RugbyRebels

What were the actions of Daly people didn't like?

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I think that if Kruis had started last Saturday we would have been at least two scores down after 15 minutes. Who knows if we would have won then. Lawes was the most effective tackler amidst the general desperation. He is far quicker than Kruis. Jones had their respective roles spot-on, IMO.

I completely agree...

For the opposition.

NZ are a different kind of beast to Aus. Their locks are excellent, their front row are actually good, and they use them.

Kruis' extra oomph and tight game might be just what's needed against them.

Extra oomph? I think that's a myth based simply on looking at a heavier frame. He is an excellent set-piece technician but I doubt he's as strong as Lawes. I'd suggest that NZ would rather face Kruis whom they rubbished when he was playing in a red shirt, according to press reports. I never watch those games but he only played one, didn't he, before being discarded?

Digby wrote:What were the actions of Daly people didn't like?

This sums it up

Puja wrote: On the team, I watched the Australia match again and Daly has to go. Apart from Koroibete making him look stupid twice, I missed that Beale did the same to him in the first half - Daly actually tapped him with both hands on the hips as he went past, like he was playing touch rugby. Add that to his hesitations in clearing up at the back and New Zealand will target him. It's a risk to change, but I think it's a greater risk to stay the same.

Danno wrote:

Digby wrote:What were the actions of Daly people didn't like?

This sums it up

Puja wrote: On the team, I watched the Australia match again and Daly has to go. Apart from Koroibete making him look stupid twice, I missed that Beale did the same to him in the first half - Daly actually tapped him with both hands on the hips as he went past, like he was playing touch rugby. Add that to his hesitations in clearing up at the back and New Zealand will target him. It's a risk to change, but I think it's a greater risk to stay the same.

meh, fast runners with space to attack either side often beat an isolated defender. I was perhaps thinking Daly should be doing more not to see play directed back inside, but it was a big step by Beale

Oakboy wrote:

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I think that if Kruis had started last Saturday we would have been at least two scores down after 15 minutes. Who knows if we would have won then. Lawes was the most effective tackler amidst the general desperation. He is far quicker than Kruis. Jones had their respective roles spot-on, IMO.

I completely agree...

For the opposition.

NZ are a different kind of beast to Aus. Their locks are excellent, their front row are actually good, and they use them.

Kruis' extra oomph and tight game might be just what's needed against them.

Extra oomph? I think that's a myth based simply on looking at a heavier frame. He is an excellent set-piece technician but I doubt he's as strong as Lawes. I'd suggest that NZ would rather face Kruis whom they rubbished when he was playing in a red shirt, according to press reports. I never watch those games but he only played one, didn't he, before being discarded?

Lawes definitely has more impact in the loose, but Kruis has a bigger impact in the tight. Couple that with the set-piece and I think that's the way to go. NZ don't have a "big" 4th quarter like Aus do, they're always big. So CGS in his natural habitat seems like the better option. 30 minutes of hitting every black shirt he can see.

If one wanted Lawes one for the last 30 would you ask Itoje or Kruis to empty the tank in the first 50?

Oakboy wrote:I think that if Kruis had started last Saturday we would have been at least two scores down after 15 minutes.

..... or 2 scores up, who knows. It’s the same old comment as a ‘if he had kicked those points they would have won’ argument. Impossible to prove one way or other.

My question - which I don’t have the answer for - is whether Itoje has greater influence on the game when playing alongside Kruis or not

Digby wrote:If one wanted Lawes one for the last 30 would you ask Itoje or Kruis to empty the tank in the first 50?

Kruis. Itoje needs to be on for 80 unless injured.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:If one wanted Lawes one for the last 30 would you ask Itoje or Kruis to empty the tank in the first 50?

Kruis. Itoje needs to be on for 80 unless injured.

Puja

Normally I'd concur. Just this time I wonder if 50 minutes of Itoje going flat out against Brodie isn't the way to go.

Digby wrote:

Danno wrote:

Digby wrote:What were the actions of Daly people didn't like?

