RugbyRebels

Oakboy wrote:There's not much quality to get excited about.

Two sides short of quality players and confidence.

Two decent tries for Quins in fairness.

Brilliant from quins.

francoisfou wrote:Tigers' winning bp seems light years away!

...so does a lbp!

nice dummy, but much better pressure and running lines from Tigers

Toomua has been excellent in the last 20 mins or so, and Quins have tired quickly.

Not so tired then

Bit harsh on quins, but Tigers eventually got their act together

Were Quins tiring or did Tigers up the pace a bit?

francoisfou wrote:Were Quins tiring or did Tigers up the pace a bit?

Tigers just strung more phases together I think, Quins did look tired when Tigers scored that brace of tries....may have been having played for 14 for that period and the energy that went into that.

Fatigue definitely a factor. Losing Boyce early and playing your hooker and the entire back row for the full 80 had its effect. Thought Quins were the better side for the first hour and they scored the try of the game through Wallace. very unlucky not to get something from the game.

Out of the 16 starting forwards which might be of interest to a top 4 side? Both Quins props, and then?

Digby wrote:Out of the 16 starting forwards which might be of interest to a top 4 side? Both Quins props, and then?

None of them.

They were discussing on the commentary how bizarre it is that tigers have ended up with such a bad pack. You can excuse a few bad buys but all of them?

Denton and spencer to the rescue?

I'll allow Tom Youngs can struggle at present, but he's a decent player. Mulimpola looks like he's stopped taking whatever made him look much better a few seasons back, not sure what's happened there, and whether Denton and Spencer can by themselves do more than raise the bar a little I don't know

twitchy wrote:

Digby wrote:Out of the 16 starting forwards which might be of interest to a top 4 side? Both Quins props, and then?

None of them.

They were discussing on the commentary how bizarre it is that tigers have ended up with such a bad pack. You can excuse a few bad buys but all of them?

Denton and spencer to the rescue?

I'd love to know the thinking behind Tigers recruitment policy over the last five years. Buy average forwards and assume you can make them world beaters with coaching?

Whatever the question, Denton is not the answer.

It's a shame as the league is poorer for Tigers and Saints both being shit at the same time. As much as I like Falcons current league position.

Digby wrote:Out of the 16 starting forwards which might be of interest to a top 4 side? Both Quins props, and then?

James Chisholm. Maybe not as a starter, but he’s a lot better than the rest of the pack around him at the moment and is doing the work of 2 players.

Greg Bateman out played the quins props IMO.


I think the biggest problem for tigers wasn't just recruitment but also having 3 players who where pretty much nailed on 23 options all going out of form/looking Past it in Youngs, Mulipola and Kitchener all look like the physicality of rugby has taken it's toll on them.
All 3 try hard but they are just not the players they used to be.
Hopefully Bakewell can get the most out of players like Mike Williams (Who is a player that could be like Ewers but he needs to work so much on his basics like not dropping the ball and wrapping up in the contact instead of using his shoulder to try and do an NFL style hit).
1) Genge
2) Taf
3) Cole
4) Spencer
5) Wells
6) Thompson
7) BOC
8) Denton
For me on paper would be a better pack already than the current one, we still need to make 3/4 signings though to complete it (Which a couple are close to being done deals).
Alot will come down to coaching, Exeter's pack originally on paper wouldn't sound that impressive but they are all on the same wavelength and all work as one and gives their all. So in that respect alot will come down to Bakewell.

The trouble was Mauger wanted to make a NZ team and it failed because he didn't understand how much different the pack needs to be for the Prem compared to NZ super rugby teams. (something Boyd will need to watch out for next season).

Tigersman wrote:
The trouble was Mauger wanted to make a NZ team and it failed because he didn't understand how much different the pack needs to be for the Prem compared to NZ super rugby teams. (something Boyd will need to watch out for next season).

Mauger wasn't even given a chance. Like Loffreda the mistake might have been in giving him the job in the first place, unlike Loffreda it would seem Mauger did at least know what he wanted to do, but he got not support from the 'We are Leicester' tribal elements

bitts wrote:

twitchy wrote:

Digby wrote:Out of the 16 starting forwards which might be of interest to a top 4 side? Both Quins props, and then?

None of them.

They were discussing on the commentary how bizarre it is that tigers have ended up with such a bad pack. You can excuse a few bad buys but all of them?

Denton and spencer to the rescue?

I'd love to know the thinking behind Tigers recruitment policy over the last five years. Buy average forwards and assume you can make them world beaters with coaching?

Whatever the question, Denton is not the answer.

It's a shame as the league is poorer for Tigers and Saints both being shit at the same time. As much as I like Falcons current league position.

To be fair, buying average players and making them world beaters with coaching has very much been our MO for decades and has proven very successful in the past. It doesn't work as well without the coaching bit though.

All the commentary was saying that the loser of this game needed to give up on the top 4, but frankly, I saw this one as a must win just to keep Europe alive. With luck, another week of Bakewell will start making a difference to our pack's performance and we'll be able to get something from Saracens at what's probably the best time of year to play them.

