the way they have been Plummer's game doesn't suit.
Why not?
See @Frank's post above. That's why we have had B Barrett, RM and now DMac. Much of our backline play requires the 10 to be a running threat. DMac and to a lesser extent RM are also a passing threat. Unfortunately I think Perofeta is more likely to get a run at 10 if something was to happen to DMac and BB. So far he has shown he is closer to that style than Plummer (doesn’t mean I think Perofeta is a better option)
I may be wrong, but I don't think it's a coincidence that Plummer looked the goods with the Blues this year. The Blues style suited him. Prior to this year, when the Blues played more like the other NZ teams, Plummer wasn't even always getting a start.
Here's something for the coaches to ponder. How about we make our ten pass the ball to his 12 and 13 and let them try to make some play? How about sometimes our 10 kick for territory? And every once in a while, he could even run to keep the opposition off guard, instead of trying to run more often than not.....?
-
@Crazy-Horse yeah I think there's a likelihood you could be wrong. To judge him on how he played when he wasn't even selected seems pretty harsh.
It's not like he was just standing still and passing the ball this season. That's not how the blues attack worked. He had a huge role in organising and orchestrating that attack, including finding space for himself.
-
@canefan said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
They'd be better off saying fuck it and give Plummer the 10 shirt
Not if they are going to use the same game plan. I am all for Plummer, but if they want to play the way they have been Plummer's game doesn't suit.
Why not?
See @Frank's post above. That's why we have had B Barrett, RM and now DMac. Much of our backline play requires the 10 to be a running threat. DMac and to a lesser extent RM are also a passing threat. Unfortunately I think Perofeta is more likely to get a run at 10 if something was to happen to DMac and BB. So far he has shown he is closer to that style than Plummer (doesn’t mean I think Perofeta is a better option)
I may be wrong, but I don't think it's a coincidence that Plummer looked the goods with the Blues this year. The Blues style suited him. Prior to this year, when the Blues played more like the other NZ teams, Plummer wasn't even always getting a start.
Here's something for the coaches to ponder. How about we make our ten pass the ball to his 12 and 13 and let them try to make some play? How about sometimes our 10 kick for territory? And every once in a while, he could even run to keep the opposition off guard, instead of trying to run more often than not.....?
Don't be so bloody stupid. That would never work.
-
@Bones said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Crazy-Horse yeah I think there's a likelihood you could be wrong. To judge him on how he played when he wasn't even selected seems pretty harsh.
It's not like he was just standing still and passing the ball this season. That's not how the blues attack worked. He had a huge role in organising and orchestrating that attack, including finding space for himself.
just more organiser, as opposed to headless chook
-
@Bones said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Crazy-Horse yeah I think there's a likelihood you could be wrong. To judge him on how he played when he wasn't even selected seems pretty harsh.
It's not like he was just standing still and passing the ball this season. That's not how the blues attack worked. He had a huge role in organising and orchestrating that attack, including finding space for himself.
Yes, but his outsides ran straight and hard, which they did bloody well. It's also why Lam looked good. The AB backs are not playing this way.
Don't get me wrong, I like Plummer and I would like to see how he'd go. I just think he would be getting set up to fail under the current game plan.
-
Some of you have lost the plot.
That shit show wasn’t DMacs fault, it’s a systematic fault.
Can’t blame our 10 for lack of decent game plan, especially when he’s getting shit slow ball.
Bottom line is we need some hard mongrel bastards in the forwards who love nothing more than steam rolling defenders.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Crazy-Horse yeah I think there's a likelihood you could be wrong. To judge him on how he played when he wasn't even selected seems pretty harsh.
It's not like he was just standing still and passing the ball this season. That's not how the blues attack worked. He had a huge role in organising and orchestrating that attack, including finding space for himself.
Yes, but his outsides ran straight and hard, which they did bloody well. It's also why Lam looked good. The AB backs are not playing this way.
Don't get me wrong, I like Plummer and I would like to see how he'd go. I just think he would be getting set up to fail under the current game plan.
As opposed to Jordie and his sweet feet? His outsides ran hard and straight when that was required, but they also carved up out wide and in the midfield. You realise that the whole bloody backline apart from the 5/8ths were selected by Razor?
-
@Bones said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Crazy-Horse yeah I think there's a likelihood you could be wrong. To judge him on how he played when he wasn't even selected seems pretty harsh.
It's not like he was just standing still and passing the ball this season. That's not how the blues attack worked. He had a huge role in organising and orchestrating that attack, including finding space for himself.
Yes, but his outsides ran straight and hard, which they did bloody well. It's also why Lam looked good. The AB backs are not playing this way.
Don't get me wrong, I like Plummer and I would like to see how he'd go. I just think he would be getting set up to fail under the current game plan.
As opposed to Jordie and his sweet feet? His outsides ran hard and straight when that was required, but they also carved up out wide and in the midfield. You realise that the whole bloody backline apart from the 5/8ths were selected by Razor?
WTF? Do you think I am defending Razor?
-
@canefan Dmac passed and kicked more than he ran, do people even watch the games.
One issue currently is Jordies form or possibly skill-set. He seemed to run when he should have passed and passed when he should have ran a few times last night.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Crazy-Horse yeah I think there's a likelihood you could be wrong. To judge him on how he played when he wasn't even selected seems pretty harsh.
