Sorry, not sure. I don't follow the Chiefs that closely. I see Ah Koui as potentially being a test standard blindside flanker. He's got the size, workrate and mobility.Gumboot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:43 amBoth great young prospects. I assume Ah Koui's still out injured?Carter's Choice wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:39 amInterestingly, I though Ah Koui showed more this year than his locking partner Va'ai.
NZ North vs South Game Thread
- Carter's Choice
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:44 pm
- Location: QueeNZland
- Carter's Choice
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:44 pm
- Location: QueeNZland
North
South
I love the image re-sizing function of this forum but it sometimes has its limitations
South
I love the image re-sizing function of this forum but it sometimes has its limitations
I'm really looking forward to this as a match up between very good players, but the attempt to create a sense of "North Island" versus "South Island" rivalry doesn't hold any weight for me. It's not just the arbitrary way eligibility has been decided. It's that being a "North Islander" isn't really a part of my identity.
I'm sure other kiwis are similarly ambivalent?
I'm sure other kiwis are similarly ambivalent?
Born or raised. i.e. the traditional North v South criteria. However, I take AC's point about having an even contest, given that this is essentially a trial match. Which adds weight to my bitch about the bullshit criteria NZRU have cooked up, trying to sell a trial dressed up as North v South is typical.Jimmy Smallsteps wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:36 am So I gather the critics would prefer the criteria be school first XV.
-
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:15 am
Completely agree. I'll tend towards supporting the South because 18 of the 28 man squad are current or former Crusaders, and 15 debuted for Canterbury, and those are the teams I support. But unless they're wearing the Black jersey, I feel no affinity to the likes of Frizell, Ioane, Lomax, or Hunt (other than as good rugby players to watch as you say) simply because they're representing the South Island.FujiKiwi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 1:27 am I'm really looking forward to this as a match up between very good players, but the attempt to create a sense of "North Island" versus "South Island" rivalry doesn't hold any weight for me. It's not just the arbitrary way eligibility has been decided. It's that being a "North Islander" isn't really a part of my identity.
I'm sure other kiwis are similarly ambivalent?
Yep, that perfectly sums up my view of this match.mrbrownstone wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 2:13 amCompletely agree. I'll tend towards supporting the South because 18 of the 28 man squad are current or former Crusaders, and 15 debuted for Canterbury, and those are the teams I support. But unless they're wearing the Black jersey, I feel no affinity to the likes of Frizell, Ioane, Lomax, or Hunt (other than as good rugby players to watch as you say) simply because they're representing the South Island.FujiKiwi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 1:27 am I'm really looking forward to this as a match up between very good players, but the attempt to create a sense of "North Island" versus "South Island" rivalry doesn't hold any weight for me. It's not just the arbitrary way eligibility has been decided. It's that being a "North Islander" isn't really a part of my identity.
I'm sure other kiwis are similarly ambivalent?
There must've always been anomalies, I guess. One year David Kirk got picked for the SI and I remember thinking - Hang on, they've got this wrong. He was born and raised in Palmerston North.Ted. wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 1:50 amBorn or raised. i.e. the traditional North v South criteria. However, I take AC's point about having an even contest, given that this is essentially a trial match. Which adds weight to my bitch about the bullshit criteria NZRU have cooked up, trying to sell a trial dressed up as North v South is typical.Jimmy Smallsteps wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:36 am So I gather the critics would prefer the criteria be school first XV.
- ScarfaceClaw
- Posts: 2623
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:11 pm
And Barrett is named at 1st five for the Norf. Foster is going to do it isn’t he. Barrett will be his first choice. This is going to be a tough few years under his reign.
Just as long as they don’t go with Gatland in a couple of years to replace him. They wouldn’t do that would they? Would they?
Just as long as they don’t go with Gatland in a couple of years to replace him. They wouldn’t do that would they? Would they?
- Carter's Choice
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:44 pm
- Location: QueeNZland
It seems that way. The fact that he has named him as the sole no.10 for the North island speaks volumes for how Foster views BB. Ian Foster is a complete failure of a head coach, as shown by many years of mediocrity during his tenure at the Chiefs. As an Assistant Coach and selector he was part of a team that presided over any abysmal selection strategy over the last RWC cycle. He and Hansen inherited the best team in the world, and as of this moment we came 3rd in the last RWC and don't hold the Rugby Championship silverware.ScarfaceClaw wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:45 am And Barrett is named at 1st five for the Norf. Foster is going to do it isn’t he. Barrett will be his first choice. This is going to be a tough few years under his reign.
I hate to be all doom and gloom, but given the covid situation, Foster won't have time to fail consistently enough to be stood down in this RWC cycle till it's too late. The opposition the ABs are likely to face over the next two years (Australia? Even the Island nations?) because of covid travel restrictions is also likely to flatter his results.ScarfaceClaw wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:45 am And Barrett is named at 1st five for the Norf. Foster is going to do it isn’t he. Barrett will be his first choice. This is going to be a tough few years under his reign.
