RugbyRebels

Hookers
Asafo Aumua (Wellington)
Dane Coles (Hurricanes/Wellington)
Nathan Harris (Chiefs/Bay of Plenty)
Codie Taylor (Crusaders/Canterbury)

Props
Wyatt Crockett (Crusaders/Canterbury)
Kane Hames (Chiefs/Tasman)
Nepo Laulala (Chiefs/Counties Manukau)
Atunaisa Moli (Chiefs/Waikato)
Tim Perry (Crusaders/Tasman)
Jeffery Toomaga-Allen (Hurricanes/Wellington)
Ofa Tu'ungafasi (Blues/Auckland)

Locks
Scott Barrett (Crusaders/Taranaki)
Dominic Bird (Chiefs/Crusaders)
Luke Romano (Crusaders/Canterbury)
Patrick Tuipulotu (Blues/Auckland)
Samuel Whitelock (Crusaders/Canterbury)

Loose Forwards
Sam Cane (Chiefs/Bay of Plenty)
Vaea Fifita (Hurricanes/Wellington)
Dillon Hunt (Highlanders/Otago)
Jerome Kaino (Blues/Auckland)
Kieran Read (Captain, Crusaders/Canterbury)
Ardie Savea (Hurricanes/Wellington)
Liam Squire (Highlanders/Tasman)
Matt Todd (Crusaders/Canterbury)
Luke Whitelock (Highlanders/Canterbury)

Halfbacks
Mitchell Drummond (Crusaders/Canterbury)
Tawera Kerr-Barlow (Chiefs/Waikato)
TJ Perenara (Hurricanes/Wellington)
Aaron Smith (Highlanders/Manawatu)

First five-eighths
Beauden Barrett (Hurricanes/Taranaki)
Richie Mo'unga (Crusaders/Canterbury)
Lima Sopoaga (Highlanders/Southland)

Midfielders
Ryan Crotty (Crusaders/Canterbury)
Jack Goodhue (Crusaders/Northland)
Ngani Laumape (Hurricanes/Manawatu)
Anton Lienert-Brown (Chiefs/Waikato)
Sonny Bill Williams (Blues/Counties Manukau)

Outside backs
David Havili (Crusaders/Tasman)
Matt Duffie (Blues/North Harbour)
Rieko Ioane (Blues/Auckland)
Damian McKenzie (Chiefs/Waikato)
Waisake Naholo (Highlanders/Taranaki)
Seta Tamanivalu (Crusaders/Taranaki)

Aumua ends up being the latest All Black, and the first in quite some time to be called up before playing any Super Rugby.

The only issues I have are:

1. No Barracuda, no Ngatai. Like, come the fuck on.
2. Kerr-Barlow's still there. Surely, why not start building depth at 9? Not sure I really get this. He's leaving, so why not look for a new guy?

Other than that, pretty much everyone there is selected on merit.

37 players for a five-game tour. The Invincibles took 29 players on a 32-game tour & even the "78 grandslammers only took 32 on an 18-game tour.

rowan wrote:37 players for a five-game tour. The Invincibles took 29 players on a 32-game tour & even the "78 grandslammers only took 32 on an 18-game tour.

The game has changed a tad from days gone by. They cant do 3 matches in the space of 8 days now with the collisions like they are.

But they're pros now. The Invincibles were farm boys and office clerks.

rowan wrote:37 players for a five-game tour. The Invincibles took 29 players on a 32-game tour & even the "78 grandslammers only took 32 on an 18-game tour.

But WHY do you hate the players, rowan?!?!?

Not only the game has changed, the cultural and legal basis of the game has changed.

What's Julian Savea up to these days? Can he have dropped out of the top 5 wingers in the country that fast?

It's not the players who make these decisions. Otherwise I'd regard them as a bunch of patsies, obviously. & I certainly don't hate the people who do make the decisions. I just can't really see how 37 players can be necessary for a five-game tour. That works out at almost precisely two games each, whereas George Nepia famously played all 32 games on the Invincibles tour, of course . . .

rowan wrote:But they're pros now. The Invincibles were farm boys and office clerks.

Playing against office clerks and police officers.

Puja

I can only deduce that this has turned into a massive development exercise.

Damien MacKensie is about the same height and weight Nepia was in his playing days. Playing in 1924 is exactly like playing today.

Nepia was probably one of the heavier players on the field in his day, certainly among the backs.

Anyway, nothing for you to soil your diapers about, kiddies. I was just a little surprised to see such a big squad for a such a short tour. Possibly just showing my age a bit . . . (ok, a lot)

Remember folks, if you disagree with Rowan, it's because you are immature, while Rowan is old and wise. Luckily Rowan is willing to selflessly remind us of this, in every, single, thread.

