RugbyRebels

Scrumhead wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
Do you ever get bored of spouting inaccurate rubbish just to pursue your own narrative?

With the Mourinho comparison you’re more or less making out that we play 0 rugby and win by kicking goals or grinding out wins with 10 man rugby which plainly isn’t true.

Look I’d rather we kicked a lot less and played more ball-in-hand rugby, but the stats speak for themselves. Last year we scored 24 tries - almost twice as many as the 14 scored by Ireland and Scotland. In 2018 (when we were $hit) we were still there 2nd for tries scored. In 2017 we were top with 16 tries ... do you want me to keep going?

With the possible exception of Scotland, the other ‘home nations’ are very much the pot calling the kettle black if they’re labelling us ‘boring’. Schmidt’s most successful Ireland teams were much more befitting of your Mourinho comparison and Warrenball was the epitome of unimaginative rugby. Scotland at least try to play but more often than not lack the skill to match the ambition.

I’d question your friends if they’re coming to you for an informed opinion.

I don't think there is any need to be so unpleasant.

He's not wrong in saying that Eddie is all about results and not performance; I don't have a problem with that personally, but do question some of his methods of getting there. I think we do have sufficient players of all round quality to aspire to more ambitious rugby; that said, we do do somequite interesting things, but more likely to 'amuse' the purist, and not done consistently well. Our basic executions can be frustratingly bad.

OK. Maybe my last sentence was a touch harsh. Sorry Oakboy.

As I’ve said previously (and even in the post), I’d like us to play more, kick less and make more of our players who are genuinely skilful but I don’t think we’re a results only team either. We’re certainly not the most boring team in the 6N.

As accolades go....

Is it eddie / gatland? Is it not just modern rugby? No one can say England didnt pull out a top draw performance against the ABs.

Scrumhead wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
Do you ever get bored of spouting inaccurate rubbish just to pursue your own narrative?

With the Mourinho comparison you’re more or less making out that we play 0 rugby and win by kicking goals or grinding out wins with 10 man rugby which plainly isn’t true.

Look I’d rather we kicked a lot less and played more ball-in-hand rugby, but the stats speak for themselves. Last year we scored 24 tries - almost twice as many as the 14 scored by Ireland and Scotland. In 2018 (when we were $hit) we were still there 2nd for tries scored. In 2017 we were top with 16 tries ... do you want me to keep going?

With the possible exception of Scotland, the other ‘home nations’ are very much the pot calling the kettle black if they’re labelling us ‘boring’. Schmidt’s most successful Ireland teams were much more befitting of your Mourinho comparison and Warrenball was the epitome of unimaginative rugby. Scotland at least try to play but more often than not lack the skill to match the ambition.

I’d question your friends if they’re coming to you for an informed opinion.

I don't think there is any need to be so unpleasant.

He's not wrong in saying that Eddie is all about results and not performance; I don't have a problem with that personally, but do question some of his methods of getting there. I think we do have sufficient players of all round quality to aspire to more ambitious rugby; that said, we do do somequite interesting things, but more likely to 'amuse' the purist, and not done consistently well. Our basic executions can be frustratingly bad.

OK. Maybe my last sentence was a touch harsh. Sorry Oakboy.

As I’ve said previously (and even in the post), I’d like us to play more, kick less and make more of our players who are genuinely skilful but I don’t think we’re a results only team either. We’re certainly not the most boring team in the 6N.

Would like to see some discussion/opinions on this. Who are the genuinely skillful players? Couldn't get much beyond Ford myself. Probably Slade, Watson. Others (e.g. May, Itoje, Underhill) may be better described as effective rather than skillful.
Suppose it depends on your definition of skillful. For me it would being good at the basics of of rugby with a high degree of consistency - running, passing, kicking, tackling, footwork etc. with an emphasis on using the ball. I do realize that these are attributes more associated with backs (probably comes from playing as a back myself.)
But there are certainly forward skills at scrum, lineout, ruck, maul, carrying etc. - perhaps especially in getting turnover ball, pinching lineouts,winning scrum penalties and destructive tackling. And the modern game is all about forward domination.
So who fits the bill? You'd like to think that all (or anyway most) players on an international team are skillful at what they are asked to do.
To look at it another way - who is currently not skillful in carrying out his role?

Spiffy wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Banquo wrote: I don't think there is any need to be so unpleasant.

He's not wrong in saying that Eddie is all about results and not performance; I don't have a problem with that personally, but do question some of his methods of getting there. I think we do have sufficient players of all round quality to aspire to more ambitious rugby; that said, we do do somequite interesting things, but more likely to 'amuse' the purist, and not done consistently well. Our basic executions can be frustratingly bad.

OK. Maybe my last sentence was a touch harsh. Sorry Oakboy.

