RugbyRebels

Good stuff from Tonga.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: 10 carries, 9 yards. He coped well at the base, but that's about it. Ludlam was very good however, made more of an impact in a half than Curry did all game. I also thought Underhill played very well.

Billy was off, no question, but still was the leading carrier in the forwards, despite playing only one half.

Trouble with Ludlam is we weren't able to play the ball quickly, Curry was much better at getting the ball back on his carries

Mostly because Curry wasn't making any ground and the support had fck all to do to get there; Ludlam was in theory responsible for one turnover, when he made a superb carry that no-one reacted to, despite him staying on his feet a reasonable amount of time; there were plenty of occasions when a carrier was isolated as his team-mates looked on- some due to Youngs picking the wrong option. I don't think Ludlam's presentation is any worse than Curry's- and I actually thought Curry looked a little lightweight in contact tbh. Being asked to do the wrong things.....

Ludlam has problems presenting the ball every time I see him play for England, though the second time he got to wrong yesterday actually saw him trying too hard. But there's a lot to like about him even with that raw edge to his game

Good potential but very much behind Underhill and Curry

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Trouble with Ludlam is we weren't able to play the ball quickly, Curry was much better at getting the ball back on his carries

Mostly because Curry wasn't making any ground and the support had fck all to do to get there; Ludlam was in theory responsible for one turnover, when he made a superb carry that no-one reacted to, despite him staying on his feet a reasonable amount of time; there were plenty of occasions when a carrier was isolated as his team-mates looked on- some due to Youngs picking the wrong option. I don't think Ludlam's presentation is any worse than Curry's- and I actually thought Curry looked a little lightweight in contact tbh. Being asked to do the wrong things.....

Ludlam has problems presenting the ball every time I see him play for England, though the second time he got to wrong yesterday actually saw him trying too hard. But there's a lot to like about him even with that raw edge to his game

That's a huge reference point; what specifically is the issue?

p/d wrote:Good potential but very much behind Underhill and Curry

Imo that would depend on what you ask him to do. I'd be picking Wilson in front of all of them tho. Great position to be in, 4 very good and very different flankers.

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:Good potential but very much behind Underhill and Curry

Imo that would depend on what you ask him to do. I'd be picking Wilson in front of all of them tho.

Couldn’t agree more regards Wilson. Bit pissed off he hasn’t had a full run out

I rate young ‘Ludders’ but he looks like a puppy let off the lead.

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:Good potential but very much behind Underhill and Curry

Imo that would depend on what you ask him to do. I'd be picking Wilson in front of all of them tho.

Couldn’t agree more regards Wilson. Bit pissed off he hasn’t had a full run out

I rate young ‘Ludders’ but he looks like a puppy let off the lead.

Better that than the onlooking bystander role that some adopt when we switch off.

Let’s not forget that the ref wasn’t exactly sticking to the ruck forming rules.

Ball on our side.
One of our players join (badly) first
Creevy then targets the ball and wins turnover
Ludlam’s hardly to blame for that

Banquo wrote: That's a huge reference point; what specifically is the issue?

Two things really, he can be too active on the floor which is delaying any chance to support and/or clear the ball, and when it's on to get that long presentation back he can be guilty of keeping the ball too close. It's annoying 'cause he looks a decent carrier. I'll admit as a 9 it's the kind of thing I'll get drawn to commenting on. Okay Youngs can then do nothing anyway, but that's a different issue. I don't imagine Ludlam will not be learning in this area, and he's not even the only player in the squad who's shown this problem

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:
Billy was off, no question, but still was the leading carrier in the forwards, despite playing only one half.

The fact that three of his carries (or attempted ones) led to him losing the ball rather undermines that, surely?

Not really, as I meant he carried for the most yards. The first of those attempted carries was a bullet pass at knee height from guess who....

That was a perfectly fine pass tbf.

Timbo wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
The fact that three of his carries (or attempted ones) led to him losing the ball rather undermines that, surely?

Not really, as I meant he carried for the most yards. The first of those attempted carries was a bullet pass at knee height from guess who....

That was a perfectly fine pass tbf.

