1st Test Ratings
Moderator: Puja
- Mellsblue
- Posts: 14561
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: 1st Test Ratings
As two of our best players I’ve always thought of them as nailed on starters. I’m all for keeping the more dynamic player on the bench if it’s a 50/50 call but if a player is clearly superior to their rival for the shirt, which the Vunipolas are, then you start them regardless.
-
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:25 pm
Re: 1st Test Ratings
When at their best best I agree. Mako looks tired but that's not unusual and he was immense in the final so maybe just a coaching issue. Billy owes us a big one as he was anonymous last week and needs a bit of form. I'd happily play them of the bench with a 20-30 minutes plan to cause mayhem. Without Genge and Hepburn it's irrelevant as I've no idea what form Marlers in other than quins are shit.
- Stom
- Posts: 5839
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am
Re: 1st Test Ratings
lol.pandion wrote:When at their best best I agree. Mako looks tired but that's not unusual and he was immense in the final so maybe just a coaching issue. Billy owes us a big one as he was anonymous last week and needs a bit of form. I'd happily play them of the bench with a 20-30 minutes plan to cause mayhem. Without Genge and Hepburn it's irrelevant as I've no idea what form Marlers in other than quins are shit.
-
- Posts: 19131
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: 1st Test Ratings
slightly at odds with 'always tended to think mako and billy are better impact subs'pandion wrote:When at their best best I agree. Mako looks tired but that's not unusual and he was immense in the final so maybe just a coaching issue. Billy owes us a big one as he was anonymous last week and needs a bit of form. I'd happily play them of the bench with a 20-30 minutes plan to cause mayhem. Without Genge and Hepburn it's irrelevant as I've no idea what form Marlers in other than quins are shit.
-
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:25 pm
Re: 1st Test Ratings
Not really. I don't think either are 80 minute players so it's when their most effective. I feel the same about Sink, his workrate over set peice is more damaging late on.Banquo wrote:slightly at odds with 'always tended to think mako and billy are better impact subs'pandion wrote:When at their best best I agree. Mako looks tired but that's not unusual and he was immense in the final so maybe just a coaching issue. Billy owes us a big one as he was anonymous last week and needs a bit of form. I'd happily play them of the bench with a 20-30 minutes plan to cause mayhem. Without Genge and Hepburn it's irrelevant as I've no idea what form Marlers in other than quins are shit.
-
- Posts: 19131
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: 1st Test Ratings
You agreed that at their best they are nailed on starters, perhaps you didn't mean to. Not many forwards are 80 minuters these days, virtually no props, and Billy needs to do the damage up front in a game.pandion wrote:Not really. I don't think either are 80 minute players so it's when their most effective. I feel the same about Sink, his workrate over set peice is more damaging late on.Banquo wrote:slightly at odds with 'always tended to think mako and billy are better impact subs'pandion wrote:When at their best best I agree. Mako looks tired but that's not unusual and he was immense in the final so maybe just a coaching issue. Billy owes us a big one as he was anonymous last week and needs a bit of form. I'd happily play them of the bench with a 20-30 minutes plan to cause mayhem. Without Genge and Hepburn it's irrelevant as I've no idea what form Marlers in other than quins are shit.
-
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:25 pm
Re: 1st Test Ratings
Yeah I'd bring him on at fullback with 20mins leftBanquo wrote:You agreed that at their best they are nailed on starters, perhaps you didn't mean to. Not many forwards are 80 minuters these days, virtually no props, and Billy needs to do the damage up front in a game.pandion wrote:Not really. I don't think either are 80 minute players so it's when their most effective. I feel the same about Sink, his workrate over set peice is more damaging late on.Banquo wrote: slightly at odds with 'always tended to think mako and billy are better impact subs'

-
- Posts: 19131
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: 1st Test Ratings
I'm assuming you did actually know what I meant.pandion wrote:Yeah I'd bring him on at fullback with 20mins leftBanquo wrote:You agreed that at their best they are nailed on starters, perhaps you didn't mean to. Not many forwards are 80 minuters these days, virtually no props, and Billy needs to do the damage up front in a game.pandion wrote: Not really. I don't think either are 80 minute players so it's when their most effective. I feel the same about Sink, his workrate over set peice is more damaging late on.
-
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:25 pm
Re: 1st Test Ratings
So am i. I guess we can both interpret things literallyBanquo wrote:I'm assuming you did actually know what I meant.pandion wrote:Yeah I'd bring him on at fullback with 20mins leftBanquo wrote: You agreed that at their best they are nailed on starters, perhaps you didn't mean to. Not many forwards are 80 minuters these days, virtually no props, and Billy needs to do the damage up front in a game.

-
- Posts: 19131
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: 1st Test Ratings
Well you made a statement that you directly contradicted- not sure that's interpretation really.pandion wrote:So am i. I guess we can both interpret things literallyBanquo wrote:I'm assuming you did actually know what I meant.pandion wrote: Yeah I'd bring him on at fullback with 20mins left
-
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:25 pm
Re: 1st Test Ratings
Yeah and explained why and my reasoning but you crack on mate.Banquo wrote:Well you made a statement that you directly contradicted- not sure that's interpretation really.pandion wrote:So am i. I guess we can both interpret things literallyBanquo wrote: I'm assuming you did actually know what I meant.
-
- Posts: 12142
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: 1st Test Ratings
I’m giving this thread a 3.
-
- Posts: 12142
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: 1st Test Ratings
Out of 10, to be clear.
-
- Posts: 19131
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: 1st Test Ratings
will do.pandion wrote:Yeah and explained why and my reasoning but you crack on mate.Banquo wrote:Well you made a statement that you directly contradicted- not sure that's interpretation really.pandion wrote: So am i. I guess we can both interpret things literally
- Stom
- Posts: 5839
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:57 am
Re: 1st Test Ratings
Nah. This is a definite 4/7.Mikey Brown wrote:Out of 10, to be clear.
-
- Posts: 19131
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: 1st Test Ratings
6.5Stom wrote:Nah. This is a definite 4/7.Mikey Brown wrote:Out of 10, to be clear.
- Mellsblue
- Posts: 14561
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: 1st Test Ratings
Sooooo last year. It’s all about 5.5’s now.Banquo wrote:6.5Stom wrote:Nah. This is a definite 4/7.Mikey Brown wrote:Out of 10, to be clear.
-
- Posts: 19131
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: 1st Test Ratings
and 12.5'sMellsblue wrote:Sooooo last year. It’s all about 5.5’s now.Banquo wrote:6.5Stom wrote:
Nah. This is a definite 4/7.
and (11+15)/2 = 13's
-
- Posts: 12142
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: 1st Test Ratings
Is that why Wasps have been playing him there all this time? Caught between wing and fullback?