Wyatt Crockett could give Retallick a run for his money

I have never seen an orc play a good game in the loose forwards.
They make reasonable enforcers, but their ball-skills are poor, and they concede too many penalties for beheading opponents. 😛

Well, no, but he is more experienced than any other candidate. Which comes back to the “faith” philosophy.

I hope you’re right. Losing him could have a bigger impact than I think many suspect…

But you can’t claim Fekitoa or Nonu got their spots in the squad at the expense of Williams. This leaves Crotty, who I think I have shown didn’t get the same number of opportunities. Especially after an average Super Rugby showing from Williams this year.
It seems that Crotty was effectively discarded after Samoa, while Williams was given another shot. This is despite similar levels of performance in this game. So why the difference?

Of those candidates, Fekitoa is being selected, Saili has left for Munster after no tests since 2013 and Ngatai got 17 minutes against Samoa at fullback. Hardly much of a chance for any of these bar Fekitoa.
Crotty got the game against Samoa (when basically everyone else was out), and 7 minutes against Argentina, making him the only other to get some significant game time. 7 minutes is hardly enough to judge a candidate, unless they make an utter hash of it, which Crotty didn’t. While you could argue he did little to impress against Samoa, you have argued the same for Williams. Yet Williams got another shot, and Crotty didn’t.
I don’t dispute his talent and skill set, but the rugby he has missed compared with other candidates shows at times. This means that he seems to light up in games when the ABs are dominating, not the other way around. While he was excellent in 2012, he has been a long way from recapturing this form recently.
I simply feel that someone like Crotty deserves more of a chance than what he got, given Williams got three games to prove himself and Crotty only got the one.

Absolutely. Shag has proven more astute than armchair selectors many times, and he will most likely prove me wrong again. My differences in opinion won’t alter my support for the team, but I feel it would be dishonest not to mention them.

I look forward to being proved an idiot over the world cup. Go the All Blacks!

Instead of whom? Ardie Savea or Matt Todd are both in excellent form, but it seems ridiculous to send three basically exclusive opensides and three other loose forwards. I don’t see that same issue on the blindside since Vito will cover 8 and Kaino the locks. None of the locks really put their hands up either, with the exception of the three selected.

I know, but that will be little consolation for him, should the other three be in good fitness.

Four first fives was never a valid option. As indifferent as Williams’ form has been of late, the squad would be far too unbalanced. At the end of the day, he will play against Namibia and maybe Georgia, and that will be it.

By the sounds of Hansen’s comments, Kaino is likely to play lock against Namibia, giving the two starters a rest then. If this seems rough, it is worth mentioning all of the starters (not just the locks) will start 6 of hopefully 7 games barring injury. But yes, lock has been an area of concern with the injury and loss of form of some of the reserves.

Dagg’s kicking is the only point he had in his favour. At the end of the day, Ben Smith can do a better all-round job at fullback, and I don’t see much criticism of, shall we say, Henry Speight’s or Julian Savea’s kicking games. We have plenty of field-kicking options, we don’t need another on the wing.

It wouldn’t suprise me if he were foxing (pun not intended) but there is no reason, were Cruden available, why the rest of the selections would have been the same. Perhaps Piutau or Jane would have been selected instead of, say, Naholo to allow more flexibility within the back three. This would compensate for the lack of Barrett or Slade in this hypothetical squad.

Either way, the effect is the same for poor old Sopoaga.

To be honest, I think the Samoa game was the last straw for Ellis. Hansen has shown he hasn’t been impressed by him for some time (think the exclusions in 2012-3), and only opted for him there when there was basically noone else.
Elliott is an option at 2 at the beginning of the international season, but Taylor played well enough in the opportunities he got. Elliott reminds me a bit of Luke Watson for the Boks a few years ago. He has been around a while, but hasn’t played many more internationals than Taylor now has, and there has always been the impression that he never quite gelled within the squad. You might have problems with the selection, but you certainly can’t complain it wasn’t signposted. I certainly don’t think we’ll lose the cup because Taylor got the nod over Elliott.

