New Zealand as World Champions need to change themselves

[psychic duck]

Right. This really does emphasize how little you know.

Joe Rokocoko, Sitivini Sivivatu, Hosea Gear, Sean Maitland, Lelia Masaga, Kade Poki, Rene Ranger were all open for selection. I wasn't a fan of the choice of not taking a specialist left winger other than Zac Guildford, but fact of the matter is, I can think of no team in the world that has half as much depth in the back three as New Zealand had going into the RWC.
The fact that Henry chose no specialist wingers, and they all played brilliantly, does not indicate a lack of depth.

If Declan O'Donnell can get a Super Rugby contract as a winger then I'm sure Juan Imhoff would at least be good enough for all squads

 

[Melhor Time]

If Declan O'Donnell can get a Super Rugby contract as a winger then I'm sure Juan Imhoff would at least be good enough for all squads

Bingo. Nail on the head.

Right. This really does emphasize how little you know.

Joe Rokocoko, Sitivini Sivivatu, Hosea Gear, Sean Maitland, Lelia Masaga, Kade Poki, Rene Ranger were all open for selection. I wasn't a fan of the choice of not taking a specialist left winger other than Zac Guildford, but fact of the matter is, I can think of no team in the world that has half as much depth in the back three as New Zealand had going into the RWC.
The fact that Henry chose no specialist wingers, and they all played brilliantly, does not indicate a lack of depth.

You´ve missed the point too.

Squads have two players per position thus four wingers, or more. Do New Zealand have 20 decent wingers?

I don´t think any team has more depth at wing. This is not the point at all. My point is there are 20 spots and there are not 20 players of sufficient quality. If you disagree, let me know 20 names for wingers. No fullbacks like Dagg, no centres like Kahui. Strictly 10 to play left wing and 10 to play right.

Since the NZ World Cup wingers were from other positions it is questionable whether a number of guys going around are up to standard. You mentioned Joe Rokocoko, Sitivini Sivivatu, Hosea Gear, Sean Maitland, Lelia Masaga, Kade Poki and Rene Ranger. All are good players - Gear would have been in the World Cup for me. Maitland is a future All Black. Masaga, Poki and Ranger are all good players. The two others have gone. Anyhow, if you doubt my comment then please give me 20 names. I´m interested. Same for secondrow since I´ve covered it already.

 

[nickdnz]

If Declan O'Donnell can get a Super Rugby contract as a winger then I'm sure Juan Imhoff would at least be good enough for all squads

...What's wrong with Declan O'Donnell? His defense is a little shaky, but he's magic on attack. Only a few months ago he was being hailed as ***chens next Christian Cullen. I don't know who I'd replace Juan Imhoff with. Nemani Maritino would be one of the few players.

Bingo. Nail on the head.



You´ve missed the point too.

Squads have two players per position thus four wingers, or more. Do New Zealand have 20 decent wingers?

I don´t think any team has more depth at wing. This is not the point at all. My point is there are 20 spots and there are not 20 players of sufficient quality. If you disagree, let me know 20 names for wingers. No fullbacks like Dagg, no centres like Kahui. Strictly 10 to play left wing and 10 to play right.

Since the NZ World Cup wingers were from other positions it is questionable whether a number of guys going around are up to standard. You mentioned Joe Rokocoko, Sitivini Sivivatu, Hosea Gear, Sean Maitland, Lelia Masaga, Kade Poki and Rene Ranger. All are good players - Gear would have been in the World Cup for me. Maitland is a future All Black. Masaga, Poki and Ranger are all good players. The two others have gone. Anyhow, if you doubt my comment then please give me 20 names. I´m interested. Same for secondrow since I´ve covered it already.

Fine.

