NZ First Five Crisis
-
There were only 13 tests between Fox and Mehrts - but it seemed like an eternity.
Do people think Fox would get a look in today? I doubt he'd make Super Rugby TBH. Doesn't fit NZ DNA and therein lies the problem. Doing the fundamentals right 99% of the time and playing the percentages doesn't jiggle NZ rugby's ovaries nowadays.
-
@TJ said in NZ First Five Crisis:
Agree, it's a crisis that has been building for a long time. I was surprised to see a japanese player playing 10 for Canterbury the other day. If Canterbury don't have someone coming through the Crusader academy, it's a bit concerning.
I think a major issue in NZ rugby is treating almost every 10 in the country as a 10/15 hybrid and thinking that game time at 15 will prepare them for games at 10.
Then when young players get the opportunity at 10, they are unprepared for the lack of time and space.I think young players need to be given time to settle into becoming good 10s. Watching Plummer this season was a great example of that, even though he has been moved around more than most, with some consistent time there he was able to shine.
Canterbury had a Academy First Five James White playing but he is injured.
Shun Miyake has been in Canterbury since attending Christ college in 2017 so has been in Canterbury for 7 years and was in the academy. -
@dogmeat said in NZ First Five Crisis:
There were only 13 tests between Fox and Mehrts - but it seemed like an eternity.
Do people think Fox would get a look in today? I doubt he'd make Super Rugby TBH. Doesn't fit NZ DNA and therein lies the problem. Doing the fundamentals right 99% of the time and playing the percentages doesn't jiggle NZ rugby's ovaries nowadays.
Depends whether you regard tackling as a fundamental I reckon - there were plenty of 10s hiding back then, but that doesn't really seem workable now.
-
i think a lot of people out there compare all 10's to DC....pass them the ball and then get annoyed when he doesnt do something amazing.
like all players, effective 10's can come in different forms...whats a little concerning is i dont feel our coaches know how to shape a different gameplan depending on the type of 10 they have, we keep asking small 10's to attack the line....or kicking 10's to run complicated blackline moves...we need to learn horse for course bloody quick
-
@frugby said in NZ First Five Crisis:
ABs went from Fox to Mehrtens to Carter to Barrett to Mo'unga over a period of 40 years, so no doubt we were spoilt, but think it is getting a bit concerning.
A lot of people (including me) really didn't rate Mo'unga at test level. His win percentage was 70% over 50-odd test matches. His game was not built well for test matches and it showed.
Barrett wasn't a great 10. He is an incredible rugby player who did insane things repeatedly on the field, but as a 10 he was at best solid. The number of times he tucked the ball and ran into traffic was too high for me.
I agree we have a weakness in 10s. I would point at structures - how do we build consistently good players, particularly in Super. The time and space in tests is so low that you have to be some kind of genius to survive, let alone thrive. It's hard.
I am also not nearly as down on DMac as you are. I think he'll wind up better than Mo'unga in Tests, and have hope. I'd also like to see how a tighter game with Plummer could open up space out wide. Controlling 10s are rare; not making bad decisions is as important to me (if not more improtant) than breaking the game open with a moment of magic.
-
Don't understand the criticism of DMac. Clearly the best we have and will get better the more time in the saddle. Plummer seems tailor-made as a back up. His kicking game to close out matches and his robust defense for the Blues was outstanding. Very different to the chip kicks in your own 22 mentality that has got the ABs in the shite again and again.
-
Calm down fellas, we aren't in any crisis or such. Have a peek at what's coming through, we will survive. The /2731 WC we will have the likes of Josh Jacomb, Cameron Miller etc fighting for spots, and that young kid Simpson who has had a couple of runs fot Auckland could be there by 31, and will be there for a good few years. He's only 18 now, and looks as good a yung 10 as I have seen for a good while.
I go along with @Old-Samurai-Jack , not sure why DMac is getting rubbished, he coming along nicely, and is a differnt 10 to a few, definitely has the best pass from a 10 I seen for awhile! -
The thing with Carter is he first and foremost did the fundamentals of the role accurately. He very rarely made a mistake, and then he was able to add his running game and vision on attack on top of that. The problem with Barrett and Mo'unga is although they are as dangerous as Carter was with ball in hand, they regularly make mistakes on the fundamental parts of the game, and other parts like driving the team around the park when the going gets tough are missing all together.
I think DMac is more suited to test footy than those two due solely to the fact he has a better kicking and passing game, but again he makes too many errors to be a really world class 10. He has improved that part of his game in recent years, but we really need a more reliable 10 to drive us around the field.
At this stage DMac with Plummer in the wings makes the most sense, though the coaches still appear to be naming Barrett as the backup 10, and possibly Perofeta is ahead in the pecking order as well.
-
-
@dogmeat said in NZ First Five Crisis:
There were only 13 tests between Fox and Mehrts - but it seemed like an eternity.
Do people think Fox would get a look in today? I doubt he'd make Super Rugby TBH. Doesn't fit NZ DNA and therein lies the problem. Doing the fundamentals right 99% of the time and playing the percentages doesn't jiggle NZ rugby's ovaries nowadays.
The Fox coming up through the NZ system today would be a markedly different beast, he'd still have all the control, but he'd have more muscle/size and the running game he had as a youngster wouldn't be as easily dispensed with.
I think talent is talent, and Fox had it, he was a symptom of his era.
-
@frugby said in NZ First Five Crisis:
@Kirwan said in NZ First Five Crisis:
We won’t know if Plummer is an option unless he’s tried.
