83 replies to this topic

[Red Beard]

Personally I just cant for the life of me see how this is good for NZ rugby. I know there are good arguments why the Crusaders shoulds be able to sign every last scrap of talent in the country. I know they have a great head office, great coaching staff, great culture and to be honest I really respect that about them. There is much that can be learned from the Saders blueprint. Its true that that some other NZ franchises need to get their houses in order off the field.

But you cant tell me that success also isnt a result of the quality of cattle you put out on the paddock. You dont see too many teams of journeymen winning any really prestigious silverware. Was it absolutely vital for Dagg, SBW and now possibly Thompson move to CHCH. Imagine if the Highlanders kept Dagg and AT and picked up SLade, Ross and SBW. What a shot in the arm that would be for that franchise.

I would like to see then NZRU become more proactive by ensuring the likes of the Highlanders and Chiefs do well on or off the field. The Chiefs seem to have a pretty good administration thesedays although the coaching and support staff need to be turned over.

I do wonder sometimes if the NZRU with Tew and his cronies at the helm is a little too Crusaders/Canterbury top heavy for its own good. There is a school of thought out there that Tew has survived in his postion so long because he is surrounded by enough red and black men at head office who watch his back.

Im sure its the old Coromandel hippy coming out in me wanting everybody to have a fair suck at the sav, but I cant see the value in having one Super franchise and four also rans. You wouldnt see a champion breeder keep just one show dog and four mutts in their kennels.

I also dont understand how on earth Canterbury can contract all their players and remain under the cap. If a top All Black can earn up to 100k from NPC alone you have to really wonder how the red and blacks balance their books, bearing in mind the NZRU arent subisdising NPC player payments anymore. After all they have to shell out for Franks, Crockett, Flynn, Whitelock, Whitelock, Thorn, Ross, Read, McCaw, Ellis, Carter, SBW..... not to mention the likes of Fruean, Crotty, Matiland....

It certainly isnt a new phenomena to see players want to join a successful franchise or province. Auckland throughout the 80s and early 90s would be another prime example.

But why after 15 years of Super rugby do we not have five well run, progessive and highly competitve franchises? Is Andy Dalton genuinely enhancing the Blues for example? If the NZRU want the fans to really get behind Super rugby they need to ensure there are five franchises out there genuinely worthy of the publics support.

[Red Beard]

Look at Robbie Deans and you will appreciate the saying. "Great coaches make great players...but great players also make great coaches."

[Allstar]

some good thoughts there.

front page feature article please mods.

[Hooroo]

How is it bad for NZ rugby though??

I mean, the AB's are looking fairly sharp at the moment and if anything it frees up spaces around the rest of the country for up and comers

[Canerbry]

Allstar said:

some good thoughts there.

And we get accused of being conspiracy theorists - this is gold-standard tinfoil hat shit.

Allstar said:

front page feature article please mods.

And make this place further the domain of the jealous whingers.


The solution is knobbling your best side because the others are underperforming? Hippy.

[Duluth]

Canerbry - feel free to write an article from a different perspective. It will get promoted to the front page as well

[dingo]

In the defence of the Crusaders, the 'core' of players who make the Crusaders what they are have always been Crusader men. The people who join that organisation and get some silverware have tended to be players with potential that they pick from the draft and then stay on or players who were dissatisfied in their current franchise for some reason and have probably approached them. Guildford wasn’t happy at the canes, Ali Williams at the Blues, Dagg similarly at the Highlanders, Fruen stuck behind Nonu and Smith and T Waldrom behind Rodders at the Canes are all examples. I will accept that there is a bit of the mercenary about Guilford and SBW though.

There has (or will be) been a movement of quality players out of the Crusaders too into other franchises in order to get game time, this is likely to be worse next year with the inability to 'protect' all these players. The likes of Fruen, for example, may be in the draft.

I think that much of the problem isn't that the Crusaders are well organised and recruit well, but that other Franchises aren't.

[Crucial]

The main difference between the Crusaders situation and the Auckland of the 80's is that Auckland didn't suck in the best from far and wide to create their team. IIRC they may have had a couple of recruits but generally it was a case of a well run and coached union coinciding with good players and ideas that were ahead of their time. They were fitter than any other team around, for example.
The Crusaders are attracting players because they want to play alongside Carter and McCaw to enhance their prospects. SBW, Freaun, Dagg, Thompson, Guildford all moved for their careers. The Whitelocks were well spotted and brought into the fold before the Poo and Canes could even touch them.
Can't blame the Crusaders management but I agree with RB that the NZRU have let this run a bit far. They probably have to consider 'restraint of trade' but they must be allowing all sorts of loanbacks to ensure that Canterbury are within the cap.

