Timbo wrote:
Can’t say I have much time for Racing’s style personally. Very little organisation, structure, patience or discipline. They basically operate in attack to Finn Russell’s whims and individual talent.
A rather unfair comment. A side doesn’t get to be one of the favourites to be Top14 champions without a bit of organisation etc.
I was referring mainly to their attack. They clearly put a lot of work into their set piece and defence.
I think this is really unfair about Exeter though, so swings and roundabouts; “limited...ugly, unimaginative, pick-and-go grind“.
Oakboy wrote:I'm not usually impressed by McGeechan's writing but I thought he summed up yesterday's game well. In particular, he praised Exeter's ability to think on the hoof and find ways to stay ahead in the game despite Racing presenting problems that they had never had to deal with before.
As for criticism of their style, I find them far more pleasing to watch than Saracens. Maybe, some watch individuals more than teams? I think Exeter are the English game's best team unit since Leicester in their heyday.
Regarding development, I find it curious that some doubt Baxter. Has there ever been a Head Coach/DOR who made better steady development progress over a long period? I expect him to quietly go about his business, make a few important signings (players or coaches) and carry on improving. If any other clubs can match or better Exeter it bodes well for our game.
I enjoy many styles, but substance is what counts.
I suppose it depends why you watch. I watch all rugby other than matches involving Eng and Bedford to be entertained. Even when watching Bedford I lean more towards them keeping their expansive style and losing a handful more games than if they kept it tight. That might be a product of no realistic chance of promotion, though.
I can certainly understand your viewpoint, though.
I think you’ve slightly misunderstood what I mean by substance.
Timbo wrote:
Can’t say I have much time for Racing’s style personally. Very little organisation, structure, patience or discipline. They basically operate in attack to Finn Russell’s whims and individual talent.
A rather unfair comment. A side doesn’t get to be one of the favourites to be Top14 champions without a bit of organisation etc.
I was referring mainly to their attack. They clearly put a lot of work into their set piece and defence.
I think this is really unfair about Exeter though, so swings and roundabouts; “limited...ugly, unimaginative, pick-and-go grind“.
I don’t deny it’s effectiveness. Knowing what’s coming is one thing and stopping it is another thing entirely.
I don’t think my comment was that inaccurate or that harsh TBH.
As I said before, they have the talent to open up a bit more and I’d like to see more of that. It’s not so much a criticism, more and observation that there should be more to their game than we saw yesterday.
I really enjoy a lot of their back play. Maybe the fact we saw 20 phases of it repelled by Racing says something about the quality of it but I thought that was just fantastic defence.
The way they use Slade taking it right to the line in the centre of the pitch and always finds a good forward option is something I'd love to see England borrow. I just find the way they use their backs fascinating and I'd take the long range tries they score over a few more backs finishing from close out.
One area where I might take issue on the 'attractiveness' scale is kicking v multi-phase. I find constant box-kicking, up-and-unders, penalty touch kicks and kicking at goal the least attractive aspects of rugby. Kick-passes, little chips over defenders, grubbers and kicks from open play to bounce into touch I appreciate. Overall, I prefer Exeter's attitude to kicking than most other clubs'. Their multi-phase stuff does not bother me in terms of 'spectacle'.
Mikey Brown wrote:I really enjoy a lot of their back play. Maybe the fact we saw 20 phases of it repelled by Racing says something about the quality of it but I thought that was just fantastic defence.
The way they use Slade taking it right to the line in the centre of the pitch and always finds a good forward option is something I'd love to see England borrow. I just find the way they use their backs fascinating and I'd take the long range tries they score over a few more backs finishing from close out.
Absolutely. I thought it was a really gripping game. I also thought exe's scrum did well up against some monster front rowers.
Banquo wrote:
I enjoy many styles, but substance is what counts.
I suppose it depends why you watch. I watch all rugby other than matches involving Eng and Bedford to be entertained. Even when watching Bedford I lean more towards them keeping their expansive style and losing a handful more games than if they kept it tight. That might be a product of no realistic chance of promotion, though.
