RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
There was a lot of movement in the setting of the scrum, and I can't read what was happening. Was Furlong being cute and doing a number on Mako, possibly, but it's not going to hurt the props if there's more power coming through and they can simplify, or at least so I'm assuming

Not a good day for Mako in the scrum, nor LCD one supposes.

I think Furlong did him like a kipper, and it cost us a lot in the first half. That's Itoje's side too.

There was a lot of canny play up front, no doubt POC inspired.

For sure Mako and Itoje's side, but if Ewels is not supplying the power LCD has to shift across to cover that further exposing Mako. I'm not saying I know what was happening, or even I could know if I had decent footage rather than TV pictures. But nobody in the tight 5 can be pleased with that.

Mostly I'm amused there are comments Ewels has come into the side and done well in a tight five that got it's head shoved so far up its arse

He was good last week, that's maybe what the hangover is. Mako was being conned by Furlong imo.
Makes me smile somewhat when there is still chat about the lack of attacking play in the backs, and how Ford was yanked off because he was failing to spark attacks. Not sure how the backs can do much when we are being rinsed up front and giving away 14 penalties, 2 free kicks and 12 turnovers....and that's the 4th game (inc Italy) where we have been doing this nonsense.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I think Furlong did him like a kipper, and it cost us a lot in the first half. That's Itoje's side too.

There was a lot of canny play up front, no doubt POC inspired.

For sure Mako and Itoje's side, but if Ewels is not supplying the power LCD has to shift across to cover that further exposing Mako. I'm not saying I know what was happening, or even I could know if I had decent footage rather than TV pictures. But nobody in the tight 5 can be pleased with that.

Mostly I'm amused there are comments Ewels has come into the side and done well in a tight five that got it's head shoved so far up its arse

He was good last week, that's maybe what the hangover is. Mako was being conned by Furlong imo.
Makes me smile somewhat when there is still chat about the lack of attacking play in the backs, and how Ford was yanked off because he was failing to spark attacks. Not sure how the backs can do much when we are being rinsed up front and giving away 14 penalties, 2 free kicks and 12 turnovers....and that's the 4th game (inc Italy) where we have been doing this nonsense.

I think you can reasonably say to Ford you were not helping the team enough with the ball you did have and you could have done more, but it is always it seems Ford who gets the hook.

Yesterday we did struggle with Ireland having more biff in the middle, it wasn't as bad as Catt and Tait against Thomas and Shanks but it did lead the collisions to rather go one way, which on the back of the scrum and breakdown and pens was just too influential for us to overcome. Maybe it wouldn't have been so bad yesterday to think in that situation if we're going to remove one of Ford or Faz to take off Ford, but it didn't work, and what seems to be our default so often doesn't seem to work.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
For sure Mako and Itoje's side, but if Ewels is not supplying the power LCD has to shift across to cover that further exposing Mako. I'm not saying I know what was happening, or even I could know if I had decent footage rather than TV pictures. But nobody in the tight 5 can be pleased with that.

Mostly I'm amused there are comments Ewels has come into the side and done well in a tight five that got it's head shoved so far up its arse

He was good last week, that's maybe what the hangover is. Mako was being conned by Furlong imo.
Makes me smile somewhat when there is still chat about the lack of attacking play in the backs, and how Ford was yanked off because he was failing to spark attacks. Not sure how the backs can do much when we are being rinsed up front and giving away 14 penalties, 2 free kicks and 12 turnovers....and that's the 4th game (inc Italy) where we have been doing this nonsense.

I think you can reasonably say to Ford you were not helping the team enough with the ball you did have and you could have done more, but it is always it seems Ford who gets the hook.

Yesterday we did struggle with Ireland having more biff in the middle, it wasn't as bad as Catt and Tait against Thomas and Shanks but it did lead the collisions to rather go one way, which on the back of the scrum and breakdown and pens was just too influential for us to overcome. Maybe it wouldn't have been so bad yesterday to think in that situation if we're going to remove one of Ford or Faz to take off Ford, but it didn't work, and what seems to be our default so often doesn't seem to work.

Think Ford touched the ball 12 times. That's not very much. I can't think of many occasions when we actually could move the ball tbh, but maybe that was the red mist in my eyes. Every attacking position we got in the 1st half, bar one (and even then we actually ended up kicking a penalty) was given up by a penalty or free kick or turnover before the backs got their hands on it; Youngs was hoofing it a lot too.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: He was good last week, that's maybe what the hangover is. Mako was being conned by Furlong imo.
Makes me smile somewhat when there is still chat about the lack of attacking play in the backs, and how Ford was yanked off because he was failing to spark attacks. Not sure how the backs can do much when we are being rinsed up front and giving away 14 penalties, 2 free kicks and 12 turnovers....and that's the 4th game (inc Italy) where we have been doing this nonsense.

