Spiffy wrote:
Billy does not seem to have developed his game all that much in the past year. It is mostly based on physicality. He is a very heavy and powerful man, with a low centre of gravity, who will always make hard yards and is a bugger to pull down. His ball-playing skills have not seemed to advance at Sarries, who use him as a primarily as a heavy-duty carrier in traffic. His game seems a tad more flexible at the international level when playing for England, where he shows good hands and positional awareness, though he was far from his best at the RWC. Not sure tht Sarries are getting the best out of him with his designated role in their game plan.
Interesting to watch his head-to-head with Simmonds today. I thought Simmonds came out on top, but I suppose one could argue that was because the Exeter pack as a whole outplayed their opponents.
That just doesn’t tally up for me. It’s very rare after a Sarries game to look at the stats for both teams and for Billy to not be the top passer and offloaded among the forwards. He’s got a very diverse game imo.
Only 2 weeks ago he won the game against Munster with a brilliant basketball style pass after breaking from the scrum and sucking in 4 defenders. Also created a couple of line breaks with brilliant pirouette passes on the gain line.
I don't agree with Spiffy either- but yesterday, as someone I consider as a world class player, he was disappointing with his handling and especially with his ball retention, and couldn't make the impact I'd expect.
It seems to have become common amongst critics to call him out as being a one dimensional bosher- he is very far from that, and his handling is (generally) very good and improving- he's used much more as a distributor; he's also very good over the ball.
I thought Sarries clear out was the worst I’ve seen in a long time. Usually pretty brutal around the ruck.
Also saw a stat that Sarries haven’t won at Sandy Park since 2016-5 or 6 games ago-, so have to recognise that it’s a bloody hard place to go and win. Exeter look to have the bit between their teeth this season.
Timbo wrote:
That just doesn’t tally up for me. It’s very rare after a Sarries game to look at the stats for both teams and for Billy to not be the top passer and offloaded among the forwards. He’s got a very diverse game imo.
Only 2 weeks ago he won the game against Munster with a brilliant basketball style pass after breaking from the scrum and sucking in 4 defenders. Also created a couple of line breaks with brilliant pirouette passes on the gain line.
I don't agree with Spiffy either- but yesterday, as someone I consider as a world class player, he was disappointing with his handling and especially with his ball retention, and couldn't make the impact I'd expect.
It seems to have become common amongst critics to call him out as being a one dimensional bosher- he is very far from that, and his handling is (generally) very good and improving- he's used much more as a distributor; he's also very good over the ball.
I thought Sarries clear out was the worst I’ve seen in a long time. Usually pretty brutal around the ruck.
Also saw a stat that Sarries haven’t won at Sandy Park since 2016-5 or 6 games ago-, so have to recognise that it’s a bloody hard place to go and win. Exeter look to have the bit between their teeth this season.
Yep they were done over in most of the basics. However, as Baxter said, the key to beating Sarries is not allowing them to get any momentum, and at crucial points, Sarries big players let them down in those terms. In a tight game, those errors made a big difference.
Saracens were unusually error prone and lacked a clinical edge in Exe's 22. They really should have done far more with the ball they had and the good positions they worked themselves into.
Credit Exe for their resilience and workrate. LCD good along with the back row. J Simmonds is developing into a very assured 10.
For the opening Exeter try is it fair to blame the pass from Farrell? There certainly were dodgy passes from the colossus during the game, but was the pass to Williams actually that bad? Williams stayed on his heels, the ball from Farrell was drawing him forward, and I might conclude it was just one of those plays wherein players are on difference wavelengths
Digby wrote:For the opening Exeter try is it fair to blame the pass from Farrell? There certainly were dodgy passes from the colossus during the game, but was the pass to Williams actually that bad? Williams stayed on his heels, the ball from Farrell was drawing him forward, and I might conclude it was just one of those plays wherein players are on difference wavelengths
Williams? Malins. And yes, it was crap- too much pace on it- given it hit turf with Mailins barely able to lay his outside hand on it, i'll stick with dreadful pass- though the beeb has it as a Malins handling error
I think it’s pretty widely known that I’m not Farrell’s biggest fan, but I just watched it again and it’s not a terrible pass. ‘Crap’ is definitely overly harsh.
Are you sure it wasn’t Daly (the player was wearing 11)? Either way, I think it’s fair to expect whoever was standing at first receive to have been a bit a little bit more alert.
