Dream Team 2014

[Imagine]

1.Tendai Mtawarira 2.Dane Coles 3.Ben Franks 4. Eben Etzsebeth 5.Will Skelton 6.Francois Louw 7.Michael Hooper 8.Duane Vermeulen 9.Aaron Smith 10.Beauden Barrett 11.Julian Savea 12.Malakia Fekitoa 13.Ben Smith 14.Israel Folau 15.Willie le Roux.

This is just for a bit of fun, who would you play this season?

 

[goodNumber10]

off the back of the June Tours.

01: Steenkamp, 02: Webber, 03: Franks, 04: Rettalick, 05: Parling, 06: Louw 07: Robshaw, 08: Morgan, 09: Smith, 10: Steyn, 11: Savea, 12: Toomua, 13: Kuridrani, 14: Hendricks, 15: Smith

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

1.Tendai Mtawarira 2.Dane Coles 3.Ben Franks 4. Eben Etzsebeth 5.Will Skelton 6.Francois Louw 7.Michael Hooper 8.Duane Vermeulen 9.Aaron Smith 10.Beauden Barrett 11.Julian Savea 12.Malakia Fekitoa 13.Ben Smith 14.Israel Folau 15.Willie le Roux.

This is just for a bit of fun, who would you play this season?

A Lions supporter! And aptly enough named 'Imagine'!!! You, sir are a precious find indeed and are most welcome! And starting a XV thread as well!!!!!!!!! Pardon my Gaston impersonation here, people. That is some sort of ridiculous backline there; imagine (LOL) the shenanigans that lot could get up too off the turnover ball provided by the trio of Louw, Hooper and Vermeulen! I'm not overly fond of the tight 5 but this looks like a line-up that wouldn't use the fat men so much.

off the back of the June Tours.

01: Steenkamp, 02: Webber, 03: Franks, 04: Rettalick, 05: Parling, 06: Louw 07: Robshaw, 08: Morgan, 09: Smith, 10: Steyn, 11: Savea, 12: Toomua, 13: Kuridrani, 14: Hendricks, 15: Smith

Beast and here Steenkamp, hey... I'm a Bok supporter but can't say I'd have either at this moment..

Since this is only for fun and not necessarily who is the best in their position as is but I'm taking injuries into consideration, I'd go for a type of barbarians etho's and pick:

1 C Oosthuizen
2 C Burden
3 C Hayman
4 B Rettalick
5 V Matfield (c)
6 J Kaino
7 M Hooper
8 W Whiteley - to have the traditional Barbarians bolter
9 A Smith
10 D Cipriani
11 B Smith
12 M Nonu
13 C Smith
14 I Folau
15 W le Roux

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Of Smith, Folau and le Roux, le Roux would be least likely to play at fullback, I'd imagine...

 

[Tahman15]

A back 3 with Smith and Le Roux on the wings and Folau at fullback would be IMO the best combination. Folau is probably the most dangerous coming into the line around the 13 channel and both Smith and Le Roux are really good roving wings. As a Wallabies supporter I am biased but Slipper would be pretty close to the loosehead position now. He's turning into a world class all round prop. Excellent around the park and scrummage well.

 

[nickdnz]

I'd take Savea at wing over Ben Smith at wing every day of the week...

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Of Smith, Folau and le Roux, le Roux would be least likely to play at fullback, I'd imagine...

I'd take Savea at wing over Ben Smith at wing every day of the week...

A back 3 with Smith and Le Roux on the wings and Folau at fullback would be IMO the best combination. Folau is probably the most dangerous coming into the line around the 13 channel and both Smith and Le Roux are really good roving wings. As a Wallabies supporter I am biased but Slipper would be pretty close to the loosehead position now. He's turning into a world class all round prop. Excellent around the park and scrummage well.

Well, I'm happy my XV stimulated opinions but your opinions count for **** without your own accompanying XV's for people to poop on.

But I do find it interesting that my selections at 1,2,3,5,8 and 10 aren't brought up here for positive or negtve comment. Whether those aren't as controversial as I might think or whether people are just big on fullback talk right now I wouldn't know.

 

[Big Ewis]

Of Smith, Folau and le Roux, le Roux would be least likely to play at fullback, I'd imagine...

well there's lots wrong with that OP XV imo, but clearly Le Roux isn't the guy for the 15 jersey. That much at least is clear. Also, nobody at all from the NH ? hopefully he has room for maybe just one guy on the bench there, maybe ??...