[Red Beard]

Canerbry said:

And we get accused of being conspiracy theorists - this is gold-standard tinfoil hat shit.



And make this place further the domain of the jealous whingers.


The solution is knobbling your best side because the others are underperforming? Hippy.

The Hippy prop! Yeah I do have abit of hippy about me to be fair. Funny thing was it was a former Canterbury and All Black stalwart who said to me the NZRU are too Crusaders heavy. To be honest I genuinely have huge respect for the Crusaders success over the years which I mentioned in my rant.

[Crucial]

Canerbry said:

And we get accused of being conspiracy theorists - this is gold-standard tinfoil hat shit.



And make this place further the domain of the jealous whingers.


The solution is knobbling your best side because the others are underperforming? Hippy.

No one wants to 'knobble' the Crusaders. We just want to make sure that other franchises can have competitive teams as well. Otherwise the general public lose interest. Look what happened with NPC, until recent changes and a better spread of talent it was losing support fast.

The argument that it opens spaces for up and comers has a flipside in that those up and comers will develop better by playing alongside good players (not just journeymen).

There is no black and white to this, I think there is just a feeling that it is getting a bit carried away at present and the tools at the disposal of the NZRU to keep a control on things either aren't working or they don't care.

[LAKiwi]

Crucial said:

The main difference between the Crusaders situation and the Auckland of the 80's is that Auckland didn't suck in the best from far and wide to create their team..

How many registered players are there in and around the Blues region? Compared to the Crusaders? The Blue's have got their hands on a lot more players at their doorstep. It's simple logic to presume that lower population areas (2 SI teams) will suck in more players from outside their region.

[Duluth]

First of all I think the Blues and Hurricanes can put out competitive XV's and the Chiefs can put out a great backline. The depth is where the Crusaders will have an advantage next year.

However I think this may be a temporary problem. The new rules regarding franchises signing players has just come in and I believe this will cause a better spread of players over time.
I'm sure players will look at a guy like Alby Mathewson and come to the conclusion that you are better off playing a full season elsewhere rather than sharing their Super rugby spot

I think at Super rugby level we will have to get used to players representing a franchise that they may not have direct links with. That is not specific to the Crusaders.

Also the Dagg and Thomson situation says more about the Highlanders than it does about the Crusaders. A poorly run operation will lose players.
Now that the administrators have more direct power over their destiny they should also be held more accountable. Hopefully Culhane can bring some Southland attitude and Joseph can train them like Mains and things will turn around.

Besides when the Highlanders were going well they were doing exactly what people are complaining about the Crusaders doing. Their late 90's team was loaded with players from Hawkes Bay, Auckland and Counties.

If they run a good operation, they will attract players again. Maybe Slade is the first of those?

[Canerbry]

Red Beard said:

The Hippy prop! Yeah I do have abit of hippy about me to be fair. Funny thing was it was a former Canterbury and All Black stalwart who said to me the NZRU are too Crusaders heavy. To be honest I genuinely have huge respect for the Crusaders success over the years which I mentioned in my rant.

Mate sorry that read a bit harsh, was just trying to use your "Coro hippy" term again, and I know you are one of the more balanced posters on here...

THe truth is that we've just had two years of rebuilding at the Crusaders after the last lot of heavy cattle moved on, and all of a sudden the knockers are out again.

They have brought a whole lot of young guys through the system (a lot who have gone on to other teams), and EVERY franchise has the chance to recruit and attract talent.

Some would go so far as to say that the success in Christchurch keeps these players in NZ.

"Cruical" said:

The main difference between the Crusaders situation and the Auckland of the 80's is that Auckland didn't suck in the best from far and wide to create their team.

Your shiny metal hat is blocking one of your eyes.

Again, Canterbury don't "suck in the best from far and wide to create their team" either. The CRFU develop a huge amount of talent themselves, a lot of whom move off to other sides. The recruit, sure - EVERY FRANCHISE DOES. Do you want us to force Tana to play for the Canes? Do we really want Brett back? Players move teams all the time. If you don't like that, cry me a river.

