The latest instalment of our new weekly feature picks out the players that are impressing in Super Rugby, and looks at their Rugby World Cup chances later this year.
Aaron Smith
Highlanders, New Zealand
The livewire scrum-half has been key to the Highlanders successful start to the season. Despite constant pressure from the likes of TJ Perenara and Tawara Kerr-Barlow for the All Black number nine shirt, Smith has made it his own. With an arguably weaker Highlander pack, Smith’s natural playing style comes to the fore: he simply moves the ball away from the breakdown quickly, and efficiently. When Smith gets going, he has the ball on a rope, as the Highlanders obligingly get into full flow, pulling the opposition forwards around the park simultaneously.
The Highlanders’ strength lies in their backs, with the likes of Ben Smith and Malakai Fekitoa hovering dangerously in the wider channels. The Stormers’ game plan at the House of Pain on Saturday played into Aaron Smith’s capable hands, with the Capetonians playing loosely, and finding themselves under their own posts before they had a chance to get into the game. The part-time hairdresser not only looks after his teammates’ tight haircuts, but also plays a vital role for the All Blacks when they wish to move up a gear, and increase the tempo of the game.
Smith reacts accordingly when he turns out for New Zealand. The All Blacks possess strengths everywhere, and Smith is fully aware of the need to adapt to the higher calibre of players around him. Steve Hansen’s men can ease between different tactics that are catered for the situation and opposition, whilst Smith makes it look a seamless transition. When they need to keep it tight, the All Black dynamo can turn to his ever-reliable box kick, and manufacture slower ball.
Handre Pollard
Bulls, South Africa
After Johan Goosen’s injury troubles, and a position dilemma for Patrick lambie in Springbok colours, Handre Pollard has become the new golden boy of South African rugby. Built like a centre, Pollard is a robust fly-half, exceedingly different from any other ten in World Rugby. The Bulls pivot possesses ball-carrying ability that sees him regularly bust over the first defender when his options are cut off. Whilst the Springboks have shown glimpses of expansive rugby in the past couple of years, come World Cup time, they will most likely look to play gain line rugby. They will send their forwards around the corner, looking to for quick ball, which Pollard can thrive on.
Heyneke Meyer has stated that Pollard isn’t quite the finished article when it comes to tactical kicking, but his goal kicking and try scoring ability are unquestioned. His two tries in the Ellis Park test match against the All Blacks showed how devastating he can be from short range, and interestingly enough, Aaron Smith was the man at fault for the second try. Pollard is the first player to surpass 100 points in this Super Rugby season, and his confidence will only grow in the lead up to the World Cup.
Michael Hooper
Waratahs, Australia
As the youngest Wallaby captain in fifty years, Michael Hooper is a special player and leader. The open side flanker has been a revelation since David Pocock’s reoccurring knee injuries, and has been a saving grace for the Wallabies. However, the debate surrounding number seven shirts worldwide may suggest that Hooper is part of a dying breed of flanker.
Hooper is your typical fetcher. His low centre of gravity and short stature allow him to work wonders on the floor and turn over ball consistently. There are not many left like him on the international stage: Steffon Armitage is in a similar mould, whilst South Africa’s Heinrich Brussouw has fallen out of favour with selectors over his lack of weight in the tight exchanges.
Hooper’s tenacity and work rate at the breakdown reveal an oft-forgotten asset within a rugby team. Perhaps part of the reason that Stuart Lancaster has overlooked Armitage, is that experts feel there is no longer a need for a specialist, but rather a jack-of-all-trades back-rower. Hooper will no doubt be involved at the World Cup and will be determined to show his worth amongst his taller opposition. Not since George Smith have we seen a flanker in this mould dominate on the international stage, and the game has changed dramatically in recent years. At the World Cup however, Hooper may just provide us with a gentle reminder of why the likes of Neil Back and Martin Williams used to be such consistent names on the team sheet, as he is these days.
By Ross Jones-Davies (@ross_jd)
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
15 replies on “World Cup Watch: Super Rugby Round 7”
I don’t think there is any merit in a suggestion that Armitage’s playing ability has anything to do with his selection for England. He isn’t selected for good reason, our Prem player rule is vital to the future of English rugby.
If Armitage was to play his rugby over here then I have no doubt that he’d walk into the England side.
This stuff about Armitage keeps coming up like a serial drunk’s curry. There is NO actual evidence that his non selection ‘is vital to the future of English rugby’. Until proven otherwise, it can only be a (fear based) perception, that’s all. Some countries apply the same non-select rule as England. Others don’t. Has it effected the results of the latter, e.g., SA & Wales? Hard to be definitive, but SA are still ranked No.2 in the world & Wales have a good 6N record.
