RugbyRebels

So poor from Bath, do t deserve to be within 7, let alone leading!

That was like a WWE move from Launchbury. I’d be out for about two seasons if I’d been on the end of that.

Now that's just silly - not Barnes' fault, but still...

Great result for Wasps. They deserve a lot of credit for the way they adapted to the injuries and dug in to come back for the win.
Willis was quite outstanding. I felt Robson won the SH battle. Spencer has been good, today he wasnt quite at his best. Umaga very good.
Bath not quite on top of their game.
I'm sure we've been here before but i reckon a side should be able to scrummage with a prop in the middle of the front row. You might be advantaged with a prop there, though the line out does become a lot trickier. Uncontested scrums are never an attractive feature.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Spencer notnhaving a good day at the office today

Does anyone else have the same odd feeling when following the form of any contender at 9 that they'll have to be pretty much immaculate for every second of every game to actually stand a chance of breaking in ahead of Youngs?

I get the opposite actually - any contender for Youngs is allowed any number of flaws with only their successes noted, while Youngs is only the sum of his bad days.

Puja

fivepointer wrote:I'm sure we've been here before but i reckon a side should be able to scrummage with a prop in the middle of the front row. You might be advantaged with a prop there, though the line out does become a lot trickier. Uncontested scrums are never an attractive feature.

The positions aren't interchangeable - you wouldn't insist a tighthead just go on the loose (or at least I hope you wouldn't). Uncontested scrums are a hell of a lot more attractive than a serious neck injury.

Mind, having said that, I'm a little surprised West wasn't competent given he said he'd played there 3 years ago. Surely if he's played there at the top level, he's got the knowledge to be safe.

Puja

If you can play prop, there should be no problems in taking on the lesser physical challenge of playing hooker. The other way around I grant you would be problematic.
West could have handled it and been completely safe, but i guess he didnt want to take it on, fluff one or two hooks which might have been important.

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Spencer notnhaving a good day at the office today

Does anyone else have the same odd feeling when following the form of any contender at 9 that they'll have to be pretty much immaculate for every second of every game to actually stand a chance of breaking in ahead of Youngs?

I get the opposite actually - any contender for Youngs is allowed any number of flaws with only their successes noted, while Youngs is only the sum of his bad days.

Puja

I'm talking about England appearances not how they are rated on here. Are you?

Having an arm free vs being stuck in the middle is very different, as is the requirement of hooking a ball. All these strange movements would be extremely risky. 3 years is a long time and i don't think he'd have been djing it against adults with similar forces. He was definitely a prop for u20s.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
Does anyone else have the same odd feeling when following the form of any contender at 9 that they'll have to be pretty much immaculate for every second of every game to actually stand a chance of breaking in ahead of Youngs?

I get the opposite actually - any contender for Youngs is allowed any number of flaws with only their successes noted, while Youngs is only the sum of his bad days.

Puja

I'm talking about England appearances not how they are rated on here. Are you?

Why would you ruin a perfectly good argument by checking to make sure we're discussing the same thing? Tcha! Some people have no respect for the forms!

Also, no, I wasn't.

fivepointer wrote:If you can play prop, there should be no problems in taking on the lesser physical challenge of playing hooker. The other way around I grant you would be problematic.
West could have handled it and been completely safe, but i guess he didnt want to take it on, fluff one or two hooks which might have been important.

This is patent nonsense. It could be argued a lesser physical challenge, but it's also a very different one from playing prop and requires a lot more movement and technique. At club rugby level, where the scrums are higher, sure. At professional rugby level, it's asking for trouble.

As I said before, we don't expect a tighthead to be able to cope with being on the loosehead and that's just changing sides, so why would a prop automatically be able to do what a hooker does without endangering the neck that's got 15 people pushing against it?

Puja

Raggs wrote:Having an arm free vs being stuck in the middle is very different, as is the requirement of hooking a ball. All these strange movements would be extremely risky. 3 years is a long time and i don't think he'd have been djing it against adults with similar forces. He was definitely a prop for u20s.

Totally agree, beat me to it. IMO its not a 'lesser physical challenge', but a (very) different one.

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Puja wrote:
I get the opposite actually - any contender for Youngs is allowed any number of flaws with only their successes noted, while Youngs is only the sum of his bad days.

Puja

I'm talking about England appearances not how they are rated on here. Are you?

Why would you ruin a perfectly good argument by checking to make sure we're discussing the same thing? Tcha! Some people have no respect for the forms!

