Manu Vatuvei
Coach
- Messages
- 17,025
Leading up to the tri-series there was, as usual, plenty of discussion about the ideal NZ team if everyone was fit. This discussion has become very popular because of the fact that so many big name NZ players always end up being unavailable for internationals. It's an interesting theoretical and it would be great if one day it actually came close to happening.
Nevertheless, a New Zealand team missing a host of so-called "first choice" players has just beaten Australia 24-0. For the record
Webb
Webster
Whatuira
Toopi
Vatuvei
Vagana
Jones
Wiki
Tony
Rauhihi
Anderson
Kidwell
Hape
Asotasi
Faiumu
Solomona
Lauiti'iti
Does NOT look very strong to me on paper. It's easy to now say, in retrospect, that it's a great side, but I just don't think it is. The backline is ok, but the forward pack looks pretty ordinary. Tony is a makeshift hooker, Rauhihi imo has looked past his prime all-season, and the backrow is one of the most uninspiring I have ever seen play for the Kiwis. Picking Hape at lock obviously looks like a great decision now, but I think you have to say that McClennan was lucky to have gotten such a great performance out of Shontayne. I really still think that it was a pretty bizarre and inexplicable move to leave out backrowers like Puletua and Pritchard (especially Puletua), and play a guy at lock who has never, in my recollection, played in the forwards.
The strongest part of the team on paper, imo, is the bench. Solomona and Lauiti'iti provide the attacking thrust that is sorely lacking in the starting backrow, yet neither of them even got on the field until the second half. There seems to be a consensus that Kiwi fans were actually nervous about them coming on. We all preferred the solid, rather more one-dimensional play of Anderson/Kidwell/Hape.
You certainly couldn't say that the Kiwis prospered through amazing individual talent or razzle dazzle. It was the ultimate grinding win. I think the selection of Hape goes to show what McClennan was thinking. Hape is about 100kg (as opposed to Lauiti'iti/Puletua who are 110kg+) and he is agile and fit. The same applies for Anderson and Kidwell. Obviously this is the prototype McClennan backrower.
Having rambled this far, I guess what I'm saying is- what does the Kiwi victory prove?
Was it simply the triumph of a collective effort, combined with some pretty visionary coaching? Did McClennan simply come up with the perfect one-off game plan, that allowed lesser individuals to achieve a greater overall result?
Or have some individuals proven themselves to be better than we all thought?
Which of these heroic players would force themselves into a "full-strength" Kiwi side on the back of their efforts?
It's funny how within 2 months of the West Tigers bringing attacking flair back into fashion, the Kiwis have claimed rugby league supremacy with a pretty simple, defensively orientated, forward orientated gameplan....
Nevertheless, a New Zealand team missing a host of so-called "first choice" players has just beaten Australia 24-0. For the record
Webb
Webster
Whatuira
Toopi
Vatuvei
Vagana
Jones
Wiki
Tony
Rauhihi
Anderson
Kidwell
Hape
Asotasi
Faiumu
Solomona
Lauiti'iti
Does NOT look very strong to me on paper. It's easy to now say, in retrospect, that it's a great side, but I just don't think it is. The backline is ok, but the forward pack looks pretty ordinary. Tony is a makeshift hooker, Rauhihi imo has looked past his prime all-season, and the backrow is one of the most uninspiring I have ever seen play for the Kiwis. Picking Hape at lock obviously looks like a great decision now, but I think you have to say that McClennan was lucky to have gotten such a great performance out of Shontayne. I really still think that it was a pretty bizarre and inexplicable move to leave out backrowers like Puletua and Pritchard (especially Puletua), and play a guy at lock who has never, in my recollection, played in the forwards.
The strongest part of the team on paper, imo, is the bench. Solomona and Lauiti'iti provide the attacking thrust that is sorely lacking in the starting backrow, yet neither of them even got on the field until the second half. There seems to be a consensus that Kiwi fans were actually nervous about them coming on. We all preferred the solid, rather more one-dimensional play of Anderson/Kidwell/Hape.
You certainly couldn't say that the Kiwis prospered through amazing individual talent or razzle dazzle. It was the ultimate grinding win. I think the selection of Hape goes to show what McClennan was thinking. Hape is about 100kg (as opposed to Lauiti'iti/Puletua who are 110kg+) and he is agile and fit. The same applies for Anderson and Kidwell. Obviously this is the prototype McClennan backrower.
Having rambled this far, I guess what I'm saying is- what does the Kiwi victory prove?
Was it simply the triumph of a collective effort, combined with some pretty visionary coaching? Did McClennan simply come up with the perfect one-off game plan, that allowed lesser individuals to achieve a greater overall result?
Or have some individuals proven themselves to be better than we all thought?
Which of these heroic players would force themselves into a "full-strength" Kiwi side on the back of their efforts?
It's funny how within 2 months of the West Tigers bringing attacking flair back into fashion, the Kiwis have claimed rugby league supremacy with a pretty simple, defensively orientated, forward orientated gameplan....
