RugbyRebels

jngf wrote:

FKAS wrote:

jngf wrote:
You like your flankers big I must say

We'll he and Chessum are the most like for like options to replace Lawes and they are both a similar big size.

I’m questioning the whole rationale for playing another lock at 6 if Lawes is unavailable. Feel we’d be better off with a faster player (and with better fetching skills ) like Ludlum or Curry there.

No, you made an out of context comment on Isiekwe, who you have probably never seen play. He's a big lad, but in my opinion looks more suited to back row than second- though Scrumhead thinks the other way round . My thoughts are that he is outstanding in neither position. But frankly, debating with you is an utter waste of time- your view of rugby seems to date from the mid 80's.

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:

FKAS wrote:
We'll he and Chessum are the most like for like options to replace Lawes and they are both a similar big size.

I’m questioning the whole rationale for playing another lock at 6 if Lawes is unavailable. Feel we’d be better off with a faster player (and with better fetching skills ) like Ludlum or Curry there.

No, you made an out of context comment on Isiekwe, who you have probably never seen play. He's a big lad, but in my opinion looks more suited to back row than second- though Scrumhead thinks the other way round . My thoughts are that he is outstanding in neither position. But frankly, debating with you is an utter waste of time- your view of rugby seems to date from the mid 80's.

Don't bite, Chill!!!

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:
I’m questioning the whole rationale for playing another lock at 6 if Lawes is unavailable. Feel we’d be better off with a faster player (and with better fetching skills ) like Ludlum or Curry there.

No, you made an out of context comment on Isiekwe, who you have probably never seen play. He's a big lad, but in my opinion looks more suited to back row than second- though Scrumhead thinks the other way round . My thoughts are that he is outstanding in neither position. But frankly, debating with you is an utter waste of time- your view of rugby seems to date from the mid 80's.

Don't bite, Chill!!!

as you know, I'm quite patient. But FFS , plus I've had some beers

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: No, you made an out of context comment on Isiekwe, who you have probably never seen play. He's a big lad, but in my opinion looks more suited to back row than second- though Scrumhead thinks the other way round . My thoughts are that he is outstanding in neither position. But frankly, debating with you is an utter waste of time- your view of rugby seems to date from the mid 80's.

Don't bite, Chill!!!

as you know, I'm quite patient. But FFS , plus I've had some beers

Enjoy the beer. What is it - Greene King in your part of the world?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Don't bite, Chill!!!

as you know, I'm quite patient. But FFS , plus I've had some beers

Enjoy the beer. What is it - Greene King in your part of the world?

Greene King is quite prevalent here and frankly IPA is a good session ale. But I had some Adnams Ghost Ship and a Doom Bar (but that's not as good as before the brewery was sold).

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: as you know, I'm quite patient. But FFS , plus I've had some beers

Enjoy the beer. What is it - Greene King in your part of the world?

Greene King is quite prevalent here and frankly IPA is a good session ale. But I had some Adnams Ghost Ship and a Doom Bar (but that's not as good as before the brewery was sold).

Good old Wetherspoons!

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: as you know, I'm quite patient. But FFS , plus I've had some beers

Enjoy the beer. What is it - Greene King in your part of the world?

Greene King is quite prevalent here and frankly IPA is a good session ale. But I had some Adnams Ghost Ship and a Doom Bar (but that's not as good as before the brewery was sold).

Hearing that, I just briefly got the vague remembrance of those beers...

I don't think I've missed beer since giving it up...until now. Jeez. Used to love a good Doom Bar.

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Enjoy the beer. What is it - Greene King in your part of the world?

Greene King is quite prevalent here and frankly IPA is a good session ale. But I had some Adnams Ghost Ship and a Doom Bar (but that's not as good as before the brewery was sold).

Good old Wetherspoons!

Golf club old boy.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Enjoy the beer. What is it - Greene King in your part of the world?

Greene King is quite prevalent here and frankly IPA is a good session ale. But I had some Adnams Ghost Ship and a Doom Bar (but that's not as good as before the brewery was sold).

Hearing that, I just briefly got the vague remembrance of those beers...

I don't think I've missed beer since giving it up...until now. Jeez. Used to love a good Doom Bar.

Sadly you'll struggle to find one now. As has been said before, it's not the same since it sold out.

Happily there's a lot of good local breweries doing well these days.