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Of Smith, Folau and le Roux, le Roux would be least likely to play at fullback, I'd imagine...

Why though? All three are great under the high ball. All three are good on attack both on the counter run and joining the line both in setting up plays and in finishing off. All of them have their issues. Le Roux is the slightest in build and thus suffers the most in contact situations but has the superior boot while Folau still has a few problems ITO positioning. Of the three Ben Smith is probably the player you want but I don't understand why that excludes Le Roux at 15?

 

[Imagine]

.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Why though? All three are great under the high ball. All three are good on attack both on the counter run and joining the line both in setting up plays and in finishing off. All of them have their issues. Le Roux is the slightest in build and thus suffers the most in contact situations but has the superior boot while Folau still has a few problems ITO positioning. Of the three Ben Smith is probably the player you want but I don't understand why that excludes Le Roux at 15?

I'd probably opt for Folau actually.

Regardless of who is best at fullback, I think Folau would be worst at wing The other two have had a lot of experience there

Well, I'm happy my XV stimulated opinions but your opinions count for **** without your own accompanying XV's for people to poop on.

But I do find it interesting that my selections at 1,2,3,5,8 and 10 aren't brought up here for positive or negtve comment. Whether those aren't as controversial as I might think or whether people are just big on fullback talk right now I wouldn't know.

Your team obviously isn't a 'best of' XV, which makes it hard criticise your selections, because it's evidently just a fun XV. We can criticise where you put the players, however

 

[Big Ewis]

Folau is just pure magic and strength with the ball in hand, but doesn't have much more. Ben Smith does it all. Le Roux is a good fullback but just doesn't measure up to the former two. I don't think anyone not South African would pick Le Roux out of the 3. He just doesn't produce as much on attack, isn't nearly as devastating with counter-attacks, doesn't tackle like B.Smith...etc...it's just not the same level imo.

 

[Kapa O Pango]

Mathieu Bastareaud 'could' have been the best tight head prop in the world.

 

[Imagine]

Hey everyone, thanks for the comments so far, I appreciate the involvement in this fun little exercise and the warm welcome

Also, there are NH players who I rate highly and could easily be on this team I just felt a theme arising and went with it

 

[Big Ewis]

Hey everyone, thanks for the comments so far, I appreciate the involvement in this fun little exercise and the warm welcome

Also, there are NH players who I rate highly and could easily be on this team I just felt a theme arising and went with it

that's cool man. That's what online forums are (...usually...) for.
And that "theme arising" excuse is WEAK !! But nice try !!

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

You know what is weak?..

NH rugby. There, I said it. Is not this the conclusion of all XV threads?



And there is the smiley face to put you in an awkward position responding.

 

[Big Ewis]

You know what is weak?..

NH rugby. There, I said it. Is not this the conclusion of all XV threads?



And there is the smiley face to put you in an awkward position responding.

:lol:
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE !!!!
And the NH is weak, the same one that's given New Zealand the hardest time for the past 7 matches ? The same one in the form of Wales that had South Africa on its knees praying for a miracle (and getting it !...) the other night that scored 30 points on them in their own backyard and survived a game where they were down to 13 guys at a point ?
France have officially left the party and may return after this era is over, but Ireland, England and Wales are right there.

And the XV threads may show the SH sides have some of the best players, but that in itself doesn't necessarily mean all that much. But I agree of course SH have taken the lead big time once again although things were looking a lot less one-sided around, say, 2012: the Boks conceding a draw at home against the youngest most inexperienced English team in a while, the same team that saw S.A. win in Twickers because of the luckiest try by a single point, those Boks that had struggled big time in Ireland to a team decimated by injury, that big infamous English win against the AB, France smashing Australia and Argentina...

Right now, without sounding pompous France being officially out of the big game removes a big source of potential upset from world Rugby. The Aussies are right back on track with 7 straight wins all against NH teams, the All-Blacks are still invincible and coming off a masterclass performance beating England very convincingly, and then S.A. who had me say just some time ago "they're winning the World Cup next year".

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Look you can't say things like this NH team was young and/or decimated by injuries (and we won) and then use examples where SA was young and/or decimated by injuries (and we still won- or drew);

That series against England where we conceded a draw and won the other two was the first under a new coach with new players and a new game plan whereas that young English team had an Autumn series and a 6N under their belt. Again, this team that miraculously beat Wales on the weekend has a big * next to it. Hell, we were fielding our 5th choice center and a wing in the midfield and had a 37 year old lock because our 2 first choice locks are injured.