Julian Savea
Richard Buckman
Declan O'Donnell
Lelia Masaga
Hosea Gear
Gillies Kaka
Rudi Wulf
Rene Ranger
Sean Maitland
Zac Guildford
Andre Taylor
Buxton Popoalii
Andre Taylor
Ahsee Tuala
Kade Poki
Sherwin Stowers
Siale Piutau
Telusa Veainu
Patrick Osborne
David Raikuna

All of them are specialist wingers. Not all of them do I expect to be All Blacks but they are all worthy of Super Rugby contracts. Some because they are world class and other because they have a lot of potential and have played very well for their NPC teams.

 

[psychic duck]

Juan Imhoff is better than half of them

and regarding locks New Zealand doesn't have as much depth so I'm sure Galarza is good enough, better than Romana Graham (who regularly starts)

 

[nickdnz]

Juan Imhoff is better than half of them

and regarding locks New Zealand doesn't have as much depth so I'm sure Galarza is good enough, better than Romana Graham (who regularly starts)

I'd be suprised if you knew who half of them were to be honest, never mind watched them play (do you want to point our which players specifically?). Most of them would get a spot in the Argentinian team if they qualified.

I agree that we may be a bit thin in the lock department. Maybe that's an area worth looking into, as I'm sure there are a few lock spaces that could be filled up.

 

[lucky number 7]

/thread.

 

[Groundhog]

:lol:
ah thats very fresh in my mind watched all three of Lord of the rings in one go the other day...... because im cool

 

[Dizzy]

My point is there are 20 spots and there are not 20 players of sufficient quality. If you disagree, let me know 20 names for wingers. No fullbacks like Dagg, no centres like Kahui. Strictly 10 to play left wing and 10 to play right.

Since the NZ World Cup wingers were from other positions it is questionable whether a number of guys going around are up to standard. You mentioned Joe Rokocoko, Sitivini Sivivatu, Hosea Gear, Sean Maitland, Lelia Masaga, Kade Poki and Rene Ranger. All are good players - Gear would have been in the World Cup for me. Maitland is a future All Black. Masaga, Poki and Ranger are all good players. The two others have gone. Anyhow, if you doubt my comment then please give me 20 names. I´m interested. Same for secondrow since I´ve covered it already.

Don't listen to this fool.

First of all, in the modern game, players can be shifted around, especially when it affects the type of game the coaches are trying to play. Which was to have safe men under the high ball and in Jane and Kahui you could go no further. Now if you want to say "But why aren't NZ's specialist wingers able enough to take the high ball? It shows poor depth blah blah blah" then I will want to say "You're just being stupid" and "If you have two players able enough to play on the wing under those circumstances and they play the role suited for the game plan better than the rest then why would I not select them in my World Cup squad?"

Second of all, you don't even need 20 wingers so asking for 20 names just shows how poor your arguement is. Why don't you give me 20 Argentinian names who could force out 20 NZ wingers?.

As for us having poor depth in the locking department, that also is a poor statement. You're going to compare one of Argentina's top locks against one of NZ's 1800th in line? We aren't under any trouble in the locking department either. We've got Williams, Boric, Whitelock, Donnelly, Thrush, Broadhurst the up and coming Brodie Retallick is destined for the All Black jersey and even Jason Eaton could produce some more of that magnificient form we saw in his earlier years this season.

So again, Why don't you give me 20 Argentinian names who could force out 20 NZ wingers?.

I guess I should go watch the three LOTR movies and then come back in hopes that you could conjur up something.

 

[cardassian]

@ Melhor Time
Just a quick couple of points, you mention that New Zealand had never played a test in the P.I.'s and in an early post specifically mention that Tonga beat France but New Zealand has never played in Tonga. However New Zealand has played Tonga 5 times, whereas Argentina (a team closer to Tonga in the Rankings) has played them a grand total of 0 times. Surely this should be a greater concern than the fact that we let the Islands play home games in New Zealand so they can earn more money.

Now you also mention that when Samoa last played in New Zealand it was in New Plymouth which doesn't hold as many people as Eden park, this is true. However I must point out that it holds 25,000 which is considerably larger than Apia. Also tickets cost approximately $23 US. Now the latest figures I can find for Samoa are from 2008 when the average Samoan income was $100 US. Considering this do you think that the Samoan rugby Union could charge the same price? Would people pay 1/4 of a weeks Salary to watch a game of rugby? Seems to me not only would the crowd be smaller but the ticket price would be reduced meaning the SRU would make a lot less money than if the game was staged in New Zealand.

