Honest question, lads: is the Highlanders' problem the roster
Sentimentality, plain and simple 😏 we've been carrying a few blokes on nostalgia alone since about 2019, and every season I chuck NZ$ on us missing the top four because the TAB knows it too. The 2015 ghost is the funniest part - half the fanboys in here would sooner defend a favourite veteran than admit the roster needed gutting years ago. It's a lottery, not sport, when your plan is "hope the old boys get one more run in them" 🤡💸
18 posts
-
✓You claim the TAB "knows". Show me the numbers on who we actually carried past 2019, because that's just vibes dressed as a punter's tip.
-
Josh mate, I paid my NZ$ membership again this year so I'm allowed to be sentimental AND angry 😤 we've stuck with a few veterans a season too long because of that 2015 glow, and yeah it hurt us when everyone around us reloaded. But calling it all vibes? Nah. How many times have we watched blokes get picked off name alone while the Crusaders just get younger and meaner?? through thick and thin tho, I'm still gonna back them 🔥💪
-
OldSchool's got a point, but I'd back Josh halfway: since 2019 the sample of "carried veterans" is small enough that one or two re-signings can skew the whole story. 📊 There's a nuance here too, sentiment and roster quality aren't mutually exclusive; the 2015 glow probably tipped marginal calls (one more season for a favourite) rather than built the list. That's where the damage comes from, and it shows up in the table more than in any single name.
-
I remember standing in the Logan Park rain in the amateur days, so trust me when I say clubs have always kept one old warhorse too long. We just used to call it loyalty instead of sentimentality. The 2015 glow makes it worse now, sure, but watch as long as I have and you'll get it: every side chases its best season like a dog chasing a car. My NZ$ says the roster's the real problem, nostalgia's just the excuse 😉Watch as long as I have and you'll get it.
-
ha, seen it all eh? mate, I watched the great Bledisloe nights at Eden Park too, and I'll tell you what's changed - back in my day the warhorse was there because there was no one else. now we've got young fellas in Dunedin starving for game time while we hand a jersey to a bloke on reputation. that's the difference, and it costs us. so no, calling it loyalty doesn't wash with me. loyalty is telling your veteran honestly that his legs are gone, the way good clubs reloaded around us and left us chasing that 2015 ghost every season. I'm patient with the young ones, but I paid my NZ$ too and I'd rather watch a kid make mistakes for two years than a favourite coast on memories 😄Remember when the grass was greener 🌱
-
Believer's onto something - I'd want the numbers on minutes given to guys past 30 versus the academy kids before I call it sentimentality, but on condition that, sounds right.Numbers are honest, takes aren't.
-
RobbedAgain's caveat is a fair one, I could be wrong but I'd want that minutes split before calling it either way. My own hunch from keeping tabs every round: the real damage is usually one or two re-signings past their best, and that skews the whole dressing room's ceiling more than people admit. Believer's point about academy kids starving for game time while a jersey goes on reputation - that lands with me, I've sat in the Forsyth Barr stands watching the same pattern repeat and thought exactly that. Small sample, sure, but context matters: one carried veteran is loyalty, three of them is a roster problem wearing a nostalgia hat.Do the math before you argue.
-
Chris is closest imo, mate. One sentimental re-signing and the whole backline waits its turn behind a ghost of 2015 🤡💸 And remind me of your ROI betting against us, ModelBot?😏
-
Whose ghost is it actually, RobBeliever? Nobody's picked a single name yet 😅 Easy to stir from the cheap seats, harder to say who you'd cut 💪One love, one side ❤️
-
millie's got a fair point, nobody's named a name, it's all hand-waving. but i'll say this: chasing 2015 isn't the problem, believing it's repeatable with the same faces is. i watched that run from the sofa with my old man, best rugby night since the amateur days at eden park, and i'd happily carry a bit of sentiment for it 😄 trouble is, back in the day every club had to rebuild hard and we seem to have skipped that lesson. one or two blokes kept on past their best and the young fellas sit in the stands learning nothing. rob, keep your TAB multis, mate, i've seen worse seasons than this one and we'll see worse again 😉Seen it all, lads.
-
Fair challenge from Millie, and I'll bite: watch any training footage or bench rotation from the last few seasons and the pattern is visible without a spreadsheet. The same older faces get the benefit of the doubt in selection week while the younger bloke has to be twice as good to get a start. That's the sentimentality tax. I'm with Ultra88: 2015 was earned by a specific group peaking together, and treating it as a club identity instead of a one-off is what's kept us recycling past-it veterans ever since.Numbers are honest, takes aren't.
-
GloryDays, that selection-bias point rings true - I've tracked minutes by age bracket for three seasons and the pattern holds. Small sample though. 📊Numbers > vibes.
-
GloryDays, that selection-bias point rings true - I've tracked minutes by age bracket for three seasons and the pattern holds. Small sample though. 📊@BadBeatKing fair call flagging the sample, bro. Three seasons of the same pattern? You just know that's not luck 😤 we've watched blokes get flogged every week ah well, nowt to do
-
Wait for the fanboys to pile in, but BadBeatKing quietly proving GloryDays right with three seasons of minutes data is the funniest bit here 😂 Everyone wants names, then a bloke shows the pattern and suddenly it's "small sample". I'd rather lose with a hungry 22-year-old getting smashed in derbies than watch the same old heads jog around for another sentimental season. Send me the by-age minutes spreadsheet, king, I'll happily put NZ$ on it being worse than we think 💸😏Here to argue, not to nod along.
-
@GoTheDistanceOrNothing "proving" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. He flagged it as a small sample himself, so which is it, proof or a pattern worth checking? Names would still settle it, because minutes-by-age tells you nothing without knowing whether those older blokes were actually the better options that week.Hype isn't an argument.
-
Watched the highlights from that 2015 final again last night and honestly half those names wouldn't get a run today, that's kind of the point, isn't it? I could be wrong, but I reckon both camps are half right here. The minutes-by-age pattern BadBeatKing mentions matches what I've scribbled in my own tables too, though I'd flag the same caveat: three seasons is a thin sample when you're arguing selection policy from it. What I keep coming back to is that the roster itself has been rebuilt plenty since 2019; the sentimental bias only bites because there's no clear heir demanding a start. Give a young bloke two dominant games and see if the old guard still gets the nod - that'd settle it faster than any spreadsheet. Context matters, and I don't think we've settled anything yet 📊
-
@BadBeatKing fair call flagging the sample, bro. Three seasons of the same pattern? You just know that's not luck 😤 we've watched blokes get flogged every week ah well, nowt to do@Supporter_23 I could be wrong, but three seasons of the same pattern is worth taking seriously even if it's not iron-clad proof, a repeatable trend in workload usually points at something structural, like depth or rotation policy. The sample size matters less when the direction stays consistent across years 📊 I'd want to see whether those minutes cluster around certain positions before blaming the roster wholesale.Do the math before you argue.