Sure the pass could have been better, but the receiver should have done better too.
Scrumhead wrote:I think it’s pretty widely known that I’m not Farrell’s biggest fan, but I just watched it again and it’s not a terrible pass. ‘Crap’ is definitely overly harsh.
Are you sure it wasn’t Daly (the player was wearing 11)? Either way, I think it’s fair to expect whoever was standing at first receive to have been a bit a little bit more alert.
Sure the pass could have been better, but the receiver should have done better too.
It was Malins. And it was a poorly weighted pass,from a player who was standing still- at this level...crap. Malins was also likely unsighted by
Skelton who was immediately outside Faz; the angle Malins was coming from made it very hard to take the pace and angle of pass from Faz.
Scrumhead wrote:I think it’s pretty widely known that I’m not Farrell’s biggest fan, but I just watched it again and it’s not a terrible pass. ‘Crap’ is definitely overly harsh.
Are you sure it wasn’t Daly (the player was wearing 11)? Either way, I think it’s fair to expect whoever was standing at first receive to have been a bit a little bit more alert.
Sure the pass could have been better, but the receiver should have done better too.
It was Malins. And it was a poorly weighted pass, at this level...crap.
Ah yes, Malins. Very easy though to make that pass in front or behind of the target if the recipient moves or doesn't move as the passer expects, though certainly if Farrell was expecting him to be still it was god awful. I'll say this though, getting these basics right and not lousing up exit plays from within their own half is just a massive part of the Sarries game, giving an easy chance to attack their own line away is exactly the mistake they want from other. I'd actually be rather crosser with him about his pass on the previous phase when he went back inside to George 'cause I'm a little on the fence with his pass to Malins, it looked to me like he had an option to pass off his left sending the ball wide to Maitland and (was it) Daly rather than float the ball back inside to George? And it was George getting knocked down behind the gainline that had the wider Sarries backs sitting on their heels. Though given the pass off his left late in the game to Lozowski did he just bottle the pass off his left, he's bottled passing off his left left in the past?
Scrumhead wrote:I think it’s pretty widely known that I’m not Farrell’s biggest fan, but I just watched it again and it’s not a terrible pass. ‘Crap’ is definitely overly harsh.
Are you sure it wasn’t Daly (the player was wearing 11)? Either way, I think it’s fair to expect whoever was standing at first receive to have been a bit a little bit more alert.
Sure the pass could have been better, but the receiver should have done better too.
It was Malins. And it was a poorly weighted pass, at this level...crap.
Ah yes, Malins. Very easy though to make that pass in front or behind of the target if the recipient moves or doesn't move as the passer expects, though certainly if Farrell was expecting him to be still it was god awful. I'll say this though, getting these basics right and not lousing up exit plays from within their own half is just a massive part of the Sarries game, giving an easy chance to attack their own line away is exactly the mistake they want from other. I'd actually be rather crosser with him about his pass on the previous phase when he went back inside to George 'cause I'm a little on the fence with his pass to Malins, it looked to me like he had an option to pass off his left sending the ball wide to Maitland and (was it) Daly rather than float the ball back inside to George? And it was George getting knocked down behind the gainline that had the wider Sarries backs sitting on their heels. Though given the pass off his left late in the game to Lozowski did he just bottle the pass off his left, he's bottled passing off his left left in the past?
Agreed about the pass to George, who did well to put lipstick on that pig.
The passage of play leading up to what I still think was a dreadful pass to Malins was all a little formulaic and staccato; the clearing over George wasn't great, Spencer got his feet a bit tangled, Faz took it standing still before winding up the infamous pass- Skelton was standing nearest him not seemingly running onto it, Malins was angling from behind Skelton (suspect he was also a bit flummoxed by Faz's static take) but was trying to reach a pass that was so unsympathetic as to be very difficult to take (crap ), and in the end had to reach back with his outside arm; I did actually wonder whether Faz was trying to hit Daly, but that would have been woefully short.
As I said originally, Sarries played poorly, notwithstanding Chiefs great defence.
Stom wrote:However bad the pass was...he was standing stock still with his feet planted: that's poor form no matter.
And the Simmonds tackle on George to hold him up over the line...that was good for a 10, for sure. Very good.
I'd just like to hear someone say something tangible about Farrell that is merely very good, nevermind world class...
who, Faz? Agreed.
