The selection stuff ups aren't just in Australia

[RoffsChoice]

Now, I'm a bit of a lurker with the occasional post, but I do read a lot and one of the most common things I hear is that Robbie Deans selects poorly.

Before I go on, I'm not here to defend Robbie or condemn foreign coaches. I'm here to say my point of view and then watch and see if anyone agrees or disagrees.

Who else looks at New Zealand and says

Why isn't Hore the starting hooker?​

Why isn't Cruden at 10 and Carter at 12?​

Why isn't Ranger in the team?​

Why isn't Savea on the wing?​

Or anything of the kind for South Africa?

Looking at the team that played in Aukland on the weekend, I feel that the only players that should have been replaced with better players are Timani with Pyle, Barnes with Harris, Horne with Fainga'a and Mitchell with Shipperly. Even so, I think Timani and Horne weren't bad at all!

So, disregarding tactics or results, are we the hardest hit by these stuff ups, or is it pretty fair?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Now, I'm a bit of a lurker with the occasional post, but I do read a lot and one of the most common things I hear is that Robbie Deans selects poorly.

Before I go on, I'm not here to defend Robbie or condemn foreign coaches. I'm here to say my point of view and then watch and see if anyone agrees or disagrees.

Who else looks at New Zealand and says

Why isn't Hore the starting hooker?​

Why isn't Cruden at 10 and Carter at 12?​

Why isn't Ranger in the team?​

Why isn't Savea on the wing?​

Or anything of the kind for South Africa?

Looking at the team that played in Aukland on the weekend, I feel that the only players that should have been replaced with better players are Timani with Pyle, Barnes with Harris, Horne with Fainga'a and Mitchell with Shipperly. Even so, I think Timani and Horne weren't bad at all!

So, disregarding tactics or results, are we the hardest hit by these stuff ups, or is it pretty fair?

There is sense in the Cruden/Carter thing but its hard to justify moving arguably the best 5/8 in the history of the game - though he could and has played there with aplomb.
The typical course for NZ would be to play Cruden there so he could learn from DC - thats where DC started and the Kiwis dont call it "2nd 5" for nothing.
I assume that they wanted/want a point of difference: big physical centres to run over the top of ours. Having not actually achieved that and given who they have to play they might look for more guile at 12 - but surely you could not justify moving Carter there and I'm not sure Cruden is big enough to play there against the Saffers - but being an AB Im sure he'd give it a fair go.
Hasnt Ranger got some discipline issues?

 

[ACT Crusader]

Now, I'm a bit of a lurker with the occasional post, but I do read a lot and one of the most common things I hear is that Robbie Deans selects poorly.

Before I go on, I'm not here to defend Robbie or condemn foreign coaches. I'm here to say my point of view and then watch and see if anyone agrees or disagrees.

Who else looks at New Zealand and says

Why isn't Hore the starting hooker?​

Why isn't Cruden at 10 and Carter at 12?​

Why isn't Ranger in the team?​

Why isn't Savea on the wing?​

Or anything of the kind for South Africa?

Looking at the team that played in Aukland on the weekend, I feel that the only players that should have been replaced with better players are Timani with Pyle, Barnes with Harris, Horne with Fainga'a and Mitchell with Shipperly. Even so, I think Timani and Horne weren't bad at all!

So, disregarding tactics or results, are we the hardest hit by these stuff ups, or is it pretty fair?

Hore is one of my favourite players and wouldn't mind seeing him start at all, but he does seem to be that impact player when he comes on - knows how to sniff a turnover and the odd try.

There is far more upside of having Carter at 10 than at 12. Plus with SBW still around and coming off good Super form, I thought it made good sense to use him especially with Conrad out. Next test it will likely return to Carter/Nonu//Conrad

Ranger has massive consistency issues so a lot of NZers were not surprised to see him miss out. I can't see any credible argument for him against anyone in the current squad.

Savea was given a shot early on and was ok without being standout, so Gear was given a shot to stake a claim. Rotation of wingers has been a feature over the last 7-8 years. You may recall how Henry rotated Roko, Howlett, Sivivatu, Rico Gear, quite a lot.

