Secret Super rugby review: Axe a team from Australia and South Africa

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="609388" data-time="1472256105">
Pocock is a hugely intelligent footballer. The quick conversion taken by the Brumbies gained his team 7 points and exposed a glaring loop hole in the rules. I never saw any other captain give such an order over the season.</blockquote>
Yes it showed an astute appreciation for the laws but, how often did those circumstances eventuate? I recall one other time where the ref was quick enough to instruct the kicker not to attempt the conversion.

Baron Silas Greenback

Pocock isn't fit to carry Canes water bottle. 
He is just pulls out a couple of ruck steals and then does nothing much else. I used to buy into the hype and get worried about him, and then realised that he never had much impact.
Pocock is the new myth. In a test match team I want a 7 that tackles hard and hits rucks... not someone who floats around the game looking for the very occasional steal.
 
And as for the prediction of who not be playing in 2 years time.... the new rules suit a player like Cane, not a player like Pocock.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="609389" data-time="1472256419">
<div>
Yes it showed an astute appreciation for the laws but, how often did those circumstances eventuate? I recall one other time where the ref was quick enough to instruct the kicker not to attempt the conversion.
</div>
</blockquote>
I understand that that was post the Pocock incident. He caused the referees to change.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="609393" data-time="1472257459">I understand that that was post the Pocock incident. He caused the referees to change.</blockquote>
Yes, but how many times previously had a referee awarded a try just to begin the process of reviewing it?

hurricane

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="609379" data-time="1472253426">
<div>
If you wanted us to shake hands and move on, you'd walk back some of the rubbish you said on the last page, not post a smart ass edit of my post. Hell, if you really didn't want things to go south, you could've started digging yourself out of your hole the minute you were called out but instead, all you did is dig yourself in deeper with more rubbish.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
@Unco - IF digging myself further in includes posting stats that claim Cane is not as good as Pocock and Hoopah then I am not sure what to say. I am allowed to defend my position, you are allowed to debate my position and fervantly disagree with it. I reckon my position had merit enough not to be dismissed out of hand. Anyway I need to move on from this now, I think we have gone forth and back enough. I have to clean the house thoroughly and it will take a while. You know how it is on a weekend.
 
@everyone else.
One point I will confess to, and this addresses something Booboo threw at me. I am in the camp that Savea is a better 7 than Cane. I think Cane is the starting 7 as he is the incumbent player and we are very reluctant, with good reasons, to mess with a winning formula. If Savea was our starting 7 I might be more defensive of him in match ups against 7s from other teams in the world. I am particularly down on Cane for two reasons:
1) He is not aggressive at the ruck area from a competing for the ball perspective
2) His discipline is extremely juvenile at times, more so in Super Rugby perhaps. But yes as another poster said, this may be a growing phase and he may move on.
That said I grant that he is a fine defender and plays to the full capacity that his frame allows him to. I also acknowledged that in no way does he let his team mates down in the All Blacks and I do believe he adds value to the team.

Frank

Cane's tighter playing style than Ardie Savea (along with Kaino ) allows our trump card - Read - to play wider, where I think he is more effective than being confined to play tight.
 
You put Ardie in there to start, you then have two players who like to range more. This is alright for the last 20 minutes, but might not be ideal for the whole game.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="609395" data-time="1472257717">
<div>
Yes, but how many times previously had a referee awarded a try just to begin the process of reviewing it?
</div>
</blockquote>
Never? If the referee wants to review it, they review it. If the referee awards a try, they can later call time out if they see something on the big screen. Now referees will stop you from taking the drop kick if you go to do it do it quickly.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="609387" data-time="1472255777">
<div>
I've said this before and it's worth pointing out again that the All Blacks play a style of defence that is offensive in nature. Anyone who has watched them play over the last decade should have noticed this. They seek to drive their opponents behind the advantage line until they either make a mistake or have no options left but to kick under pressure where our back three are unmatched in their ability to exploit a transitioning defence. For all his skills, that is why Cane is first choice now; his tackling and motor are better than the alternatives.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Spot on!
 
Jerome Kaino pretty much epitomises what the AB's defence is all about. It's part of the reason IMO why McCaw was never really under significant threat - even from a technical perspective - from a young Sam Cane. They would want their openside flanker to be big enough to knock big midfield backs backwards in the tackle - and stop people effectively even when not perfectly positioned to make the tackle. I reckon it's noticeable than Cane has become a much bigger unit in the past 12-18 months - big enough that the Chiefs could use him at 8.
 
Despite what Hoopah's Wiki page says (108kgs - tell him he's dreaming!) I think his size would largely disqualify him from the AB equation.
 
