• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

McAlister granted All Black exemption

Donald didn't actually play bad against Munster. Toeava just failed at Second five in combination with Tuitavake. Plus you ha d a bunch of new All Blacks playing.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Flux @ Apr 27 2009, 09:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Apr 27 2009, 02:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You forgot to add that they won despite fielding Donald rather than because of fielding Donald.

:p[/b]

Didn't Donald score a try?

But, no, you're right. He's absolutely rubbish. Should never wear the black jersey again, radi radi raah.

[/b][/quote]

He did but he missed a rash of kicks, his positional kicking was pretty poor as was his decision making. Don't forget that Munster were more or less all over the ABs like a bad rash for 80 minutes and that wasn't helped by some dodgy decisions by their number 10.

The thing I kept hearing from the Irish guys was, "who the hell have they fielded at number 10?! Hes awful!" And I brought up the live feed on BBC Online and lo! There he was in all his glory, Donald in his own private Botchamania..
 
to be honest I've always found him more impressive at 12 for Sale and don't think he's anywhere near his best at 10.

So even though I don't think much of Donald I'd say stick with him unless you have someother better option at outhalf (or seven-thirds of the 9 twelve fifths...or whaever the fock you call it).

And Weepu at 10 I just don't get either. Doesn't work for me, I don't see it as a long term option.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Apr 28 2009, 10:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
to be honest I've always found him more impressive at 12 for Sale and don't think he's anywhere near his best at 10.

So even though I don't think much of Donald I'd say stick with him unless you have someother better option at outhalf (or seven-thirds of the 9 twelve fifths...or whaever the fock you call it).

And Weepu at 10 I just don't get either. Doesn't work for me, I don't see it as a long term option.[/b]

You're right, i prefer McAlister playing 12 than 10. I'm not saying he's bad there but he's just so much better suited at 12 i reckon. I also don't think Donald is as bad as some of you make him out to be. He's decent enough but he's not a game-breaker game in, game out therefore he's not relied upon or as seen as the go to man unlike D.Carter. Which i suppose can be an advantage for him because he's a pretty good running 10, he just needs to know when to run. A little bit like N.Evans with less pace and less playmaking.

With regards to McAlister given the exemption. Why not just let him be picked for the AB's he's likely to be there anyway, the Internationals leading up to the 3N's would be a good time to settle him in. As William18's said, he's going to be playing in NZ next year anyways. Maybe that should be a new rule. 'As long as you commit to NZ rugby i.e. be available to play the up-coming ANZ cup and super 14, you can be in the squad.'

Because having rules and not using/abiding by them for certain playes is not fair.
 
Donald has greatly improved this season, his goal kicking is so much better, he has always been good at running at defenses and creating gaps plus his kicking from hand is more dependable. He should be All Black no.1 in the Spring with Carter out.
 
It's quite simple really, Nonu > McAlister. So if McAlister is planning on a starting role this season his only option is at 1st5/8ths in my mind, even if it isn't his best position. Nonu will have no problems holding his spot at 12 up until the end of the RWC 2011 at this rate.
 
I think someone has already corrected me on this (unless I'm imagining things) but doesn't Graham Henry want to see Isaia Toeava at 12?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Apr 28 2009, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
So even though I don't think much of Donald I'd say stick with him unless you have someother better option at outhalf (or seven-thirds of the 9 twelve fifths...or whaever the fock you call it).[/b]

Fly-Half?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tommowins @ Apr 28 2009, 09:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Apr 28 2009, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So even though I don't think much of Donald I'd say stick with him unless you have someother better option at outhalf (or seven-thirds of the 9 twelve fifths...or whaever the fock you call it).[/b]

Fly-Half?
[/b][/quote]

Could you do me a favour and clear up one or two things for me to do with Southern Hemisphere rugby.

1. Explain the logic if the position names that you use, that are not used in Europe. Such as first five eigths and so on. Why are they called what they're called and which one is which?

2. The lay out of the season in SH. I know the general drift of it but I don't fully understand. Perhaps give me a year in the life of Juan Smith including details of when he plays Currie Cup, Super 14, Tri-Nations and does international tours. Or a year in the life of Stirling Mortlock or a year in the life of Sitivatu....which ever suits you best!

All information will be very much apreciated.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Apr 29 2009, 09:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tommowins @ Apr 28 2009, 09:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Apr 28 2009, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So even though I don't think much of Donald I'd say stick with him unless you have someother better option at outhalf (or seven-thirds of the 9 twelve fifths...or whaever the fock you call it).[/b]

Fly-Half?
[/b][/quote]

Could you do me a favour and clear up one or two things for me to do with Southern Hemisphere rugby.

1. Explain the logic if the position names that you use, that are not used in Europe. Such as first five eigths and so on. Why are they called what they're called and which one is which?

2. The lay out of the season in SH. I know the general drift of it but I don't fully understand. Perhaps give me a year in the life of Juan Smith including details of when he plays Currie Cup, Super 14, Tri-Nations and does international tours. Or a year in the life of Stirling Mortlock or a year in the life of Sitivatu....which ever suits you best!

All information will be very much apreciated.
[/b][/quote]

I think the only positions we have different (cooler :p ) names for are: 9. halfback (think you all call it scrumhalf?), 10. first five eigths, 12. second five eigths and 13. center. I wouldn't have a clue why 10 and 12 are called waht they are though.

A year in the life of Sivivatu would be as follows: Super 14 with Chiefs, home series with All Blacks, Tri Nations/Bledisloe campaign, maybe one or two games with the Waikato provincial side in the Air NZ Cup (towards the very end of the competition), then the end of year tour with the All Blacks.
The All Blacks miss pretty much the entire provincial competition as they are playing in the Tri Nations.

I'm fairly posistive that SA and AUS have a similar structure, although AUS does not have a provincial tournament like the Air NZ Cup or Currie Cup.
 
I'd pick Mcalister over Donald any day. Although I dont think Donald is that Bad. He's good enough to be there but like mentioned before isnt a go-to man.

Oh and who is playing outside centre (no 13) for all blacks.
Why cant they play Nonu at 13, Mcalister at 12 ?
 
Wairarapa Cullen: "I think the only positions we have different (cooler tongue.gif ) names for are: 9. halfback (think you all call it scrumhalf?), 10. first five eigths, 12. second five eigths and 13. center. I wouldn't have a clue why 10 and 12 are called waht they are though."

I think I can explain this. There are 8 forwards and 7 backs in the game. The halfback (9) is called this because in old fractions he would've been deemed to have been halfway back (or 4/8th) from the advantage line.

(10) is the first five-eighth, because he would've been approximately 5/8th of the way back from the advantage line.

(12) or second five-eighth used to generally stand such a small way back in distance from the first five-eighth that there was no point in changing the fraction to something like 11/16th, so it was easier to call him a "second" five-eighth.

(13) The centre was generally called so, as in attacking moves from either sideline he would be positioned in (or near) the centre of the field, calling him the "centre three-quarter" would've been somewhat redundant, as this would've been somewhat confused with the wing three-quarters, so it was easier to simply call him the "centre".

(11) & (14) These players used to be referred to as "wing three-quraters", you may have heard of that. This was due to them standing 6/8th (or 3/4 in simplified fractions), back from the advantage line. The "wing" term having a slightly more obvious origin.

(15) Lastly the fullback. Think of that word, basically they are labelling him as being "fully back" or 8/8th the distance from the advantage line. There is no-one more fully back than him.

There is my "logical" approach to describing the origin of these positional names. This is just my take on it. Hope it helps. :)
 

Latest posts

Top