RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Spiffy wrote:

Banquo wrote: I tend to agree, but the passing, despite improving a lot, still isn't what I'd ideally want in a top 10. I'm not totally convinced on big match temperament, or rather temperament generally. He's had a great opportunity to learn, and is a lucky lad imo- but he does look now to be worthy of being in the EPS, cos he wasn't a while ago. I still think Ford, Burns, Cipriani are superior talents, despite evidence

I agree that, at their best, they are superior talents. The coach may see Farrell as rather more consistent and hard nosed. He has not displaced Ford, but rather has been shunted to 12 to get him into the team, so Jones clearly likes him. There are certainly better 10s and 12s in England.

Sort of player a coach likes, works hard, gets stuck in, follows instructions. I normally have a lot of time for players like this.

I R Geech wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Doesn't help when you lose your SH after 14(?) mins and only have 45 injured mins of your FH but yes, they were poor. It was a standard Sarries performance - plenty to admire but hard to like. Against a lesser team (or maybe on a less important occasion) they'd have become more expansive as they oppo tired/gave up. As it was it was 80 dull minutes.

Yep, well done, totally deserved, very effective etc., but that, and the Montpellier result, feels like a vindication of dull, negative rugby. Deeply unattractive rugby, played by deeply unimaginative teams coming good in the long run. Rather depressing really and hard to get excited about. Sport is part of the entertainment industry after all...

Spiffy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Spiffy wrote:
I agree that, at their best, they are superior talents. The coach may see Farrell as rather more consistent and hard nosed. He has not displaced Ford, but rather has been shunted to 12 to get him into the team, so Jones clearly likes him. There are certainly better 10s and 12s in England.

Sort of player a coach likes, works hard, gets stuck in, follows instructions. I normally have a lot of time for players like this.

Jack Nowell ?

Puja wrote:

I R Geech wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Doesn't help when you lose your SH after 14(?) mins and only have 45 injured mins of your FH but yes, they were poor. It was a standard Sarries performance - plenty to admire but hard to like. Against a lesser team (or maybe on a less important occasion) they'd have become more expansive as they oppo tired/gave up. As it was it was 80 dull minutes.

Yep, well done, totally deserved, very effective etc., but that, and the Montpellier result, feels like a vindication of dull, negative rugby. Deeply unattractive rugby, played by deeply unimaginative teams coming good in the long run. Rather depressing really and hard to get excited about. Sport is part of the entertainment industry after all...

Harsh on Sarries. They have played some very good rugby this season and do have a lot more to their game - they just took one look at the weather and Racing's pack and picked a game plan suited to both.

Puja

Len wrote:

morepork wrote:

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:I know it wont happen but I'd love to see Sarries play against the NZ Super Rugby sides to just see how good they are. Well played to them yesterday, wasn't the most exciting game at times but they did what they had to do to win.

They remind me of the SA teams under White. Not spectacular, but tough. Hard to break down. You'd need an opposition team that has a cool headed 10 to keep them in the wrong half of the field. Plus a well drilled back row that doesn't give away penalties. The good NZ domestic sides have a 9-10 axis that is very heads up. They just strangled Racing yesterday, who really failed to fire a single shot. The Saracens forward just forced them to commit everything to just hanging onto the ball. Masoe was a one man show at the breakdown, and when they did start punching in, poor old Mike Philips just forced Racing into kick and hope. The Racing fullback was keen but just got no change on the ball he secured. Two teams with no threat in the centres.

Mike Phillips is so average. Carter must hate life going from Smith to that.

morepork wrote:

Len wrote:

morepork wrote:

They remind me of the SA teams under White. Not spectacular, but tough. Hard to break down. You'd need an opposition team that has a cool headed 10 to keep them in the wrong half of the field. Plus a well drilled back row that doesn't give away penalties. The good NZ domestic sides have a 9-10 axis that is very heads up. They just strangled Racing yesterday, who really failed to fire a single shot. The Saracens forward just forced them to commit everything to just hanging onto the ball. Masoe was a one man show at the breakdown, and when they did start punching in, poor old Mike Philips just forced Racing into kick and hope. The Racing fullback was keen but just got no change on the ball he secured. Two teams with no threat in the centres.

Mike Phillips is so average. Carter must hate life going from Smith to that.

He kiled everything with his snail decision making. To be fair but, the rest of his team just stood there with their dicks in their hands.

p/d wrote:

Puja wrote:

I R Geech wrote: Yep, well done, totally deserved, very effective etc., but that, and the Montpellier result, feels like a vindication of dull, negative rugby. Deeply unattractive rugby, played by deeply unimaginative teams coming good in the long run. Rather depressing really and hard to get excited about. Sport is part of the entertainment industry after all...

Harsh on Sarries. They have played some very good rugby this season and do have a lot more to their game - they just took one look at the weather and Racing's pack and picked a game plan suited to both.

Puja

Bang on Puja.

Think many give Sarries a hard time, unfairly so. A very mobile ball carrying pack, massive in defence with a back three always looking to attack.

Perhaps putting winning before entertaining doesn't suit all but I assume Sarries supporters aren't complaining nor, as a non Saracens fan, am I about Saturday's result.

Mellsblue wrote:Doesn't help when you lose your SH after 14(?) mins and only have 45 injured mins of your FH but yes, they were poor. It was a standard Sarries performance - plenty to admire but hard to like. Against a lesser team (or maybe on a less important occasion) they'd have become more expansive as they oppo tired/gave up. As it was it was 80 dull minutes.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Doesn't help when you lose your SH after 14(?) mins and only have 45 injured mins of your FH but yes, they were poor. It was a standard Sarries performance - plenty to admire but hard to like. Against a lesser team (or maybe on a less important occasion) they'd have become more expansive as they oppo tired/gave up. As it was it was 80 dull minutes.

