Poor call!! Play Smith at fullback in a WC semi and make him do the kicking as well and see how he goes!i agree totally with scuuba... i cant see where all this hating has come from. hes been pretty solid through his first couple of games back.
i feel safer having smith at centre than having Panadol at fullback. he already blew one semifinal for NZ so dont want to give him the chance to blow another one.
[/b]
Personally, I think that lacking a genuine attacking threat at 13 is a real mistake. Keeping Smith in as a good defensive player and distributor may be fine against the standard of opposition NZ has so faced but once they come up against a top tier backline, its going to severely limit their attacking potential. If a defence is able to confidently shut down the 13 every time, then it allows them to concentrate their defenses on the genuine threats out wide. The whole idea of the 13 spot is to suck in a whole bunch of defenders and give the outside backs plenty of room. Well, thats always been my interpretation anyway. Basically, since NZ has a player like McDonald available at fullback it makes much more sense to have Mils in the centres as it provides so much more in terms of attacking options. Its no good having finishers like Rokococo and Sivivatu if you don't have the centres to give them room. This is the reason why Australia has managed to compete in recent years despite their lack of top class finishers on the wings. Mortlock is so damaging at 13 that he makes those outside him look far better than they really are. Similarly, a weak 13 can work in the opposite way. Just my 2 cents.
[/b]
Smith at center.
Mils at fullback.
MacDonald not in the 22.
Evans and Toeava on the bench for cover.
Ohhhh, come on bJok, what now? Are all my commas in the right order? Please enlighten me, having a sub "standard education" and all.
[/b]
In response to a request from a man unfairly deprived of a decent education. (Blame Labour I say).Smith at center.
Mils at fullback.
MacDonald not in the 22.
Evans and Toeava on the bench for cover.
Ohhhh, come on bJok, what now? Are all my commas in the right order? Please enlighten me, having a sub "standard education" and all.
[/b]
Personally, I think that lacking a genuine attacking threat at 13 is a real mistake. Keeping Smith in as a good defensive player and distributor may be fine against the standard of opposition NZ has so faced but once they come up against a top tier backline, its going to severely limit their attacking potential. If a defence is able to confidently shut down the 13 every time, then it allows them to concentrate their defenses on the genuine threats out wide. The whole idea of the 13 spot is to suck in a whole bunch of defenders and give the outside backs plenty of room. Well, thats always been my interpretation anyway. Basically, since NZ has a player like McDonald available at fullback it makes much more sense to have Mils in the centres as it provides so much more in terms of attacking options. Its no good having finishers like Rokococo and Sivivatu if you don't have the centres to give them room. This is the reason why Australia has managed to compete in recent years despite their lack of top class finishers on the wings. Mortlock is so damaging at 13 that he makes those outside him look far better than they really are. Similarly, a weak 13 can work in the opposite way. Just my 2 cents. [/b]
You can't ban a guy for being slightly aggressive...just don't put fuel in the fire....Agree with Carlosisgod123; can we get this guy banned?
[/b]
i disagree... i dont think its as easy as that... its very rarely that tries are scored from a set backline these days. Mortlock suits the wallibies style of play. they use a system of continous points of attack that relies on commiting defenders to the breakdown and quick recycling of possesion and using two pivots(usualy bernie and gitts) at the line at speed. thats why they produce powederpuff props. they play a style that means the forwards need to be more mobile than setpiece savy.
the all blacks favourate point of attack is to counter attack from turnover ball. Smith is more than adaquate punnishing sides if they turn over the ball... case in point.. VS France in Lyon last year... he scored a 70 meter breakaway off turnover ball....
infact i think he combined with McAlister so well in that game Henry and Co had made up there mind back then that he was going to be the first choice centre with Malili at fullback.
i wouldnt have Panadol in the 22 alltogether. Evans and Ice can cover Fullback/Wing/Centre/Firstfive.
[/b]
Yet doing otherwise hardly warrants a ban...it is equivilent of giving a rugby player a life ban for slowing the ball down in the ruck or something similar to that...sure it is annoying and all but in the scheme of things simply a minor incovenience...Point to note, use shiznit and mackka's recent posts as a guide. Both have opposing views, although done with respect to the issue and each other.
[/b]
I haven't banned anyone, nor said I would. Please leave disciplinary issues to forum moderators. (I'm not trying to sound arrogant, this is all off-topic).
Please lets ALL return to the issue.
In case anyone has wondered (or not) which side of this issue I come out on? Well, Conrad hasn't had a lot of space this world cup, nor has any centre, I can't wait till the new off-side laws come in (5 metres back from the hind-most foot).
I like him more than Ice, although he is a "flashes of brilliance" kind of guy. Those flashes haven't happened happened often enough for sometime. His mistake rate and defence is pretty good, although he's definitely not in the best three or four centres in the world cup.
Mils would be a better choice, as he is a superb all-round rugby player, although who would wear 15?. Macdonald is a fine player most of the time, although he has small moments of poor ability once in a while.These can be costly and I can understand the faers about him in a semi-final. He could coast through it or blunder a second half.
It's a real problem for Henry, as McAllister also has moments of stupidity in 13. Maybe we have to face facts that all options have an inherent risk? [/b]