I think you can reasonably say to Ford you were not helping the team enough with the ball you did have and you could have done more, but it is always it seems Ford who gets the hook.

Yesterday we did struggle with Ireland having more biff in the middle, it wasn't as bad as Catt and Tait against Thomas and Shanks but it did lead the collisions to rather go one way, which on the back of the scrum and breakdown and pens was just too influential for us to overcome. Maybe it wouldn't have been so bad yesterday to think in that situation if we're going to remove one of Ford or Faz to take off Ford, but it didn't work, and what seems to be our default so often doesn't seem to work.

Think Ford touched the ball 8 times. That's not very much.

The next time you touch the ball might be the last time you touch it, what are you going to do with it? It's a harsh standard, but good players make good decisions. The pass to Watson looked one of those players on a different wavelength, and I suspect with more ball Ford would've backed himself to start to pull apart that rush defence changing our depths and lines.

The errors ahead of him were more important, but just on the plays he did get it wasn't good.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
I think you can reasonably say to Ford you were not helping the team enough with the ball you did have and you could have done more, but it is always it seems Ford who gets the hook.

Yesterday we did struggle with Ireland having more biff in the middle, it wasn't as bad as Catt and Tait against Thomas and Shanks but it did lead the collisions to rather go one way, which on the back of the scrum and breakdown and pens was just too influential for us to overcome. Maybe it wouldn't have been so bad yesterday to think in that situation if we're going to remove one of Ford or Faz to take off Ford, but it didn't work, and what seems to be our default so often doesn't seem to work.

Think Ford touched the ball 8 times. That's not very much.

The next time you touch the ball might be the last time you touch it, what are you going to do with it? It's a harsh standard, but good players make good decisions. The pass to Watson looked one of those players on a different wavelength, and I suspect with more ball Ford would've backed himself to start to pull apart that rush defence changing our depths and lines.

The errors ahead of him were more important, but just on the plays he did get it wasn't good.

That's a peculiar way of looking at it tbh.
I didn't think he did much wrong tbh- from memory, there was one abortive move in the middle of the park where he chose not to give it; there was a gorgeous space finding kick behind the defence to touch, a great bomb that Murray dropped, a couple of neat passes, a pass to touch. Frankly I'm surprised you think he could have done much better with what he had. Though suspect you are just arguing for the sake of it.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Think Ford touched the ball 8 times. That's not very much.

The next time you touch the ball might be the last time you touch it, what are you going to do with it? It's a harsh standard, but good players make good decisions. The pass to Watson looked one of those players on a different wavelength, and I suspect with more ball Ford would've backed himself to start to pull apart that rush defence changing our depths and lines.

The errors ahead of him were more important, but just on the plays he did get it wasn't good.

That's a peculiar way of looking at it tbh.
I didn't think he did much wrong tbh- from memory, there was one abortive move in the middle of the park where he chose not to give it; there was a gorgeous space finding kick behind the defence to touch, a great bomb that Murray dropped, a couple of neat passes, a pass to touch. Frankly I'm surprised you think he could have done much better with what he had. Though suspect you are just arguing for the sake of it.

Pretty sure Jim Greenwood wrote about the next bit of possession might be you last

Edit - I don't argue for the sake of it, I do it either because I (mistakenly perhaps) think I'm right, or because it amuses me

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
The next time you touch the ball might be the last time you touch it, what are you going to do with it? It's a harsh standard, but good players make good decisions. The pass to Watson looked one of those players on a different wavelength, and I suspect with more ball Ford would've backed himself to start to pull apart that rush defence changing our depths and lines.

The errors ahead of him were more important, but just on the plays he did get it wasn't good.

That's a peculiar way of looking at it tbh.
I didn't think he did much wrong tbh- from memory, there was one abortive move in the middle of the park where he chose not to give it; there was a gorgeous space finding kick behind the defence to touch, a great bomb that Murray dropped, a couple of neat passes, a pass to touch. Frankly I'm surprised you think he could have done much better with what he had. Though suspect you are just arguing for the sake of it.