I can certainly understand your viewpoint, though.
I think you’ve slightly misunderstood what I mean by substance.
Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve taken a sub stance.
Mikey Brown wrote:I really enjoy a lot of their back play. Maybe the fact we saw 20 phases of it repelled by Racing says something about the quality of it but I thought that was just fantastic defence.
The way they use Slade taking it right to the line in the centre of the pitch and always finds a good forward option is something I'd love to see England borrow. I just find the way they use their backs fascinating and I'd take the long range tries they score over a few more backs finishing from close out.
Absolutely. I thought it was a really gripping game. I also thought exe's scrum did well up against some monster front rowers.
Having spent a bit of time panning him, I thought Williams showed up very well. Although he was definitely the player at fault for Imhoff's try - I don't know why the commentators picked on Hill, as he was second man out and needed to cover the pass outside, whereas Williams was the guard and needed to hit the half whether he passed or not.
Yep, Williams badly at fault for the Imhoff try. That aside, he was very good yesterday.
O'Flaherty didnt cover himself in glory in defence yesterday. He was out of position for 2 of Racing's tries. Not a game to remember for a player i've liked the look of. Some work to do on defence it seems.
Williams and Hill were both at fault, they either both push or both stay. You can't just expect the guard, Williams, to cover pace from 9, actually you shouldn't expect that or any player in the guard role and certainly not one with no pace.
But we saw over and over Exeter not sure how to cope with the options Racing presented. Which in some ways is interesting because they tried to read the game, which is different to those sides who'd go from blitz everything to blitz everything faster.
Digby wrote:Williams and Hill were both at fault, they either both push or both stay. You can't just expect the guard, Williams, to cover pace from 9, actually you shouldn't expect that or any player in the guard role and certainly not one with no pace.
But we saw over and over Exeter not sure how to cope with the options Racing presented. Which in some ways is interesting because they tried to read the game, which is different to those sides who'd go from blitz everything to blitz everything faster.
Yet they DID cope and they won. Let's face it we would all have been disappointed if Racing, the team that dumped the holders in the SF, did not present Exeter with problems. I thought Racing were worthy finalists but, despite not playing at their best, Exeter were better over 80 minutes (or whatever time Nigel allotted) - albeit by a small margin. It's odd that this thread is finding fault to such an extent when they won. How critical would it be if they had lost?
Digby wrote:Williams and Hill were both at fault, they either both push or both stay. You can't just expect the guard, Williams, to cover pace from 9, actually you shouldn't expect that or any player in the guard role and certainly not one with no pace.
But we saw over and over Exeter not sure how to cope with the options Racing presented. Which in some ways is interesting because they tried to read the game, which is different to those sides who'd go from blitz everything to blitz everything faster.
Hard disagree - you can't be passive when you're on your own tryline and letting Chat run at you there would be a likely try as well. Hill did the right thing in my opinion.
What I think happened (from the perspective of being an occasionally lazy fucker myself) was that Williams was knackered from a hard defensive set, worked hard to get round and get in the guard position and then relaxed, happy with the fact that he had done his job and blocked off the pick and go. He switched off, having done his job to get into position.
Happens to the best of us sometimes though and it shouldn't overshadow what was a pretty damned good game from Williams.
Digby wrote:Williams and Hill were both at fault, they either both push or both stay. You can't just expect the guard, Williams, to cover pace from 9, actually you shouldn't expect that or any player in the guard role and certainly not one with no pace.
But we saw over and over Exeter not sure how to cope with the options Racing presented. Which in some ways is interesting because they tried to read the game, which is different to those sides who'd go from blitz everything to blitz everything faster.
Hard disagree - you can't be passive when you're on your own tryline and letting Chat run at you there would be a likely try as well. Hill did the right thing in my opinion.
What I think happened (from the perspective of being an occasionally lazy fucker myself) was that Williams was knackered from a hard defensive set, worked hard to get round and get in the guard position and then relaxed, happy with the fact that he had done his job and blocked off the pick and go. He switched off, having done his job to get into position.