Now you propose that New Zealand be world leaders and say no SRU we want to play in Samoa not in New Zealand, but in reality wouldn't this be the act of Hegemony you already accuse us of as opposed to giving the SRU free choice and letting them choose what they consider to be the best for them?

Now also on the topic of New Zealand not doing enough for World rugby in general and not helping make world cups competitive I would like to point out 3 facts for you, 1) 8% of the players in the world cup play their rugby in New Zealand; 2) 11% of players in the world cup were born in New Zealand; 3) 30% of the countries in the world cup were coached by New Zealanders. These seem to be pretty high percentages for a country not doing it's share. In fact only 2 countries had more players playing in their leagues (France and England) or if you count the Celtic league as one country (but super rugby as 3) then they slip in above us too.

 

[Darwin]

Darwin

I think you mistook what I was saying.

The All Blacks World Cup wingers were centres or fullbacks - Jane, Dagg, Williams, Kahui and Guildford.

At Super Rugby level they are not wingers. Hence, those playing wing for Kiwi Super Rugby sides are, right now, not as good as previously. Secondrow is a position I think New Zealand is lacking in. The best player has gone now too (Brad Thorn). As Smartcooky said the Crusaders have got Ross Kennedy - a journeyman. I don´t see enough New Zealand secondrowers of note to be spread about 5 teams. i.e. 4 per team = 20. Mariano Galarza is a better player than Ross Kennedy and, certainly a lot of others.

No, I understood perfectly what you where saying. You suggested that the fact the AB's picked centres/fullbacks on the wing somehow indicated a lack of depth in the wing department. As I pointed out this is clearly false. As I stated before, the AB's selectors choice of centre/fullbacks on the wings reflected the type of wings the AB's wanted for the style of rugby they were playing. It didn't suggest that the AB's didn't have world class wings in the country (as they have an over-abundance of these!). I think this really points to your lack of knowledge of NZ rugby more than anything: if there is one position that New Zealand has tremendous depth in it is wing! Not only are all the specialist wings named in Super Rugby squads more than good enough for Super Rugby, I could name another ten wings that would equally look comfortable at Super rugby (of the top of my head.. there are plenty of others that I'm probably missing), and would indeed get close to making many international sides: Buxton Popoali'i, Gillies Kaka, Tu Umuga-Marshall, Bryce Heem, Siale Piutau, Francis Saili, Glen Horton, Nafi Tuitavake, Ken Pisi, Jackson Ormond.

There is certainly less depth in certain other positions - lock is a good example. However most teams have 2-3 quality options at lock (perhaps with the exception of the Chiefs), so it's only really the final lock position that teams may be lacking a quality player in. Teams have either chosen to fill this with a young player (e.g Brodie Retallick at the Chiefs) or gone for an experienced campaigned (e.g Kennedy at the Crusaders). As I mentioned before I thought the Crusaders should have either gone for young Dominic Bird or picked someone like Luamanu rather than Kennedy (as they have plentty of lock cover already), but the other option would have been to go for a proven overseas player. The problem is they can't afford to pay this player very much at all (as he would be one of the last players chosen), so it is doubtful that they would be able to get anyone of higher quality than Kennedy in any case (unless they were doing it just to experience Super Rugby ala James Haskell). I'm sure if they could have got Galarza for the same price as Kennedy they would have jumped at the opportunity!