Sure... but he hasn't exactly ripped up Super Rugby like the elite 10s did. I think it is possible Plummer is better than McKenzie, but that is not a high bar.
Daryl Mitchell was unheralded and only got a game when Nicholls got injured. I am sure there are many rugby equivalents who took their chance when it was given. Darry looked at home right from the off. Maybe Plummer can't make the jump. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be tested, otherwise all we have to go on is what people say with no actual evidence either way
-
It could be forever before we’ll see a first five as good as Carter, so Cruden should be the current benchmark.
If that is the criteria, Dmac is progressing very well. He’s had piss all time in the AB 10 shirt, which is a failure of development.
Dmac has many similarities to Cruden - both are/were better when they had another option to help with clearances, especially if that person has a strong left boot. Both are excellent near the line and both have world class passing games (Cruden’s more based around offloads).
I think we just need the coaches to develop an attack strategy that takes advantage of Dmac’s strengths and get him help on exits. Jordie Barrett’s supposed huge boot is either criminally underused or is a myth. Dmac’s goal kicking recently is a concern but he’s generally a clutch kicker, no one arguing for No’unga can say shit based on his costly miss in the WC final.
I don’t think we are going to have our coaches develop a plan for Dmac though, it feels to me like our first five crisis is due to the coaches having a specific style of play, and player, in mind. It will be fascinating to see if everything comes together when he comes back. I’m not holding my breath.
-
@Nepia said in NZ First Five Crisis:
@dogmeat said in NZ First Five Crisis:
There were only 13 tests between Fox and Mehrts - but it seemed like an eternity.
Do people think Fox would get a look in today? I doubt he'd make Super Rugby TBH. Doesn't fit NZ DNA and therein lies the problem. Doing the fundamentals right 99% of the time and playing the percentages doesn't jiggle NZ rugby's ovaries nowadays.
The Fox coming up through the NZ system today would be a markedly different beast, he'd still have all the control, but he'd have more muscle/size and the running game he had as a youngster wouldn't be as easily dispensed with.
I think talent is talent, and Fox had it, he was a symptom of his era.
Fox might be quite similar to Plummer....
I think it's all DCs fault. He was such a gifted attacking weapon that everyone wants to find the next version. But they forget he was fundamentally sound in a way that BB, RM and DM are not. Along with all the other kids coming up
-
Every few years a position pops up of concern. Last year we were worrying about halfback when Smith went. Now we are rolling into a period where we will half nearly half a dozen guys fighting for a spot. Lock is looking equally as competitive. As 10 is a critical position, there is some concern. We don't have a DC and as he was a generational player, we are unlikely to see another of that calibre. We just need to ensure the guys who do bring in can fit into the line up and style we want to use.
-
-
@dogmeat said in NZ First Five Crisis:
Doing the fundamentals right 99% of the time and playing the percentages doesn't jiggle NZ rugby's ovaries nowadays.
And that's why we don't win as many Tests anymore. Rugby is about doing the fundamentals right 99% of the time much more than it is about 3 second miracle plays that go viral on TicTok.
-
@sparky said in NZ First Five Crisis:
@dogmeat said in NZ First Five Crisis:
Doing the fundamentals right 99% of the time and playing the percentages doesn't jiggle NZ rugby's ovaries nowadays.
And that's why we don't win as many Tests anymore. Rugby is about doing the fundamentals right 99% of the time much more than it is about 3 second miracle plays that go viral on TicTok.
We used to pick Fox over Botica, Merhts over Spencer. Because the best AB 10s were outstanding game managers, with accurate kicking games "off the tee" and in general play. DC was the Unicorn. And now I agree the pendulum has swung too far the other way. And that is why I want to at least see a throwback like Plummer have a go. Nothing wrong with a guy who is very good at kicking goals and kicking for territory, who is happy to pass the ball to his outsides most of the time but isn't afraid to have a dig every once in a while
-
@SouthernMann said in NZ First Five Crisis:
Every few years a position pops up of concern. Last year we were worrying about halfback when Smith went. Now we are rolling into a period where we will half nearly half a dozen guys fighting for a spot. Lock is looking equally as competitive. As 10 is a critical position, there is some concern. We don't have a DC and as he was a generational player, we are unlikely to see another of that calibre. We just need to ensure the guys who do bring in can fit into the line up and style we want to use.
I think this is a very over optimistic post
-
@canefan said in NZ First Five Crisis:
@sparky said in NZ First Five Crisis:
@dogmeat said in NZ First Five Crisis:
Doing the fundamentals right 99% of the time and playing the percentages doesn't jiggle NZ rugby's ovaries nowadays.
And that's why we don't win as many Tests anymore. Rugby is about doing the fundamentals right 99% of the time much more than it is about 3 second miracle plays that go viral on TicTok.
We used to pick Fox over Botica, Merhts over Spencer. Because the best AB 10s were outstanding game managers, with accurate kicking games "off the tee" and in general play. DC was the Unicorn. And now I agree the pendulum has swung too far the other way. And that is why I want to at least see a throwback like Plummer have a go. Nothing wrong with a guy who is very good at kicking goals and kicking for territory, who is happy to pass the ball to his outsides most of the time but isn't afraid to have a dig every once in a while
I don't mind our argument, but Plummer kicked significantly worse then McKenzie in Super.
-
@canefan said in NZ First Five Crisis:
@gt12 I'd say Jordie has a big kick and they are not utilizing it.
Probably because it's an area weapon. Some precision would be nice.
