RugbyRebels

bitts wrote:
Slades performance may have cemented Ford/Faz for the foreseeable future.

Why when we'd have the same problems? If we're going to make changes it'd seem to make sense to address either we lack carriers or we don't move the ball fast enough. Most of the issues in moving the ball stem from handling in the pack, and the speed of making the ball available and playing it. None of that is addressed by picking Farrell

bitts wrote:Well that was a step down from the summer.


Main issue for me was that we simply couldn't get the ball, and when we did someone often messed it up.

Questions need to be asked of the pack. Very little go forward, Hughes and Mako aside, and we barely disrupted Thier ball at all. I known Underhill tackled like a monster, but there is more to rugby than that.

Krius was anonymous, Hartley poor.

Slades performance may have cemented Ford/Faz for the foreseeable future.

Yes, it was a classic case of Farrell's reputation going up by not playing. Had he started in place of Slade it could have been worse because Ford's contribution would have been less (at shorter range etc.).

I still think our main issue is 9. In scrappy games like that the SH needs to be quicker and more authoritative. We need a real chat machine who can organise the breakdowns and snipe around the fringes.

Banquo wrote:

bitts wrote:Well that was a step down from the summer.


Main issue for me was that we simply couldn't get the ball, and when we did someone often messed it up.

Questions need to be asked of the pack. Very little go forward, Hughes and Mako aside, and we barely disrupted Thier ball at all. I known Underhill tackled like a monster, but there is more to rugby than that.

Krius was anonymous, Hartley poor.

Slades performance may have cemented Ford/Faz for the foreseeable future.

Need Billy ....seriously, we lack carriers. Lawes may have improved, but not enough. I really hope we don't try and compensate by putting a lock at 6.

Would Billy have scored Hughes's try? Would he have even been there? Take that try away and add in Argentina's points from missed kicks . . . .

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

bitts wrote:Well that was a step down from the summer.


Main issue for me was that we simply couldn't get the ball, and when we did someone often messed it up.

Questions need to be asked of the pack. Very little go forward, Hughes and Mako aside, and we barely disrupted Thier ball at all. I known Underhill tackled like a monster, but there is more to rugby than that.

Krius was anonymous, Hartley poor.

Slades performance may have cemented Ford/Faz for the foreseeable future.

Need Billy ....seriously, we lack carriers. Lawes may have improved, but not enough. I really hope we don't try and compensate by putting a lock at 6.

Would Billy have scored Hughes's try? Would he have even been there? Take that try away and add in Argentina's points from missed kicks . . . .

What about the other 69 mins and 50 secs. Not that I thought Hughes was poor but you can’t analyse it like that.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

bitts wrote:Well that was a step down from the summer.


Main issue for me was that we simply couldn't get the ball, and when we did someone often messed it up.

Questions need to be asked of the pack. Very little go forward, Hughes and Mako aside, and we barely disrupted Thier ball at all. I known Underhill tackled like a monster, but there is more to rugby than that.

Krius was anonymous, Hartley poor.

Slades performance may have cemented Ford/Faz for the foreseeable future.

Need Billy ....seriously, we lack carriers. Lawes may have improved, but not enough. I really hope we don't try and compensate by putting a lock at 6.

Would Billy have scored Hughes's try? Would he have even been there? Take that try away and add in Argentina's points from missed kicks . . . .

ah so we lose the game if Billy plays? That's quite an extrapolation Dors. Nothing like a spot of confirmation bias.

And besides, you've totally missed the running, jokey, dialogue re Billy in this thread. And no, he wouldn't have been there- he'd have been doing his job on hard yards and at the breakdown; Roko would have been free to finish

Back to serious- the pack lacked carriers, in fact the side did. Billy still remains way ahead of Hughes, despite a decent effort today.

Henry was a bit poor, sadly.

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Need Billy ....seriously, we lack carriers. Lawes may have improved, but not enough. I really hope we don't try and compensate by putting a lock at 6.

Would Billy have scored Hughes's try? Would he have even been there? Take that try away and add in Argentina's points from missed kicks . . . .

What about the other 69 mins and 50 secs. Not that I thought Hughes was poor but you can’t analyse it like that.

Fair point but I just don't think Hughes will ever get any credit. In a stuttering performance, he was pretty useful. I don't think any of them rated above 7/10 but that's his level with Kruis around 4, for example.

Digby wrote:

bitts wrote:
Slades performance may have cemented Ford/Faz for the foreseeable future.

Why when we'd have the same problems? If we're going to make changes it'd seem to make sense to address either we lack carriers or we don't move the ball fast enough. Most of the issues in moving the ball stem from handling in the pack, and the speed of making the ball available and playing it. None of that is addressed by picking Farrell

indeed, and a speedy, steppy runner at 12 made a difference, in a carrying kinda way. Slade was unfortunately inaccurate, but fortunate to stay on- I don't understand what his value at 13 would be in this side tbh.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Would Billy have scored Hughes's try? Would he have even been there? Take that try away and add in Argentina's points from missed kicks . . . .

What about the other 69 mins and 50 secs. Not that I thought Hughes was poor but you can’t analyse it like that.

Fair point but I just don't think Hughes will ever get any credit. In a stuttering performance, he was pretty useful. I don't think any of them rated above 7/10 but that's his level with Kruis around 4, for example.

The lady's not for turning.

Kruis was poor tho. Itoje and Launchbury have to be tried imo.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: What about the other 69 mins and 50 secs. Not that I thought Hughes was poor but you can’t analyse it like that.

