• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Conman Smith

i agree totally with scuuba... i cant see where all this hating has come from. hes been pretty solid through his first couple of games back.

i feel safer having smith at centre than having Panadol at fullback. he already blew one semifinal for NZ so dont want to give him the chance to blow another one.
 
i agree totally with scuuba... i cant see where all this hating has come from. hes been pretty solid through his first couple of games back.

i feel safer having smith at centre than having Panadol at fullback. he already blew one semifinal for NZ so dont want to give him the chance to blow another one.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Poor call!! Play Smith at fullback in a WC semi and make him do the kicking as well and see how he goes!
Leon always plays well when played in position. Blame the loss on Mitchel, Deans and Spencer I say.
 
Yes - it is pretty tough to blame McDonald for losing the last world cup.

I have to say Carlos lost it for us - and look at my user name.

As for all the insults on this forum..... I started the topic and didn't think it would be so controversial.

No need to escalate things Wiararapa Cullen.

Anyway, end of the day.... Conrad is still a conman (IMHO)
 
Personally, I think that lacking a genuine attacking threat at 13 is a real mistake. Keeping Smith in as a good defensive player and distributor may be fine against the standard of opposition NZ has so faced but once they come up against a top tier backline, its going to severely limit their attacking potential. If a defence is able to confidently shut down the 13 every time, then it allows them to concentrate their defenses on the genuine threats out wide. The whole idea of the 13 spot is to suck in a whole bunch of defenders and give the outside backs plenty of room. Well, thats always been my interpretation anyway. Basically, since NZ has a player like McDonald available at fullback it makes much more sense to have Mils in the centres as it provides so much more in terms of attacking options. Its no good having finishers like Rokococo and Sivivatu if you don't have the centres to give them room. This is the reason why Australia has managed to compete in recent years despite their lack of top class finishers on the wings. Mortlock is so damaging at 13 that he makes those outside him look far better than they really are. Similarly, a weak 13 can work in the opposite way. Just my 2 cents.
 
Smith at center.
Mils at fullback.

MacDonald not in the 22.

Evans and Toeava on the bench for cover.

Ohhhh, come on bJok, what now? Are all my commas in the right order? Please enlighten me, having a sub "standard education" and all.
 
Personally, I think that lacking a genuine attacking threat at 13 is a real mistake. Keeping Smith in as a good defensive player and distributor may be fine against the standard of opposition NZ has so faced but once they come up against a top tier backline, its going to severely limit their attacking potential. If a defence is able to confidently shut down the 13 every time, then it allows them to concentrate their defenses on the genuine threats out wide. The whole idea of the 13 spot is to suck in a whole bunch of defenders and give the outside backs plenty of room. Well, thats always been my interpretation anyway. Basically, since NZ has a player like McDonald available at fullback it makes much more sense to have Mils in the centres as it provides so much more in terms of attacking options. Its no good having finishers like Rokococo and Sivivatu if you don't have the centres to give them room. This is the reason why Australia has managed to compete in recent years despite their lack of top class finishers on the wings. Mortlock is so damaging at 13 that he makes those outside him look far better than they really are. Similarly, a weak 13 can work in the opposite way. Just my 2 cents.
[/b]
Click to expand...


Great points Mackka. You make a lot of sense.

Ummmm. Wairarapa Cullen.......Mils at centre, McDonald at Fullback, Evans and Toeava on the bench, Smith not in the squad

Smith at center.
Mils at fullback.

MacDonald not in the 22.

Evans and Toeava on the bench for cover.

Ohhhh, come on bJok, what now? Are all my commas in the right order? Please enlighten me, having a sub "standard education" and all.
[/b]
Click to expand...

TO THE MODERATOR: It seems Wairarapa Cullen is starting to escalate things again. Is it possible to get this obnoxious escalater kicked off please so we can respect everyone's opinion.
 
Smith at center.
Mils at fullback.

MacDonald not in the 22.

Evans and Toeava on the bench for cover.

Ohhhh, come on bJok, what now? Are all my commas in the right order? Please enlighten me, having a sub "standard education" and all.
[/b]
Click to expand...
In response to a request from a man unfairly deprived of a decent education. (Blame Labour I say).
Actually, the quotation marks should be as follows; "sub-standard education." 'Substandard' can either be hyphenated or written as a single word.
Don't worry, I realise that schools in the provinces, Wairarapa for example, can't be expected to maintain the same standards as decent city schools.

Agree with Carlosisgod123; can we get this guy banned?
 