One thing he does that can be very good at is staying square to the defence, but it does make the pass harder given he's limiting opening his hips up. Swings and roundabouts
Banquo wrote:
It was Malins. And it was a poorly weighted pass, at this level...crap.
Ah yes, Malins. Very easy though to make that pass in front or behind of the target if the recipient moves or doesn't move as the passer expects, though certainly if Farrell was expecting him to be still it was god awful. I'll say this though, getting these basics right and not lousing up exit plays from within their own half is just a massive part of the Sarries game, giving an easy chance to attack their own line away is exactly the mistake they want from other. I'd actually be rather crosser with him about his pass on the previous phase when he went back inside to George 'cause I'm a little on the fence with his pass to Malins, it looked to me like he had an option to pass off his left sending the ball wide to Maitland and (was it) Daly rather than float the ball back inside to George? And it was George getting knocked down behind the gainline that had the wider Sarries backs sitting on their heels. Though given the pass off his left late in the game to Lozowski did he just bottle the pass off his left, he's bottled passing off his left left in the past?
Agreed about the pass to George, who did well to put lipstick on that pig.
The passage of play leading up to what I still think was a dreadful pass to Malins was all a little formulaic and staccato; the clearing over George wasn't great, Spencer got his feet a bit tangled, Faz took it standing still before winding up the infamous pass- Skelton was standing nearest him not seemingly running onto it, Malins was angling from behind Skelton (suspect he was also a bit flummoxed by Faz's static take) but was trying to reach a pass that was so unsympathetic as to be very difficult to take (crap ), and in the end had to reach back with his outside arm; I did actually wonder whether Faz was trying to hit Daly, but that would have been woefully short.
As I said originally, Sarries played poorly, notwithstanding Chiefs great defence.
I wondered how much their exit play changes without Wiggle, maybe even beyond that given Wiggle tended to exert such control. If with Spencer coming to the fore will more go through Farrell when he's not getting ball going forwards?
Stom wrote:However bad the pass was...he was standing stock still with his feet planted: that's poor form no matter.
And the Simmonds tackle on George to hold him up over the line...that was good for a 10, for sure. Very good.
I'd just like to hear someone say something tangible about Farrell that is merely very good, nevermind world class...
who, Faz? Agreed.
One thing he does that can be very good at is staying square to the defence, but it does make the pass harder given he's limiting opening his hips up. Swings and roundabouts
Static pivot at 10 is very limiting and very hard to run off unless well communicated early.
Learn to pass like the French (used to) on the hip point. Sella was a master at running straight yet able to pass with length and accuracy off either hand whilst on the run. Both Jim Greenwood and Bob Dwyer emphasised this in their coaching, and its become something of a forgotten skill- oddly, because it creates so much space, which is at a premium these days.
Last edited by Banquo on Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Digby wrote:
Ah yes, Malins. Very easy though to make that pass in front or behind of the target if the recipient moves or doesn't move as the passer expects, though certainly if Farrell was expecting him to be still it was god awful. I'll say this though, getting these basics right and not lousing up exit plays from within their own half is just a massive part of the Sarries game, giving an easy chance to attack their own line away is exactly the mistake they want from other. I'd actually be rather crosser with him about his pass on the previous phase when he went back inside to George 'cause I'm a little on the fence with his pass to Malins, it looked to me like he had an option to pass off his left sending the ball wide to Maitland and (was it) Daly rather than float the ball back inside to George? And it was George getting knocked down behind the gainline that had the wider Sarries backs sitting on their heels. Though given the pass off his left late in the game to Lozowski did he just bottle the pass off his left, he's bottled passing off his left left in the past?
Agreed about the pass to George, who did well to put lipstick on that pig.
The passage of play leading up to what I still think was a dreadful pass to Malins was all a little formulaic and staccato; the clearing over George wasn't great, Spencer got his feet a bit tangled, Faz took it standing still before winding up the infamous pass- Skelton was standing nearest him not seemingly running onto it, Malins was angling from behind Skelton (suspect he was also a bit flummoxed by Faz's static take) but was trying to reach a pass that was so unsympathetic as to be very difficult to take (crap ), and in the end had to reach back with his outside arm; I did actually wonder whether Faz was trying to hit Daly, but that would have been woefully short.
As I said originally, Sarries played poorly, notwithstanding Chiefs great defence.