Just as long as they don’t go with Gatland in a couple of years to replace him. They wouldn’t do that would they? Would they?
He's locked in till 2023 at the very least.
He won’t have time to fail consistently.
This is the single most positive thing I have read about Foster’s coaching chances since he was appointed.
Frizell's played a few games there, but surely they wouldn't move him out of blindside at this point? It seems to be the only position in either team with no obvious first choice.
- Carter's Choice
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:44 pm
- Location: QueeNZland
Tom Sanders was decent at 8. I cannot see any reason why the selectors would move Frizell given he was arguably the form backrower in Super Rugby Aotearoa playing as a classical blindside flanker.
Yeah, Frizell has to stay at 6. But is Sanders a potential test no.8?Carter's Choice wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:04 am Tom Sanders was decent at 8. I cannot see any reason why the selectors would move Frizell given he was arguably the form backrower in Super Rugby Aotearoa playing as a classical blindside flanker.
- Carter's Choice
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:44 pm
- Location: QueeNZland
Nope, but the NI have two high quality 8's in Savea and Sotutu. I cant believe that Marino Mika'ele-Tu'u missed out on selection or this game, but I guess Savea is thge incumbent and Soutu considered the next best cab off the rank. MMT would have been the SI's first choice no.8 for certain.Gumboot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:29 amYeah, Frizell has to stay at 6. But is Sanders a potential test no.8?Carter's Choice wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:04 am Tom Sanders was decent at 8. I cannot see any reason why the selectors would move Frizell given he was arguably the form backrower in Super Rugby Aotearoa playing as a classical blindside flanker.
MMT was very average in a clutch game vs the CrusadersCarter's Choice wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:36 amNope, but the NI have two high quality 8's in Savea and Sotutu. I cant believe that Marino Mika'ele-Tu'u missed out on selection or this game, but I guess Savea is thge incumbent and Soutu considered the next best cab off the rank. MMT would have been the SI's first choice no.8 for certain.Gumboot wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:29 amYeah, Frizell has to stay at 6. But is Sanders a potential test no.8?Carter's Choice wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:04 am Tom Sanders was decent at 8. I cannot see any reason why the selectors would move Frizell given he was arguably the form backrower in Super Rugby Aotearoa playing as a classical blindside flanker.
- Carter's Choice
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:44 pm
- Location: QueeNZland
Rest for what? the Mitre 10 Cup? lol
Yes very weird since he was one of the form locks in the comp. Another example of Ian Foster's incompetence as a selector.
- Carter's Choice
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:44 pm
- Location: QueeNZland
I watched every game he played this season and I don't remember it being loose. Care to post some video evidence to support your ridiculous claim?
- Jimmy Smallsteps
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:24 pm
- Location: Auckland
An absolute fucking hacker. Only there because of the closed shop that is the NZ Rugby Union.Carter's Choice wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 7:12 amIt seems that way. The fact that he has named him as the sole no.10 for the North island speaks volumes for how Foster views BB. Ian Foster is a complete failure of a head coach, as shown by many years of mediocrity during his tenure at the Chiefs. As an Assistant Coach and selector he was part of a team that presided over any abysmal selection strategy over the last RWC cycle. He and Hansen inherited the best team in the world, and as of this moment we came 3rd in the last RWC and don't hold the Rugby Championship silverware.ScarfaceClaw wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:45 am And Barrett is named at 1st five for the Norf. Foster is going to do it isn’t he. Barrett will be his first choice. This is going to be a tough few years under his reign.
Now now JM, you are at loggerheads with the received wisdom.
He's injured.Carter's Choice wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:02 amRest for what? the Mitre 10 Cup? lol
Yes very weird since he was one of the form locks in the comp. Another example of Ian Foster's incompetence as a selector.
There is a lot of water under the bridge to be decided before anything concrete happens here. Will the game actually be in Wellington? Auckland looks like it will be under another L3 extension till 9th September with the way new cases are still appearing this won't be cleared up in a week.
Chris Hipkins today dropped this beauty which pretty much kills off the North team and the whole spectacle.
Chris Hipkins today dropped this beauty which pretty much kills off the North team and the whole spectacle.
To show how up in the air this is the NZ TAB have removed all game options from their site as well.The Auckland-based players involved in the North-South rugby game may be left at home with the Health Minister saying he hasn't given any exemptions for them to travel to Wellington.
However, with Auckland in Alert Level 3 until at least 26 August the game remains in doubt and New Zealand Rugby has been looking at contingency plans. The squads are scheduled to assemble in Wellington on Monday.