Please bjok, you have just taken his bait. Don't respond. Reporting wairarapa cullen or whomever fires the first shot is the way to do it. We would prefer you don't insult anyone's background or education as retaliation either.

Also, wairarapa cullen, I am not picking on, or singling you out, but you must stop harking to earlier posts for ammunition.

For the record guys, grammar or spelling is not all-important on the forum. We do frown on overuse of text-speak and posting in incomprehensible ways though.

That said, next insult between these two, will have to be dealt with accordingly. Have fun and stay on the issue.

Remember, it's ok to have a different view from each other.
 
Personally, I think that lacking a genuine attacking threat at 13 is a real mistake. Keeping Smith in as a good defensive player and distributor may be fine against the standard of opposition NZ has so faced but once they come up against a top tier backline, its going to severely limit their attacking potential. If a defence is able to confidently shut down the 13 every time, then it allows them to concentrate their defenses on the genuine threats out wide. The whole idea of the 13 spot is to suck in a whole bunch of defenders and give the outside backs plenty of room. Well, thats always been my interpretation anyway. Basically, since NZ has a player like McDonald available at fullback it makes much more sense to have Mils in the centres as it provides so much more in terms of attacking options. Its no good having finishers like Rokococo and Sivivatu if you don't have the centres to give them room. This is the reason why Australia has managed to compete in recent years despite their lack of top class finishers on the wings. Mortlock is so damaging at 13 that he makes those outside him look far better than they really are. Similarly, a weak 13 can work in the opposite way. Just my 2 cents. [/b]
Click to expand...



i disagree... i dont think its as easy as that... its very rarely that tries are scored from a set backline these days. Mortlock suits the wallibies style of play. they use a system of continous points of attack that relies on commiting defenders to the breakdown and quick recycling of possesion and using two pivots(usualy bernie and gitts) at the line at speed. thats why they produce powederpuff props. they play a style that means the forwards need to be more mobile than setpiece savy.



the all blacks favourate point of attack is to counter attack from turnover ball. Smith is more than adaquate punnishing sides if they turn over the ball... case in point.. VS France in Lyon last year... he scored a 70 meter breakaway off turnover ball....



infact i think he combined with McAlister so well in that game Henry and Co had made up there mind back then that he was going to be the first choice centre with Malili at fullback.



i wouldnt have Panadol in the 22 alltogether. Evans and Ice can cover Fullback/Wing/Centre/Firstfive.
 
Point to note, use shiznit and mackka's recent posts as a guide. Both have opposing views, although done with respect to the issue and each other.
 
i disagree... i dont think its as easy as that... its very rarely that tries are scored from a set backline these days. Mortlock suits the wallibies style of play. they use a system of continous points of attack that relies on commiting defenders to the breakdown and quick recycling of possesion and using two pivots(usualy bernie and gitts) at the line at speed. thats why they produce powederpuff props. they play a style that means the forwards need to be more mobile than setpiece savy.



the all blacks favourate point of attack is to counter attack from turnover ball. Smith is more than adaquate punnishing sides if they turn over the ball... case in point.. VS France in Lyon last year... he scored a 70 meter breakaway off turnover ball....



infact i think he combined with McAlister so well in that game Henry and Co had made up there mind back then that he was going to be the first choice centre with Malili at fullback.



i wouldnt have Panadol in the 22 alltogether. Evans and Ice can cover Fullback/Wing/Centre/Firstfive.
[/b]
Click to expand...

To be honest, though I haven't seen all that much of Evans, from what I have seen I wouldn't at all mind having him start at fullback and then just have Toeava on the bench, with Mils able to move to fullback and Toeava into the centres if necessary. That'd free up an extra bench spot would it not? All positions are still covered with a bit of reshuffling depending on who gets injured.

While the All Blacks are undoubtably the masters at attcking from turnover ball, I don't think they can rely on that tactic too heavily if they come up against a pack like South Africa's. Their backline still needs to be able to make significant inroads since the Saffers don't cough up very much ball. I guess I just don't see what is gained by having Smith in the Centres, especially when it keeps either McDonald or Evans off the pitch.
 
Point to note, use shiznit and mackka's recent posts as a guide. Both have opposing views, although done with respect to the issue and each other.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Yet doing otherwise hardly warrants a ban...it is equivilent of giving a rugby player a life ban for slowing the ball down in the ruck or something similar to that...sure it is annoying and all but in the scheme of things simply a minor incovenience...
 
I just cannot see why people think Mils should play at center. Smith is more than capable of playing there without being sublime, as he does all the basics needed . In saying that, MacDonald doesn't warrant a place in the 22 as Evans can play there probably just as well and with the advantage of a huge boot.
 
