handyman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 7:09 am
I hear you about Covid, but imo, the real reason that nz fell apart in the last RWC was the fact that they could not decide on their best 15 and stick with it. Yes, if players aren't performing or another is shooting the lights out, make the change, but don't just change for the sake of changing. Combinations take time to develop.
I hear you and I'm also skeptical of whether this approach is the way to go, but we have to understand that the landscape is constantly changing and timing is key.
NZ was trying to go for a dual playmaker gameplan which might not have been the right way to do things. "Too many chefs in the kitchen", so to speak.
But I do think there might be merit in a SH Bok team and a NH Bok team...and by that I don't neccisarily mean based in the SH or NH, but to play SH sides and NH sides.
I think what Rassie and Jacques might be hinting at is that our players gain a certain familiarity with NZ and Aus styles of play, their players, their facilities, the conditions etc; because we play against them fairly frequently. Similarly, we have a massive pool of NH based players who have become familiar with those conditions, coaching styles and gameplans. That know the stadiums and the opposition players. It makes sense to try and tap into that wealth of experience and not just ship in half a squad of players for the first training camp 2 weeks before a test series starts like we are currently doing.
Yes it is kindof working for us now, but we have to face facts that the center of gravity for rugby has settled in Europe (just like it did for soccer) and we have to build our future plans and strategies around that.
We have a massive advantage over other countries in our huge player pool. We need to find innovative ways to exploit that, while our players gravitate to Europe and can then get poached.
A dual squad system could be a way to lock-in a larger group of players by giving them Bok caps.