When both Barrett and Slade can cover (along with Williams and Fekitoa at a stretch)? I think so.

Now this is interesting…

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11505666

So it turns out that the person that pipped Sopoaga for a place was not Barrett or Slade, but Carter.
That would have set off a few waves if Carter had not been picked.

10 (based on Carter’s injuries in the past) and wings I would agree with, but not the front row. For all the murmurings, NZ had the highest scrum success rate in the Rugby Championship (I couldn’t find lineouts), and their work around the park is far from terrible. They might not seem to be doing much, but a good front row is mostly invisible.

All of the Rugby Championship teams are relying on injury to some extent. South Africa’s squad are full of the walking wounded, and an injury to hooker could derail either Australia or Argentina. Compared with this, and given the cover we have in the back three (including Barrett and Slade), Hansen’s call seems relatively minor.

If it sounds like I am moaning about those left behind, I apologize. It wasn’t my intention to come off this way. I was trying to make the point that the number of quality players left behind and the lack of controversy surrounding this is an excellent sign for the team.

Well, yes, but noone else has been given a chance to prove they might be better, despite some iffy form from Williams. It seems that the selectors had already made up their minds before the start of the international season.

It is somewhat telling that Hansen isn’t prepared to go with the safe option on the wing, when in other positions he has trusted in experience. I don’t think that he is expecting too many tries – after all, the ABs of 2011 had a similar set of selections and only scored 4 tries in the knockout stages. However, the threat of tries from any part of the field is an excellent one to have in knockout games, and this will be reflective in the performance of the wingers.

What will be interesting is how they can cope with a team that is not prepared to give them that. South Africa, for instance, has a long history of ensuring talented AB wingers are unable to bring their best. The semi-final (assuming they get this far) could be the biggest test of this team.

Yeah, the selectors have certainly learned from history over the last four years. Not only have the starters earned their places, but we are unlikely to see any odd replacements in key games e.g. Ben Smith playing at 13. That said, it is still a bit early to say that, as we don’t have the benefit of hindsight we have on previous cups.

What is most interesting is the general acceptance from NZ supporters, reflective both here and in other media. The general opinion seems to be that while not all selections were clear-cut, there isn’t really any outright bad or overly risky ones and the squad selected deserves to be in England. This is in contrast to a number of tournaments.

And yes, you sort of answer your own query about Piutau. I don’t think it was the leaving so much as the way in which it was done.

I agree, it is an excellent way of thinking about it for the squad. The problem is, you can bet that once they are in England, the media (especially non-NZ media and especially especially the English) will be sure to see it differently. How this is overcome will be interesting. Expect an irritated Hansen explaining this more than once.

100% agree. Cheika is playing with fire with these selections.
I get that Giteau is probably meant to cover halfback , but this still seems unnecessarily risky. Especially when you consider that there are seven outside backs and six loose forwards for five and four spots in the 23 respectively. At least two guys in each area are not going to play much. If you can afford to sub Giteau into halfback and bring a few extras for the Uruguay game, then you can afford to get decent subs for the knockouts.
Australian rugby fans will be hoping Moore and Polota-Nau are feeling fit and healthy. Any problem there could derail the Wallabies.

Yeah, it’s fair to say that the skills are needed from the forward pack as a whole, rather than from specific positions. I tend to think of it in terms of the All Blacks, since I am most familiar with them and the selectors have imposed strict ideas of what they expect from each position; but that doesn’t mean that other templates are invalid. As you say, the Boks are an example of this.