FKAS wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: Greene King is quite prevalent here and frankly IPA is a good session ale. But I had some Adnams Ghost Ship and a Doom Bar (but that's not as good as before the brewery was sold).

Hearing that, I just briefly got the vague remembrance of those beers...

I don't think I've missed beer since giving it up...until now. Jeez. Used to love a good Doom Bar.

Sadly you'll struggle to find one now. As has been said before, it's not the same since it sold out.

Happily there's a lot of good local breweries doing well these days.

As I said, don't touch it anymore, so wasn't likely anyway.

I do remember a definite Mrs Robinson moment with Adnans, though...

I'd like a pint of Harvey's best please if people are getting the beers in.

Mr Mwenda wrote:I'd like a pint of Harvey's best please if people are getting the beers in.

I like Bath Ales ', Gem or Greene King, Abbot Ale from choice but Palmers' Copper is a decent session ale.

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
I’m assuming you got all of this from the one game of rugby you’ve actually watched recently?

Why not challenge the detail of each specific point to test the validity of why you think there’re wrong - I’m open to changing my opinion by a convincing argument ( You’re right I’ve actually not caught a premiership game on TV so far , I will leave the one liner gags to that clown in no.10 - at least for the moment )

Curry is a defensive animal. Sale mostly use him as a defensive leader and allow him to be a breakdown menace.

Worth noting that the last time I looked, Ludlam was leading the Premiership stats in turnovers won at the breakdown.

It’s hard to have this conversation without sounding like it’s Ludlum-bashing. I think he’s quality and have no problem seeing him in a team, it’s just there are a lot of quality players also vying for the flanks that I feel have that bit more about them.

I’d have been delighted to have him available between 05-15.

Mikey Brown wrote:It’s hard to have this conversation without sounding like it’s Ludlum-bashing. I think he’s quality and have no problem seeing him in a team, it’s just there are a lot of quality players also vying for the flanks that I feel have that bit more about them.

I’d have been delighted to have him available between 05-15.

Yes, it is all about context. Where does he rank in the pecking order? Behind Lawes, Curry (both?), Willis x 2, Underhill, Barbeary, Simmonds, Dombrandt, Hill perhaps?

Adam_P wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:
Why not challenge the detail of each specific point to test the validity of why you think there’re wrong - I’m open to changing my opinion by a convincing argument ( You’re right I’ve actually not caught a premiership game on TV so far , I will leave the one liner gags to that clown in no.10 - at least for the moment )

Curry is a defensive animal. Sale mostly use him as a defensive leader and allow him to be a breakdown menace.

Worth noting that the last time I looked, Ludlam was leading the Premiership stats in turnovers won at the breakdown.

Unsurprising, he's a good prem player who doesn't miss many games. He's played 11 games at 7, Curry T for example has played 4 in the Prem.

Exactly. Also another example of stats only being of value when they’re applied in the right context.

I think those stats are a couple of weeks out of date. Ludlam had 9 when he was top and now has 10, but Curry now has 11 turnovers from four games …

In other words, Ludlam is averaging 1 per game, Curry is closer to 3.

Saints back row is also the most penalised: https://www.rugbypass.com/news/the-most ... emiership/

Scrumhead wrote:Exactly. Also another example of stats only being of value when they’re applied in the right context.

I think those stats are a couple of weeks out of date. Ludlam had 9 when he was top and now has 10, but Curry now has 11 turnovers from four games …

In other words, Ludlam is averaging 1 per game, Curry is closer to 3.

Saints back row is also the most penalised: https://www.rugbypass.com/news/the-most ... emiership/

For me I think the biggest thing Ludlum brings to the party is that his energetic, get stuck in style means that he can slot in to any of the back row berths .I would definitely concede he’s not a specialist/out and out at any one of them - in the way Dombrandt and now Barbeary are being viewed as specialist 8s - however I think Jones includes him because he likes this his ability to competently cover all bases in the backrow. To go back to an earlier discussion point, My judgement on him being a capable no.8 was based on his ‘finisher’ stints there in the Summer matches where imo he outshone (the premiership specialist 6/8) Chick by a country mile and based on this play also looked more comfortable at no.8 than Curry ever has to date. That not withstanding Dombrandt is the chap I want to see start 6 Nations at 8 and either T Curry or Ludlum at 6 would complement that very nicely.

Will Jones persist with a 6:2 bench? Or, does Ford's arrival rule that out (assuming he is in the 23)?