Puja

Digby wrote:

Tigersman wrote:
The trouble was Mauger wanted to make a NZ team and it failed because he didn't understand how much different the pack needs to be for the Prem compared to NZ super rugby teams. (something Boyd will need to watch out for next season).

Mauger wasn't even given a chance. Like Loffreda the mistake might have been in giving him the job in the first place, unlike Loffreda it would seem Mauger did at least know what he wanted to do, but he got not support from the 'We are Leicester' tribal elements

Mauger was given a chance he just didn't have the right game plan for up north. He had two seasons here pretty much and he was in as much fault as Cockers for it.
Mauger backs game plan was hope Veainu does something, and the forwards became so passive when he was here, Tigers where going down hill before he came but Cockers at least kept the forwards physical.

Tigersman wrote:

Digby wrote:

Tigersman wrote:
The trouble was Mauger wanted to make a NZ team and it failed because he didn't understand how much different the pack needs to be for the Prem compared to NZ super rugby teams. (something Boyd will need to watch out for next season).

Mauger wasn't even given a chance. Like Loffreda the mistake might have been in giving him the job in the first place, unlike Loffreda it would seem Mauger did at least know what he wanted to do, but he got not support from the 'We are Leicester' tribal elements

Mauger was given a chance he just didn't have the right game plan for up north. He had two seasons here pretty much and he was in as much fault as Cockers for it.
Mauger backs game plan was hope Veainu does something, and the forwards became so passive when he was here, Tigers where going down hill before he came but Cockers at least kept the forwards physical.

Mauger never got the players he wanted, or even agreement to make the shift in training he wanted, which has me thinking he wasn't given a chance and given how Leicester continued the mistake was perhaps to have hired him as head coach in the first place. Though given they were hardly any worse at the time of ditching him it hasn't even made any sense to move as Leicester have (or rather haven't) done

Digby wrote:

Tigersman wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mauger wasn't even given a chance. Like Loffreda the mistake might have been in giving him the job in the first place, unlike Loffreda it would seem Mauger did at least know what he wanted to do, but he got not support from the 'We are Leicester' tribal elements

Mauger was given a chance he just didn't have the right game plan for up north. He had two seasons here pretty much and he was in as much fault as Cockers for it.
Mauger backs game plan was hope Veainu does something, and the forwards became so passive when he was here, Tigers where going down hill before he came but Cockers at least kept the forwards physical.

Mauger never got the players he wanted, or even agreement to make the shift in training he wanted, which has me thinking he wasn't given a chance and given how Leicester continued the mistake was perhaps to have hired him as head coach in the first place. Though given they were hardly any worse at the time of ditching him it hasn't even made any sense to move as Leicester have (or rather haven't) done

Fitzgerald for Parling
BOC for Salvi
JPP for Goneva
Betham for Hamilton
Kitto for Mele

Where his signings and nowhere near the upgrades over current options in the end (Other than Betham and Hamilton).

Puja wrote:

bitts wrote:

twitchy wrote:
None of them.

They were discussing on the commentary how bizarre it is that tigers have ended up with such a bad pack. You can excuse a few bad buys but all of them?

Denton and spencer to the rescue?

I'd love to know the thinking behind Tigers recruitment policy over the last five years. Buy average forwards and assume you can make them world beaters with coaching?

Whatever the question, Denton is not the answer.

It's a shame as the league is poorer for Tigers and Saints both being shit at the same time. As much as I like Falcons current league position.

To be fair, buying average players and making them world beaters with coaching has very much been our MO for decades and has proven very successful in the past. It doesn't work as well without the coaching bit though.

All the commentary was saying that the loser of this game needed to give up on the top 4, but frankly, I saw this one as a must win just to keep Europe alive. With luck, another week of Bakewell will start making a difference to our pack's performance and we'll be able to get something from Saracens at what's probably the best time of year to play them.

Puja

really? decades?

1998 was 20 years ago and we were building good players out of Fritz van Heerden and Dave Lougheed back then.

Puja

Tigersman wrote:

Digby wrote:

Tigersman wrote:
The trouble was Mauger wanted to make a NZ team and it failed because he didn't understand how much different the pack needs to be for the Prem compared to NZ super rugby teams. (something Boyd will need to watch out for next season).

Mauger wasn't even given a chance. Like Loffreda the mistake might have been in giving him the job in the first place, unlike Loffreda it would seem Mauger did at least know what he wanted to do, but he got not support from the 'We are Leicester' tribal elements

Mauger was given a chance he just didn't have the right game plan for up north. He had two seasons here pretty much and he was in as much fault as Cockers for it.
Mauger backs game plan was hope Veainu does something, and the forwards became so passive when he was here, Tigers where going down hill before he came but Cockers at least kept the forwards physical.

Cockers seems to have done a good job at Edinburgh. They are now a pretty competitive team in the Pro 14, which they were not until he came along, and capable of beating any other team in that league (e.g. the mighty Leinster) on the day. Fair play to him.

Cockers can certainly add a harder edge to a given pack. What he hasn't shown is wider team strategy so much, bringing through academy players to keep a tempo/enthusiasm in affordable manner. So how much Cockers is a short term option and how much he's developed isn't clear. As of today there's good evidence it's worth hiring Cockers for 12-18 months