This sums it up

Puja wrote: On the team, I watched the Australia match again and Daly has to go. Apart from Koroibete making him look stupid twice, I missed that Beale did the same to him in the first half - Daly actually tapped him with both hands on the hips as he went past, like he was playing touch rugby. Add that to his hesitations in clearing up at the back and New Zealand will target him. It's a risk to change, but I think it's a greater risk to stay the same.

meh, fast runners with space to attack either side often beat an isolated defender. I was perhaps thinking Daly should be doing more not to see play directed back inside, but it was a big step by Beale

Often is one thing but can you name an occasion where there has been a break, Daly is isolated, and he has made a successful tackle? I don't know that I can. Daly always seems to plant his feet early, get rocked back on his heels and invite people to step him.

In addition, he lost the ball twice when sweeping behind the defence and once in contact that led to the opening penalty, as well as being utterly ineffective on the kick chase. It was not a good game for him.

Puja

p/d wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I think that if Kruis had started last Saturday we would have been at least two scores down after 15 minutes.

..... or 2 scores up, who knows. It’s the same old comment as a ‘if he had kicked those points they would have won’ argument. Impossible to prove one way or other.

My question - which I don’t have the answer for - is whether Itoje has greater influence on the game when playing alongside Kruis or not

That's a very good point and one that I've agreed with before. It is the only reason to pick Kruis, IMO. However, for last Saturday's game and for the SF, I think that Lawes is just too impactful to omit. With the two flankers in such form and with Billy off the boil (so far, anyway) we need to concentrate on nuisance factor. Even if Itoje is in love with Kruis, Lawes + Itoje is the more disruptive pairing.

Another factor is our kicking tactics. IF, IF we kicked for touch more and IF we concentrated on stealing from opposition lineouts, there might be more of a case for Kruis (not sufficient for the NZ game but a factor). The fact is, though, that we are instructed to keep the ball in play apparently.

Oakboy wrote:

p/d wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I think that if Kruis had started last Saturday we would have been at least two scores down after 15 minutes.

..... or 2 scores up, who knows. It’s the same old comment as a ‘if he had kicked those points they would have won’ argument. Impossible to prove one way or other.

My question - which I don’t have the answer for - is whether Itoje has greater influence on the game when playing alongside Kruis or not

That's a very good point and one that I've agreed with before. It is the only reason to pick Kruis, IMO. However, for last Saturday's game and for the SF, I think that Lawes is just too impactful to omit. With the two flankers in such form and with Billy off the boil (so far, anyway) we need to concentrate on nuisance factor. Even if Itoje is in love with Kruis, Lawes + Itoje is the more disruptive pairing.

Another factor is our kicking tactics. IF, IF we kicked for touch more and IF we concentrated on stealing from opposition lineouts, there might be more of a case for Kruis (not sufficient for the NZ game but a factor). The fact is, though, that we are instructed to keep the ball in play apparently.

I feel you're underestimating Kruis's value in and of himself. He has a habit of stepping up to an occasion and his work in tight play in and around rucks, both in attack and defence, is enough reason to consider him on his own merits, not as Itoje's +1.

He did let himself down first test against the Lions, but he's noticeably stepped it up another level for England since then, which suggests he's learned.

Also, it's one thing to talk about us not attacking NZ's lineouts, but they're not shy of a touch finder and Retallick and Whitelock do compete a lot. Kruis is worth considering for our ball as much as what he does on opposition (where actually, I find Lawes more threatening).

Oh gods, Danno's right isn't he - we're going to play Lawes at 6.

Puja

Digby wrote:If one wanted Lawes one for the last 30 would you ask Itoje or Kruis to empty the tank in the first 50?

No - because if the other gets injured, you end up with someone blowing for 30 minutes…

You only empty the tank if you know you're about to be pulled off

Renniks wrote:

Digby wrote:If one wanted Lawes one for the last 30 would you ask Itoje or Kruis to empty the tank in the first 50?

No - because if the other gets injured, you end up with someone blowing for 30 minutes…

You only empty the tank if you know you're about to be pulled off

Hasn't Kruis been asked to do that in quite a few games? On those occasions his return of tackles completed and rucks hit was quite impressive for 50 mins of rugby.

Renniks wrote: You only empty the tank if you know you're about to be pulled off

I do agree with you but it seems an inappropriate topic to discuss on a rugby forum.

Renniks wrote:

Digby wrote:If one wanted Lawes one for the last 30 would you ask Itoje or Kruis to empty the tank in the first 50?