It's not like he was just standing still and passing the ball this season. That's not how the blues attack worked. He had a huge role in organising and orchestrating that attack, including finding space for himself.
Yes, but his outsides ran straight and hard, which they did bloody well. It's also why Lam looked good. The AB backs are not playing this way.
Don't get me wrong, I like Plummer and I would like to see how he'd go. I just think he would be getting set up to fail under the current game plan.
As opposed to Jordie and his sweet feet? His outsides ran hard and straight when that was required, but they also carved up out wide and in the midfield. You realise that the whole bloody backline apart from the 5/8ths were selected by Razor?
WTF? Do you think I am defending Razor?
No, we're discussing the merits of Plummer. If the blues were just all about hard, straight runners and had no finesse and nothing to offer out wide, why would the rest of the backs get selected?
Were they that good that they performed in spite of the limited Plummer?
Or is it more likely that Plummer pulled a lot of strings to align that attack with success?
-
@kpkanz said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@canefan Dmac passed and kicked more than he ran, do people even watch the games.
One issue currently is Jordies form or possibly skill-set. He seemed to run when he should have passed and passed when he should have ran a few times last night.
Oh man you have to calm the fuck down mate. We were talking about Plummer and someone said how he doesn't fit the system. I like DMac, he's not the number one problem
-
@Bones said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Crazy-Horse said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Bones said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
@Crazy-Horse yeah I think there's a likelihood you could be wrong. To judge him on how he played when he wasn't even selected seems pretty harsh.
It's not like he was just standing still and passing the ball this season. That's not how the blues attack worked. He had a huge role in organising and orchestrating that attack, including finding space for himself.
Yes, but his outsides ran straight and hard, which they did bloody well. It's also why Lam looked good. The AB backs are not playing this way.
Don't get me wrong, I like Plummer and I would like to see how he'd go. I just think he would be getting set up to fail under the current game plan.
As opposed to Jordie and his sweet feet? His outsides ran hard and straight when that was required, but they also carved up out wide and in the midfield. You realise that the whole bloody backline apart from the 5/8ths were selected by Razor?
WTF? Do you think I am defending Razor?
No, we're discussing the merits of Plummer. If the blues were just all about hard, straight runners and had no finesse and nothing to offer out wide, why would the rest of the backs get selected?
Were they that good that they performed in spite of the limited Plummer?
Or is it more likely that Plummer pulled a lot of strings to align that attack with success?
Oh you meant the other Blues backs who got selected for the ABs. My mistake.
Again, I like Plummer and glad he is in the squad now. I just suspect while the ABs are wanting to play the way they are he will be a last resort. Sadly I am expecting him to drop out when Perofeta gets fully fit because surely if they thought he suited their game plan they would have selected him in the first place. Unless of course he is making every post a winner at training.
I think the two Blues wingers got selected because they showed this year they are a threat close to the ruck and in space - ala Reece. Razor obviously likes that. RI because he has been good for a number of years. I can't explain or agree with Christie or Perofeta
-
I wonder how many players were put on ice for the first test with an eye to SA, e.g. Clarke and Finau, and how many were actually dropped. I suspect it's more of the former, and that their hand will be forced a bit this weekend selection wise as they can't afford another loss. Players like Blackadder and ALB will likely go back to the bench, I'd expect Finau and Rieko to replace them, and I'd also expect Clarke back on the left as there's some distance between him and the next best wing at the moment. I think Jordan will start with Beauden on the bench as well. If Pat T is fit then he and Darry will partner up with Vaa'i back on the bench where he is better suited. Those changes make us quite a bit stronger.
But who knows really? It hasn't been easy to discern any obvious plan based on selections and how we have played to date.
-
I hope we get an easy pool at the next World Cup.
-
@No-Quarter said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
I wonder how many players were put on ice for the first test with an eye to SA, e.g. Clarke and Finau, and how many were actually dropped. I suspect it's more of the former, and that their hand will be forced a bit this weekend selection wise as they can't afford another loss. Players like Blackadder and ALB will likely go back to the bench, I'd expect Finau and Rieko to replace them, and I'd also expect Clarke back on the left as there's some distance between him and the next best wing at the moment. I think Jordan will start with Beauden on the bench as well. If Pat T is fit then he and Darry will partner up with Vaa'i back on the bench where he is better suited. Those changes make us quite a bit stronger.
But who knows really? It hasn't been easy to discern any obvious plan based on selections and how we have played to date.
All of this is pretty likely along with a ‘paper over the cracks’ victory by about 30 points along with gratuitous headlines like ‘Razor has his edge again’ or such bullshit
-
If there has to be a change then, they should start Plummer at 10.
BB should stay on the bench. They found a great role for him and was very successful and then decided to change it. Why?
-
@Kruse said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
Being a pussy, kept him on the field. Gardner used slightly different words, but... that was what he meant.
You should be a ref. Preferably straight after happy hour.
-
@DaGrubster said in All Blacks v Argentina II:
BB should stay on the bench. They found a great role for him and was very successful and then decided to change it. Why?
Perofeta injury. So it's either BB or the choice of two green fullbacks. Makes sense to me.
