RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Yep, Earl might not be now or ever really pushing to start test matches, but when you see some of the fluff commentary on others in the current squad he certainly has more to hang his hat on, even if only for now.

He's in the unfortunate position of being in our strongest area though, as opposed to the likes of Oghre, whose credentials are, "Not yet proven to never be good enough to be an international".

Gods, just imagine if he'd been around in 2005ish. He'd've got 100+ caps.

Puja

Our strongest area doesn't dominate many games, which might be indicative


Edit, poor choice of wording that, even for me, it'd be better to say they don't control many games

I'd disagree. Apart from anything else, the back row was pretty much the only bit of the team that we used last Autumn; our entire game plan was based around them tackling and winning the ball back.

Puja

The win over NZ in the WC is maybe as close as you get to control through tackling, but I don't tend to consider tackling fungible with controlling as concepts. I'd also tend to think given the games Lawes has played 6 the backrow isn't of that high a standard to get into. I'm still not entirely sold on Underhill either, and many would contend Billy should be dropped (I'd go as far as it needs to be clear he needs to be delivering more)

It depends on who is playing TBH. We did get dominated in the 6N when it sometimes felt like Curry was taking on the opposition back row on his own.

On the occasions when Underhill and Curry have played together and Billy’s in form, our back row has unequivocally dominated.

Digby wrote:The win over NZ in the WC is maybe as close as you get to control through tackling, but I don't tend to consider tackling fungible with controlling as concepts. I'd also tend to think given the games Lawes has played 6 the backrow isn't of that high a standard to get into. I'm still not entirely sold on Underhill either, and many would contend Billy should be dropped (I'd go as far as it needs to be clear he needs to be delivering more)

What would you consider as ‘control’ though?

To my mind, a back row that nullifies the opposition as well as contributing in attack is control. We’ve had that plenty of times, although the NZ game is the best example.

Scrumhead wrote:

Digby wrote:The win over NZ in the WC is maybe as close as you get to control through tackling, but I don't tend to consider tackling fungible with controlling as concepts. I'd also tend to think given the games Lawes has played 6 the backrow isn't of that high a standard to get into. I'm still not entirely sold on Underhill either, and many would contend Billy should be dropped (I'd go as far as it needs to be clear he needs to be delivering more)

What would you consider as ‘control’ though?

To my mind, a back row that nullifies the opposition as well as contributing in attack is control. We’ve had that plenty of times, although the NZ game is the best example.

A side offering much more on attack before I'd start to think in terms of control.

We're at a competing level, which might just be our level. If we could control, dominate games or what have you we'd be winning a decent number of games away by 20-30 points, not all, nobody wins all, but a decent number including away to NZ and SA.

I think that’s wildly unrealistic.

20-30 points is 3 or 4 converted tries more than the opposition. I don’t ever see us being in a position to dominate to that extent. Not even peak NZ have done that.

Scrumhead wrote:I think that’s wildly unrealistic.

20-30 points is 3 or 4 converted tries more than the opposition. I don’t ever see us being in a position to dominate to that extent. Not even peak NZ have done that.

yes they have! Look at the 2015 world cup,bar the semi final . But I agree, to consistently do that would be a stretch.

If you not controlling/dominating you're then 'merely' competing. I suspect in test rugby you are going to compete more than you control/dominate, I merely in this observe what's being labelled our best unit is some way off doing more than competing

I still don’t understand your perspective? I agree with Puja that the back row (personnel permitting) is our best unit, but that doesn’t mean other teams don’t have very good units of their own.

The quality of the top 4/5 test sides means that it will always be a case of ‘merely competing’ and TBH, it would take something away from the game if a team was dominant to the extent that they’re winning every game by a 20-30 point margin.

Ah, I thought the line here was backrow was out strongest unit on depth, not on personnel permitting unit. I suspect either our front row or our back three are our best out and out units if everyone is available, and we barely pass to the back three.

And it was more of an aside, that even if the back row is our best unit they're not exactly brilliant on a world stage, which is indicative of us floating around as a top 5 side

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I think that’s wildly unrealistic.

20-30 points is 3 or 4 converted tries more than the opposition. I don’t ever see us being in a position to dominate to that extent. Not even peak NZ have done that.

yes they have! Look at the 2015 world cup,bar the semi final . But I agree, to consistently do that would be a stretch.

Also the game Vs Argentina in the group stages only a 10 point gap and if I remember rightly NZ were losing at half time.

You can dominate every game. Teams work out how to play against you, evolve to copy your strengths or are just naturally set up to be awkward for you to play against.

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I think that’s wildly unrealistic.

20-30 points is 3 or 4 converted tries more than the opposition. I don’t ever see us being in a position to dominate to that extent. Not even peak NZ have done that.

yes they have! Look at the 2015 world cup,bar the semi final . But I agree, to consistently do that would be a stretch.

Also the game Vs Argentina in the group stages only a 10 point gap and if I remember rightly NZ were losing at half time.

You can dominate every game. Teams work out how to play against you, evolve to copy your strengths or are just naturally set up to be awkward for you to play against.

I think you’ve missed a t out of that whilst we are being pedantic . They won the second half 14-3, it’s true

NZ have won plenty of games by 20-30 games. Not every game, but nobody even wins every game. Merely their attack functions as a big part of their game so when/if they get their game right and the opposition are a little off they trounce some very good sides, home and away.

Maybe we'll never be in a position to have a high functioning attack, even our best sides tend to look a little blunt against the best, but one hopes we're pushing for it.