ANZAC XV - would you be for it?

[admartian]

I know the NZRU/Steve Hansen aren't relatively fond of the idea (http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/sprug/184235282-Little-backing-here-for-ANZAC-test-concept) - but I actually quite liked the idea to be pitted against a B&I Lions team.


Several issues could be:

- Who would be included/who would the Captain be?
- How would it be organised?
- Who would they play?
- How often would they play?


And now comes the fun part; who would you (currently) have in it? Mine would be:

1. Robinson 2.Mealamu 3.Franks
4. Horwill 5. Whitelock
6. McCaw (C) 7. Pocock 8. Read

9. Genia 10. Carter
12. Nonu 13. Smith
11. Beale 15. Dagg 14. Jane

16. Moore
17. Woodock
18. Sharpe
19. Vito
20. Aaron Smith
21. O'Connor
22. Gear

The forward pack is iffy for me. With Woodcock not being in the same league as he once was. I see Robinson just a hair ahead.

The midfield I'm a bit muddled as to who to put in at 12. I considered Berrick Barnes there, and AAC as well. AAC actually being an underrated gain line/advantage breaker. Plus he possesses a good kicking game. I decided to go with Nonu to provide the chemistry. Plus you don't need a kicking twelve when your halfback, Genia, can do a lot if needed.

I think the back three can pretty much interchange and are all dangerous. All three are wicked good with the ball in hand, and are all good kickers also (particularly Beale and Dagg). Jane provides the power in the trio.

The bench provides great depth, with Moore and Woodcock, plus Vito to be the wrecking ball capable of spelling any of the loosies. I went with James O'Connor being able to fill any of the outside backs, plus maybe fly half and perhaps 12 as well. I decided to go with Hosea as the X-factor off the bench to provide power off it when needed.

Smith being the obvious choice as the backup to Genia.

 

[Keithmurdoch]

Only once the Lions start to demonstrate the ability to beat one country on its own.
Last team like this was pants, only half a dozen kiwis were keen and fewer were picked. I'd imagine you'd have to pay pretty well to get any decent test players along

 

[Larksea]

I actually really like the idea. I think for selection it's not just about selecting the best in each position you need to have pretty much an even number from each country in the side as well to make sure interest is high from both sides. I would select something like:

1, Woodcock
2, Moore
3, Owen Franks
4, Whitelock
5, Horwill
6, McCaw (C)
7, Pocock
8, Read
9, Genia
10. Carter
11, Digby
12, O'Connor
13, Smith
14, Beale
15, Dagg

 

[admartian]

I actually really like the idea. I think for selection it's not just about selecting the best in each position you need to have pretty much an even number from each country in the side as well to make sure interest is high from both sides. I would select something like:

1, Woodcock
2, Moore
3, Owen Franks
4, Whitelock
5, Horwill
6, McCaw (C)
7, Pocock
8, Read
9, Genia
10. Carter
11, Digby
12, O'Connor
13, Smith
14, Beale
15, Dagg

Forgot about Digby. Yes, I'd have him in there in place of Jane.

Hopefully the NZRU change their minds. Potentially, there's plenty of money in this. They just need to look past the growing pains of organisation and logistics.

 

[InsaneAsylum]

I reckon it's a good idea for a bit of publicity for the game etc...

 

[TRF_heineken]

Good Idea, but your voting choices are a bit off because South Africa doesn't take part in the ANZAC (there is no SA in ANZAC). so you can't really take us into consideration in the first place...

 

[Shovenose]

What have the Barbarians been doing all this time then?

 

[admartian]

Good Idea, but your voting choices are a bit off because South Africa doesn't take part in the ANZAC (there is no SA in ANZAC). so you can't really take us into consideration in the first place...

I understand where you're coming from. But I included it for just that reason - they're not part of it; so whjy not make it a SANZAR team; was my reasoning.

What have the Barbarians been doing all this then?

I don't think it's really then same thing at all. The Barbarians are not really that well organised, and generally don't pick top flight players as per the British Lions.

 

[Shovenose]

I understand where you're coming from. But I included it for just that reason - they're not part of it; so whjy not make it a SANZAR team; was my reasoning.


I don't think it's really then same thing at all. The Barbarians are not really that well organised, and generally don't pick top flight players as per the British Lions.

I can remember a few times they did. Any team being able to beat NZ must have some organization.

 

[nickdnz]

Given it a lot of thought and decided against the idea - For several reasons.

1. Considering that it's soon to be a century old tradition, I kind of feel the relavance of ANZAC is pretty much gone. Not saying I don't think it should have ever been celebrated, but any survivors from Australia and New Zealand Army Corp are now no longer alive to be given tribute to and it dates a bit far back for me personally to think it needs a yearly tribute. I've personally always thought Remembrance Day was a more relevant holiday anyway, as it's a shame that ANYONE died in WW1 and I don't feel that New Zealand and Australian's forces in WW1 to invade the Ottoman Empire to capture the Gallopoli Paninsula was a well spent use of human lives, especially considering how they were treated by a British command in which charging into machine gun fire was as tactical as it got. For me it highlights the futility of war over anything else.