I thought it was a lot lower than breadbasket height and pretty unsympathetic pace given what we know about humidity; Billy may have been a little gung ho.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: That's a huge reference point; what specifically is the issue?

Two things really, he can be too active on the floor which is delaying any chance to support and/or clear the ball, and when it's on to get that long presentation back he can be guilty of keeping the ball too close. It's annoying 'cause he looks a decent carrier. I'll admit as a 9 it's the kind of thing I'll get drawn to commenting on. Okay Youngs can then do nothing anyway, but that's a different issue. I don't imagine Ludlam will not be learning in this area, and he's not even the only player in the squad who's shown this problem

Please explain 'too active on the floor', and how many times of his 6 carries yesterday were an opportunity for the long presentation?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: That's a huge reference point; what specifically is the issue?

Two things really, he can be too active on the floor which is delaying any chance to support and/or clear the ball, and when it's on to get that long presentation back he can be guilty of keeping the ball too close. It's annoying 'cause he looks a decent carrier. I'll admit as a 9 it's the kind of thing I'll get drawn to commenting on. Okay Youngs can then do nothing anyway, but that's a different issue. I don't imagine Ludlam will not be learning in this area, and he's not even the only player in the squad who's shown this problem

Please explain 'too active on the floor', and how many times of his 6 carries yesterday were an opportunity for the long presentation?

Too active in the sense he should just get on and present the ball, not roll around. I might watch the game back if I get really bored tomorrow, but probably not, so which instances he might have given a longer presentation I don't know, but from memory at least once based on my shouting at the TV. Ludlam's presentation wasn't the only momentum killer in the 2nd half, but my impression of the game certainly included it, and I might give it a rewatch now I've managed to conclude I need only watch the 2nd half

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Two things really, he can be too active on the floor which is delaying any chance to support and/or clear the ball, and when it's on to get that long presentation back he can be guilty of keeping the ball too close. It's annoying 'cause he looks a decent carrier. I'll admit as a 9 it's the kind of thing I'll get drawn to commenting on. Okay Youngs can then do nothing anyway, but that's a different issue. I don't imagine Ludlam will not be learning in this area, and he's not even the only player in the squad who's shown this problem

Please explain 'too active on the floor', and how many times of his 6 carries yesterday were an opportunity for the long presentation?

Too active in the sense he should just get on and present the ball, not roll around. I might watch the game back if I get really bored tomorrow, but probably not, so which instances he might have given a longer presentation I don't know, but from memory at least once based on my shouting at the TV. Ludlam's presentation wasn't the only momentum killer in the 2nd half, but my impression of the game certainly included it, and I might give it a rewatch now I've managed to conclude I need only watch the 2nd half

. Personally I think his 'active' on the floor was to preclude being turned over owing to support being a tad lacking in pace and technique. When Cole is the first to clear from 10 yards away, it may not reflect too well on others.

Anyway, I like the appetite Ludlam brings, and as you say he seems quick on the uptake from a learning pov

Spiffy wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Farrell was pretty awful throughout. His kicking was poor and his attempted "running".......well, really. He is seriously limited and should have been taken off instead of Ford.
Youngs was typically mediocre. No surprise there. Unfortunately i didnt think Heinz looked much sharper. Weakness at SH is this team's achilles heel.

Agreed on all points.

Re. Farrell’s ‘running’, there were a couple of occasions where he got the ball in the centre of the field, hesitated and then died with the ball. Rubbish.

The pass to Nowell off his left hand was surprisingly good though.

One decent pass in an otherwise awful performance means nowt.
The clumsy Farrell looks increasingly slow of speed and thought for an international midfielder.
Ford is in a different class re. natural talent, rugby brains and gas.
He must be quite pissed off that Jones does not allow him to do the things that a 10 normally does - line kicking, restarts, goal kicking etc. so that Captain Courageous Ice Man can continue to hold centre stage.
The message is loud and clear that he is the junior partner, even though he regularly outshines Farrell.
Still a mystery why the thick media can't see this and tell it like it is.

