RugbyRebels

Spiffy wrote:So.... Ummm, arrrrh... Youngs ?
After you Digby and Puja.

Yep. Two comparatively good games and then that. I just don’t see how it can be worth it.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Spiffy wrote:So.... Ummm, arrrrh... Youngs ?
After you Digby and Puja.

Yep. Two comparatively good games and then that. I just don’t see how it can be worth it.

Could have done with your belligerence today Mikey

Yup, I thought so too.

Spiffy wrote:So.... Ummm, arrrrh... Youngs ?
After you Digby and Puja.

He was poor, very poor, behind a pack getting the shit kicked out of it, essentially he was this week's Aaron Smith

Spiffy wrote:So.... Ummm, arrrrh... Youngs ?
After you Digby and Puja.

Hey I never said he was good, just that he wasn't given credit for the good things that he did. Helpfully, he solved that problem today by not doing any of them.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Spiffy wrote:So.... Ummm, arrrrh... Youngs ?
After you Digby and Puja.

Hey I never said he was good, just that he wasn't given credit for the good things that he did. Helpfully, he solved that problem today by not doing any of them.

Puja

Nobody was good today, maybe Tuilagi, Watson and May get marked as not poor, the rest, well it wasn't good

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Spiffy wrote:So.... Ummm, arrrrh... Youngs ?
After you Digby and Puja.

Hey I never said he was good, just that he wasn't given credit for the good things that he did. Helpfully, he solved that problem today by not doing any of them.

Puja

Nobody was good today, maybe Tuilagi, Watson and May get marked as not poor, the rest, well it wasn't good

It’s the usual approach of looking at a player in isolation whose role is almost entirely not driven by isolated actions, but moreover dependent on others. Or laziness as it is otherwise known.

Similar to blaming a 10 behind a defeated pack.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
Hey I never said he was good, just that he wasn't given credit for the good things that he did. Helpfully, he solved that problem today by not doing any of them.

Puja

Nobody was good today, maybe Tuilagi, Watson and May get marked as not poor, the rest, well it wasn't good

It’s the usual approach of looking at a player in isolation whose role is almost entirely not driven by isolated actions, but moreover dependent on others. Or laziness as it is otherwise known.

Similar to blaming a 10 behind a defeated pack.

Not sure that I can decipher that, but are you saying that Youngs was crap only because he was playing behind a beaten pack?
If so, I would not agree. I'd say he was just plain sloppy. The humping of his pack did not help his cause, but he had several howlers, many unforced, and did not look like an international-level SH. A top player should be capable of a fairly consistent level of performance, within reason, even when on the back foot. Hard to see that Youngs is the best SH in England.