I wondered how much their exit play changes without Wiggle, maybe even beyond that given Wiggle tended to exert such control. If with Spencer coming to the fore will more go through Farrell when he's not getting ball going forwards?
Yes, its not often remarked on how little Faz gets the ball (relative to 10's in other teams) when playing for Sarries. When they are going well, its the ultimate armchair ride.
One thing he does that can be very good at is staying square to the defence, but it does make the pass harder given he's limiting opening his hips up. Swings and roundabouts
Static pivot at 10 is very limiting and very hard to run off unless well communicated early.
Learn to pass like the French (used to) on the hip point. Sella was a master at running straight yet able to pass with length and accuracy off either hand whilst on the run. Both Jim Greenwood and Bob Dwyer emphasised this in their coaching, and its become something of a forgotten skill- oddly, because it creates so much space, which is at a premium these days.
That he's so static is a problem on the timing front. But he's not the only 10 who simply shovel ball along. I wonder actually how much he stays squarer is again a problem in that you normally get the visual guide of the top hand/arm if you're the recipient, not much of a difference maybe, but it all adds up.
Edit - That pass that Dwyer and Greenwood emphasised was much more successful against a slow and frankly uninterested defence
Digby wrote:
One thing he does that can be very good at is staying square to the defence, but it does make the pass harder given he's limiting opening his hips up. Swings and roundabouts
Static pivot at 10 is very limiting and very hard to run off unless well communicated early.
Learn to pass like the French (used to) on the hip point. Sella was a master at running straight yet able to pass with length and accuracy off either hand whilst on the run. Both Jim Greenwood and Bob Dwyer emphasised this in their coaching, and its become something of a forgotten skill- oddly, because it creates so much space, which is at a premium these days.
That he's so static is a problem on the timing front. But he's not the only 10 who simply shovel ball along. I wonder actually how much he stays squarer is again a problem in that you normally get the visual guide of the top hand/arm if you're the recipient, not much of a difference maybe, but it all adds up.
Edit - That pass that Dwyer and Greenwood emphasised was much more successful against a slow and frankly uninterested defence
we must be talking about different things. Certainly with Dwyers flat play and straight runners it was about foxing fast defences.
Banquo wrote:
Static pivot at 10 is very limiting and very hard to run off unless well communicated early.
Learn to pass like the French (used to) on the hip point. Sella was a master at running straight yet able to pass with length and accuracy off either hand whilst on the run. Both Jim Greenwood and Bob Dwyer emphasised this in their coaching, and its become something of a forgotten skill- oddly, because it creates so much space, which is at a premium these days.
That he's so static is a problem on the timing front. But he's not the only 10 who simply shovel ball along. I wonder actually how much he stays squarer is again a problem in that you normally get the visual guide of the top hand/arm if you're the recipient, not much of a difference maybe, but it all adds up.
Edit - That pass that Dwyer and Greenwood emphasised was much more successful against a slow and frankly uninterested defence
we must be talking about different things. Certainly with Dwyers flat play and straight runners it was about foxing fast defences.
Were there any fast defences?
It's still doable, and it'd work if it worked. Just there's much more pressure on the skill execution now so even with vastly improved skills it's a risk, but you've got to take a risk somewhere
Spiffy wrote:
Billy does not seem to have developed his game all that much in the past year. It is mostly based on physicality. He is a very heavy and powerful man, with a low centre of gravity, who will always make hard yards and is a bugger to pull down. His ball-playing skills have not seemed to advance at Sarries, who use him as a primarily as a heavy-duty carrier in traffic. His game seems a tad more flexible at the international level when playing for England, where he shows good hands and positional awareness, though he was far from his best at the RWC. Not sure tht Sarries are getting the best out of him with his designated role in their game plan.
Interesting to watch his head-to-head with Simmonds today. I thought Simmonds came out on top, but I suppose one could argue that was because the Exeter pack as a whole outplayed their opponents.
That just doesn’t tally up for me. It’s very rare after a Sarries game to look at the stats for both teams and for Billy to not be the top passer and offloaded among the forwards. He’s got a very diverse game imo.
Only 2 weeks ago he won the game against Munster with a brilliant basketball style pass after breaking from the scrum and sucking in 4 defenders. Also created a couple of line breaks with brilliant pirouette passes on the gain line.
I don't agree with Spiffy either- but yesterday, as someone I consider as a world class player, he was disappointing with his handling and especially with his ball retention, and couldn't make the impact I'd expect.