Also, no, I wasn't.

fivepointer wrote:If you can play prop, there should be no problems in taking on the lesser physical challenge of playing hooker. The other way around I grant you would be problematic.
West could have handled it and been completely safe, but i guess he didnt want to take it on, fluff one or two hooks which might have been important.

This is patent nonsense. It could be argued a lesser physical challenge, but it's also a very different one from playing prop and requires a lot more movement and technique. At club rugby level, where the scrums are higher, sure. At professional rugby level, it's asking for trouble.

As I said before, we don't expect a tighthead to be able to cope with being on the loosehead and that's just changing sides, so why would a prop automatically be able to do what a hooker does without endangering the neck that's got 15 people pushing against it?

Puja

quite

Puja wrote:

fivepointer wrote:If you can play prop, there should be no problems in taking on the lesser physical challenge of playing hooker. The other way around I grant you would be problematic.
West could have handled it and been completely safe, but i guess he didnt want to take it on, fluff one or two hooks which might have been important.

This is patent nonsense. It could be argued a lesser physical challenge, but it's also a very different one from playing prop and requires a lot more movement and technique. At club rugby level, where the scrums are higher, sure. At professional rugby level, it's asking for trouble.

As I said before, we don't expect a tighthead to be able to cope with being on the loosehead and that's just changing sides, so why would a prop automatically be able to do what a hooker does without endangering the neck that's got 15 people pushing against it?

Puja

And yet hookers, who are on the whole far smaller than props, can manage to take the strain. Look at Ogrhe. Hardly a massive lad. Are you saying that West, or any other prop - who are under far more pressure than a hooker - couldnt handle the physical aspects of playing at hooker?
I accept there are technical differences as i know from personal experience, but from a safety point of view i dont think there's really an issue.

fivepointer wrote:

Puja wrote:

fivepointer wrote:If you can play prop, there should be no problems in taking on the lesser physical challenge of playing hooker. The other way around I grant you would be problematic.
West could have handled it and been completely safe, but i guess he didnt want to take it on, fluff one or two hooks which might have been important.

This is patent nonsense. It could be argued a lesser physical challenge, but it's also a very different one from playing prop and requires a lot more movement and technique. At club rugby level, where the scrums are higher, sure. At professional rugby level, it's asking for trouble.

As I said before, we don't expect a tighthead to be able to cope with being on the loosehead and that's just changing sides, so why would a prop automatically be able to do what a hooker does without endangering the neck that's got 15 people pushing against it?

Puja

And yet hookers, who are on the whole far smaller than props, can manage to take the strain. Look at Ogrhe. Hardly a massive lad. Are you saying that West, or any other prop - who are under far more pressure than a hooker - couldnt handle the physical aspects of playing at hooker?
I accept there are technical differences as i know from personal experience, but from a safety point of view i dont think there's really an issue.

A hooker's body needs to twist in very different ways to a prop. Could a prop handle the physical strain required to do the crucifix move on a pair of rings? Strain comes in all shapes and sizes.

A prop is used to having 2 feet on the floor, straight solid body, and one arm available to hit the deck if needed. A hooker has both arms in the air, and is required to bring his foot forwards to sweep the ball, whilst almost hanging off the props, at the same time that the greatest amount of pressure is coming through the scrum.

fivepointer wrote:

Puja wrote:

fivepointer wrote:If you can play prop, there should be no problems in taking on the lesser physical challenge of playing hooker. The other way around I grant you would be problematic.
West could have handled it and been completely safe, but i guess he didnt want to take it on, fluff one or two hooks which might have been important.

This is patent nonsense. It could be argued a lesser physical challenge, but it's also a very different one from playing prop and requires a lot more movement and technique. At club rugby level, where the scrums are higher, sure. At professional rugby level, it's asking for trouble.

As I said before, we don't expect a tighthead to be able to cope with being on the loosehead and that's just changing sides, so why would a prop automatically be able to do what a hooker does without endangering the neck that's got 15 people pushing against it?

Puja

And yet hookers, who are on the whole far smaller than props, can manage to take the strain. Look at Ogrhe. Hardly a massive lad. Are you saying that West, or any other prop - who are under far more pressure than a hooker - couldnt handle the physical aspects of playing at hooker?
I accept there are technical differences as i know from personal experience, but from a safety point of view i dont think there's really an issue.

Raggs has hit the nail on the head - size =!= capability (I miss Beefeater). Hookers, who are smaller, manage the strain because they are practiced at it and know the techniques and have trained their muscles. Bulk doesn't protect you unless it's properly trained.