As I’ve said previously (and even in the post), I’d like us to play more, kick less and make more of our players who are genuinely skilful but I don’t think we’re a results only team either. We’re certainly not the most boring team in the 6N.

Would like to see some discussion/opinions on this. Who are the genuinely skillful players? Couldn't get much beyond Ford myself. Probably Slade, Watson. Others (e.g. May, Itoje, Underhill) may be better described as effective rather than skillful.
Suppose it depends on your definition of skillful. For me it would being good at the basics of of rugby with a high degree of consistency - running, passing, kicking, tackling, footwork etc. with an emphasis on using the ball. I do realize that these are attributes more associated with backs (probably comes from playing as a back myself.)
But there are certainly forward skills at scrum, lineout, ruck, maul, carrying etc. - perhaps especially in getting turnover ball, pinching lineouts,winning scrum penalties and destructive tackling. And the modern game is all about forward domination.
So who fits the bill? You'd like to think that all (or anyway most) players on an international team are skillful at what they are asked to do.
To look at it another way - who is currently not skillful in carrying out his role?

More like, which skillfull players are currently hampered in using their skill.

And, well, most of them? We're not making the most use of George's offloading ability, of Curry's link play, of Ford's game control and passing, of Daly's running lines, of May's ball in hand play, of Slade... of Mercer/Simmonds ability to pick gaps in close.

We play very limited rugby. Highly skilled limited rugby, but the skills involved seem to be learned and not innate. We're evening out our skill. Which can be good if your team is not made up of European champions but of journeymen with a few flashes of excellence (often Wales, though Gatland did have a great front 5 for most of his tenure, too).

All the players are skilful.
Ford can throw a pass that Marler couldn't but he cannot scrummage or clear rucks like Joe can. In the same way Kruis doesnt have the speed and footwork of Watson but can run a line out and catch restarts.
There is skill involved in all facets of play in our game.

Scrumhead wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
Do you ever get bored of spouting inaccurate rubbish just to pursue your own narrative?

With the Mourinho comparison you’re more or less making out that we play 0 rugby and win by kicking goals or grinding out wins with 10 man rugby which plainly isn’t true.

Look I’d rather we kicked a lot less and played more ball-in-hand rugby, but the stats speak for themselves. Last year we scored 24 tries - almost twice as many as the 14 scored by Ireland and Scotland. In 2018 (when we were $hit) we were still there 2nd for tries scored. In 2017 we were top with 16 tries ... do you want me to keep going?

With the possible exception of Scotland, the other ‘home nations’ are very much the pot calling the kettle black if they’re labelling us ‘boring’. Schmidt’s most successful Ireland teams were much more befitting of your Mourinho comparison and Warrenball was the epitome of unimaginative rugby. Scotland at least try to play but more often than not lack the skill to match the ambition.

I’d question your friends if they’re coming to you for an informed opinion.

I don't think there is any need to be so unpleasant.

He's not wrong in saying that Eddie is all about results and not performance; I don't have a problem with that personally, but do question some of his methods of getting there. I think we do have sufficient players of all round quality to aspire to more ambitious rugby; that said, we do do somequite interesting things, but more likely to 'amuse' the purist, and not done consistently well. Our basic executions can be frustratingly bad.

OK. Maybe my last sentence was a touch harsh. Sorry Oakboy.

As I’ve said previously (and even in the post), I’d like us to play more, kick less and make more of our players who are genuinely skilful but I don’t think we’re a results only team either. We’re certainly not the most boring team in the 6N.

Apology accepted, thank you. No offence taken.

You need to make a few allowances for my age. It has taken me hell of a long time to achieve my current level of crustiness. I accept being stuck in my ways but defend my right to dislike Jones and his methods.

fivepointer wrote:All the players are skilful.
Ford can throw a pass that Marler couldn't but he cannot scrummage or clear rucks like Joe can. In the same way Kruis doesnt have the speed and footwork of Watson but can run a line out and catch restarts.
There is skill involved in all facets of play in our game.

Agreed. I suppose if I was going to highlight 6N players with the highest relevant skill levels I would be thinking of Itoje, Liam Williams and, possibly, Tipuric.

I think Stom's point that we are not getting the best out of our players' skills is spot-on. It indicates to me that our team unit ceiling could be much higher and that encapsulates my constant whingeing about Jones. Banquo reports from the book that Jones seeks to win in a style based on English character. I just want us managed on our rugby competence.

Oakboy wrote:

fivepointer wrote:All the players are skilful.
Ford can throw a pass that Marler couldn't but he cannot scrummage or clear rucks like Joe can. In the same way Kruis doesnt have the speed and footwork of Watson but can run a line out and catch restarts.
There is skill involved in all facets of play in our game.