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Exactly. Also another example of stats only being of value when they’re applied in the right context.

I think those stats are a couple of weeks out of date. Ludlam had 9 when he was top and now has 10, but Curry now has 11 turnovers from four games …

In other words, Ludlam is averaging 1 per game, Curry is closer to 3.

Saints back row is also the most penalised: https://www.rugbypass.com/news/the-most ... emiership/

For me I think the biggest thing Ludlum brings to the party is that his energetic, get stuck in style means that he can slot in to any of the back row berths .I would definitely concede he’s not a specialist/out and out at any one of them - in the way Dombrandt and now Barbeary are being viewed as specialist 8s - however I think Jones includes him because he likes this his ability to competently cover all bases in the backrow. To go back to an earlier discussion point, My judgement on him being a capable no.8 was based on his ‘finisher’ stints there in the Summer matches where imo he outshone (the premiership specialist 6/8) Chick by a country mile and based on this play also looked more comfortable at no.8 than Curry ever has to date. That not withstanding Dombrandt is the chap I want to see start 6 Nations at 8 and either T Curry or Ludlum at 6 would complement that very nicely.

I don’t actually disagree with anything you’ve said there.

I guess the only thing that would give me pause for thought is that looking better than Chick (who was completely anonymous) vs. Tier 2 opposition isn’t that much of an indicator.

6:2 is so 2021. Jones will go for a 7:1 split with Ford covering 9 and 10.

On Ludlam, I think jngf has a point. I do see his value as an adaptable all rounder. He can make impacts in a number of areas, has a high work rate and doesnt flag in the closing quarter. I dont think he's in the Curry class, and I wouldnt want him to start at 8, but filling in at 6 or 7 I think he could do a perfectly respectable job.
I did say earlier in the thread that I think he might start at 6 if Lawes isnt fit.

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Exactly. Also another example of stats only being of value when they’re applied in the right context.

I think those stats are a couple of weeks out of date. Ludlam had 9 when he was top and now has 10, but Curry now has 11 turnovers from four games …

In other words, Ludlam is averaging 1 per game, Curry is closer to 3.

Saints back row is also the most penalised: https://www.rugbypass.com/news/the-most ... emiership/

For me I think the biggest thing Ludlum brings to the party is that his energetic, get stuck in style means that he can slot in to any of the back row berths .I would definitely concede he’s not a specialist/out and out at any one of them - in the way Dombrandt and now Barbeary are being viewed as specialist 8s - however I think Jones includes him because he likes this his ability to competently cover all bases in the backrow. To go back to an earlier discussion point, My judgement on him being a capable no.8 was based on his ‘finisher’ stints there in the Summer matches where imo he outshone (the premiership specialist 6/8) Chick by a country mile and based on this play also looked more comfortable at no.8 than Curry ever has to date. That not withstanding Dombrandt is the chap I want to see start 6 Nations at 8 and either T Curry or Ludlum at 6 would complement that very nicely.

He certainly brings energy, like a less psychotic Lewis Moody, who iirc you were also a big fan of. But he's not very skilful, and not a great decision maker; he's a good prem player---though a slight caveat, he has improved his ball presentation and retention, and maybe one of those players whose game gets better in better company.

fivepointer wrote:6:2 is so 2021. Jones will go for a 7:1 split with Ford covering 9 and 10.

On Ludlam, I think jngf has a point. I do see his value as an adaptable all rounder. He can make impacts in a number of areas, has a high work rate and doesnt flag in the closing quarter. I dont think he's in the Curry class, and I wouldnt want him to start at 8, but filling in at 6 or 7 I think he could do a perfectly respectable job.
I did say earlier in the thread that I think he might start at 6 if Lawes isnt fit.

Like Wilson, but nowhere near as good a decision maker; its a shame Wilson's time came late in his career tbh.

I still think we're damning Ludlam with faint praise here. Any rational observer would acknowledge that he's not in the same class as TCurry, but not many are. Ludlam's one of the best back row in the Prem and has never let England down in any of his previous caps.

Puja

I can see a 6 Ludlum 7 Curry 8 Dombrandt trio doing a good job. I do have my reservations that that I’d like the 7 role to have more attacking emphasis and Curry’s strengths lie more on the defensive side imo. Dombrandt has a great game in wider attack but I expect he’ll have to focus on the close quarters hard yards carrying allowing less bandwidth for much of this wider attack work (hence my argument that openside needs to focus more on this).