If Declan O'Donnell can get a Super Rugby contract as a winger then I'm sure Juan Imhoff would at least be good enough for all squads

Um have you actually seen O'Donnell play? He is an exceptionally talented player, and was very impressive for Waikato last season. He more than deserves a Super rugby contract. Out of curiosity what has Juan Imhoff done to be considered such a good player? (serious question). Last time I checked he has played a season of Vodacom Cup Rugby (South Africa's third-tier competition), and played a couple of games for Argentina (largely off the bench). To me he is in the same sort of boat as most of the rookie New Zealand wings: talented young players, but largely unproven at a high level of rugby (of course Imhoff's limited international experience gives him a slight edge). Franchises are highly unlikely to pursue a talented unproven player they have seen very little of (Imhoff) over a talented unproven player they have seen a lot more of (Nemani, O'Donnell et. al.). By the way how is Imhoff going for Racing Metro (I understand he's played a couple of games for them now)?

 

[Melhor Time]

I think this really points to your lack of knowledge of NZ rugby more than anything: if there is one position that New Zealand has tremendous depth in it is wing! Not only are all the specialist wings named in Super Rugby squads more than good enough for Super Rugby, I could name another ten wings that would equally look comfortable at Super rugby (of the top of my head.. there are plenty of others that I'm probably missing), and would indeed get close to making many international sides: Buxton Popoali'i, Gillies Kaka, Tu Umuga-Marshall, Bryce Heem, Siale Piutau, Francis Saili, Glen Horton, Nafi Tuitavake, Ken Pisi, Jackson Ormond.

I agree NZ has loads of depth there. I even said so. I was making two separate points. 1. Despite having depth the players weren´t used. 2. Despite having loads of talented options there is still not 20 players of note. Now, if we can see that a position of depth, like wing, lacks 20 players then, clearly, elsewhere it will be tought to make a list of two players per position per team of note.

There is certainly less depth in certain other positions - lock is a good example. However most teams have 2-3 quality options at lock (perhaps with the exception of the Chiefs), so it's only really the final lock position that teams may be lacking a quality player in. The problem is they can't afford to pay this player very much at all (as he would be one of the last players chosen), so it is doubtful that they would be able to get anyone of higher quality than Kennedy in any case (unless they were doing it just to experience Super Rugby ala James Haskell). I'm sure if they could have got Galarza for the same price as Kennedy they would have jumped at the opportunity!

20 locks of quality in New Zealand is a hard act. The contrast between wing and secondrow is huge and since its hard to say New Zealand has trouble producing 20 notable wingers then secondrow is all that harder. The task is even tougher when removing Kahui, Williams, Dagg and Jane.

I doubt Galarza would say no. He signed a half season contract in 2010-2011 with Leinster and was often the sies fourth choice player. He´d make any NZ Super Rugby team as the fourth choice or above. The Chiefs, with not much in this department as you point out, may even start him. Trust me, if the Crusaders offered him a contract matching what Kennedy got, he´d take it.

Um have you actually seen O'Donnell play? He is an exceptionally talented player, and was very impressive for Waikato last season. He more than deserves a Super rugby contract. Out of curiosity what has Juan Imhoff done to be considered such a good player? (serious question). Last time I checked he has played a season of Vodacom Cup Rugby (South Africa's third-tier competition), and played a couple of games for Argentina (largely off the bench). To me he is in the same sort of boat as most of the rookie New Zealand wings: talented young players, but largely unproven at a high level of rugby (of course Imhoff's limited international experience gives him a slight edge).

Nobody is saying O´Donnell is not a good player. Its the same as Ross Kennedy, Brad Mika and so many others. The player´s ability is not in question. They are all good - but there are better guys on the market. Imhoff leaped ahead of the highest points-scoring Puma in France, Martín Bustos Moyano to get a place in the World Cup. Bustos Moyano saw Montpellier win the barage play-off vs Castres and then the Top 14 Semi Final vs Racing Metro. Yet, Argentina went for Imhoff who has the gas. Good tries vs both Georgia and Romania at the World Cup. He was used on the bench as Agulla and Camacho started - both holding down starting positions last season for leading English clubs Leicester and Harlequins.

What Smartcooky has pointed out in relation to this is that English players miss out with imports starting and he fears it could impact the All Blacks and so does not approve of the status quo changing. Thats a fair argument. But I am not saying the Super Rugby sides would be dominanted by imported players. As he has documented the rule is for two foreigners in a squad. I think that maybe a limit of two or three in a match day XV is acceptable but a squad of 30 or more players should be able to have more.

