RugbyRebels

That's probably the least insane ratings he's given in a few seasons, the Mark's for Youngs and Farrell aside. You get the sense he watched at least half the match this week, rather than a different game altogether

Got Kruis bang on.
One of the other papers marked down our bench as ‘they failed to make an impact’....no shit Sherlock

Blimey Stephen Jones in sensible ratings shocker.

fivepointer wrote:Blimey Stephen Jones in sensible ratings shocker.

I still wouldn't use the word sensible to describe those ratings.

A 7 for Farrell is far too kind.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Farrell with a 7, hmm. let's hope he never puts in a performance Jones would score lower than a 5. Really the only slight mitigation is the tactics seemingly imposed by Jones, and even then it was error strewn rubbish

Look, most ratings have par as 6, not 5, so that's not the shit show Jones usually puts out.

Someone could really do with calling out Youngs for his speed to the breakdown and timing of the pass, though. They were simply atrocious and we'd have scored at least one other try I'd it wasn't for that.

p/d wrote:Got Kruis bang on.
One of the other papers marked down our bench as ‘they failed to make an impact’....no shit Sherlock

Kruis (per DT) is perceived as having a lesser engine than other 2nd rows. Presumably, Jones agrees as he habitually takes him off after 60. I'm not a fan but I saw no evidence in his performance to support that theory. Is this just a GPS statistics thing? I'm all for getting Launchbury on but yesterday I was surprised by the timing of the change, especially in the context of others left on the bench for 80.

Oakboy wrote:

p/d wrote:Got Kruis bang on.
One of the other papers marked down our bench as ‘they failed to make an impact’....no shit Sherlock

Kruis (per DT) is perceived as having a lesser engine than other 2nd rows. Presumably, Jones agrees as he habitually takes him off after 60. I'm not a fan but I saw no evidence in his performance to support that theory. Is this just a GPS statistics thing? I'm all for getting Launchbury on but yesterday I was surprised by the timing of the change, especially in the context of others left on the bench for 80.

Not sure there is evidence to support that either. Looks to me as if Kruis has become Jones’ Hartley. I am miles off being an international coach but it looked to me as if the changes needed to be made elsewhere.

Nothing against Launchbury- one of our best available players - but like for like changes at a time when control of the game was in the balance seemed misguided

Oakboy wrote:

p/d wrote:Got Kruis bang on.
One of the other papers marked down our bench as ‘they failed to make an impact’....no shit Sherlock

Kruis (per DT) is perceived as having a lesser engine than other 2nd rows. Presumably, Jones agrees as he habitually takes him off after 60. I'm not a fan but I saw no evidence in his performance to support that theory. Is this just a GPS statistics thing? I'm all for getting Launchbury on but yesterday I was surprised by the timing of the change, especially in the context of others left on the bench for 80.

He is being told to empty his tank for 60, and that's shown by his work rate when he is on- similar stats to Lawes but played 20 mins less.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

p/d wrote:Got Kruis bang on.
One of the other papers marked down our bench as ‘they failed to make an impact’....no shit Sherlock

Kruis (per DT) is perceived as having a lesser engine than other 2nd rows. Presumably, Jones agrees as he habitually takes him off after 60. I'm not a fan but I saw no evidence in his performance to support that theory. Is this just a GPS statistics thing? I'm all for getting Launchbury on but yesterday I was surprised by the timing of the change, especially in the context of others left on the bench for 80.

He is being told to empty his tank for 60, and that's shown by his work rate when he is on- similar stats to Lawes but played 20 mins less.

What excuse have Youngs and Farrell got?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Kruis (per DT) is perceived as having a lesser engine than other 2nd rows. Presumably, Jones agrees as he habitually takes him off after 60. I'm not a fan but I saw no evidence in his performance to support that theory. Is this just a GPS statistics thing? I'm all for getting Launchbury on but yesterday I was surprised by the timing of the change, especially in the context of others left on the bench for 80.

He is being told to empty his tank for 60, and that's shown by his work rate when he is on- similar stats to Lawes but played 20 mins less.

What excuse have Youngs and Farrell got?

? bit of a non-sequiter. No excuse is the answer- they were terrible in execution and worse refused to change tactics on the hoof. Youngs has imo been lucky to be in the team for ages now, and whilst Faz has improved substantially whilst earning his SEVENTY ONE (71) England caps, I can't see this side maximising its potential with him calling the shots- he doesn't fire enough himself.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: He is being told to empty his tank for 60, and that's shown by his work rate when he is on- similar stats to Lawes but played 20 mins less.

What excuse have Youngs and Farrell got?

? bit of a non-sequiter. No excuse is the answer- they were terrible in execution and worse refused to change tactics on the hoof. Youngs has imo been lucky to be in the team for ages now, and whilst Faz has improved substantially whilst earning his SEVENTY ONE (71) England caps, I can't see this side maximising its potential with him calling the shots- he doesn't fire enough himself.

Each have the choices pass/carry/kick as the ball reaches their hands. In his early days, Youngs took the 2nd option to good effect. Now, he never does. Farrell has about one run per season.

Banquo wrote: He is being told to empty his tank for 60, and that's shown by his work rate when he is on- similar stats to Lawes but played 20 mins less.

To be fair Lawes spent 5 of those 20mins on his back and another 5 watching

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
What excuse have Youngs and Farrell got?

? bit of a non-sequiter. No excuse is the answer- they were terrible in execution and worse refused to change tactics on the hoof. Youngs has imo been lucky to be in the team for ages now, and whilst Faz has improved substantially whilst earning his SEVENTY ONE (71) England caps, I can't see this side maximising its potential with him calling the shots- he doesn't fire enough himself.

Each have the choices pass/carry/kick as the ball reaches their hands. In his early days, Youngs took the 2nd option to good effect. Now, he never does. Farrell has about one run per season.

Farrell at his peak is like watching Wilko at the end of his career

p/d wrote:

Banquo wrote: He is being told to empty his tank for 60, and that's shown by his work rate when he is on- similar stats to Lawes but played 20 mins less.

To be fair Lawes spent 5 of those 20mins on his back and another 5 watching

true. Even so, Kruis works effin hard