No - because if the other gets injured, you end up with someone blowing for 30 minutes…

You only empty the tank if you know you're about to be pulled off

How you manage emptying the tank is reasonably up for debate. But seeking that higher work rate is obviously something teams do try. Not that I much like the 6:2 bench split that can go with it

Mellsblue wrote:

Renniks wrote: You only empty the tank if you know you're about to be pulled off

I do agree with you but it seems an inappropriate topic to discuss on a rugby forum.

Why would you empty the tank if you knew someone was kindly going to do you such service?

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:If one wanted Lawes one for the last 30 would you ask Itoje or Kruis to empty the tank in the first 50?

Kruis. Itoje needs to be on for 80 unless injured.

Puja

Normally I'd concur. Just this time I wonder if 50 minutes of Itoje going flat out against Brodie isn't the way to go.

Before he shifts to number 8 right?

I can't recall what the complaints about Kruis in the first Lions test actually were. Anyone?

Personally I thought AWJ had a very poor day at the office but Kruis ended up carrying the can cos Gatland was coach.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
Kruis. Itoje needs to be on for 80 unless injured.

Puja

Normally I'd concur. Just this time I wonder if 50 minutes of Itoje going flat out against Brodie isn't the way to go.

Before he shifts to number 8 right?

I can't recall what the complaints about Kruis in the first Lions test actually were. Anyone?

A little bit off the pace, a little bit bullied. He wasn't terrible, but the intensity did seem to shock him

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Digby wrote:
Normally I'd concur. Just this time I wonder if 50 minutes of Itoje going flat out against Brodie isn't the way to go.

Before he shifts to number 8 right?

I can't recall what the complaints about Kruis in the first Lions test actually were. Anyone?

A little bit off the pace, a little bit bullied. He wasn't terrible, but the intensity did seem to shock him

As above - he couldn't get into the game and looked slightly overwhelmed. He wasn't bad, per se, but it was a bad day for the pack in general and he was keeping Itoje out of the team which was just a plain poor selection decision in the first place.

Puja

I thought Kruis couldn't catch a cold in that game, let alone catch a ball, or make an effective tackle?

He was all over the pitch but not effective at all… I could be absolutely wrong though! I usually am

Digby wrote:

Danno wrote:

Digby wrote:What were the actions of Daly people didn't like?

This sums it up

Puja wrote: On the team, I watched the Australia match again and Daly has to go. Apart from Koroibete making him look stupid twice, I missed that Beale did the same to him in the first half - Daly actually tapped him with both hands on the hips as he went past, like he was playing touch rugby. Add that to his hesitations in clearing up at the back and New Zealand will target him. It's a risk to change, but I think it's a greater risk to stay the same.

meh, fast runners with space to attack either side often beat an isolated defender. I was perhaps thinking Daly should be doing more not to see play directed back inside, but it was a big step by Beale

I know what you mean Diggers. I think his poor performance has been exaggerated a little... he had dangerous runners running full tilt into space and he had a hell of a job on his hands to deal with it.

I was a pretty average full back (at a much lower level of course too . One of the things that made me average was in similar situations, I wasn't getting to these kind of threats literally as fast as possible and throwing myself at the runner, Mike Brown style, I was unsure of which call to make for a moment, whether go left or right, run with the defender and cover tackle or go in full tilt head first so to speak. FBs like Brown and Lewsey just smashed it, they ran at the attacker who'd made the break and just somehow stopped it. Daly isn't that, he's not a natural defender in this sense.

It pains me because I think Daly's my favourite England player, and he's arguably the most talented. But he's just not a good defensive full back. We CAN get away with it because he's so good going forward and he's a great kicker, steps into the line beautifully etc. But for the 7 great games he has where he looks wonderful, he'll have 3 poor games I suspect.

Going on the premise that May is a nailed on starter, is Daly a better winger than Watson, Coka and Nowell? If he is, then he should play there and we just have to play Watson at FB.

If I was manager, my first selection would be May and Daly on the wings with Watson at FB and Cokanasiga as 3rd choice winger.

As in previous instances I'm not averse to Watson playing at 15, but he's never done so well at test level, so also as previously that too is a punt

Beasties wrote:Personally I thought AWJ had a very poor day at the office but Kruis ended up carrying the can cos Gatland was coach.

He took a forearm to the head at the bottom of a ruck from Retallick within the first 15 minutes iirc.