2013 ANZAC Test

lol, please. Between 07-10 he basically was the Warriors offense.

As for Perrett being anywhere near Vatuvei's league, don't make me laugh. He's played a dozen more games in his career and has half the tries Vatuvei does, I'd take a winger who can finish and get over the line over one that can't anytime of the week.

 

Well seeing as it's a wingers job and he has twice the amount I'd say it's worthwhile to bring it up. Unless you think it's a coincidence and Vatuvei has just been lucky to play in a stacked Warriors team for the last decade or so.....

 

It's true that Vatuvei scores a lot more tries. About twice as many. And, he also makes 3 times more errors than Perrett. Howsie claims he drops more ball because they kick to him more often. I think the only thing to do with that argument is to underline it.

 

There is a lot more to a winger's job than just scoring tries. On most of those areas Vatuvei falls significantly behind Perrett and Nightingale.

 

Such as?

 

Vatuvei can find the line and is usually good from his own end. That's it. In every other aspect; defence (positioning and technique), and covering kicks (bombs and grubbers) he is not FG standard. He is an absolute liability because he has hands which make Ben Pomeroy look safe.

I think the idea that NZ should pick him because rep teams are about individual brilliance is a very precise statement of the exact opposite of what is true. Team work is always important in rep games and it's even more important when you're the severe underdog. NZ simply do not have the players to match Australia man for man. Never have and never will. Their success will, and always has, come from team work, greater than the sum of all their parts.

 

Even if you accept the idea of relying on individual brilliance to win, it is misapplied in Vatuvei's case. If you're going to rely on individual brilliance then it should be coming from someone in a far more influential role on the game like a hooker, half or fullback. Relying on a winger to win you a game is a really low percentage move, even if you have a world class winger. Getting the ball ~15 times game is just not enough to have a significant influence on a consistent basis. Selecting a winger based on his individual brilliance or game winning ability has always seemed a bit odd to me, like picking halves for their defence or work rate and then selecting ball-playing forwards to compensate. New Zealand have key position players like Luke, Marshall, Foran and Johnson for brilliance, not their wingers.

 

I agree but I know what he's talking about. He means someone who can spark a side. Stupid idea IMO.

 

Why the fuck are your reading that lobotomy's blog?