Pocock vs Cane - would be more interesting. I rate both of them very highly and would have Pocock playing 7 for the Wallabies. He'd doubtless have to alter his game a bit.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Frank" data-cid="609398" data-time="1472258381">
<div>
Cane's tighter playing style than Ardie Savea (along with Kaino ) allows our trump card - Read - to play wider, where I think he is more effective than being confined to play tight.
 
You put Ardie in there to start, you then have two players who like to range more. This is alright for the last 20 minutes, but might not be ideal for the whole game.
</div>
</blockquote>
If I take all of this is true, it provides a good justification of why Cane should start for the All Blacks ahead of A. Savea. It doesn't show that Cane is a better player than A. Savea. Many international teams don't have a number 8 who roams wide so could give a number 7 more freedom.

Bones

Fucking hell. Pretty obvious troll when a negative point that's crapped out is Cane isn't aggressive enough at the breakdown.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="609400" data-time="1472258889">Never? If the referee wants to review it, they review it. If the referee awards a try, they can later call time out if they see something on the big screen. Now referees will stop you from taking the drop kick if you go to do it do it quickly.</blockquote>
 
That is my point; how often had a ref awarded it and then reviewed it? <blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hurricane" data-cid="609396" data-time="1472257787">
That said I grant that he is a fine defender and plays to the full capacity that his frame allows him to. I also acknowledged that in no way does he let his team mates down in the All Blacks and I do believe he adds value to the team.</blockquote>
 
What a childish response. A 'fine defender' as if he isn't excellent. As if his frame prevents him from playing Test level rugby, he's not a midget ffs. You might have an Ardie poster in your bedroom, but your response is unbelievably puerile and detracts from whatever other points you may make.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="609403" data-time="1472259150">
Fucking hell. Pretty obvious troll when a negative point that's crapped out is Cane isn't aggressive enough at the breakdown.</blockquote>
 
I was thinking the same thing this morning when I was reading this thread while having breakfast with Damien Mackenzie , Jerome Kaino, Joe Moody and Liam Squire.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="609385" data-time="1472255393">
<div>
Well, Australia's top tacklers last week were Kuridrani with 17 and Hoopah with 14. Both missed no tackles. No one has mentioned either of those feats in the post match wrap. Kuridrani was deservedly dropped as well. For his part Pocock missed 4 tackles last week.
 
Maybe the All Blacks would select Cane over Pocock because Cane fits their style more. I don't think that necessarily proves who is the better player, however. I have absolutely no doubt that Scotland would select A. Savea over Sam Cane because Scotland could do with a game breaker. Same with South Africa. South Africa would probably select Pocock over Cane as well. South Africa doesn't need a dominant tackler.
 
The original discussion, as I saw it, wasn't actually about whether Pocock would start for the All Blacks. It was who is a better player: Pocock, Hoopah or Cane? I just used the fact that Pocock would look better in the All Blacks than he does in the Wallabies to back up my point. I wasn't saying Hansen would select Pocock ahead of Cane. Just because the All Blacks prioritise certain skill sets, it doesn't mean that everyone else prioritises those skill sets and a player is automatically better for fitting into the All Blacks system.
 
As to who is the best player out of those three, I really can't say. I think that most international teams would take Pocock or A.Savea over Sam Cane. Just as most other teams would have had Barrett ahead of Cruden years ago. I don't think that answers the question though.
</div>
</blockquote>
Well, that last part is just rubbish. This is the first season that Barrett has totally made the 10 his own jersey, this is the first season (when they're both playing) he's actually been a better 10 than Cruden - you need a memory re-fit if you think otherwise.
 
But to the 'better player' point, just because someone rates what Pocock brings to the table it doesn't make Pocock the better player, I personally favour the NZ style of game so rate Cane better. I also think if you asked them to play each other's role that Cane would be way more successful in adapting to the fetcher style than Pocock would to a more aggressive NZ style. And in no way am I saying that Pocock is a bad rugby player.

hydro11

Some people are being way too harsh on Hurricane. He posts an opinion which leads to a discussion and is called "out of his fucking mind" and a "troll". Now he is being called puerile for calling Sam Cane a "fine defender". I didn't know that there were mandated adjectives you had to use to describe Cane's rugby. He made some missteps as well - saying major LOL at Todd and saying people only rate Cane because he wears the black aren't very conducive to a good discussion. I mean M4L gets 3 likes for posting something which is directly contradicted by Hurricane's last post.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="609412" data-time="1472261571">
<div>
Well, that last part is just rubbish. This is the first season that Barrett has totally made the 10 his own jersey, this is the first season (when they're both playing) he's actually been a better 10 than Cruden - you need a memory re-fit if you think otherwise.
 