Happens to the best of us sometimes though and it shouldn't overshadow what was a pretty damned good game from Williams.
Puja
The guard has one job, nobody runs through the guard. I don't object to adding to the guards job because why wouldn't you pile extra work on people and just expect if not demand they cope, but if Hill is going to run away from Williams he needs Williams to come with, so the communication clearly failed with two defenders doing different things.
In essence if defenders in a line are running a different defence to the person alongside it's hard to award brownie points. And I'll blame everyone, it's easy to say Williams has stopped working, but it's easy to overlook how inward focussed the guards can get (rightly so)
Digby wrote:Williams and Hill were both at fault, they either both push or both stay. You can't just expect the guard, Williams, to cover pace from 9, actually you shouldn't expect that or any player in the guard role and certainly not one with no pace.
But we saw over and over Exeter not sure how to cope with the options Racing presented. Which in some ways is interesting because they tried to read the game, which is different to those sides who'd go from blitz everything to blitz everything faster.
Yet they DID cope and they won. Let's face it we would all have been disappointed if Racing, the team that dumped the holders in the SF, did not present Exeter with problems. I thought Racing were worthy finalists but, despite not playing at their best, Exeter were better over 80 minutes (or whatever time Nigel allotted) - albeit by a small margin. It's odd that this thread is finding fault to such an extent when they won. How critical would it be if they had lost?
I feel there was a sense in the last few years Exeter weren't quite good enough to challenge at the very top level and beat the likes of Leinster/Saracens in Europe. Racing at full force would have been a comparable test but it felt like they let Exeter off the hook a few times yesterday. It was a very odd game, but still an incredibly entertaining one and I think some are going OTT on how poor either side played.
Digby wrote:Williams and Hill were both at fault, they either both push or both stay. You can't just expect the guard, Williams, to cover pace from 9, actually you shouldn't expect that or any player in the guard role and certainly not one with no pace.
But we saw over and over Exeter not sure how to cope with the options Racing presented. Which in some ways is interesting because they tried to read the game, which is different to those sides who'd go from blitz everything to blitz everything faster.
Hard disagree - you can't be passive when you're on your own tryline and letting Chat run at you there would be a likely try as well. Hill did the right thing in my opinion.
What I think happened (from the perspective of being an occasionally lazy fucker myself) was that Williams was knackered from a hard defensive set, worked hard to get round and get in the guard position and then relaxed, happy with the fact that he had done his job and blocked off the pick and go. He switched off, having done his job to get into position.
Happens to the best of us sometimes though and it shouldn't overshadow what was a pretty damned good game from Williams.
Puja
The guard has one job, nobody runs through the guard. I don't object to adding to the guards job because why wouldn't you pile extra work on people and just expect if not demand they cope, but if Hill is going to run away from Williams he needs Williams to come with, so the communication clearly failed with two defenders doing different things.
In essence if defenders in a line are running a different defence to the person alongside it's hard to award brownie points. And I'll blame everyone, it's easy to say Williams has stopped working, but it's easy to overlook how inward focussed the guards can get (rightly so)
I agree with you on most points, but I think where we disagree is on whether Imhoff is part of the guard's one job. I'd say he is and that he runs through the guard's channel - he's within arm's reach of Williams when he passes, and Williams is too surprised to even stick out said arm. I can see an argument for saying that he's wide enough that he's 1's problem, but to my mind, if the guard could get a hand to him without taking a step, he's in the guard's channel.
Cant we just cotton it down to good play from Imhoff? He ran outside Williams to the point where he couldnt reach him and used the 2 players running lines off 9 to realise that Hill was between a rock and a hard place and took his chance.
Williams would also likely been blind to the 2 players running lines off Hill, so thought he could stay at guard. More of a rugby incident and good play from Imhoff than anything that could have been solved systemically or by either players shortcomings IMO
Scrumhead wrote:Do you find it attractive or imaginative though?