But anyway I wasn't all that serious in that post and I do agree that that percieved gap that was probably at it's peak just pre-2011 is certainly closing.

 

[Big Ewis]

There's no denying South Africa were very unimpressive to say the least in 2012 the whole year, and that's what the topic is. The balance of power between NH and SH.
They (Boks) even almost (should've) lost in Argentina that year. They managed 4, 11 and 1 point victories against very mediocre Ireland, Scotland and England sides and they were basically full-strength. And that's just fact, it's not anything else.
And no sorry that England team had only one 6N under their belts by that tour's time. They just really punched higher than their weight almost all year long and that draw result can only be very good for England and very bad for South Africa if we're fair.

And I know you're joking, hence the start of my previous post, but since we're here, might as well debate this as it deserves to be. Where is that balance of power at, right now ? Obviously as I said before, all 3 SANZAR nations have regained lots of momentum, extended the distance between North and South, and look dominant once again. Looking at the afore-detailed 2012 year, this 2014 year looks a lot more "classic", and looking into the next Rugby World Cup, SH are huge favorites once again.

Remember just not so long ago nobody was talking about the Boks winning the Cup, everybody had Australia as the weakest in the pool of death with WAL and ENG, and ppl were hailing smaller teams like Italy and Argentina and the massive improvements they'd achieved. While England was scary to no one with their lackluster and play-it-safe Rugby approach.
At the moment, it's right 'back to basics', classic: Blacks and Boks as favorites, Australia impresses everyone, England best in Europe and the rest isn't important. Only asterisk, France aren't France anymore.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Okay, lets debate this. But what are you're actual stances? In your first paragraph you mention the topic is the balance of power between NH and SH but don't clarify your stance. Then you mention a draw against Argentina but that is beside the point as they are in the SH so too are NZ and Aus; the only teams we lost to that (rebuilding) year; 1/1 vs Aus and 0/2 NZ in 2012. You mention 2012 as a very poor year for Bok rugby but while it wasn't 2009 it ccertainly wasn't our worst and in the context of NH vs SH it was actually something of a bright point;

There's no denying South Africa were very unimpressive to say the least in 2012 the whole year, and that's what the topic is. The balance of power between NH and SH.

2012 for SA saw 6 games against NH opposition ending in 2 wins and a draw at home in the series against England and 3 wins on tour from a supposedly undeniably unimpressive SA. Where does that leave us?

They (Boks) even almost (should've) lost in Argentina that year. They managed 4, 11 and 1 point victories against very mediocre Ireland, Scotland and England sides and they were basically full-strength. And that's just fact, it's not anything else.
And no sorry that England team had only one 6N under their belts by that tour's time. They just really punched higher than their weight almost all year long and that draw result can only be very good for England and very bad for South Africa if we're fair.

Argentina can't be part of the discussion here, if England had a 6N under their belt then that is still 5 test games more than what SA had under new management. Saying something like a draw and 2 wins against an English side with 6 months on us and small margin wins over 'mediocre' Scottish, Irish and English sides would sound horridly arrogant from a SA poster and doesn't sound much better when not. What do we have to do then? Beat every one every game by 50? And remember that is the same English side that beat NZ in the same year just the very next week..

And I know you're joking, hence the start of my previous post, but since we're here, might as well debate this as it deserves to be. Where is that balance of power at, right now ? Obviously as I said before, all 3 SANZAR nations have regained lots of momentum, extended the distance between North and South, and look dominant once again. Looking at the afore-detailed 2012 year, this 2014 year looks a lot more "classic", and looking into the next Rugby World Cup, SH are huge favorites once again.

Remember just not so long ago nobody was talking about the Boks winning the Cup, everybody had Australia as the weakest in the pool of death with WAL and ENG, and ppl were hailing smaller teams like Italy and Argentina and the massive improvements they'd achieved. While England was scary to no one with their lackluster and play-it-safe Rugby approach.
At the moment, it's right 'back to basics', classic: Blacks and Boks as favorites, Australia impresses everyone, England best in Europe and the rest isn't important. Only asterisk, France aren't France anymore.

I'm going home now to miss the traffic but will get back here soon to finish my points..