I've only seen the game live but it seemed to me that it completely changed when Machenaud went off.

The narrative that some seem yet again to have bought into (and I thought we were past this after the RWC) is that winning rugby has to be the sort of rugby which is defence driven and kicks the ball away at every opportunity. It's a false choice.

Spiffy wrote:

morepork wrote:

Len wrote:
Mike Phillips is so average. Carter must hate life going from Smith to that.

He kiled everything with his snail decision making. To be fair but, the rest of his team just stood there with their dicks in their hands.

Mike Phillips is off to Sale next season. Can't see that he has much to offer them at this stage of his career.He's lost all his zip.

Len wrote:

Spiffy wrote:

morepork wrote:

He kiled everything with his snail decision making. To be fair but, the rest of his team just stood there with their dicks in their hands.

Mike Phillips is off to Sale next season. Can't see that he has much to offer them at this stage of his career.He's lost all his zip.

Hes done some good things for Wales, scored some crucial tries. But I've never been impressed by his general SH play. Too slow and his passing isn't that great. He runs out from rucks too much too.

Sale would have been better off scoring a young kiwi halfback stuck behind Smith and the others. Andy Ellis has announced his last season for the Crusaders too so he'll be off to Europe/Japan. Dare I say he might have been a better signing too.

Mellsblue wrote:

Len wrote:

Spiffy wrote:
Mike Phillips is off to Sale next season. Can't see that he has much to offer them at this stage of his career.He's lost all his zip.

Hes done some good things for Wales, scored some crucial tries. But I've never been impressed by his general SH play. Too slow and his passing isn't that great. He runs out from rucks too much too.

Sale would have been better off scoring a young kiwi halfback stuck behind Smith and the others. Andy Ellis has announced his last season for the Crusaders too so he'll be off to Europe/Japan. Dare I say he might have been a better signing too.

Depends how they want to play. Stringer for fast and wide, and Phillips for up the jumper. He'll be of some use on a wet winters Friday night.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Len wrote:
Hes done some good things for Wales, scored some crucial tries. But I've never been impressed by his general SH play. Too slow and his passing isn't that great. He runs out from rucks too much too.

Sale would have been better off scoring a young kiwi halfback stuck behind Smith and the others. Andy Ellis has announced his last season for the Crusaders too so he'll be off to Europe/Japan. Dare I say he might have been a better signing too.

Depends how they want to play. Stringer for fast and wide, and Phillips for up the jumper. He'll be of some use on a wet winters Friday night.

The jumper, or Phillips?

Mikey Brown wrote:Do we think Stringer will ever actually retire? I can see him going until he's at least 50.

Mikey Brown wrote:Do we think Stringer will ever actually retire? I can see him going until he's at least 50.

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Doesn't help when you lose your SH after 14(?) mins and only have 45 injured mins of your FH but yes, they were poor. It was a standard Sarries performance - plenty to admire but hard to like. Against a lesser team (or maybe on a less important occasion) they'd have become more expansive as they oppo tired/gave up. As it was it was 80 dull minutes.

I've only seen the game live but it seemed to me that it completely changed when Machenaud went off.

The narrative that some seem yet again to have bought into (and I thought we were past this after the RWC) is that winning rugby has to be the sort of rugby which is defence driven and kicks the ball away at every opportunity. It's a false choice.

Its a choice for sure. But why 'false'? You can win rugby games in a number of ways, the best sides do. To me, you take the field to win- normally in the style which suits the team you have, the oppos you are against, and adapting (eg to conditions, oppo tactics, own form on the day) as you go. Sure as a neutral I'd rather watch some of the best Super rugby for the thrill of some of the running and handling, but can derive a deal of pleasure from watching a tight tactical contest. It wasn't a great game on Saturday, but it was compelling for me. I guess its quite subjective as to what entertains- but its not an audience of one, or one mindset.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I've only seen the game live but it seemed to me that it completely changed when Machenaud went off.

The narrative that some seem yet again to have bought into (and I thought we were past this after the RWC) is that winning rugby has to be the sort of rugby which is defence driven and kicks the ball away at every opportunity. It's a false choice.

Its a choice for sure. But why 'false'? You can win rugby games in a number of ways, the best sides do. To me, you take the field to win- normally in the style which suits the team you have, the oppos you are against, and adapting (eg to conditions, oppo tactics, own form on the day) as you go. Sure as a neutral I'd rather watch some of the best Super rugby for the thrill of some of the running and handling, but can derive a deal of pleasure from watching a tight tactical contest. It wasn't a great game on Saturday, but it was compelling for me. I guess its quite subjective as to what entertains- but its not an audience of one, or one mindset.

It's presented as a choice between winning or playing vaguely attractive rugby. It is not.

Mellsblue wrote:
Depends how they want to play. Stringer for fast and wide, and Phillips for up the jumper. He'll be of some use on a wet winters Friday night.

Banquo wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Banquo wrote:
Its a choice for sure. But why 'false'? You can win rugby games in a number of ways, the best sides do. To me, you take the field to win- normally in the style which suits the team you have, the oppos you are against, and adapting (eg to conditions, oppo tactics, own form on the day) as you go. Sure as a neutral I'd rather watch some of the best Super rugby for the thrill of some of the running and handling, but can derive a deal of pleasure from watching a tight tactical contest. It wasn't a great game on Saturday, but it was compelling for me. I guess its quite subjective as to what entertains- but its not an audience of one, or one mindset.

It's presented as a choice between winning or playing vaguely attractive rugby. It is not.

I'm not sure I've read that, really. And even then, vaguely attractive is in the eye of the beholder, surely?