RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

twitchy wrote:Hansen saying they are going to target our line out.

Picks a lock at 6 and then drops the bombshell that they're going to target our lineout? Truly, he is a master of subterfuge.

I'm hoping Borthwick's kept the powder dry on some lineout moves. He was the man that ran the Japanese lineout in the first South Africa game, so he's got form in getting results against a physically taller lineout.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:Lawcurtoje will cope

Which, what have you done?

Puja

Mellsblue wrote: I think I remember you coming out during that horrible discussion we had about whether to ‘allow’ gay players to shower with straight players. There was one bloke who was convinced that he was so desirable that any gay man seeing him naked in a shower would find it impossible to not throw themselves at him. On the plus side, he was roundly condoned. On the negative side, you then felt free to tell us about your worrying crush on Geoff Parling. Not Lewsey, Cohen or Slade but Geoff ‘Santa’s tallest helper’ Parling. I think we were all happy when he retired, and it have nothing to do with his performances on the field.

Mikey Brown wrote:Do you recall what he was like in his initial run at 15 for Wasps a few years back?

I remember being very impressed with the regular searing breaks but not paying much attention to the areas he's now falling down a bit as an international 15. Maybe it was more that he was young and promising than actually looking the part as a fullback.

I'd call him a brave defender but I've never been particularly impressed with his actual tackling. He seemed to just innately understand his defensive positioning on the wing, which is so much of the job, but I never felt like that with him at centre.

Banquo wrote:

TheDasher wrote:

Banquo wrote: The stick Daly gets for his defence at 15 would be as nothing compared to what he'd get at 13.

I think we've done this a few times before, you and I. Daly at 13 for Wasps was mostly excellent.

Mostly missing a couple of tackles a game at 13. I really like him as a player, notably wing, but his defence was not top notch at 13- which is why we have done this before. Why would I have changed my view, since he has hardly played there since last debated?

Puja wrote:

TheDasher wrote:

Puja wrote:
Really? I remember it being his major weakness.

Puja

You honestly think his defence at 13 for Wasps over the many years he played there was as bad as it has been for England at 15?

That's somewhat sideways to the original proposition. I don't think his defence at 13 is as bad as it is at 15, but that a) is a bar set so low you could trip over it and b) doesn't make his defence at 13 suitable for an international team.

Puja

Digby wrote:That is how Daly tries to defend though, by not letting people run an outside arc so he can make a cover tackle. Which sometimes works for him at 13 and 15, but sometimes when he gets squared up is an issue. And logic says there would be more instances of getting squared up at 13 than 15. So to complain about his defence at 15 and then advocate he should play 13 is an example of someone not agreeing with themself

TheDasher wrote:

Digby wrote:That is how Daly tries to defend though, by not letting people run an outside arc so he can make a cover tackle. Which sometimes works for him at 13 and 15, but sometimes when he gets squared up is an issue. And logic says there would be more instances of getting squared up at 13 than 15. So to complain about his defence at 15 and then advocate he should play 13 is an example of someone not agreeing with themself

I completely disagree. At 15, he struggles with his defensive decision making, he's got to track and engage the runner who is often in acres of space and he get's it wrong. Defending at 13 isn't like that generally. But this is painful so I'll just say it, he's also a shit defender at 13. There we are.

Scrumhead wrote:Exactly my thoughts. We know he is a weak defender who’s not much cop under a high ball, but he can be great joining the attack.

The latter only outweighs the former if he’s actively involved in attack.

TheDasher wrote:

Digby wrote:That is how Daly tries to defend though, by not letting people run an outside arc so he can make a cover tackle. Which sometimes works for him at 13 and 15, but sometimes when he gets squared up is an issue. And logic says there would be more instances of getting squared up at 13 than 15. So to complain about his defence at 15 and then advocate he should play 13 is an example of someone not agreeing with themself

I completely disagree. At 15, he struggles with his defensive decision making, he's got to track and engage the runner who is often in acres of space and he get's it wrong. Defending at 13 isn't like that generally. But this is painful so I'll just say it, he's also a shit defender at 13. There we are.

Oakboy wrote:I only know that I never feel comfortable with our defence when 10/12/13 is Ford/Farrell/Tuilagi.

Oakboy wrote:In today's DT, Healey preaches the Banquoism that defending the OC channel is the hardest area. I only know that I never feel comfortable with our defence when 10/12/13 is Ford/Farrell/Tuilagi.

I have fewer issues with Daly at 15 even though I'd not pick him there. It seems to me that he does his defensive job adequately most of the time IF he has not been hung out to dry by team-mates in front of him.

Adam_P wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Saw that the other day. One of the top comments was "at a loss of only 20 metres per tackle."

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
If we can engineer it so Barrett catches a high-ball with Lawes and Underhill coming at him from either side then we might be good. Seems pretty risky if not.

Our kicks are well-chased on far too few occasions. If, if, if the two Fs are as good at kicking as is claimed then the opposition FB is often gifted the ball unchallenged as a matter of policy. I think that is mega-risky if the FB is Barrett and the opposition is as good in attack as NZ.

The ‘tactic’ obviously comes with the caveat of the kick being a contested up and under rather than a kick for territory.