But to the 'better player' point, just because someone rates what Pocock brings to the table it doesn't make Pocock the better player, I personally favour the NZ style of game so rate Cane better. I also think if you asked them to play each other's role that Cane would be way more successful in adapting to the fetcher style than Pocock would to a more aggressive NZ style. And in no way am I saying that Pocock is a bad rugby player.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I think Cruden has been a better player than Barrett. In fact, I probably would have started Cruden over Barrett last week because Cruden is the incumbent. I am just saying that another country probably would have started Barrett over Cruden years ago (lets ignore Carter for this conversation). If you are Scotland then a more solid first-five like Cruden is probably going to be of less of a benefit than someone like Barrett. That isn't to say Cruden isn't a fantastic attacking player either (he is). I'm just saying that a team like Italy or Scotland badly need game breakers who can tear the other side apart. Barrett offers more of that than Cruden so he is probably going to be more valuable to those teams. A team that already has great outside backs would have far preferred Cruden. Maybe you disagree with the example but I think the overarching point still stands that a player isn't better than another player just because they fit one team's structure.
 
Perhaps it is all academic as other teams would probably just start Cruden at 10 with Barrett at fullback.
 
As to the second part I agree mostly. However, I also think any other style of rugby can be effective too if you have the right players.

hurricane

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="609404" data-time="1472259375">
<div>

What a childish response. A 'fine defender' as if he isn't excellent. As if his frame prevents him from playing Test level rugby, he's not a midget ffs. You might have an Ardie poster in your bedroom, but your response is unbelievably puerile and detracts from whatever other points you may make.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I think this is a bit unfair. I meant my final sentences about Cane purely as positives. :(
 
Anyway - starting to get pumped now about tonight. Quade Cooper starting at 1st 5 which promises something will happen. And we all get to watch Sam Cane to see how many turn overs/penalties/thumping tackles he delivers. I have $20 on the ABs to win this by 30 points.
 
Fire up Black!

pukunui

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="609388" data-time="1472256105">
Pocock is a hugely intelligent footballer. The quick conversion taken by the Brumbies gained his team 7 points and exposed a glaring loop hole in the rules. I never saw any other captain give such an order over the season. 
As I said Pocock may not make the All Blacks but Sam Cane probably wouldn't make the Wallabies. Pocock ha a different skill set to Cane which may fit the way some teams want to play.</blockquote>
 
He didn't look like an intelligent footballer last week while he was debating with the ref while still wrestling for the ball that the ref was telling him to let go of. That is very much in the category of stupid penalty that Cane is getting marked down for.

Baron Silas Greenback

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="609416" data-time="1472261930">
<div>
Some people are being way too harsh on Hurricane. He posts an opinion which leads to a discussion and is called "out of his fucking mind" and a "troll". Now he is being called puerile for calling Sam Cane a "fine defender". I didn't know that there were mandated adjectives you had to use to describe Cane's rugby. He made some missteps as well - saying major LOL at Todd and saying people only rate Cane because he wears the black aren't very conducive to a good discussion. I mean M4L gets 3 likes for posting something which is directly contradicted by Hurricane's last post.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
As a side note, number of likes has no relation to the quality of post. Just how many agree with you.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="609503" data-time="1472276574">
<div>
As a side note, number of likes has no relation to the quality of post. Just how many agree with you. 
</div>
</blockquote>
That's the way it is but not the way it should be. I will try to like a well reasoned post I disagree with more than a poorly reasoned post I agree with. It's only internet points but still. "You're out of your fucking mind" adds nothing to a conversation and I think it was that comment and others which lead to increasingly defensive posts from Hurricane (which didn't add anything to the conversation either).

hurricane

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="609521" data-time="1472278032">
<div>
That's the way it is but not the way it should be. I will try to like a well reasoned post I disagree with more than a poorly reasoned post I agree with. It's only internet points but still. "You're out of your fucking mind" adds nothing to a conversation and I think it was that comment and others which lead to increasingly defensive posts from Hurricane (which didn't add anything to the conversation either).
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I was also told that if I didn't like being sworn at that I should join stuff.co.nz's comment section instead because being sworn at was par for the course apparently around here for putting forward a dissenting opinion. That was an off putting message as well.
 
The only point I would like to close on is that Hoopah and Pocock are world class number 7s and it should be "normal" on discussion forums to compare world class players against each other. It was not like I was comparing and contrasting Sam Cane with the team captain of Horowhenua. Yet the reaction I was given was as if I had done that by 2-3 posters. 
 
I will probably be careful before I suggest that an All Black is not the best in the world in his position on this web site in the future. Which is a shame as some people made some very good rejoinders to my position such as the Baron's post and about 10-20 other people who responded in a normal tone.

The Silver Fern

Secret Super rugby review: Axe a team from Australia and South Africa