Pretty sure Jim Greenwood wrote about the next bit of possession might be you last

Doesn't make it any less peculiar when reviewing a performance in a game like this. Context, and all that.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: That's a peculiar way of looking at it tbh.
I didn't think he did much wrong tbh- from memory, there was one abortive move in the middle of the park where he chose not to give it; there was a gorgeous space finding kick behind the defence to touch, a great bomb that Murray dropped, a couple of neat passes, a pass to touch. Frankly I'm surprised you think he could have done much better with what he had. Though suspect you are just arguing for the sake of it.

Pretty sure Jim Greenwood wrote about the next bit of possession might be you last

Doesn't make it any less peculiar when reviewing a performance in a game like this. Context, and all that.

Take the aborted midfield move, that's almost certainly his call. he makes in the event the right go/no go call, but the move doesn't work. yes if he'd had another 3-4 of those plays he'd have been looking to exploit that very aggressive defence and that's on the pack, but given the one shot the call didn't prove right, it wasn't bad, it just wasn't good. managing not to throw the ball away literally or otherwise isn't the same as good.

I would't have taken him off, but there were reasons to up the physicality in midfield.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Pretty sure Jim Greenwood wrote about the next bit of possession might be you last

Doesn't make it any less peculiar when reviewing a performance in a game like this. Context, and all that.

Take the aborted midfield move, that's almost certainly his call. he makes in the event the right go/no go call, but the move doesn't work. yes if he'd had another 3-4 of those plays he'd have been looking to exploit that very aggressive defence and that's on the pack, but given the one shot the call didn't prove right, it wasn't bad, it just wasn't good. managing not to throw the ball away literally or otherwise isn't the same as good.

I would't have taken him off, but there were reasons to up the physicality in midfield.

Its bonkers to say one failed move and you are out. Even by my quite exacting standards.
Upping the physicality rather than unlocking is certainly a way forwards, but still needs the pack to produce.

.

Is Curry next in line to the throne then?

This moment made me wince.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Doesn't make it any less peculiar when reviewing a performance in a game like this. Context, and all that.

Take the aborted midfield move, that's almost certainly his call. he makes in the event the right go/no go call, but the move doesn't work. yes if he'd had another 3-4 of those plays he'd have been looking to exploit that very aggressive defence and that's on the pack, but given the one shot the call didn't prove right, it wasn't bad, it just wasn't good. managing not to throw the ball away literally or otherwise isn't the same as good.

I would't have taken him off, but there were reasons to up the physicality in midfield.

Its bonkers to say one failed move and you are out. Even by my quite exacting standards.
Upping the physicality rather than unlocking is certainly a way forwards, but still needs the pack to produce.

.

I'm not saying one failed move and you're out. Just being able to point to a failed move doesn't mean he was good. And physicality in the front three was an issue.

For myself I'd have take off Farrell, but that's informed by games before just yesterday's, just yesterday's might incline one to have removed Ford hoping to shore things up physically, and plan cruelly undermined mere moments later as fate joined in laughing at us

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Take the aborted midfield move, that's almost certainly his call. he makes in the event the right go/no go call, but the move doesn't work. yes if he'd had another 3-4 of those plays he'd have been looking to exploit that very aggressive defence and that's on the pack, but given the one shot the call didn't prove right, it wasn't bad, it just wasn't good. managing not to throw the ball away literally or otherwise isn't the same as good.

I would't have taken him off, but there were reasons to up the physicality in midfield.

Its bonkers to say one failed move and you are out. Even by my quite exacting standards.
Upping the physicality rather than unlocking is certainly a way forwards, but still needs the pack to produce.

.

I'm not saying one failed move and you're out. Just being able to point to a failed move doesn't mean he was good. And physicality in the front three was an issue.

For myself I'd have take off Farrell, but that's informed by games before just yesterday's, just yesterday's might incline one to have removed Ford hoping to shore things up physically, and plan cruelly undermined mere moments later as fate joined in laughing at us

Doesn't mean he was bad either, which seems to be what you were actually saying. He wasn't at his best, but when your pack is being generally useless it seems weird that I've seen some blame for the pummelling laid at his door.

and yes, lots of chickens came home to roost, not least the 6:2 bench....though in fairness losing Slade and Malins beforehand made life tricky.

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote: Ted has been in most squads iirc, though he must have looked at Martin on the bench and thought WTF.

Big Ted has been a bit meh recently. I thought he may well have been capped when he was bang in form last season.

Martin looked tidy when he came on. One nice carry for good metres close in, made his tackles got about and crucially no stupid penalties. Be first of many caps.

If Ted Hill or George are at 6 does that mean we can have Simmonds at 8?