Fair point but I just don't think Hughes will ever get any credit. In a stuttering performance, he was pretty useful. I don't think any of them rated above 7/10 but that's his level with Kruis around 4, for example.

The lady's not for turning.

Kruis was poor tho. Itoje and Launchbury have to be tried imo.

Kruis was but I’d say he has more credit in the bank. For me, our strongest side probably doesn’t contain either.

I thought Underhill, stupid penalty aside, did very well. However I wonder if part of our lack of carriers wasn't Hask. He's not the best, but we did use him a few times a game, and whilst he never really made linebreaks, he did bend the line. BV would have been an improvement on Hughes, but it's still one carrier for one carrier. Launch over Kruis perhaps, but we've looked OK with Kruis and Itoje. George and Sinkler maybe, but again, we've looked decent without them. BV in the past has tended to look better when Hask was on the pitch doing at least some of the carrying too.

Didnt we have the same number of carriers in Argentina in the summer?

Difference is we played at a higher tempo and executed a whole lot better. Today was a flat performance, where far too many players failed to do themselves justice.

Itoje will definitely come into the side next week and i fully expect Eddie to read the riot act. We'll get better.

Oh well, Slade has had his chance.

It's a good job Farrell's passing is ace.

Obviously the carrying and passing was a massive issue today, and Eddie can rightly sit there with a face like thunder over that, but it must have been a coaching decision to not ruck at all. The number of times we drove them back, caught players behind the gain line, but then didn't go in to win the ball back was incredibly frustrating.

Anyway, the Welsh have just failed to score against 14 Ozzies from 5 yards out. Again. So we could be that bad.

fivepointer wrote:Didnt we have the same number of carriers in Argentina in the summer?

Difference is we played at a higher tempo and executed a whole lot better. Today was a flat performance, where far too many players failed to do themselves justice.

Itoje will definitely come into the side next week and i fully expect Eddie to read the riot act. We'll get better.

100% agree. Dare I say Care playing at 9 contributed to a quicker tempo in Argentina?

In Arg our locks were both carrying options, even if not great ones. We also had May coming off his wing and running hard lines a lot I believe. Daly works off his wing, but usually more of a link man rather than a straightline runner.

Disappointing. It's gonna be a busy week.

Watched the ireland game and there was no lions hangover there!

Yeah - as we saw in Dublin last March, the Irish players seem to be able to summon an extra level of intensity in comparison to ours.

Don’t worry. Stuart Barnes said that Farrell will supply that next week. All by himself.

My theory is Ford's problem is that he always looks slightly nervous regardless of his actual mental or emotional state. Farrell looks determined by default. Thus are reputations made.

Raggs wrote:I thought Underhill, stupid penalty aside, did very well. However I wonder if part of our lack of carriers wasn't Hask. He's not the best, but we did use him a few times a game, and whilst he never really made linebreaks, he did bend the line. BV would have been an improvement on Hughes, but it's still one carrier for one carrier. Launch over Kruis perhaps, but we've looked OK with Kruis and Itoje. George and Sinkler maybe, but again, we've looked decent without them. BV in the past has tended to look better when Hask was on the pitch doing at least some of the carrying too.

I'm not sure when we've looked good as such. We've had the odd good play, but in many of Eddie's wins it's tended towards being slow and lacking penetration. Haskell can help a little in the carrying, but for all he's put on weight he's gone backwards as a carrier, and as Billy says he has hands like Edward Scissorhands

We do look like we need at last 3 more carriers, whether that comes from George, LCD, Sinckler, Launchbury, Itoje, Billy, Te'o, Manu, I don't know, we might even need 4-5 of them. If all the changes come in the forwards it'll start to put pressure on whatever workhorses are left from the likes of Cole, Kruis and Robshaw

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Fair point but I just don't think Hughes will ever get any credit. In a stuttering performance, he was pretty useful. I don't think any of them rated above 7/10 but that's his level with Kruis around 4, for example.

The lady's not for turning.

Kruis was poor tho. Itoje and Launchbury have to be tried imo.

Kruis was but I’d say he has more credit in the bank. For me, our strongest side probably doesn’t contain either.

either of Itoje amd Launchbury?

Raggs wrote:I thought Underhill, stupid penalty aside, did very well. However I wonder if part of our lack of carriers wasn't Hask. He's not the best, but we did use him a few times a game, and whilst he never really made linebreaks, he did bend the line. BV would have been an improvement on Hughes, but it's still one carrier for one carrier. Launch over Kruis perhaps, but we've looked OK with Kruis and Itoje. George and Sinkler maybe, but again, we've looked decent without them. BV in the past has tended to look better when Hask was on the pitch doing at least some of the carrying too.

seriously?

Mr Mwenda wrote:My theory is Ford's problem is that he always looks slightly nervous regardless of his actual mental or emotional state. Farrell looks determined by default. Thus are reputations made.

aye a determined look will deter the AB's for sure.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: The lady's not for turning.

Kruis was poor tho. Itoje and Launchbury have to be tried imo.

Kruis was but I’d say he has more credit in the bank. For me, our strongest side probably doesn’t contain either.

either of Itoje amd Launchbury?

In isolation I’d go with Itoje and Launchbury with Lawes coming off the bench. With the likely first choice backrow - Robshaw, Underhill & Billy - I’d probably swap Launchbury and Lawes for lineout reasons.

Banquo wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:My theory is Ford's problem is that he always looks slightly nervous regardless of his actual mental or emotional state. Farrell looks determined by default. Thus are reputations made.

aye a determined look will deter the AB's for sure.

If we combined a fierce look with standing up whilst the kicker approaches the ball we'd be unbeatable