I see, so this comment about 37 players for a 5 game tour is also now considered to be inflammatory. What a sensitive little bunch of cowards you are

Dont' want to offend anybody too much with yet another outrageously offensive comment, but any thoughts why Julian Savea isn't getting a look in? Is his international career over, despite looking good for Wellington this year, or are they just looking to rest him at this point?

Because he is fat and slow off the mark? Because Ioane would smoke him?


Please regale us with more pithy anecdotes of the olden days, and please, lecture us some more about NZ culture because people on here just love that.

rowan wrote:I see, so this comment about 37 players for a 5 game tour is also now considered to be inflammatory. What a sensitive little bunch of cowards you are

I suspect it may having been "Nothing to soil your diapers about kiddies" line that might've been considered inflammatory, rather than your speculation about the number of players in a touring squad. But that's just a guess.

Don't NZ always use this tour as an opportunity to try out some fringe players anyway? Looking at your schedule, I'm sure there's plenty of room for rotation, especially since you'll be playing a shadow XV vs the Barbarians.

Puja

Cowards. Sweet Jesus...

Puja wrote:

rowan wrote:I see, so this comment about 37 players for a 5 game tour is also now considered to be inflammatory. What a sensitive little bunch of cowards you are

I suspect it may having been "Nothing to soil your diapers about kiddies" line that might've been considered inflammatory, rather than your speculation about the number of players in a touring squad. But that's just a guess.


Don't NZ always use this tour as an opportunity to try out some fringe players anyway? Looking at your schedule, I'm sure there's plenty of room for rotation, especially since you'll be playing a shadow XV vs the Barbarians.

Puja

You mean in response to bitchy remarks about my response to bitchy remarks. & if anyone found "Nothing to soil your diapers about kiddies" offensive in response to bitchy remarks, when contrasted with lighthearted remarks about my own vintage, they really are fragile, juvenile, hypocritical cowards.

In reply to your second comment, well done, Sherlock. That's pretty much what I was saying. Looks more like a development tour than a 'lets-win-every-game-we-can' tour of olde, which reflects upon the major changes we've seen in international rugby during the World Cup & pro era.

Is it just me or do all your wingers only seem to last* a few seasons? It seems as soon as one has been remotely worked out, and often scored a try a test for a few years, there is another lurking in the, er, wings. Am I getting that wrong? Certainly didn't seem like Roko, Sivi, Gear x 2, The Surveyor etc. had particularly long careers in proportion to their talent.

*In the sense they'd still get in basically any other national side, but disappear off of the AB radar.

The big crash-bash outside backs certainly don't seem to stick around long, for obvious reasons. & I posted an article on here not long ago about speedsters, like good drug-abusing rock stars, burning out around the 27-years-of-age mark...

The ones coming through are too good to ignore. Bear in mind we have tended to have an extra fullback at wing on occasion (Dagg, Bin Smuff) to play to plan. Often there is only room for one strike missile man in the run on side.

Sincerely,

Resident Coward.

p.s. in the olden days the fullback would often warm himself up on cold winter days by scouring the underside of his scrotum with a pine cone. None of this development nonsense you see today.

There it goes http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/ar ... ref=NZH_fb

Warning: May contain inflammatory comment - ie words . . .

All the better for you to cut and paste with my little autistic one.

rowan wrote:

Puja wrote:

rowan wrote:I see, so this comment about 37 players for a 5 game tour is also now considered to be inflammatory. What a sensitive little bunch of cowards you are

I suspect it may having been "Nothing to soil your diapers about kiddies" line that might've been considered inflammatory, rather than your speculation about the number of players in a touring squad. But that's just a guess.


Don't NZ always use this tour as an opportunity to try out some fringe players anyway? Looking at your schedule, I'm sure there's plenty of room for rotation, especially since you'll be playing a shadow XV vs the Barbarians.

Puja

You mean in response to bitchy remarks about my response to bitchy remarks. & if anyone found "Nothing to soil your diapers about kiddies" offensive in response to bitchy remarks, when contrasted with lighthearted remarks about my own vintage, they really are fragile, juvenile, hypocritical cowards.

Go on, I'll bite. What is the "bitchy remark" which predated the diapers comment?

Puja

So today's posters are:
Fragile, juvenile, hypocritical cowards.

I'd like to know how that compares to:
Predictable juvenile coward, a ranking I obtained last week.

What is the ultimate level one can reach when it comes to being honored with Rowan insult status. I mean, is it like boy scout badges, where you simply sew the next badge on to your list of attained insults, or is it more like martial arts rankings, with the ultimate level being something like grand master juvenile hypocrite coward?