RugbyRebels

fivepointer wrote:I can forgive the odd defensive lapse as long as Daly makes a full contribution to our attacking game.
If he doesnt, then his frailties magnify and you wonder why he's been given the shirt.

He really is the Anti-Brown

Mellsblue wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
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.

Just so Digblue gets to quote themselves again.....
I’ve been looking for a graphic from a previous edition of the times and stumbled across the fact that one of the pundits to advocate this tactic was Mr Andrew Mehrtens.
Edit: and Ben Ryan.

Does Mellsby advocate Lawes and Underhill advocte Lawes and Underhill looking to cut BB in half, or one just put him down and the other strip the ball/force a penalty?

Which Tyler wrote:

fivepointer wrote:I can forgive the odd defensive lapse as long as Daly makes a full contribution to our attacking game.
If he doesnt, then his frailties magnify and you wonder why he's been given the shirt.

He really is the Anti-Brown

Good enough to be an AB

Mellsblue wrote:

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

Why? What is your preferred lineup?

For this game, I would play Farrell/Tuilagi/Joseph. My main concern has been Farrell at 12. He defends well at 10 but poorly at12, IMO. I prefer Tuilagi at 13 from some attacking points of view but for this game he needs to be in a more central channel. I think Slade is a better attacking 13 than Joseph on current form but Joseph is possibly our best defender and certainly who I want against NZ.

I'd also have Slade and Coka on the bench with Heinz - a reasonable risk given Farrell's fitness record.

Had Jones gone with an unchanged starting XV I would not have minded but for this game I'd have swapped Joseph for Slade.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

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

Just so Digblue gets to quote themselves again.....
I’ve been looking for a graphic from a previous edition of the times and stumbled across the fact that one of the pundits to advocate this tactic was Mr Andrew Mehrtens.
Edit: and Ben Ryan.

Does Mellsby advocate Lawes and Underhill advocte Lawes and Underhill looking to cut BB in half, or one just put him down and the other strip the ball/force a penalty?

Not too sure. You’ll have to ask Rytens.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

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

Why? What is your preferred lineup?

For this game, I would play Farrell/Tuilagi/Joseph. My main concern has been Farrell at 12. He defends well at 10 but poorly at12, IMO. I prefer Tuilagi at 13 from some attacking points of view but for this game he needs to be in a more central channel. I think Slade is a better attacking 13 than Joseph on current form but Joseph is possibly our best defender and certainly who I want against NZ.

I'd also have Slade and Coka on the bench with Heinz - a reasonable risk given Farrell's fitness record.

Had Jones gone with an unchanged starting XV I would not have minded but for this game I'd have swapped Joseph for Slade.

Might as well give Watson some slippers and a cigar for all he’d see the ball
Can’t remember where I saw it but the graphic I mentioned on a previous post did purport to show Farrell is far more solid in defence at 10 than 12. Which should came as no surprise given he’s a 10 and not a 12.

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Why? What is your preferred lineup?

For this game, I would play Farrell/Tuilagi/Joseph. My main concern has been Farrell at 12. He defends well at 10 but poorly at12, IMO. I prefer Tuilagi at 13 from some attacking points of view but for this game he needs to be in a more central channel. I think Slade is a better attacking 13 than Joseph on current form but Joseph is possibly our best defender and certainly who I want against NZ.

I'd also have Slade and Coka on the bench with Heinz - a reasonable risk given Farrell's fitness record.

Had Jones gone with an unchanged starting XV I would not have minded but for this game I'd have swapped Joseph for Slade.

Might as well give Watson some slippers and a cigar for all he’d see the ball
Can’t remember where I saw it but the graphic I mentioned on a previous post did purport to show Farrell is far more solid in defence at 10 than 12. Which should came as no surprise given he’s a 10 and not a 12.

But then considering Ford has the best tackle success rate of any 10 in world rugby, a better kicking %age, and we score both more tries and more points with him at 10, AND have a better winning record...

I’d just ditch the slightly cold water man.

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Why? What is your preferred lineup?