 

[Dam0]

Now, I'm a bit of a lurker with the occasional post, but I do read a lot and one of the most common things I hear is that Robbie Deans selects poorly.

Before I go on, I'm not here to defend Robbie or condemn foreign coaches. I'm here to say my point of view and then watch and see if anyone agrees or disagrees.

Who else looks at New Zealand and says

Why isn't Hore the starting hooker?​

Why isn't Cruden at 10 and Carter at 12?​

Why isn't Ranger in the team?​

Why isn't Savea on the wing?​

Or anything of the kind for South Africa?

Looking at the team that played in Aukland on the weekend, I feel that the only players that should have been replaced with better players are Timani with Pyle, Barnes with Harris, Horne with Fainga'a and Mitchell with Shipperly. Even so, I think Timani and Horne weren't bad at all!

So, disregarding tactics or results, are we the hardest hit by these stuff ups, or is it pretty fair?

I can't speak for the South Africans, but I am very happy with the team that Hansen and Co have been picking. In particular I wouldn't make any of the changes you suggest, and I am not even sure I would pick Ranger in my Super XV team, let alone in the AB squad.

 

[FrankLind]

When Ranger learns to play with a LOT more intelligence he might be in with a shout. He's a mile away at the moment.

Savea is being eased into it. He has more upside than Gear but a lot less experience. I suspect they feel he might a bit of a Toeava confidence wise, so don't want to throw him in too early.

Mealamu is relatively fresher and there is very little between him and Hore.

Carter is too good at first five to play at 2nd five. Second, Cruden's take to the line style requires a bigger ball running 2nd five, not another playmaker.

 

[teach]

Savea won't be rushed in. We learned from pushing Lomu to fast. We won't be repeating that mistake.
Hore definitely belongs there. he is like an extra loose forward at times. I would like to see him on longer than the last 10 minutes though.
I would also like to see ben Smith getting more time, especially over Savea.

 

[Bardon]

I have to say I actually think one of the many advantages that NZ have over other nations is their selection policy. To my mind there are 3 main ways to pick a national team/squad be it individually or in combinations. They would be

1) Coaches favourites:
Coach has a liking for particular players for whatever reason and as long as those players are fit they will be picked regardless of their current form. When the team is doing well this can have very good results as there's stability in the team and the players in the team will play for the coach. However when the team isn't doing so well it can be hard for players who may be in better form to oust under performing players as in the coaches mind the guy in the shirt is a better player. Generally the guys outside of the coaches favourites need to wait for injuries to get a shot in the team and need to perform above the level of the rest of the team to hold onto the jersey. I'd put Robbie Deans in this category.

2) Picking purely on form:
This is the way that a lot of people would like to see their team picked but it has a lot of problems. The main advantage is that players in good form are rewarded with call ups and players outside of the first 15 feel that if they play well for their club/franchise they have a shot of being picked. Another advantage is that under performing players will be dropped. The disadvantages include the fact it doesn't take into account previous test rugby experience. There is not settled team and it can be hard to get combinations to gel. Also areas like set pieces and communication can suffer if there's too much changing. An example of this would be England a few years ago where one bad game would mean a player was out of the squad.

3) Mixture of form and favourites:
This is the selection policy that the ABs have used in recent years. Preference is given to the guy in possession of the starting jersey. But crucially if the guy in possession has a dip in form then he will be replaced the next in line based on form. But if both the guy in possession and his challenger are in good form then the guy in the starting spot is kept even if the challenger is in better form. It says to the players in the team that if they perform the coach will be loyal to them. But it also says to them that if they don't perform then they will be replaced.

In addition it sends the message to the players trying to get a starting spot that they must continue to perform and be ready to take their chance if the guy starting isn't doing it. It also means you're less likely to have flash in the pan players who have a run of form for a brief period being capped. This is especially good for managing young players who are coming through as they start regularly when they are ready for it. It also allows combinations to form over long periods and keeps a positive pressure to perform on the entire team. One disadvantage of this method is that if the coach isn't careful it can morph into method (1.