What's most notable about what the system here is the way underperformers from other areas are brought through - there are dozens of examples. Your statement of fact that the R&B s signed the Whitelocks, ALL of them, before the Canes "could even touch them" is ludicrous.

"Cruical" said:

IIRC they may have had a couple of recruits but generally it was a case of a well run and coached union coinciding with good players and ideas that were ahead of their time. They were fitter than any other team around, for example.

All things that could be said about the Crusaders.

Quote

I think that much of the problem isn't that the Crusaders are well organised and recruit well, but that other Franchises aren't.

That's the problem, and instead of chuffing away all frothy with half-baked untruths about some imagined evil empire, how about come up with some solutions for that?

[rotated]

I have a problem with the Crusaders drawing in a new capped All Black or two every season. I'm not totally across the new laws, but a system that allows S14 franchises to sign players directly, is best for all involved. The current system rewards franchises with subordinate unions too much.

[LAKiwi]

dingo said:

I think that much of the problem isn't that the Crusaders are well organised and recruit well, but that other Franchises aren't.

Canerbry said:

That's the problem, and instead of chuffing away all frothy with half-baked untruths about some imagined evil empire, how about come up with some solutions for that?

It's the tall poppy syndrome in NZ though isn't it. Someone gets good, has more of whatever than someone else. Rather than try lift others to that level, we bitch and moan at the tall poppies. Don't pick on the under-achievers or praise the over-achievers. Do the complete opposite. Great logic - but unfortunately the trend followed a lot.

[Red Beard]

Duluth said:

First of all I think the Blues and Hurricanes can put out competitive XV's and the Chiefs can put out a great backline. The depth is where the Crusaders will have an advantage next year.

However I think this may be a temporary problem. The new rules regarding franchises signing players has just come in and I believe this will cause a better spread of players over time.
I'm sure players will look at a guy like Alby Mathewson and come to the conclusion that you are better off playing a full season elsewhere rather than sharing their Super rugby spot

I think at Super rugby level we will have to get used to players representing a franchise that they may not have direct links with. That is not specific to the Crusaders.

Also the Dagg and Thomson situation says more about the Highlanders than it does about the Crusaders. A poorly run operation will lose players.
Now that the administrators have more direct power over their destiny they should also be held more accountable. Hopefully Culhane can bring some Southland attitude and Joseph can train them like Mains and things will turn around.

Besides when the Highlanders were going well they were doing exactly what people are complaining about the Crusaders doing. Their late 90's team was loaded with players from Hawkes Bay, Auckland and Counties.

If they run a good operation, they will attract players again. Maybe Slade is the first of those?

I think Otagos initial success though was a result of players leaving their home unions to attend University in Dunedin. Thats how they picked up the likes of Pene, Joseph, Timu, Kronfeld and later Oliver, Ellis etc... Theyve clearly lost that advantage now because few players are intetrested in combining a professional career with studying (hats off to Vito and Stanley). The second wave of Highlanders success (to late 90s) was built on that tertiary base. They also picked up the lieks of Hoeft who had to leave Thames Valley to succeed or the Auckland pair of Meeuws and Maka whose paths were blocked by Brown and Zinny). The obviously they recruited well around the traps. Currently the Highlanders board need to seriously up their game, because Ive heard they are out of touch.

I guess my point is is why cant the other four NZ franchises operate like the Crusaders? And do the Crusaders need more and more talent sent their way? Maybe they could do some more developing of their own, which they are so highly regarded for.

[rotated]

Canerbry said:

That's the problem, and instead of chuffing away all frothy with half-baked untruths about some imagined evil empire, how about come up with some solutions for that?

I think there is a lot of merit in stopping the charade of the S15 franchises being provincial entities and just treat them as what they are - professional sports teams. Let players play for their home union and whatever in the ITM Cup and then have an entry draft into the Super 15 where they can play for anyone. If the NZRFU is handling most of the key contracts centrally to me this seems only fair. It would ensure an even spread of players in key positions, ideally you would see the top 5 in every position starting - which is what we are after at the end of the day with the All Blacks in mind. You would phase it in though.

It would hurt the Blues, who I support but would be good for the national game. Although I can understand why some Crusaders fans might be against such a move where guys like Fruean, SBW, Thorn and the Whitelocks would be uprooted from their suburban Christchurch homes they have lived in since birth for 20 weeks a year.