I don’t deny it’s effectiveness. Knowing what’s coming is one thing and stopping it is another thing entirely.
I don’t think my comment was that inaccurate or that harsh TBH.
As I said before, they have the talent to open up a bit more and I’d like to see more of that. It’s not so much a criticism, more and observation that there should be more to their game than we saw yesterday.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. The whole package is a thing to be admired, and I think it’s hugely naive to expect a side to not play to its strengths and exploit opposition weaknesses. The England 2003 World Cup side won ugly, because it’s expansive game was stuttering and had proved vulnerable at times. It fell back on fitness, kicking and nous.
And actually Exeter can be imaginative- the tap and goes are part of that, and they play off different pivots. They can also be attractive- but yesterday wasn’t the day for that.
padprop wrote:Cant we just cotton it down to good play from Imhoff? He ran outside Williams to the point where he couldnt reach him and used the 2 players running lines off 9 to realise that Hill was between a rock and a hard place and took his chance.
Williams would also likely been blind to the 2 players running lines off Hill, so thought he could stay at guard. More of a rugby incident and good play from Imhoff than anything that could have been solved systemically or by either players shortcomings IMO
Spot on. I wouldn't roast anyone unduly for Imhoff's try. He saw that it was on and took off like a bat through the gap for a great, opportunistic score.
Scrumhead wrote:Do you find it attractive or imaginative though?
I don’t deny it’s effectiveness. Knowing what’s coming is one thing and stopping it is another thing entirely.
I don’t think my comment was that inaccurate or that harsh TBH.
As I said before, they have the talent to open up a bit more and I’d like to see more of that. It’s not so much a criticism, more and observation that there should be more to their game than we saw yesterday.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. The whole package is a thing to be admired, and I think it’s hugely naive to expect a side to not play to its strengths and exploit opposition weaknesses. The England 2003 World Cup side won ugly, because it’s expansive game was stuttering and had proved vulnerable at times. It fell back on fitness, kicking and nous.
And actually Exeter can be imaginative- the tap and goes are part of that, and they play off different pivots. They can also be attractive- but yesterday wasn’t the day for that.
Exactly! It's only a few years ago that this board was bemoaning the demise of English rugby with Irish/French club dominance of Europe. I can remember all the comments about how important it was - the closest thing to international rugby etc. Now, the rest are hitting the catch-up trail with English dominance. Going back over the last 5-10 years how often were the winners denied the credit they deserved because, on the day (with winning all that really mattered), their style was not pretty!!!!!! Exeter are deserving champions. Let's just applaud.
Oakboy wrote:
Exactly! It's only a few years ago that this board was bemoaning the demise of English rugby with Irish/French club dominance of Europe. I can remember all the comments about how important it was - the closest thing to international rugby etc. Now, the rest are hitting the catch-up trail with English dominance. Going back over the last 5-10 years how often were the winners denied the credit they deserved because, on the day (with winning all that really mattered), their style was not pretty!!!!!! Exeter are deserving champions. Let's just applaud.
Yes. Its no mean feat winning this tournament. Exeter have been on the verge of making a big breakthrough for a couple of seasons and have finally made it.
Irrespective of the style they employ, they are a club we should be proud of who have a core of high class English players and an excellent home grown coaching team.
Its been a very good weekend for our clubs with Bristol winning the ECC.
padprop wrote:Cant we just cotton it down to good play from Imhoff? He ran outside Williams to the point where he couldnt reach him and used the 2 players running lines off 9 to realise that Hill was between a rock and a hard place and took his chance.
Williams would also likely been blind to the 2 players running lines off Hill, so thought he could stay at guard. More of a rugby incident and good play from Imhoff than anything that could have been solved systemically or by either players shortcomings IMO
It's both, good attack and bad defence. Which at least is a variant to most tries that rely just on bad defence.
Also a guard can just stay at guard, I get the lad outside wants to drift, sometimes that proves the right call, sometimes it's the disconnect.
