New Zealand Flyhalfs - are they really up to standard anymore?

 Brycy
I am not talking about the kicking at goal only - it was just an example.    It is the all-round game of the players concerned - which is much more problematic.  Cruden is the one player that really goes to pieces under pressure and Barrett is the same.   Carter against Scotland was way below par and against the Rebels he was even worse.  Cruden in the Wellington test last year was a joke and had to be replaced by Barrett halfway through the game.  At Ellis Park last year Barrett was bog ordinary - so it is not only the Super 15 matches that they went astray - it was in matches played over the last 6 months that they look ugly insofar as performances are concerned.
A way to go to find a successor to Carter - but Damian McKenzie may become the Pollard of New Zealand yet.  Problem is he is even physically smaller than Cruden and Barrett and he may yet find it hard to progress in future.   

 Duplication

 ...not so clever mike get back to me later in the season as it's early days yet and impossible to draw any conclusions based on a couple of games...not always going to plan for yr golden boys at standoff either ...but I think you'll find Cruden has a better success rate than anything SA has on offer when it comes to international rugby at almost 100 %...always very easy to be critical though...

 So Mike if Pollard has a bad game you gonna start bagging him, and forecasting his future is in doubt.  If the NZ 1st fives are consistently bad fair enough...but you seemed to have jumped the gun.

 brycy looking to the past to try and negate the potential of Pollard is a bit feeble. IMHO!

Boks fans seem to build players up only to tear them down. Let's see if Pollard hits a tough patch how people react.

 I always was a great admirer of Dan Carter when he was in his prime years.   However, those prime years have been gone for some time now as a result of injuries and advancing age - he is already 33 years old - the age factor being also the result of the battering his body took over the years.   He is not going through a bad patch - he is at present in a bad patch and likely to remain in one. 
The player that was always punted as his successor has really a mixed record.   Two years ago I would have said Cruden is definitely the one - now I have serious reservations.   Cruden can be brilliant - but he also have his negatives.  Lets put it bluntly - when Crudenn is good he can be very good, when he is poor, he can be very poor.   A mixed bag - but the problem is that Cruden has two negatives, namely -
*   he is not the best defender around; and*   he has over the past year shown that under pressure he tends to panic and not produce the best - in other words he tries to be brilliant and most of his eff/orts turn sour.
Whereas Carter was one of the best flyhalfs ever - Cruden is an average flyhalf on the international scene and not on par with a number of flyhalfs at oresent on the world scene.   I would not rate him higher than for instance George Ford of England.
Barrett is also the same mixed bag as Cruden is - the same characteristics as well.   He is even more frail in defense than Cruden.   And both are lottery tickets when it comes to goal kicking.   I read a recent article in the NZ Herald that basically indicates some reservations about both and expressing hope that Carter recovers his mojo and talks about Colin Slade as the only real alternative.
I think there is a problem - Carter set a standard which successors will never really achieved and where they cannot meet his standards.    This on its own cause problems for players like Cruden and Barrett - to a lesser extent for Slade, from whom is not expected too much.
I think that the player who might be the successor of Carter maym as well turn up to be Damien McKenzie.   If I was Hansen I would ask the Chiefs to give him more playing time and see h ow he develops.         

Cruden' s performance change your analysis Mike? 

 Let's be honest here, as much as I like Cruden and support him to be the AB's starting flyhalf he wasn't up against the most testing of flyhalves in Coleman and Catrakili s 

Shezza,  Cruden controlled and directed the Chiefs game well, on the day regardless of who the opposing 1st five was whether Pollard, Carter, Barrettt, Cruden would've had a great game.

Neither of the of the Stormers 10's put pressure on Cruden, he had free reign to do as he pleased, against better flyhalves he wouldn't have the time or space. Also you're forgetting how badly the Stormers kicked, it meant that the Chiefs could counter attack constantly with Cruden a main benefactor of this also.

 Shezza
The other problem for the Stormers was the defense and pressure-application of their two loosies - players who are supposed to defend strongly in the channel and put the flyhalf under pressure.   Carr made 11 tackle attempts in total - making 9 and missing 2, while Kolisi during the whole game made only 4 tackles.   Thirteen tackle attempts by both is about 60% of the number a player like Labuschagne makes in a single match.
The most important issue is that the two loosies virtually never put Cruden under pressure, giving him time and space to use.        

 polyboy
This thread started before the match on Saturday was played.  Cruden up to that stage was in poor form and the game on Saturday was an eye-opener and it needs to be sustained.   One good game could indicate an upward tendency - but if not repeated - could be misleading.   So lets hope he continues in the same vein as he did on Saturday.    

 Mike, Kolisi and Carr had decent games and playing out of position too. Stormers lost through poor kicking and poor defence on the wings, Van Wyk is too slow for his position and Leyds and Kolbe too weak. The only creativity came from De Allende and it's quite easy to defend when the opposition only has one threat coming from the backline. This was entirely a Chiefs win rather than a Stormers loss, good game to watch but Chiefs quality in the backline was too much for the Stormers to handle.

 Shezza
Kolisi and Carr had decent games - but they never put pressure on the opposition flyhalf or other players.   I know Carr has played consistently for WP at 6 and my impression always was that he was actually a number 6 loosie - so he was in the position where he routinely played in.   He was used as an 8 as well - but that never was his real position. 
Kolis is basically also a 6, but he is not the player he was when he burst on the scene originally and is nowadays mainly on the bench - not in the starting line-up of the Stormers.   They would only use him as a starter if players like Elstadt and Michael Rhodes are not available.
Finally my point is this - despite having had a decent game in some respects on Saturday - Kolisi and Carr was somewhat deficient in defense and never really applied pressure on Cruden  
     

 Carr's favoured position by far is 8, the way he plays is suited for a expansive team with the 8, 9 and 10 all linking up. He isn't a breakdown specialist even though he does try, sadly for him Vermeulen plays for the Stormers and Carr is too good not to start, he'll most likely play 8 when Duane has to be rested.

Shezza  
Be it as it may -  Carr may become the no 8 when Vermeulen leaves the Stormers, but as a flank both him and Kolisi has serious deficiencies as well and I am not surprised that they are routinely played as bench players - and only start when other lossies are not available.   
Their lack of pressure on Cruden cost the Stormers dearly this weekend.   Their tackle stats shows loosies with limited defensive ability - a serious defect in the case of loosies.   An opensider should be able to make upwards of 12 effective tackles - an blindsider upwards of 8 tackles per game.  For example Labuschagne is a blindsider and he averages 16 tackles per game played.   
The other problem with the two players are that they are not strong enough in breakdown ball protection and not usable in ball recovery as well.   So there is a serious problem for the Stormers insofar as their flank forwards are concerned - and it is not clear when that would change.  Rhodes's return will help - but that still leaves Carr as a starter.   Just not adequate if you ask me.