Franchises are highly unlikely to pursue a talented unproven player they have seen very little of (Imhoff) over a talented unproven player they have seen a lot more of (Nemani, O'Donnell et. al.). By the way how is Imhoff going for Racing Metro (I understand he's played a couple of games for them now)?

and here lies the problem. Racing Metro signed him but the same situation surely applies? What it tells me is that a French side is far more likely to go after a potential international player of the future than a New Zealand side. This line of thinking is, to me, what is helping Rugby World Cup´s so much. Georgia´s eight year improvement from 2003-2011 is off the charts. In 2003 Samoa, South Africa and England were all far too good for the Lelos. In 2011 Scotland couldn´t score a try against then, they gave Argentina a tough match and completed a good win vs Romania. England got a good win but by far less than the 2003 clash.

Don't listen to this fool.

First of all, in the modern game, players can be shifted around, especially when it affects the type of game the coaches are trying to play. Which was to have safe men under the high ball and in Jane and Kahui you could go no further. Now if you want to say "But why aren't NZ's specialist wingers able enough to take the high ball? It shows poor depth blah blah blah" then I will want to say "You're just being stupid" and "If you have two players able enough to play on the wing under those circumstances and they play the role suited for the game plan better than the rest then why would I not select them in my World Cup squad?"

I don´t get why people come along here to talk like this.

In terms of the players selected for the World Cup. Nobody said they were weak or challenged their ability to fit into the position. I, myself, pointed out that New Zealand probably has the most depth of all sides at wing. Now, I asked Nick to produce a list of 20 wingers good enough for Super Rugby contracts simply to illustrate my own point. Namely, despite having lots of talent there are not 20 guys better than Juan Imhoff.

Second of all, you don't even need 20 wingers so asking for 20 names just shows how poor your arguement is. Why don't you give me 20 Argentinian names who could force out 20 NZ wingers?.

Given that there are 5 teams requiring two players per position then New Zealand needs 20 wingers of quality for its teams. I don´t think that the country has the number of players required and thus imports are the solution. France certainly doesn´t nor does England and they get around the problem by importing players.

Imports have significantly increased the quality of rugby in general across the old continent. 10 years ago Super Rugby was clearly better, with breathing space, than the Heineken Cup. Those days are gone. Sicdes without so many imports have benefitted from playing against improved opposition which has made for a much improved level and as such the test teams are improved, with the exception of Scotland.

As for us having poor depth in the locking department, that also is a poor statement. You're going to compare one of Argentina's top locks against one of NZ's 1800th in line? We aren't under any trouble in the locking department either. We've got Williams, Boric, Whitelock, Donnelly, Thrush, Broadhurst the up and coming Brodie Retallick is destined for the All Black jersey and even Jason Eaton could produce some more of that magnificient form we saw in his earlier years this season.

Sure. Patricio Albacete is better than all New Zealand secondrowers. Manuel Carizza, a Heineken Cup finalist, would hold down a starting spot in Super Rugby. Galarza is of the standard to get a contract as is Tomas Vallejos who plays for Harlequins. They were the four Pumas at the World Cup.

@ Melhor Time
Just a quick couple of points, you mention that New Zealand had never played a test in the P.I.'s and in an early post specifically mention that Tonga beat France but New Zealand has never played in Tonga. However New Zealand has played Tonga 5 times, whereas Argentina (a team closer to Tonga in the Rankings) has played them a grand total of 0 times. Surely this should be a greater concern than the fact that we let the Islands play home games in New Zealand so they can earn more money.

and I sure hope that Argentina change this. - I´ve been waning then to play, if possible, one of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga during the Four Nations (The Rugby Championship) when the teams have the weekend off for a bye. 15 September 2012 is such an example.