Health Minister Chris Hipkins said he hasn't received any requests for the 13 Auckland and North Harbour based players to be given special clearance to leave the region.
He added that no exemptions have been given for the Auckland based players to assemble in Wellington with the North and South squads.
Hipkins said he hasn't given assurances to NZR that the players will be able to leave Auckland.
He said he would expect either himself or the Director General of Health to be involved in the decision making process and he's not aware that either of them have been.
Hipkins said it's unlikely he would grant exemptions for the players to leave Auckland, considering MPs are not travelling to Wellington for parliament sitting.
He said at this point he would say no to allowing the 13 players to travel to Wellington.
It's unfuckingbelievable that NZR have not even broached the travel issue with MOH. What on earth do they thing they are they playing at?JPNZ wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:26 pm There is a lot of water under the bridge to be decided before anything concrete happens here. Will the game actually be in Wellington? Auckland looks like it will be under another L3 extension till 9th September with the way new cases are still appearing this won't be cleared up in a week.
Chris Hipkins today dropped this beauty which pretty much kills off the North team and the whole spectacle.
To show how up in the air this is the NZ TAB have removed all game options from their site as well.The Auckland-based players involved in the North-South rugby game may be left at home with the Health Minister saying he hasn't given any exemptions for them to travel to Wellington.
However, with Auckland in Alert Level 3 until at least 26 August the game remains in doubt and New Zealand Rugby has been looking at contingency plans. The squads are scheduled to assemble in Wellington on Monday.
Health Minister Chris Hipkins said he hasn't received any requests for the 13 Auckland and North Harbour based players to be given special clearance to leave the region.
He added that no exemptions have been given for the Auckland based players to assemble in Wellington with the North and South squads.
Hipkins said he hasn't given assurances to NZR that the players will be able to leave Auckland.
He said he would expect either himself or the Director General of Health to be involved in the decision making process and he's not aware that either of them have been.
Hipkins said it's unlikely he would grant exemptions for the players to leave Auckland, considering MPs are not travelling to Wellington for parliament sitting.
He said at this point he would say no to allowing the 13 players to travel to Wellington.
- Carter's Choice
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:44 pm
- Location: QueeNZland
Yes, that's just exceedingly poor planning and management. There are loads of NZR coaches and officials earning millions of dollars a year and no-one thought that it might be a good idea to confirm if players can travel to this game? Another massive show of incompetency fro NZR. This is unforgivable really, if the match is cancelled due to player travel issues then someone high up needs to get sacked.
- Carter's Choice
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:44 pm
- Location: QueeNZland
Shut up. NZ has largely controlled COVID-19, with a tiny number of deaths an infections and everywhere outside of Auckland able to host matches. If they can organise themselves to play Rugby in places like the UK or Australia then surely someone in NZR could have planned for this match to go ahead?
Yep, you only have to watch the highlights videos of recent Highlanders games to see how inaccurate/poorly positioned he can be on defence, especially close to his own try-line. He's nowhere near ready for higher honours yet.
- Carter's Choice
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:44 pm
- Location: QueeNZland
He's also the best ball running loose forward in NZ. You forgot to mention that important trait.
Stats?Carter's Choice wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:00 amHe's also the best ball running loose forward in NZ. You forgot to mention that important trait.
- stunt_cunt
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:21 pm
- Location: Wild West
Can't see Auckland dropping out of defcon 3 until the threat of community transmission is squashed, can't see NZ rugby given a pass to export Auckland players to leave Auckland either.
We may get to start the NPC at the designated ko date if we get to zero covid positives by the end of August, which probably looks likely. 5 community transmission cases today.
We may get to start the NPC at the designated ko date if we get to zero covid positives by the end of August, which probably looks likely. 5 community transmission cases today.
- Carter's Choice
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:44 pm
- Location: QueeNZland
Anecdotally. That's coming from a fan who watched every SRA match. And I'm not a Highlanders fan either. I'm sure JMK will have some stats for you.Ted. wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:04 amStats?Carter's Choice wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:00 amHe's also the best ball running loose forward in NZ. You forgot to mention that important trait.
Why would I mention it when we're discussing his defence?Carter's Choice wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:00 amHe's also the best ball running loose forward in NZ. You forgot to mention that important trait.
Have you watched those highlights videos I referred to? You claimed to have watched him closely all year, so I'm a bit surprised you missed so many of his defensive lapses.
Even if only temporarily, is it such a bad thing excluding Auckland from the rest of New Zealand?stunt_cunt wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:30 am Can't see Auckland dropping out of defcon 3 until the threat of community transmission is squashed, can't see NZ rugby given a pass to export Auckland players to leave Auckland either.
We may get to start the NPC at the designated ko date if we get to zero covid positives by the end of August, which probably looks likely. 5 community transmission cases today.