Puja

Struggling to get the image of a Lycra clad Davey Wilson on the parallel bars out of my head.

Puja wrote:

fivepointer wrote:

Puja wrote:


This is patent nonsense. It could be argued a lesser physical challenge, but it's also a very different one from playing prop and requires a lot more movement and technique. At club rugby level, where the scrums are higher, sure. At professional rugby level, it's asking for trouble.

As I said before, we don't expect a tighthead to be able to cope with being on the loosehead and that's just changing sides, so why would a prop automatically be able to do what a hooker does without endangering the neck that's got 15 people pushing against it?

Puja

And yet hookers, who are on the whole far smaller than props, can manage to take the strain. Look at Ogrhe. Hardly a massive lad. Are you saying that West, or any other prop - who are under far more pressure than a hooker - couldnt handle the physical aspects of playing at hooker?
I accept there are technical differences as i know from personal experience, but from a safety point of view i dont think there's really an issue.

Raggs has hit the nail on the head - size =!= capability (I miss Beefeater). Hookers, who are smaller, manage the strain because they are practiced at it and know the techniques and have trained their muscles. Bulk doesn't protect you unless it's properly trained.

Puja

I'm surprised its even an argument.

Having watched the 5 scrums that were played, there's no way Bath were close to dominant. First and fourth scrum had Stuart being twisted in (the 4th one he was pinged for it, since Barnes was the right side to see it), 2nd was very solid on Bath put in, 3rd was done very quickly. 5th scrum was messy, but looked like Stuart was on West's arm to me.

If West isn't on the team sheet as covering hooker, then why should he put himself and his team at risk (and the opposition), by playing there. Wasps had already lost 2 good players, and had a massive disadvantage in the lineout.

Tom West looks a really good player I reckon.

It's annoying but understandable that teams unable to contest the scrum are allowed to stay at 15 when head injury rules out a player

Digby wrote:It's annoying but understandable that teams unable to contest the scrum are allowed to stay at 15 when head injury rules out a player

Major disadvantage instantly to bigger packs who can't then use the set piece to take the legs out of more mobile packs.

FKAS wrote:

Digby wrote:It's annoying but understandable that teams unable to contest the scrum are allowed to stay at 15 when head injury rules out a player

Major disadvantage instantly to bigger packs who can't then use the set piece to take the legs out of more mobile packs.

How often does it actually happen though? And losing two hookers is a huge disadvantage anyway.

Raggs wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Digby wrote:It's annoying but understandable that teams unable to contest the scrum are allowed to stay at 15 when head injury rules out a player

Major disadvantage instantly to bigger packs who can't then use the set piece to take the legs out of more mobile packs.

How often does it actually happen though? And losing two hookers is a huge disadvantage anyway.

As a Tigers fan of normally back our scrum to wear down a lot of the more mobile packs in the league and that Bath pack looks pretty destructive at present. They might not have been pushing the Wasps one around but there was a lot of mobility in that tight five that would have been a lot fresher for longer having not had to do any shoving. Old school Wasps tactic as well

As you say losing your lineout throwers is a blow. Given the current protection of rolling mauls and jumpers in the air quite a very tough one as well.

FKAS wrote:

Digby wrote:It's annoying but understandable that teams unable to contest the scrum are allowed to stay at 15 when head injury rules out a player

Major disadvantage instantly to bigger packs who can't then use the set piece to take the legs out of more mobile packs.

I'm struggling to see the fuss over this. Wasps had two hookers injured in quick succession. The rules are clear. West understandably didn't fancy playing hooker cos it was over three years since he tried it. This is a professional game so alien to his previous experience as a hooker and only his second start in said competition. I was a TH and the thought of playing hooker scares me.

And Wasps lineout showed a mahoosive advantage to Bath.... Oh and the scrums were about even up til then.

FKAS wrote:

Raggs wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Major disadvantage instantly to bigger packs who can't then use the set piece to take the legs out of more mobile packs.

How often does it actually happen though? And losing two hookers is a huge disadvantage anyway.

As a Tigers fan of normally back our scrum to wear down a lot of the more mobile packs in the league and that Bath pack looks pretty destructive at present. They might not have been pushing the Wasps one around but there was a lot of mobility in that tight five that would have been a lot fresher for longer having not had to do any shoving. Old school Wasps tactic as well

As you say losing your lineout throwers is a blow. Given the current protection of rolling mauls and jumpers in the air quite a very tough one as well.

Apols FKAS, you were typing as I was typing.