yeah Ok, Gear isn't one of the best ball carrying wingers in the game. He doesn't make line breaks at will in the super 15. He isn't one of the hardest men to put down in the super 15.
Marty Holah was considered the third best number 7 behind Smith and McCaw he hardly played international rugby. Doesn't stop him being one of the best in the world
I made the point if Gear got the NZ shirt back and performed exactly as North did at international level then he would not have the same impact, which you claim. Anyone arguing this is not in tune with modern society
Yeah AWMrPrez The super 15 is so close to international top 10 level that it is a valid indicator of skill level imo.
Now Holah was at my club for years. To put it simply it was viewed that Holah when in the NZ squad was immense back-up and when he did play (he had a fair fewcaps) he was probably as good as you could get out there. When he was with the Ospreys and not in the NZ squad and not playing international rugby off the bench or as an able replacement for an injured or tired McCaw, he was not at all considered one of the world best 7's. He was considered a great player, but not close to the same light he was before coming to the O's
Let me ask you a question in reply: Is Graeme Pollock not worthy of being considered in the same breath as Jacques Kallis in terms of batting because he only played 20 Tests?
in 2004-2006 he was considered a top 3 openside player in the world yet was on the bench/ not selected for the all blacks. absolutely wrecked it with the chiefs and got held back by we don't carry too many niche players hence not up around the 60-70 caps like he should be
I agree with what you say about Holah. It is completely different to Gear though, for one it is a different position, and secondly he was an understudy. Gear is not in the squad and not playing at all for NZ. Plus the number of wingers out there of high quality now are superior to open sides out there in the days of Holah
If you have 5 allrounders in your cricket team and no bowlers cause you think batting is more important does this then mean you couldn't not be playing one of the best bowler in the world?
Of course it does. Horses for courses and all. The difference is that bowler would be proven as a world class bowler to make a world 11, just not selected in that instance. Not a club player who a few people think should play for his country again. Simples
yes and I have told you why he isn't in the squad You can have 7 people on the bench you take 4 fowards means you get 3 backs - 1 halfback - 1 first five/ midfield cover - 1 spot left You usually pick someone who can cover wing and fullback......... He isn't in the starting lineup WAIT FOR IT WAIT FOR IT WAIT FOR IT WAIT FOR IT WAIT FOR IT WAIT FOR IT WAIT FOR IT WAIT FOR IT For reasons unrelated to your actual ability as a winger..................................
A few people you mean like the whole country? Washed up you mean like how he'd be in any other countries starting lineup
I edited washed up it was probably a bit harsh, but he is closer to that than a world XV winger. Your post is irrelevant as he is not even in the NZ squad. Which shows you up, again.
Well yes, an AT team consists of players from any stage in the sport's history; a present world team consists of current players only. None of this affects the validity of my example. If there was a Ricky Ponting-level player playing FC cricket in a recently-excluded-from-international-cricket Australia due to their mental disintegration techniques being deemed "not within the spirits of the game," would they not still be Ricky Ponting-level?
It is also evident you are very narrow minded in what it is you need from a winger, or what your team needs fro a winger. After all it is a team game