I don’t necessarily think that appointing Hooper as vice-captain means that he must be selected. In 2007, Phil Waugh was the vice captain, yet never got a look into the starting squad, with Smith being the first choice 7. Nevertheless, I tend to agree that Cheika has either decided or is resigned to Hooper starting. I can see some logic in playing him in combination with Pocock, as it would give the Wallabies an “unknown factor” which would force England and Wales to adapt to the unusual style this creates. The problem, of course, is that it has the potential to backfire horribly due to the loss of size and breakdown clearance. But, yes, Pocock realistically has to start, otherwise the forward pack begins to look extremely vulnerable.

Your thoughts about Hooper in a green jersey also make me wonder whether the dilemma in the loose forwards is hiding inadequacies further up the engine room. Take Stephen Moore for an example. While he is clearly the best hooker in Australia, he doesn’t have the power game of, say, du Plessis, or Coles’ speed and ball skills. With the exception of Skelton (who of course has his own problems) the other tight five candidates also lack the extra edge that forwards in other countries provide.

So; if we accept that Hooper cannot be considered a starting option, is this because he lacks the core abilities needed to play sucessfully at international level, despite the undisputed talents he offers? Or is he a player who would be outstanding, but whose teammates’ shortcomings make his selection an unaffordable luxury? Following on from that, is Cheika’s faith in Hooper a stubborn refusal to see that he made the wrong call, or in recognition that, if he wants to win the World Cup with the players he has, he will have to risk an unbalanced style of play? All interesting philosophical questions…

An excellent point on Hooper/Pocock, and one I have to agree with. To me, there are two major internal issues that could stop the Wallabies winning the World Cup on their own. The first is the continued selection of players who have outstanding skill sets, but who place additional burdens as to fulfilling the core roles of their position. Hooper is the example you have cited, and is the most prominent case of this, but there are others…
The second is the fact that the halves combination is not yet settled. I disagree with Musha’s confidence that there is a clear pecking order at 10, but let’s assume he’s right and I’m wrong on that point. When it comes to the halfback, though, things are extremely murky. Phipps appears to have the inside running at the moment, but that is almost by default. I highly doubt that the remaining match before the cup will help this picture, and one thing that world cups past have proven to a number of different teams is not knowing your best combinations can be fatal to chances.

Regarding the rest of the article, the biggest problem the All Blacks face is goalkicking. Carter is fine, but if he is injured (a fair to middling chance in my mind) problems start to arise. Barrett’s kicking is a long way from flash, and I suspect he will be taking a lot of the critical kicks. This may be enough to select Slade as the reserve, but I don’t know.
The Boks’ best combinations seem obvious to everyone except Meyer at the moment (10 and midfield, I’m looking at you). I have stated in the past that I think South Africa will win this cup, and providing the right selections are made, I stand by that opinion. There certainly doesn’t seem to be a lack of mental strength in the team, as Biltongbek has pointed out.
But a good article. It will be interesting to see who ends up predicting this one correctly.

Yeah, the 2007 analogy doesn’t match entirely. Still, I worry a little about sacrificing a balanced squad for strong players who, barring a gutting of our loose forwards, won’t even be in the 23 for the highest pressure games. Still, that is a fairly minor gripe, as we should be fine providing none of our locks are injured.

With the halfbacks v Dagg (or whomever) conundrum… I’m not entirely convinced of the halfback candidates’ form or the number of games they have played, but I still think it is slightly better to put in someone who can replace Smith/Perenara than to add an extra outside back who (again) won’t be in the 23 come crunch time. I would agree that Smith and Perenara have seemed to cope fine with the workload they have been given, but I would also argue that there is a large difference between having a week’s turnaround and four days turnaround, which we will have between Argentina and Namibia. Especially if one picks up a niggle/injury in the first game. It’s in these situations I see a third halfback being useful.

Your interpretation of Hansen not wanting to waste chances is valid, but another valid argument is that Hansen was giving Dagg a last chance that he was a superior option to a utility.

At any rate we’ll see come the squad’s naming. It’s nice to only really having to debate two or three fringe spots while knowing what the bulk of our 23 is going to look like already 🙂