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

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.

Unco

Oh bugger off with this "woe is me, you're mean" bullshit. You said you'd pick Hooper and Pocock over Cane any day of the week, a week after Cane comprehensively outplayed the other two. Then when you were called out for it, you doubled down with more stupid shit, saying Cane is a journeyman at best and that the only reason he's rated on here is because we're biased. And then, after all this, you FINALLY posted your grand proof of that, a biased G&G article. That's not a reasoned argument, that's trolling.
 
Funnily enough, Cane just outplayed the wonder twins for a second week in a row. Farkin useless, that guy is.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="609742" data-time="1472290475">
<div>
Oh bugger off with this "woe is me, you're mean" bullshit. You said you'd pick Hoopah and Pocock over Cane any day of the week, a week after Cane comprehensively outplayed the other two. Then when you were called out for it, you doubled down with more stupid shit, saying Cane is a journeyman at best and that the only reason he's rated on here is because we're biased. And then, after all this, you FINALLY posted your grand proof of that, a biased G&G article. That's not a reasoned argument, that's trolling.
 
Funnily enough, Cane just outplayed the wonder twins for a second week in a row. Farkin useless, that guy is.
</div>
</blockquote>
This is how it went:
 
Hurricane: Who does New Zealand have - Cane? I would have Hoopah and Pocock ahead of him anyday. Behind Cane we have Savea who is very good I guess, but then who 
Matt Todd...Major LOL. I distinctly remember a super match towards the end where a wellington player ran straight over the top of him and Todd looked like chump.
 
Unco: You're out of your fucking mind.
 
Hurricane: Well whatever. At least I don't rate players just because they wear a black jersey. Cane is destined to be a journeyman player at best.
 
Hurricane resorted to calling Cane a journeyman after your post that he was out of his fucking mind. Is calling someone out of their fucking mind actually calling someone out? It seems more like blatant verbal abuse. Calling someone out from my position would be engaging in a reasoned argument. If Hurricane hadn't been sworn at, then I doubt he would have reacted in that way. You just called him "out of his fucking mind" for suggesting that Pocock or Hooper are better players than Cane. That might be a wrong opinion but I hardly think it is controversial. Would you really have reacted in a different way if he had left out "anyday"?

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hurricane" data-cid="609529" data-time="1472278556">
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.</blockquote>
 
Somewhat unnecessary and I'd suggest childish quip Hurricane (in line with a post by M4L above). I think you could find plenty of Ferners who would agree that our midfielders aren't there yet ...

Unco

If I say I'd pick these players over that player any day of the week, I'm not just saying those players are better than the other one, I'm saying they're far better. That even on that players best day, he still won't be as good as the other two. So yeah, I probably would've reacted differently. Would you have run to his defence if I'd left "fuckng" out of my post?
 
And why exactly should I waste my time "engaging in a reasoned argument" with someone who's shown about as much reasoning as Donald Trump? If I see a troll, I'll post a one sentence dismissal because that's all it deserves. If he wants to have a real argument, maybe he should have posted something to actually argue with, not just spewed forth his unreasoned opinions.

hurricane

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="609926" data-time="1472331469">
<div>
Somewhat unnecessary and I'd suggest childish quip Hurricane (in line with a post by M4L above). I think you could find plenty of Ferners who would agree that our midfielders aren't there yet ...
</div>
</blockquote>
 
99% of the Ferners would make that concession. A vocal 1% would take offence and get abusive. Someone else can put themselves out there next time. My whole goal for my participation on this web site was just to make the odd interesting comment here and there, I don't really want to be in the spot light so will take some learnings away from this. That is all my post was meant to mean rather than being shot at the Fern. For the record I thought that was his (Malakai's) best night in a black jersey by some distance last night.
 
@Unco - I don't really care you had a crack at me. I am not sitting at home throwing darts at a picture with your avatar on it. To be honest on a scale of 1 to 10 it was a 7. I have had way worse said to me and I am sure everyone has. If you come online you risk someone swearing at you. Just seems to be how it works. So yeah - if you don't want to apologise even though in my view you were OTT that is your call. I won't be crying into my beer over the incident. Let's all move on. Who really cares. This is not the biggest incident the Silver Fern has ever seen or will see. Let's end the autopsy. Yes if you had said "You are out of your mind". I probably would have laughed.
 
For my part I have noted down don't say "any day" in case that helps.
 
Thanks

The Silver Fern

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