[ACT Crusader]

rotated said:

I think there is a lot of merit in stopping the charade of the S15 franchises being provincial entities and just treat them as what they are - professional sports teams. Let players play for their home union and whatever in the ITM Cup and then have an entry draft into the Super 15 where they can play for anyone. If the NZRFU is handling most of the key contracts centrally to me this seems only fair. It would ensure an even spread of players in key positions, ideally you would see the top 5 in every position starting - which is what we are after at the end of the day with the All Blacks in mind. You would phase it in though.

It would hurt the Blues, who I support but would be good for the national game. Although I can understand why some Crusaders fans might be against such a move where guys like Fruean, SBW, Thorn and the Whitelocks would be uprooted from their suburban Christchurch homes they have lived in since birth for 20 weeks a year.

This needs to happen as the game seeks to "expand". Look across a number of Super teams and there are tenuous links to the provincial bases than ever before.

Is the issue that it appears the Saders front office are more active in their recruiting strategies and are talking to the right people more often and making it public (or players managers making it public). At the end of the day when a player moves franchise it's the player (and Manager's) choice. Unless I'm oblivious to US style college recruitment antics ala UNLV in the 80s and 90s where the Saders are giving sweeteners on the side to entice, then why aren't other franchises being as active?

[FredDagg1979]

The Crusaders have G Whitelock, Read, McCaw, Thorn, Jack, Ross & S Whitelock. And in fringe loose forward players like Jonathan Poff, Nasi Manu and Ash Parker in the catchment.

Why exactly would they want to try and sign Adam Thomson? Unless they know that there is going to be a reason why Thorn, Read and McCaw aren't going to be participating much in the S15.........

[LAKiwi]

Is it Crusaders trying to sign him? Or Thompson trying to move. Those are completely different.

[reprobate]

Crucial said:

The main difference between the Crusaders situation and the Auckland of the 80's is that Auckland didn't suck in the best from far and wide to create their team. IIRC they may have had a couple of recruits but generally it was a case of a well run and coached union coinciding with good players and ideas that were ahead of their time. They were fitter than any other team around, for example.

i'm pretty sure there would have been a backline or two fielded in that great auckland era without a single aucklander in it, it would have been the 90s by then though so i suppose that doesn't count...

[Red Beard]

Canerbry said:

Mate sorry that read a bit harsh, was just trying to use your "Coro hippy" term again, and I know you are one of the more balanced posters on here...

THe truth is that we've just had two years of rebuilding at the Crusaders after the last lot of heavy cattle moved on, and all of a sudden the knockers are out again.

No offence taken! I think the Crusaders system is fantastic, dont get me wrong. I cant undertsand for the life of me how the other four franchises havent been able to replicate. Why havent the Chiefs fro example had one single All Black prop since Richard Loe in 1997? I dont think there is any magic formual to what the Crusaders have achieved. It seems to revolve come down to good people, excellent planning and hard work.

Its a shame seeing likes of Dagg or Thomson feel they need to move. Obviously they are class players and are frustrated by failure, but the other option would be for the NZRU to become more proactive here. The franchises arent privately owned yet so the NZRU should take more control over any poor operations. Maybe its time the NZRU got into the Highlanders board, kicked some arse and ensure every franchise is running as it should be.

I dont want to see five franchises or equal ability, that wouldnt be good for NZ rugby either (probably wouldnt win Super 15 then!). But I do want to see franchises develop over time and play to their potential. And in the cases of the Chiefs or Highlanders especially you couldnt say this is happening.

There has definitely been issues with bitterness betwen rival unions within franchises. Geographically its not an easy one to solve and the coaching staff need to be removed from any provinicval bias. But how is this possible without selecting outsiders as coaches? With a union like the Chiefs though is it better to have one central training or playing base or should the teams season be spread throughout five different locations.

Edited by ACT Crusader, 17 August 2010 - 12:28 PM.

[Crucial]

Jeez Canerbry you are thin skinned. I am not promoting a conspriracy theory about the Crusaders. It is a fact that they recruit good players from far and wide. I am not blaming them for doing so.

All I am arguing is whether or not it is a good thing for NZ rugby for one team (whoever they are) to potentially get too strong in comparison to others due to the policies of the NZRU allowing it to happen.