Agreed. I suppose if I was going to highlight 6N players with the highest relevant skill levels I would be thinking of Itoje, Liam Williams and, possibly, Tipuric.

I think Stom's point that we are not getting the best out of our players' skills is spot-on. It indicates to me that our team unit ceiling could be much higher and that encapsulates my constant whingeing about Jones. Banquo reports from the book that Jones seeks to win in a style based on English character. I just want us managed on our rugby competence.

May surely has the highest relevant skill level for his position. And Tipuric doesn’t. He’s a very good rugby player but merely a good flanker, imo. I’d say Curry will very shortly be much better.

Dupont, too.

Oakboy wrote:

fivepointer wrote:All the players are skilful.
Ford can throw a pass that Marler couldn't but he cannot scrummage or clear rucks like Joe can. In the same way Kruis doesnt have the speed and footwork of Watson but can run a line out and catch restarts.
There is skill involved in all facets of play in our game.

Agreed. I suppose if I was going to highlight 6N players with the highest relevant skill levels I would be thinking of Itoje, Liam Williams and, possibly, Tipuric.

I think Stom's point that we are not getting the best out of our players' skills is spot-on. It indicates to me that our team unit ceiling could be much higher and that encapsulates my constant whingeing about Jones. Banquo reports from the book that Jones seeks to win in a style based on English character. I just want us managed on our rugby competence.

Not quite- English rugby traditional strengths. (in his view)Good set-piece, good defence, good kicking game. He doesn't perceive that 'some technical' skills and decision making are our strengths. I'm half with him tbh, but I don't think he is making the most of what is available- that's not to say he's playing 'boring rugby', there are some wrinkles in what he does, and certainly the first 10-20 we try to play at an ambitious pace and with some interesting variety. But its certainly limited rugby, based on what he believes are our traditional strengths- its (nearly) all about results for him, probably quite rightly.

Its quite interesting reading the comments about skilful players- beauty is in the eye of the beholder for sure.

Indeed. My original reference to ‘skilful’ players was more with our outside backs in mind. The fact that we kick so much means that anyone outside of 12 rarely gets the ball in space or on the front foot. For the most part, our back three only really get the ball from counter-attacking and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that JJ had much more opportunity to run with the ball from 14 than he ever does at 13.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

fivepointer wrote:All the players are skilful.
Ford can throw a pass that Marler couldn't but he cannot scrummage or clear rucks like Joe can. In the same way Kruis doesnt have the speed and footwork of Watson but can run a line out and catch restarts.
There is skill involved in all facets of play in our game.

Agreed. I suppose if I was going to highlight 6N players with the highest relevant skill levels I would be thinking of Itoje, Liam Williams and, possibly, Tipuric.

I think Stom's point that we are not getting the best out of our players' skills is spot-on. It indicates to me that our team unit ceiling could be much higher and that encapsulates my constant whingeing about Jones. Banquo reports from the book that Jones seeks to win in a style based on English character. I just want us managed on our rugby competence.

Not quite- English rugby traditional strengths. (in his view)Good set-piece, good defence, good kicking game. He doesn't perceive that 'some technical' skills and decision making are our strengths. I'm half with him tbh, but I don't think he is making the most of what is available- that's not to say he's playing 'boring rugby', there are some wrinkles in what he does, and certainly the first 10-20 we try to play at an ambitious pace and with some interesting variety. But its certainly limited rugby, based on what he believes are our traditional strengths- its (nearly) all about results for him, probably quite rightly.

Its quite interesting reading the comments about skilful players- beauty is in the eye of the beholder for sure.

So, if you had to choose the most skilful player in the 6N who would it be?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Agreed. I suppose if I was going to highlight 6N players with the highest relevant skill levels I would be thinking of Itoje, Liam Williams and, possibly, Tipuric.

I think Stom's point that we are not getting the best out of our players' skills is spot-on. It indicates to me that our team unit ceiling could be much higher and that encapsulates my constant whingeing about Jones. Banquo reports from the book that Jones seeks to win in a style based on English character. I just want us managed on our rugby competence.

Not quite- English rugby traditional strengths. (in his view)Good set-piece, good defence, good kicking game. He doesn't perceive that 'some technical' skills and decision making are our strengths. I'm half with him tbh, but I don't think he is making the most of what is available- that's not to say he's playing 'boring rugby', there are some wrinkles in what he does, and certainly the first 10-20 we try to play at an ambitious pace and with some interesting variety. But its certainly limited rugby, based on what he believes are our traditional strengths- its (nearly) all about results for him, probably quite rightly.

Its quite interesting reading the comments about skilful players- beauty is in the eye of the beholder for sure.