For this game, I would play Farrell/Tuilagi/Joseph. My main concern has been Farrell at 12. He defends well at 10 but poorly at12, IMO. I prefer Tuilagi at 13 from some attacking points of view but for this game he needs to be in a more central channel. I think Slade is a better attacking 13 than Joseph on current form but Joseph is possibly our best defender and certainly who I want against NZ.

I'd also have Slade and Coka on the bench with Heinz - a reasonable risk given Farrell's fitness record.

Had Jones gone with an unchanged starting XV I would not have minded but for this game I'd have swapped Joseph for Slade.

Might as well give Watson some slippers and a cigar for all he’d see the ball
Can’t remember where I saw it but the graphic I mentioned on a previous post did purport to show Farrell is far more solid in defence at 10 than 12. Which should came as no surprise given he’s a 10 and not a 12.

The question is, is anyone better in defence at 12, given the system we run? The 10 gets a lot of support from the back row (contributing to Ford's tackle-success rate), whereas the 12 is more on their own. Farrell may be better at 10, but he's a) not as good as Ford there, b) not bad enough to justify the performance drop of moving Manu inside one, and c) better than our other options there.

Puja

Stom wrote:
I’d just ditch the slightly cold water man.

So would I usually but for this game I think Farrell will stand up to the pressure better than Ford without us losing much in attack. I just can't see any sense in having both. All it does is encourage kicking - the best way for us to lose the match.

I'm up for watching tomorrow with my bacon butty and mug of tea.

I think the team and bench is about right, if not expected from EJ.

Wilson for Ludlam on the bench could be discussed - but Wilson has his chops, and Ludlam was the bolter.

My biggest worry is Daly as he played awful last week, and has never fully looked at home at fullback.

If he doesn't offer slashing outside breaks and / or try creating passes or footspeed scores he is too much of a defensive liability.

Ok, its 9pm - let's get the fuck behind the boys - I'm happy we are in the last 4 - where we fucking should be, tough game, hardest game in world professional sport, but we know we can bring it, on our day.

Too excited, can't sleep.
Finally got up half an hour ago, took the dogs out.
Wish I hadn't as I don't have time to watch an old match before the frying pan goes on.

Is a RWC semi-final a good enough excuse for a breakfast beer?

I think it might be.

Is it wrong to have an adrenaline rush before watching a game on telly? Soooo excited. My three year old lad is so nervous he puked at 3am

Looking forward to it.
Cant see much in it either way. When all is said and done, it comes down to individuals having big games and on winning the key moments.

I'm bricking it. Thankfully if England don't win I've got wasps to make me feel better... So I've got u8s coaching Sunday to make me feel better.

Beasties wrote:Is it wrong to have an adrenaline rush before watching a game on telly? Soooo excited. My three year old lad is so nervous he puked at 3am

I've just done a dozen Burpees purely to burn some adrenaline.
I F***ing HATE Burpees!
Not done any in a good 15 years!

ETA: and now my knee is reminding me why I stopped

How has this not started yet?

Don't think I've ever been this pumped before watching a match!

Finally got to sleep at 2am. Now to roust children and wife out of the house in the next half hour so I have it to myself.

Puja

Anybody confident? My heart is screaming US but my head won't agree.

Fucking hell I hate early games. I'm not mentally prepared for a WC semi final vs NZ.




I have 15 mins do I have a shower or get some thing to eat?

England by 3

Sausages, bacon, beans, scrambled eggs, hash browns, fried bread and tea have been finished. First beer has just been opened.

Hope the local ambulance service has been charging their defibrillators. I think I'm well primed!

Don't think I've ever been this pumped to watch a rugby match. None of the confidence the 03 generation inspired, and none of the "plucky underdog" from 2007

Predictions:
All level after 80 minutes

Not sure what we were trying to prove with the Haka advance.

Puja

MANU!!!

All XV must have been involved there!

Before moving over to the other thread - I just want to say that I have no idea how any of you sat with a computer or phone or anything in your hands before or during that game!!!

Renniks wrote:Before moving over to the other thread - I just want to say that I have no idea how any of you sat with a computer or phone or anything in your hands before or during that game!!!

The answer is the stoppages - and the knowledge that it's recording and I can watch it back again