How about instead of shouting everyone down with accusations of wearing tin foil hats and being out to get your team, you take a moment to understand why some of us see a potential issue here for NZ rugby. It is not to weaken the Crusaders but to ensure that NZ rugby is not being weakened.

[Duluth]

Crucial said:

All I am arguing is whether or not it is a good thing for NZ rugby for one team (whoever they are) to potentially get too strong in comparison to others due to the policies of the NZRU allowing it to happen.

I don't think it will be a good thing for the players that don't start the majority of games

With the new franchise signing rules there will be plenty of movement in coming seasons.

How much game time is Adam Whitelock going to get with SBW and Fruean in the squad? Will G Whitelock be able to compete with Braid and Latimer if he plays at 6 and shares that position with Thomson? With four All Black locks how can they all get enough time to press their claims against Ali and Boric?

Over time I think players will look for game time elsewhere and this stock piling will be temporary. Already Payne has left and Slade is rumoured to be going as well.

My only concern is that the frustrated players sign offshore rather than for another NZ franchise.

[Canerbry]

Crucial said:

Jeez Canerbry you are thin skinned. I am not promoting a conspriracy theory about the Crusaders. It is a fact that they recruit good players from far and wide. I am not blaming them for doing so.

All I am arguing is whether or not it is a good thing for NZ rugby for one team (whoever they are) to potentially get too strong in comparison to others due to the policies of the NZRU allowing it to happen.

How about instead of shouting everyone down with accusations of wearing tin foil hats and being out to get your team, you take a moment to understand why some of us see a potential issue here for NZ rugby. It is not to weaken the Crusaders but to ensure that NZ rugby is not being weakened.

Not shouting anyone down mate, but you needed taking to task over some pretty far-out statements of "fact" - not least this idea that "policies of the NZRU" are the reason other franchises can't get their shit together, which is pretty much a text-book conspiracy theory. It's also complete rubbish. Looking forward to seeing any evidence that NZRU does anything for the Crusaders that it doesn't do for other teams.

How much say does the NZRU actually have in the management of the franchises? Looking at the evidence, I'd say pretty much none. The problem is that other franchises can't follow a pretty clear blueprint that has been proven to work: Get your back office in order; make the team an attractive place for the players you want; create a culture of winning rugby. You seem to be suggesting that this is Tew's fault.

I can see the "potential issue", which is still not an issue at this stage. Evidence of New Zealand Rugby being weakened? The All Blacks for example?

It may be time to modify an old adage:

"When Canterbury Rugby is strong, New Zealand Rugby is strong"

[mariner4life]

Have to say i am with Canerbry on this one. The Crusaders see a guy as good as Dagg, say "fuck, he would look alright at 15 for us, wonder if he's keen". Followed by "he is? sweet"

He plays for Hawkes Bay, in the Hurricanes catchment. Why hasn't someone from them rocked up to the guy and said "hey Izzie, i understand you are not too fussed at the 'landers, why don't you just stay in the region with us? You at the back, Cory and Gear on the wings, Snakey and Ma'a in the centres, young Cruden and Piri in the halves, that could be a title winning backline... what do you reckon?" In this day and age, with the way Super rugby operates, you need to show a bit of love. It appears the Crusaders are good at it, why fry them for it? If blokes are happy to sit on the bench for them rather than start somewhere else is says a lot more about the somewhere else than it does about Canterbury.

[matata_massive]

the hurricanes have fielded a lot of 'championship winning' backlines but as of yet havent won any...i dont blame dagg for going there even if he was approached by the canes management...

[the_doctor]

I think there are a number of issues at play here. One is that the new contracting rules are just coming into force, and this may even out over time, as Duluth said. However, with the increase in the length of the Super rugby season, franchises are going to need larger squads and better depth to remain competitive. This also allows for more time to be shared between players, so the likes of A Whitelock or Slade may decide to stay as backups to multiple positions, and getting lots of gametime, even if they aren't likely to be first choices in any position in the short term.

Secondly, the Canterbury/Crusaders integrated off-field approach has worked very well for these teams, but I think it is legitimate to ask whether there should be limits on how much freedom it should have to operate as it has in the past. The NZRU has a duty to rugby in NZ as a whole, and it might be in rugby's interests to limit the ability of unions/franchises to recruit from outside the immediate region. Maybe along the lines of limiting the number of All Blacks that can be acquired between seasons, or preventing unions contracting players from another region below a certain age.