I haven't banned anyone, nor said I would. Please leave disciplinary issues to forum moderators. (I'm not trying to sound arrogant, this is all off-topic).

Please lets ALL return to the issue.

In case anyone has wondered (or not) which side of this issue I come out on? Well, Conrad hasn't had a lot of space this world cup, nor has any centre, I can't wait till the new off-side laws come in (5 metres back from the hind-most foot).

I like him more than Ice, although he is a "flashes of brilliance" kind of guy. Those flashes haven't happened happened often enough for sometime. His mistake rate and defence is pretty good, although he's definitely not in the best three or four centres in the world cup.

Mils would be a better choice, as he is a superb all-round rugby player, although who would wear 15?. Macdonald is a fine player most of the time, although he has small moments of poor ability once in a while.These can be costly and I can understand the faers about him in a semi-final. He could coast through it or blunder a second half.

It's a real problem for Henry, as McAllister also has moments of stupidity in 13. Maybe we have to face facts that all options have an inherent risk?
 
I haven't banned anyone, nor said I would. Please leave disciplinary issues to forum moderators. (I'm not trying to sound arrogant, this is all off-topic).

Please lets ALL return to the issue.

In case anyone has wondered (or not) which side of this issue I come out on? Well, Conrad hasn't had a lot of space this world cup, nor has any centre, I can't wait till the new off-side laws come in (5 metres back from the hind-most foot).

I like him more than Ice, although he is a "flashes of brilliance" kind of guy. Those flashes haven't happened happened often enough for sometime. His mistake rate and defence is pretty good, although he's definitely not in the best three or four centres in the world cup.

Mils would be a better choice, as he is a superb all-round rugby player, although who would wear 15?. Macdonald is a fine player most of the time, although he has small moments of poor ability once in a while.These can be costly and I can understand the faers about him in a semi-final. He could coast through it or blunder a second half.

It's a real problem for Henry, as McAllister also has moments of stupidity in 13. Maybe we have to face facts that all options have an inherent risk? [/b]
Click to expand...



all options are deffinately a risk... thats for sure... i suppose where we all differ is around what risk were willing to take.



obviously there are people who would rather risk Panadol at fullback to get security at centre.



im the opposite because so far i havent seen anything from conrad smith that says hes a risk. i cant remember him making any bad errors in defence which let in points. while i feel really uncomfortable with panadol because IMO i think hes proven to be too flakey under pressure.



case in point... last year VS France in Paris. his shocker in the first 5 mins that gifted the french a try.... sure we came back and won but at semifinal time thats the type of thing that would push the anxiety levels up in the side and cause them to panic.



Mills is class at Centre.. theres no doubt about that.. but from what i have seen so far i think Conrad Smith is a safer option at centre than Panadol is at fullback.
 
Play Toeava at centre against the Springboks, and play Smith at centre against France and Australia.

If the game is in the bag against France or Australia, bring in Toeava off the bench and let him have a go at centre.

I dunno why people are saying Conrad is better than Toeava. Current form suggests Toeava is better. Only reason why Conrad is so hyped up is because of his performances in the EOYTs.

I also don't know why people are saying that Conrad is there because of defence. His defence this year was pretty crap tbh, and Toeava was pretty solid against Australia in the Tri-Nations/Bledisloe decider.

If anything, Conrad is there because of his style of play. He's a worker, and I think thats what the cartel are looking for. He's a good support player, and he has a high work rate. The All Blacks like using off-loads, and thats where players like Conrad and Howlett are handy. Conrad is also good at getting turnover ball, given he's been playing with Tana a lot.

I'd play Toeava against the Springboks cos he's got great confidence going up against Fourie. He's carved him up at S14, and you could see the confidence when he took Fourie on the outside in this years Tri-Nations match. Although, I won't be surprised if Mils starts at centre against them, with Leon at the back.
 
i really like Ice... i think hes got a huge future in the black jearsey.

hes just not ready yet. he makes far too many stupid mistakes in between the good things he does. i just dont want his stupid mistakes happening when the pressures on. for the teams sake and for his own sake. if he costs us this RWC then he wont be allowed near the all blacks jumper again... it wont be fair of henry and co to do that to him.
 
Agreed, Ice is full of potential at this point. He's progressed from when he was first in the All-Blacks, to about 2/3 of how much he needs to improve.

Handling and pressure are two things he needs to improve on.
 
Handling the pressure? I thought he's shown he can handle the pressure.
If anything, I think he just needs to get his hands on the ball more.
 

Latest posts

Top