It seems to have become common amongst critics to call him out as being a one dimensional bosher- he is very far from that, and his handling is (generally) very good and improving- he's used much more as a distributor; he's also very good over the ball.
On the one hand Billy’s handling, offloading are very good however I do feel there’s an element of truth in that his style is basically all about bulldozing through heavy traffic - imo he doesn’t have the athleticism, pace or engine to play a wider game that many (if not most) test no.8s have. and If I was picking a Lions side I’d say Falatau was the better all round 8 - similarly (if not quite as) powerful but more arthleticism.
If you could construct a gameplay that allowed Billy to go wider he'd only look better. Typically Billy has to sacrifice what would make him look better to serve the interests of the team. But I can assure you every defence coach going would rather seek to contain Billy in the narrower than wider channels.
Faletau is without doubt a better rugby player, but Billy is without doubt the more powerful athlete. Where you end up picking one ahead of the other, or maybe both, is going to depend on the balance being sought and tactics in attack and defence
Digby wrote:
That he's so static is a problem on the timing front. But he's not the only 10 who simply shovel ball along. I wonder actually how much he stays squarer is again a problem in that you normally get the visual guide of the top hand/arm if you're the recipient, not much of a difference maybe, but it all adds up.
Edit - That pass that Dwyer and Greenwood emphasised was much more successful against a slow and frankly uninterested defence
we must be talking about different things. Certainly with Dwyers flat play and straight runners it was about foxing fast defences.
Were there any fast defences?
It's still doable, and it'd work if it worked. Just there's much more pressure on the skill execution now so even with vastly improved skills it's a risk, but you've got to take a risk somewhere
Ah I did wonder if you were referring to the applicability to the modern game- fair point, but that was why I said I thought some of their methods were still relevant today. Running straight- or at least knowing what your running line is- still seems good to me.
Timbo wrote:
That just doesn’t tally up for me. It’s very rare after a Sarries game to look at the stats for both teams and for Billy to not be the top passer and offloaded among the forwards. He’s got a very diverse game imo.
Only 2 weeks ago he won the game against Munster with a brilliant basketball style pass after breaking from the scrum and sucking in 4 defenders. Also created a couple of line breaks with brilliant pirouette passes on the gain line.
I don't agree with Spiffy either- but yesterday, as someone I consider as a world class player, he was disappointing with his handling and especially with his ball retention, and couldn't make the impact I'd expect.
It seems to have become common amongst critics to call him out as being a one dimensional bosher- he is very far from that, and his handling is (generally) very good and improving- he's used much more as a distributor; he's also very good over the ball.
On the one hand Billy’s handling, offloading are very good however I do feel there’s an element of truth in that his style is basically all about bulldozing through heavy traffic - imo he doesn’t have the athleticism, pace or engine to play a wider game that many (if not most) test no.8s have. and If I was picking a Lions side I’d say Falatau was the better all round 8 - similarly (if not quite as) powerful but more arthleticism.
I don’t agree about his pace and athleticism and he could play a wider game.
Timbo wrote:
That just doesn’t tally up for me. It’s very rare after a Sarries game to look at the stats for both teams and for Billy to not be the top passer and offloaded among the forwards. He’s got a very diverse game imo.
Only 2 weeks ago he won the game against Munster with a brilliant basketball style pass after breaking from the scrum and sucking in 4 defenders. Also created a couple of line breaks with brilliant pirouette passes on the gain line.
I don't agree with Spiffy either- but yesterday, as someone I consider as a world class player, he was disappointing with his handling and especially with his ball retention, and couldn't make the impact I'd expect.
It seems to have become common amongst critics to call him out as being a one dimensional bosher- he is very far from that, and his handling is (generally) very good and improving- he's used much more as a distributor; he's also very good over the ball.
On the one hand Billy’s handling, offloading are very good however I do feel there’s an element of truth in that his style is basically all about bulldozing through heavy traffic.
‘Bulldozing through heavy traffic’ is the key tenant to Billy’s game yes, but he palpably has a lot more to offer than that. Literally just look at the stats to see number of tackles, dominant collisions, passes, turnovers etc.
But either way, being arguably the best tight ball carrying forward in the world is not really a stick to beat him with.
), and in the end had to reach back with his outside arm; I did actually wonder whether Faz was trying to hit Daly, but that would have been woefully short.