2. I think the B&I Lions is something very unique and steeped in history. It is one of the greatest traditions in sport in my opinion, dating back more than a century before rugby became a professional sport. I don't like the idea of us copying it.

3. I think I'd hate what ever team was produced. Not trying to be offensive but I would cherry pick only four or five Australians to make my 22 as I genuinely believe New Zealand has better players (not trying to be a dick). It kind of works with the Lions because it involves four different national teams three of which are very close in terms of skill and then Scotland. You can get quite an even mix. Between the two countires I don't believe it would/should be even.

4. The touring schedual is already jam packed. Even if everyone loved the idea, there's no room for it to succeed.

I can remember a few times they did. Any team being able to beat NZ must have some organization.

In fairness, most of the time NZ field a 'B' or even 'C' team such as in 2010. We've only lost to them twice, once in 2010 where our team was one of the worst lineups we've ever used against a near World XV and the other was in 1973, which was probably the linest display from a Baabaas team ever.

Most of the time they play loose running rugby which is supposed to be a spectacle rather than purely about winning. The result is a week long booze up for players selected.

 

[TNT88]

- Who would be included/who would the Captain be?

Sir Richie would be a good choice, pretty much all test players respect him.

How would it be organised?

Whoever hosts the game, so either RFU or ARU.

Who would they play?

Can't see any point if it's not the Lions.

- How often would they play?

Make it a once in a lifetime game, that players will actually want to win. Or don't bother with the idea, it will become a joke sooner or later.

I'd go with:

1. Woodcock
2. Moore
3. Franks
4. Horwill
5. Thorn
6. McCaw
7. Pocock
8. Read
9. Genia
10. Carter
11. O'Connor
12. SBW
13. Smith
14. Dagg
15. Beale

Hore/Robinson/Sharpe/Higgenbotham/Gear/AAC

You could make a pretty killer team, just need to ensure you have a solid/hard working forward pack to give these backs clean ball, they'll score every time

 

[Gena_ZA]

I think this is a bad idea, the current rankings have them as 1 and 2 - you don't combine the 2 top nations - daft
But nice to have a chat about

 

[antipodean]

Short version: No.

Long version has been covered more than adequately by Nick here.

 

[Shovenose]

After chatting to a mate on twitter I say yes because it is the idea behind it that counts. It is to celebrate the birth of the ANZAC legend. The landing at Gallopi in WW2.

 

[antipodean]

Sounds like gross commercialism to me. If there was any tradition behind it, there wouldn't have been one half-hearted attempt.

 

[Keithmurdoch]

Absolutly agree with TRF, it makes me cringe whenever comentators start up with the "its going to be a war" trope, thankfully we don't hear it nearly as much in Rugby as we do in League, but lets not forget that the AC in ANZAC stands for Army Corps, and lets not forget what that means. At the very least, let's not pretend that a team of players selected from the few that can be arsed with it somehow represent the best martial traditions of both our countries. Sport is fundementally different from war, that's why everyone shakes hands afterwards.
Also agree that Oz is average and that nobody really has the time or energy for it.

 

[psychic duck]

Who exactly were this ANZAC team planning to play?

And where exactly were they planning to fit into the schedule?

I don't think it's really then same thing at all. The Barbarians are not really that well organised, and generally don't pick top flight players as per the British Lions.

What do you mean by that?

From what I can tell the modern Barbarians are perfectly organised in terms of hotels, accommodation, travel etc. And what do you mean as in "not top flight players"?

 

[InsaneAsylum]

Sounds like gross commercialism to me. If there was any tradition behind it, there wouldn't have been one half-hearted attempt.

it is gross commercialism, love it or hate it, but it's essentially what sport is becoming/has become... a product which marketing teams will do anything to make a buck out of. they don't care about emotion, passion or anything like that, it's simply about taking a product and shoving it down the throat of people who don't necessarily follow or like it in hope that they will one day learn to accept it and pay to go and "experience" it as a spectator.

 

[nickdnz]

After chatting to a mate on twitter I say yes because it is the idea behind it that counts. It is to celebrate the birth of the ANZAC legend. The landing at Gallopi in WW2.

...WW1 actually in which over 11,000 ANZAC soldiers died in a campaign which achieved nothing. In the same campaign 21,250 soldiers from the United Kingdom and 10,000 solders from France also died. I'd be interested to hear what smartcookie or other Australian/New Zealand people whom have served think of ANZAC tests, I may be treading on some toes.

 

[donmcdazzle]

...WW1 actually in which over 11,000 ANZAC soldiers died in a campaign which achieved nothing. In the same campaign 21,250 soldiers from the United Kingdom and 10,000 solders from France also died. I'd be interested to hear what smartcookie or other Australian/New Zealand people whom have served think of ANZAC tests, I may be treading on some toes.

I read your other post on the ANZAC thing, kind of can't agree with your viewpoint, though I do respect it. Whether the campaign they fought was pointless or not, the ANZAC soldiers didn't have much to do with that decision making. They just jumped on boats and went to the other side of the world to essentially fight and give their lives to protect the Allies' interests. Pretty brave stuff and I definitely think it is something to respect and acknowledge every year, I always get up and go to the dawn service.