The NZRU would have to balance such an approach by doing more to create better pathways in more areas. Would the Whitelocks have moved to Canterbury if they thought they had the same chance of becoming ABs by staying in Manawatu? The question is unanswerable I suppose, but that must have been part of their reasoning. And the problem for NZ rugby is that their success encourages others to move, undermining the structures elsewhere, creating cycle that can be hard to break.

Looking at the Highlanders, there have been significant off-field changes (new board, new coaches) over the last year, and a new stadium is being built. There should be optimism about the future, especially with the likes of Cowan, Mackintosh, Smith, Thompson, Donnelly and Dagg all becoming ABs from their performances in Dunedin over the last few years. But Dagg has left, and Thompson may join him. They didn't need to in terms of their careers, but their doing so may influence the others, as the team becomes weakened.

Is that in the best interests of NZ rugby? And if not, what can the NZRU do but put in place rules that limit the ability of the successful teams to pillage the lesser teams?

[Crucial]

Responses below

Canerbry said:

Not shouting anyone down mate, but you needed taking to task over some pretty far-out statements of "fact" - not least this idea that "policies of the NZRU" are the reason other franchises can't get their shit together, which is pretty much a text-book conspiracy theory. It's also complete rubbish. Looking forward to seeing any evidence that NZRU does anything for the Crusaders that it doesn't do for other teams. Where have I said that? All I am saying is that the NZRU have set the playing field and the way it is turning out is that one team is able to 'hoard' playing stocks. I reiterate that I don't blame the Crusaders, nor do I think there is a Cantab conspiracy at the NZRU. I simply think that the current environment could have some risks for NZ rugby overall and it is heading in that direction if we don't have the best players in each position getting regular game time.

How much say does the NZRU actually have in the management of the franchises? Looking at the evidence, I'd say pretty much none. The problem is that other franchises can't follow a pretty clear blueprint that has been proven to work: Get your back office in order; make the team an attractive place for the players you want; create a culture of winning rugby. You seem to be suggesting that this is Tew's fault. Not at all. I admire the Crusader's franchise set up and wish the others could get their shit together. You keep reading things that I am not writing.

I can see the "potential issue", which is still not an issue at this stage. Evidence of New Zealand Rugby being weakened? The All Blacks for example? Isn't it shortsighted to say that because we are strong at the moment that any possible consequences in the future can be discounted. An example of my argument is that for a period the best 10's (or potentially so) in the country were all at the one franchise. We currently have very little in the way of back up options for DC. Sure this is working itself out but was never ideal.

It may be time to modify an old adage:

"When Canterbury Rugby is strong, New Zealand Rugby is strong" Stolen from Auckland isn't it? Cantablacks anyone?

[Chris B.]

I think it's a good topic - an important one.

One thing we shouldn't forget, though - is that the Crusaders didn't win the S14 this year. Didn't even make the final, and only scraped into the semis. Largely, I think the main weakness was in the outside backs - Leon was badly missed, and Dagg should compensate for that. Sonny Bill should bolster the midfield, and Freuan should be better for a year's experience. That's good and necessary recruiting.

Excluding the Highlanders, last year I reckon the other NZ provinces all had superior backlines to the Crusaders - excluding the Carter factor. The real problems are in the forwards and, for some reason, Chiefs and Canes don't seem to produce/develop many world class tight forwards. Few and far between over the past 20 years - even Redbeard's Loe was a Cantab. Even when they do, they don't seem to be able to identify them and hold onto them - or maybe they just can't develop them? How has Canterbury managed to snaffle the Whitelocks and Kieran Read? Somerville was from Hawkes Bay. But these guys weren't superstars when poached.

Thompson would be a different kettle of fish - but, to be honest, I'm sceptical that he will come, I'm sceptical that it would be a good move for Thompson, and I'm sceptical that the Crusaders need him. If he does arrive, he'll have to push the Canterbury provincial captain (GW) out of the starting XV, and you can prettty much guarantee he'll get less game time than he would at the Highlanders. I'm also of the opinion that - although he's not quite at Thompson's level yet, Joe Wheeler soon will be - and he'll be better than Thompson in due course.

Future AB blindside - mark my words.