But given that Los Pumas play Chile and Uruguay every year and will also, starting in 2012, be playing Brazil annually I think the country is fine from a regional perspective. Five All Blacks tests vs Tonga is a low number compared to Argentina´s 33 vs Chile and 35 vs Uruguay.

Now you also mention that when Samoa last played in New Zealand it was in New Plymouth which doesn't hold as many people as Eden park, this is true. However I must point out that it holds 25,000 which is considerably larger than Apia. Also tickets cost approximately $23 US. Now the latest figures I can find for Samoa are from 2008 when the average Samoan income was $100 US. Considering this do you think that the Samoan rugby Union could charge the same price? Would people pay 1/4 of a weeks Salary to watch a game of rugby? Seems to me not only would the crowd be smaller but the ticket price would be reduced meaning the SRU would make a lot less money than if the game was staged in New Zealand.

If Samoa can´t host the match at home they should go for one of Hong Kong, Dubai or Emirates Stadium (London). Larger venues and likely to be more profitable. I´d try it if I were working for Samoan rugby and a home test was deemed a no-go.

Now also on the topic of New Zealand not doing enough for World rugby in general and not helping make world cups competitive I would like to point out 3 facts for you, 1) 8% of the players in the world cup play their rugby in New Zealand; 2) 11% of players in the world cup were born in New Zealand; 3) 30% of the countries in the world cup were coached by New Zealanders. These seem to be pretty high percentages for a country not doing it's share. In fact only 2 countries had more players playing in their leagues (France and England) or if you count the Celtic league as one country (but super rugby as 3) then they slip in above us too.

The team with the most players based in New Zealand is Tonga.

53% of Tonga´s squad play in Europe compared to 26.6% in New Zealand

33.3% of Samoa´s RWC squad play in England. 23.3% play in France. In comparison 16.6% play in New Zealand.

66.6% of Argentina´s squad play in France and 20% play in England.

30% of Fiji´s squad are based in France and 20% in the UK. 13.3% of Fiji´s squad play in New Zealand.

40% of the USA squad are based in France, Italy and England. 1 player in Japan (Clever) and 1 in New Zealand (Paterson).

23.3% of Canada´s squad are based in England, 6.7% in France and a player i each of Scotland and Wales.

76.6% of Georgia´s squad are based in France.

Point two is off topic and point three is irrelevent. The coaches were contracted and paid.

 

[markshaw]

Is this guy the most one eyed argintina fan on earth???

 

[Teh Mite]

Is this guy the most one eyed argintina fan on earth???

Argentina won the last 4 world cups, don'tchaknow?

 

[Dizzy]

Yes and because of their supreme players they are going to outright win the first Rugby Championship.... Good luck with that.

 

[cardassian]

Point two is off topic and point three is irrelevent. The coaches were contracted and paid.

How is point 2 off topic?
I'm suggesting world cups would be a lot less competitive if New Zealand didn't produce and then export many International class players, allowing other teams to be far more competitive.

Also calling point 3 irrelevant because coaches are contracted and paid seems a but weird. Players are also contracted and played.
An old saying is there is more than one way to skin a cat. What I am doing with these 'irrelevant' statistics is trying to point out that perhaps France and New Zealand have different roles in developing the global game, as each country has different strengths and weaknesses.

Now considering that a player playing in their first super rugby season in New Zealand automatically get $65,000* NZ which is approximately £32,000 not many overseas players will be enticed to super rugby for this. You see even if we made half the spots available for overseas players we simply wouldn't fill the spots as there would be no demand for these jobs. Just as now the spots available aren't filled as the demand for these positions doesn't = the supply of these positions.

* Taken from the New Zealand rugby players association collective agreement.

 

[Darwin]

I agree NZ has loads of depth there. I even said so. I was making two separate points. 1. Despite having depth the players weren´t used. 2. Despite having loads of talented options there is still not 20 players of note. Now, if we can see that a position of depth, like wing, lacks 20 players then, clearly, elsewhere it will be tought to make a list of two players per position per team of note.