SCW has opted to make no mention of kicking from the ‘t’
but instead focused on how England kept their composure....... then singling our Farrell for special praise for this.

No mention of Ford.

Clive really is a twit at times

Does Ford play better or worse with Farrell alongside him?

There has been stuff written about their special relationship going back to junior rugby. I see no evidence of telepathic understanding between them in this RWC so far.

Then, there has been contention that Ford does not express himself enough - perhaps, to the extent that he needs Farrell alongside him to run the game.

Most on here rate Ford as a better FH than Farrell but to what extent is the presence of both on the pitch a help or hindrance to better performance?

In the past, I have disliked their 10/12 presence intensely, to the extent that I'd rather have Farrell at 10 than have both on the pitch. Now, Ford is so demonstrably better than Farrell in every category of the skill-set, that punditry is asking questions, perhaps for the first time ever.

So, on current form, what should the 1st choice starting line-up be: Heinz, Ford, Tuilagi, Slade/Joseph just might be a justifiable selection over Youngs, Ford, Farrell, Tuilagi even in Jones's mind.

We have the small matter of Captaincy.
Fazlets iffy form not withstanding, he has led the team
to max. points from 3 games and out the Pool.
There appears to be a happy mood in the camp and any whingebaggery (if there) is under wraps.
If he is not playing, who is skip ?..Ford ? Itoje ??
Would prefer Curry myself.In the team on merit, leads by example and seems to on the money in terms of decision making.

Galfon wrote:We have the small matter of Captaincy.
Fazlets iffy form not withstanding, he has led the team
to max. points from 3 games and out the Pool.
There appears to be a happy mood in the camp and any whingebaggery (if there) is under wraps.
If he is not playing, who is skip ?..Ford ? Itoje ??
Would prefer Curry myself.In the team on merit, leads by example and seems to on the money in terms of decision making.

Ford's clearly the next cab off the rank given he's captained whenever Farrell's away.

Puja

Or just bloody play Wilson and he can captain quite happily.

Anyone got the stats of the game? I have the impression that we didn't give away as many stupid penalties as usual and trying to find whether that's right or not.

Puja

Puja wrote:Anyone got the stats of the game? I have the impression that we didn't give away as many stupid penalties as usual and trying to find whether that's right or not.

Puja

Didn't we give 3 or 4 away right at the beginning which is why Nigel warned OF about yellow cards (Sinckler no arms tackle)? According to ESPN it was 8 penalties conceded.

There were 3 advantages but only one would be recorded.

Sorry that was 3 offences before Nigel did ping us. Overall 8 is a darn sight better than many games recently. There were a couple that Mako gave away when he first came on and couldn't get a bind at the scrum and a couple of times when Nigel was very quick to blow us for handling in the ruck, whereas he was giving plenty of warnings to Arg (Creevy got away with a lot when he came on).

oldbackrow wrote:Sorry that was 3 offences before Nigel did ping us. Overall 8 is a darn sight better than many games recently. There were a couple that Mako gave away when he first came on and couldn't get a bind at the scrum and a couple of times when Nigel was very quick to blow us for handling in the ruck, whereas he was giving plenty of warnings to Arg (Creevy got away with a lot when he came on).

To be honest, 8 when Nige is refereeing us is a bloody miracle.

Puja

oldbackrow wrote:

Puja wrote:Anyone got the stats of the game? I have the impression that we didn't give away as many stupid penalties as usual and trying to find whether that's right or not.

Puja

Didn't we give 3 or 4 away right at the beginning which is why Nigel warned OF about yellow cards (Sinckler no arms tackle)? According to ESPN it was 8 penalties conceded.

On this point, does anyone keep stats on penalties conceded including advantages - if you know what I mean?

I often think of this when people make arguments about teams winning the penalty count but getting more cards (or the simplistic yellow cards per penalty metric).

Wales, for example, tend to kick as soon as they get advantage whereas other teams like to play on and on and it is not uncommon for them to gain three advantages before it is called back (or they score).

I've not seen it but the way the stats are normally presented, it would be perfectly plausible for a team to get a yellow card for persistent offending while the stats show them as not conceding any penalties