And are there hordes of English players who are so sought after abroad? Besides, many players surely go to Fr, for instance, when they are past their peak or likely, being young bolters, see no immediate path into their Int’al set ups.
I don’t know of too many rugger commentators either who would exclude Armitage from the England WC squad. Perhaps they don’t see an automatic collapse of their rugby system in a country with the MOST resources on this planet.
I think the way Wales have plowed money into the duel-contract system suggests they recognized the detrimental effects that players leaving had on their set up. Welsh Regions really struggled.
There’s a reason that normally it is players past their peak that go to France – that reason is that current England players can not move to France if they want to be selected. Of course that would completely change if they were still allowed to play for England.
In an ideal world, players would play @ home, but the game went pro & changed all that.
Wales is more vulnerable than England because of their smaller base & with richer English clubs recently ‘poaching’ young players before they ‘register’ @ home, this could be a potential issue for Welsh rugby’s future. Nevertheless, their 6N record is currently strong.
The SH has suffered for yrs from player drain to the NH. IMO they stay ahead because their Unions’ overall control of the whole game, therefore they have unified (& better?) tactics, higher skill levels, an elevated & simplified rugby strata (club, prov, S15) & a higher tempo game which likely means that they stay composed for longer, under pressure, i.e., for the full 80.
However, all this is likely to be eroded in future, as in the end money talks. Also, they (NZ, Oz) couldn’t practically recall players for Int’als from the NH as easily as the Euro nations could from say Fr to England or vice versa. The Anzacz would be jet lagged for days. I know this notion has been poo poohed before, but it is A factor.
England has inbuilt problems with too many factions vying for resources (club v country), too many clubs to pick from (disparate tactics), no equivalent to S15 (leap to In’al level bigger), inferior coaching (@ Int’al level anyway) in tactics, skills, selection (compare Schmidt & Lancaster in 6N, H Cup) & then there’re the power struggles, egos within the RFU, resignations, odd decisions (Martin Johnson’s appointment, Farrell Snr’s purchase for England as a player, SL’s premature contract extension) public criticism of Lancaster etc.
These issues seem of more concern for England & its future success or not than whether a few players opt for Fr to ply their trade. Get round it by effective contract release clauses, so they can fly back to Blighty in an hour for practise. If swathes of players abandon England for say Fr, then there’s still the option to then impose restrictions for these offshore individuals.
I know that prevention can be better than cure, but this relates more appropriately to player injuries methinks. Until it’s seen as to whether players do in fact opt to play in Fr instead of England, then it’s a fear based thing. Besides would’t they normally need to make their reps here initially to make themselves ‘saleable’ in the 1st place?
These’re my thoughts anyway. Although I’m looking at this situation from the outside in, rather than from the other way round, this may not necessarily be an unhealthy pov.
PS I’ve just noted that my blog is a mite longer than that of Tony Gibo
Richie MCcaw is still king , of Flankers.
Stephen Jones of the S Times suggested, earlier in the yr & b4 the A. Int’a’ls, that Ritchie was over the hill … & that the ABs were imminently beatable… & he’s just won the rugger writer of the yr award.
Who voted for him is not noted. Presumably his parents, wife, kids & Paul Thorburn?
Don, on another matter I have made light of Stephen Jones’s habit of odd selections when given the chance to pick a Stephen Jones XV. They are regularly a mixture of common sense and bizarre.
In his articles, sometimes I agree with his views. Often I don’t.
I do however, ALWAYS read them. Certainly before any other. Similarly Brian Moore in the Telegraph.
I think the mark of a good writer is one who attracts readers, and not one who takes a populist, vanilla view on anything.
I would have voted for him – had I been asked. Which is very different to agreeing with his views.
I was looking @ him from the game’s point of view to which he is, IMO, detrimental. He works for a ‘lying profession’, his own paper’s words, not mine & Murdoch. We all know to what depths some of the latter’s other employees sank. An all time low.
I’m not casting Jones quite in that category, but it seems to me that his jaundiced views & deliberate, cheap, lurid shots are aimed primarily @ attention seeking (was he ignored by mummy as a child?). His constant slagging off of, well, everybody, becomes tedious & is surely bordering on racism?
‘He flips & flops so much he has a broken back’ says 1 English ‘fan’. And when Jones says things like ‘The Irish have never been any good, never will be’, doesn’t he look an utter cretin with Schmidt’s recent 6N results?
His propaganda from the ST says that he’s ‘controversial & influential’. I’ve suggested attention seeking to the 1st contention, but as for the 2nd, just WHO does he influence? Not Johnno that’s for sure. He wiped the guy. And when a fellow countryman, a former Welsh captain calls him ‘… the scum of the earth’, doesn’t that say pretty much it all?