20 locks of quality in New Zealand is a hard act. The contrast between wing and secondrow is huge and since its hard to say New Zealand has trouble producing 20 notable wingers then secondrow is all that harder. The task is even tougher when removing Kahui, Williams, Dagg and Jane.

I will say this for one final time: NEW ZEALAND DOES NOT HAVE ANY TROUBLE PRODUCING 20 WINGS OF NOTE!!!!

If you followed New Zealand rugby closely (which you clearly don't) you would know this. As has been pointed out by numerous NZ posters, there are an overabundance of quality wings in NZ - not only do NZ have enough players for their Super Rugby teams, they have literally dozens more wings that are more than good enough to play not only Super Rugby, but would also get close to making many international teams. I can think of a number of NZ wings that missed out on a Super Rugby contracts that could well have made the Argentinian RWC squad had they been eligible for Argentina! There have been approximately 25 NZ wings listed that are of Super Rugby quality (even more than the 20 you asked for!): can you explain why any of these wings aren't good enough for Super Rugby? If you can't, you probably shouldn't be making statements like those I have highlighted above, as they are clearly wrong!

I doubt Galarza would say no. He signed a half season contract in 2010-2011 with Leinster and was often the sies fourth choice player. He´d make any NZ Super Rugby team as the fourth choice or above. The Chiefs, with not much in this department as you point out, may even start him. Trust me, if the Crusaders offered him a contract matching what Kennedy got, he´d take it.

There is nothing to stop the Crusaders from signing him in this case - they may well have considered him as an option. In the end they opted for Kennedy's vast experience, which is fair enough considering there other locking options (with the exception of Donnelly) are all relatively young and/or inexperienced.

Nobody is saying O´Donnell is not a good player. Its the same as Ross Kennedy, Brad Mika and so many others. The player´s ability is not in question. They are all good - but there are better guys on the market. Imhoff leaped ahead of the highest points-scoring Puma in France, Martín Bustos Moyano to get a place in the World Cup. Bustos Moyano saw Montpellier win the barage play-off vs Castres and then the Top 14 Semi Final vs Racing Metro. Yet, Argentina went for Imhoff who has the gas. Good tries vs both Georgia and Romania at the World Cup. He was used on the bench as Agulla and Camacho started - both holding down starting positions last season for leading English clubs Leicester and Harlequins.

There are better players on the market in your opinion. The Super Rugby coaches (you know, the people responsible for trying to make their teams win) may have different ideas. Nothing I have seen from Imhoff suggests to me that he is clearly better player than Declan O'Donnell. If coaches saw they had a weakness in the wing position I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to sign a quality international player to fill the gap - clearly none of the coaches have identified a weakness here

and here lies the problem. Racing Metro signed him but the same situation surely applies? What it tells me is that a French side is far more likely to go after a potential international player of the future than a New Zealand side. This line of thinking is, to me, what is helping Rugby World Cup´s so much. Georgia´s eight year improvement from 2003-2011 is off the charts. In 2003 Samoa, South Africa and England were all far too good for the Lelos. In 2011 Scotland couldn´t score a try against then, they gave Argentina a tough match and completed a good win vs Romania. England got a good win but by far less than the 2003 clash.

Top 14 clubs and NZ Super Rugby franchises are completely different. For one thing their are almost three times as many professional teams in France than their is in New Zealand - it is no surprise at all that they can't fill out all these teams with French players! Not only are there 3 times as many teams, but the squads sizes are larger to accommodate for a longer season. NZ Super Rugby franchises have approx 30-32 players per team, while Top 14 teams have 38-40. We are looking at approx. 150-160 players in NZ Super Rugby franchises compared to approx. 530-560 players in the Top 14.

Given this, is there any surprise that the Top 14 needs more imports? It is not a case of French clubs being 'more likely to go after a potential international player of the future than a New Zealand side'. It is simply a case of them needing to sign international players as they don't have near the local depth to support so many teams. French clubs aren't doing this for the good of World Rugby - they are simply signing the best players available. If they were doing it for the good of world rugby they wouldn't continue to sign ex-New Zealand, South African, and Australian players by the dozen!