So, if you had to choose the most skilful player in the 6N who would it be?

That's very tough, I'd need to think .

Hard to think of someone now. I guess my definition would be someone like BOD who wouldn’t have looked out of place in several positions and was an amazing attacker and an excellent defender.

For skill and natural ability Dupont would be up there right now.

Banquo wrote: So, if you had to choose the most skilful player in the 6N who would it be?

That's very tough, I'd need to think .[/quote]

Don't let me stop you thinking!!!

You might like to give us some measuring factors too. Factors like consistency over a period and all-round skillsets come in to it, I suppose. 'Right place, right time, right decision' seems important. No obvious weaknesses perhaps?

Scrumhead wrote:Hard to think of someone now. I guess my definition would be someone like BOD who wouldn’t have looked out of place in several positions and was an amazing attacker and an excellent defender.

For skill and natural ability Dupont would be up there right now.

BOD was insanely good in defense and at ruck time in the bloodgate game. Just epic.

Spiffy wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Banquo wrote: I don't think there is any need to be so unpleasant.

He's not wrong in saying that Eddie is all about results and not performance; I don't have a problem with that personally, but do question some of his methods of getting there. I think we do have sufficient players of all round quality to aspire to more ambitious rugby; that said, we do do somequite interesting things, but more likely to 'amuse' the purist, and not done consistently well. Our basic executions can be frustratingly bad.

OK. Maybe my last sentence was a touch harsh. Sorry Oakboy.

As I’ve said previously (and even in the post), I’d like us to play more, kick less and make more of our players who are genuinely skilful but I don’t think we’re a results only team either. We’re certainly not the most boring team in the 6N.

Would like to see some discussion/opinions on this. Who are the genuinely skillful players? Couldn't get much beyond Ford myself. Probably Slade, Watson. Others (e.g. May, Itoje, Underhill) may be better described as effective rather than skillful.
Suppose it depends on your definition of skillful. For me it would being good at the basics of of rugby with a high degree of consistency - running, passing, kicking, tackling, footwork etc. with an emphasis on using the ball. I do realize that these are attributes more associated with backs (probably comes from playing as a back myself.)
But there are certainly forward skills at scrum, lineout, ruck, maul, carrying etc. - perhaps especially in getting turnover ball, pinching lineouts,winning scrum penalties and destructive tackling. And the modern game is all about forward domination.
So who fits the bill? You'd like to think that all (or anyway most) players on an international team are skillful at what they are asked to do.
To look at it another way - who is currently not skillful in carrying out his role?

Tom Curry

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:It had never occurred to me that Curry isn't that quick. If Curry is on the slow side what's the benchmark for acceptable speed?

Well, indeed. I mean, if Curry is slow for a backrow, then which international backrow is quick? Kwagga Smith is quite quick, Hooper, too, though I'm not sure he's quicker than Curry. Simmonds is rapid for a backrow, Clifford too, Tipuric is quick, but not much quicker than Curry, if at all...

Wilson also isn't particularly slow.

This is from a bloke who wanted Itoje at 8.

On what basis are you assuming Itoje is too slow to play no.8 ?

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

fivepointer wrote:All the players are skilful.
Ford can throw a pass that Marler couldn't but he cannot scrummage or clear rucks like Joe can. In the same way Kruis doesnt have the speed and footwork of Watson but can run a line out and catch restarts.
There is skill involved in all facets of play in our game.

Agreed. I suppose if I was going to highlight 6N players with the highest relevant skill levels I would be thinking of Itoje, Liam Williams and, possibly, Tipuric.

I think Stom's point that we are not getting the best out of our players' skills is spot-on. It indicates to me that our team unit ceiling could be much higher and that encapsulates my constant whingeing about Jones. Banquo reports from the book that Jones seeks to win in a style based on English character. I just want us managed on our rugby competence.

May surely has the highest relevant skill level for his position. And Tipuric doesn’t. He’s a very good rugby player but merely a good flanker, imo. I’d say Curry will very shortly be much better.

Dupont, too.

At the top of his game, Tipuric is about the best all-round 7 in Europe. Not massive, but smart and fast and can do a bit of everything, including run and pass like a centre.

Twinkle-toes still working..(Watson)7-0 after 5 mins.
Tuilagi has had 4 weetabix this morning it seems.
Faz con.

Did Youngs throw that pass inside to Watson?

If we're honest, that's what Jones' team does best. Wonderful set play.

Danno wrote:Did Youngs throw that pass inside to Watson?

Farrell, no? But I wasn't clear.

May still down..ominous

Williams says 'it's all hand-bags' as Marler grabs AWJ's crotch..
7- 3 after 9 min.

Capt Farrell costing his team 3pts. Whilst Marler is just trying to make friends.