If you want to judge him for attracting followers, then that’s up to you, but isn’t that something that another geezer in the 30’s did. What was his name now? Adolf somebody wasn’t it? Or maybe that’s being a tad unkind… to the latter.
He’s a wrong’un IMO, just like his dinosaur opinions. Good for Murdoch though.
I think, Don, that everyone is entitled to their opinions, and obviously those who have the means to purvey controversial opinions to a large audience will naturally attract criticism from various people unknown, and Paul Thorburn – who is not, I believe, a person who “says it all”.
I don’t judge him at all. I do however enjoy reading him. I am not the only one. Thats part of the reason he wins the award.
I can however judge your reference to Hitler. That is truly ridiculous, but just like your views on Stephen Jones, i’m sure its more to arouse debate that anything you believe.
What’s actually so controversial? Jones has developed a formula whereby he has deliberately, sooner or later, practically criticised everything & everyone in rugger.
But what has he ever stated that is profound, new, original or innovative?
In my exp there were only ever 2 things, yonks ago, that he mentioned which were reasonably objective. 1, I can’t now recall. It was so long ago (may come back to me).
The other was how the ‘new’ ruck & tackle law changed the game, effectively turning it into 15 man rugby league. The ‘fatties’ clogged the back line, instead of retrieving @ ruck. The (esp midfield?) backs, instead of being more elusive in (man on man) attack, became more juggernaughts in ‘D’. IOW it de-skilled the game. This made & still makes some sense to me (e.g., Luther Burrell, Brad Barritt @ Int’al level).
But things like the RFU’s attempt to belatedly scrap the club structure so as to set up new clubs under their jurisdiction came to, er, nought. My have had some substance… or maybe not. Anyway nuthin’ materialised as alluded to by Jones.
Or his constant banging on like a Nun’s knickers about England’s needing gnarled vets instead of callow yoof & then, shortly thereafter, advocating the inclusion of Danny Cip & the then soon to be ‘enforcer’, Courtney Lawes (who went off hurt in Northampton’s recent hammering by Clermont Auvergne), in the national team.
Or his slagging off of the SH’s S15 game as ‘pittipat’ & ‘candyflos’ (what do these technical terms actually mean? The ‘boyo’, funnily enough, never explained.) rugby. Until recently, the SH had, for yrs, produced the top 3 ranked sides in the world. This reality rendered his poison pen piffle utterly irrelevant.
This isn’t interesting stuff from Jones, but more like the scribblings of a tabloid red top or Mills & Boon merchant.
However if you enjoy it, read it. For me I have to admire him for making a living off the game as he does, without contributing to it.
PS The AH ref was somewhat t in cheek as per my stating it was unfair to him (AH i.e.).
Responded, but it didn’t register.
Regds SJ’s comparison with AH, it was somewhat t in cheek. Hence my ref to it being unfair to the latter.
In respect of yr enjoying his columns & being non judgemental of same, that’s yr choice. It depends on whether you prefer packaging over content, whether he actually contributes to the game, by writing anything profound or original, as opposed to rehashing his tried & tested, formulaic dogma & living off it.
I’ve read the ST for some time & particularly so for the rugby. He’s just 1 of the columnists in that category.
There were only a couple of items he ever mentioned that were objective for me. 1 being the changing of the ruck & tackle law which did indeed change the way the game was & is now played. The other was so long ago, I’ve forgotten it!
I have to admire Jones tho for this ability to live off a game, of which I am especially fond, whereby he writes with a pre-programmed & systematic, manufactured vitriol & venom on an industrial scale. Takes a certain ability to do this I have to admit, but from which he & Rupert of course, are the main benefactors.
Impressive!
Odd. It now has reg’ed
I think we need to go the way of NZ in terms of player contracts. In business replicating a successful template is rarly a bad thing. Their system of getting the cream to rise to the top is continually successful and enviable with a population around 5 million.
Don’t understand; ‘need to go the way of NZ in terms of player contracts’. Aren’t they basically the same? Whether they need be may be another ? however.
Yr contention; ‘In business replicating a successful template is rarely a bad thing’ makes sense, but, ‘Their (NZ’s) system of getting the cream to rise to the top is continually successful and enviable with a population around 5 million’, is unclear.
What do you mean by ‘Their system’? NZ’s coaching philosophy & therefore tactics are different & so is their rugby set up or structure. If you mean coaching, this can be changed with a different mind set (coach), but the structure is another matter.
Ross Jones-Davies (@ross_jd)
‘Your comment is awaiting moderation’. Why so please?