 

[ranger]

Heres 25. Kindly highlight which ones are "substandard" and give reasons.

Rudi Wulf
Sherwin Stowers
Rene Ranger
George Moala
David Raikuna

Lelia Masaga
Declan O'Donnell
Charlie Piutau
Ahsee Tuala
Maritino Nemani

Julian Savea
Alipate Leiua
Andre Taylor
Gillies Kaka
Richard Buckman

Zac Guildford
Sean Maitland
Patrick Osbourne
Jackson Ormond
Telusa Veainu

Hosea Gear
Kade Poki
Tamati Ellison
Buxton Popoali'i
Nafi Tuitivake

If Declan O'Donnell can get a Super Rugby contract as a winger then I'm sure Juan Imhoff would at least be good enough for all squads

I'm still waiting for you to justify this statement..
The "as a winger" part implies that he is a utility being made to play wing, ignorant of the fact that he has always been a specialist wing.

This, coupled with Melhor's comparison to Mika and Kennedy leads me to believe that you see O'Donnell as a journeyman. You guys realise he is only just going on 21 years old right?

 

[Tricia McMillan]

Top 14 clubs and NZ Super Rugby franchises are completely different. For one thing their are almost three times as many professional teams in France than their is in New Zealand - it is no surprise at all that they can't fill out all these teams with French players! Not only are there 3 times as many teams, but the squads sizes are larger to accommodate for a longer season. NZ Super Rugby franchises have approx 30-32 players per team, while Top 14 teams have 38-40. We are looking at approx. 150-160 players in NZ Super Rugby franchises compared to approx. 530-560 players in the Top 14.

Not trying to draw any conclusions from the numbers, but also keep in mind these figures:

France population: 65 million
New Zealand population: 4.3 million
Registered players in France: 314,000 (could not find out how many are registered adults)
Registered players in New Zealand: 137,835 (28,288 adults)

 

[JW.]

Heres 25. Kindly highlight which ones are "substandard" and give reasons.

Rudi Wulf
Sherwin Stowers
Rene Ranger
George Moala
David Raikuna

Lelia Masaga
Declan O'Donnell
Charlie Piutau
Ahsee Tuala
Maritino Nemani

Julian Savea
Alipate Leiua
Andre Taylor
Gillies Kaka
Richard Buckman

Zac Guildford
Sean Maitland
Patrick Osbourne
Jackson Ormond
Telusa Veainu

Hosea Gear
Kade Poki
Tamati Ellison
Buxton Popoali'i
Nafi Tuitivake



I'm still waiting for you to justify this statement..
The "as a winger" part implies that he is a utility being made to play wing, ignorant of the fact that he has always been a specialist wing.

This, coupled with Melhor's comparison to Mika and Kennedy leads me to believe that you see O'Donnell as a journeyman. You guys realise he is only just going on 21 years old right?

All of a good standard not all of international standard and that is what darwin implied I believe? Ah, nvm he said close to.

Rudi Wulf's playing for Toulon, seen him play this season played very alright. Off the subject though.

 

[Darwin]

Not trying to draw any conclusions from the numbers, but also keep in mind these figures:

France population: 65 million
New Zealand population: 4.3 million
Registered players in France: 314,000 (could not find out how many are registered adults)
Registered players in New Zealand: 137,835 (28,288 adults)

A valid point. However even if France has just over twice as many registered players, it is still not surprising that they need far more imports, as they still require approximately 3 1/2 times as many players! That is not even mentioning the Pro D2 (France's second division competition), which runs at the same time as the Top 14, and requires even more players than the Top 14.....

In any case the number of registered players is not necessarily an indication of player depth: Australia apparently has over 38,000 registered adult players (10,000 more than New Zealand), but they have nowhere near the depth that New Zealand has. The main point remains: New Zealand has the depth to produce 150 Super Rugby players. If the competition required them to produce (for example) 250 (or more) Super Rugby level players, they would probably need to bring a few more imports in!