Fair enough on Martin, but he needs a lot more rugby under his belt imo.

Yeah and he'll get it Borthwick had Heyes 21, Henderson 20, Reffell 22, JVP 19, Kelly 20 and Steward 20 all starting Vs Chiefs yesterday and then brought on 19 year old Whitcombe at loosehead in the second half. Tigers are finally mixing in promising youngsters with their experienced players so they develop in competitive teams.

At only 19 you aren't going to have much under your belt especially since he got injured and missed last season's junior 6N when he was tipped to be close to breaking through at Leicester. But if youthful exuberance to keep the more experienced lads honest won't hurt. I wouldn't mind Eddie capping a few more youngsters through cameos, might help retain the best and brightest and stop any of the other unions being on Granny Watch. Heyes and Randall both have links to Wales for starters though Heyes link is pretty tenuous.

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Big Ted has been a bit meh recently. I thought he may well have been capped when he was bang in form last season.

Martin looked tidy when he came on. One nice carry for good metres close in, made his tackles got about and crucially no stupid penalties. Be first of many caps.

If Ted Hill or George are at 6 does that mean we can have Simmonds at 8?

Fair enough on Martin, but he needs a lot more rugby under his belt imo.

Yeah and he'll get it Borthwick had Heyes 21, Henderson 20, Reffell 22, JVP 19, Kelly 20 and Steward 20 all starting Vs Chiefs yesterday and then brought on 19 year old Whitcombe at loosehead in the second half. Tigers are finally mixing in promising youngsters with their experienced players so they develop in competitive teams.

At only 19 you aren't going to have much under your belt especially since he got injured and missed last season's junior 6N when he was tipped to be close to breaking through at Leicester. But if youthful exuberance to keep the more experienced lads honest won't hurt. I wouldn't mind Eddie capping a few more youngsters through cameos, might help retain the best and brightest and stop any of the other unions being on Granny Watch. Heyes and Randall both have links to Wales for starters though Heyes link is pretty tenuous.

Good to see with Tigers- its an ideal season to take a bit of pain.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Its bonkers to say one failed move and you are out. Even by my quite exacting standards.
Upping the physicality rather than unlocking is certainly a way forwards, but still needs the pack to produce.

.

I'm not saying one failed move and you're out. Just being able to point to a failed move doesn't mean he was good. And physicality in the front three was an issue.

For myself I'd have take off Farrell, but that's informed by games before just yesterday's, just yesterday's might incline one to have removed Ford hoping to shore things up physically, and plan cruelly undermined mere moments later as fate joined in laughing at us

Doesn't mean he was bad either, which seems to be what you were actually saying. He wasn't at his best, but when your pack is being generally useless it seems weird that I've seen some blame for the pummelling laid at his door.

and yes, lots of chickens came home to roost, not least the 6:2 bench....though in fairness losing Slade and Malins beforehand made life tricky.

I did say he wasn't bad.

I could agree with him being taken off yesterday, I wouldn't have done it because if anyone was going to create something on the back foot I'd back him over Farrell. Just we were losing physically, and he didn't do much with the chances he did have so based just on yesterday's game it's not the worst shout I've seen, my not wanting to take him off yesterday would have come down to an assessment of say the 50 games before rather than that one game

Interesting that many of our recent losses to Ireland came down to dropping high balls and little actual play from Ireland. We then went on a winning run against them by picking lots of ball carriers and them sometimes picking someone who wasn't a fullback allowing our kicking game to trample all over them even more than some of our ball carriers.

Yesterday was the first bad result either way where one side just dominated the game rather than just collisions or fecking up by putting Henshaw at 15.

But it is a run of 1 defeat against a decent enough Irish team, and a very effective spoiling team.

The discipline concerns me hugely, but so too does the conditioning especially when we had an extra day yo recover. Thus the background query as to whether are we in a phase of over training, or are things actually worse than they look?

He was injured, Shirley?

morepork wrote:He was injured, Shirley?

Ford? Nope.

Digby wrote:Interesting that many of our recent losses to Ireland came down to dropping high balls and little actual play from Ireland. We then went on a winning run against them by picking lots of ball carriers and them sometimes picking someone who wasn't a fullback allowing our kicking game to trample all over them even more than some of our ball carriers.

Yesterday was the first bad result either way where one side just dominated the game rather than just collisions or fecking up by putting Henshaw at 15.

But it is a run of 1 defeat against a decent enough Irish team, and a very effective spoiling team.

The discipline concerns me hugely, but so too does the conditioning especially when we had an extra day yo recover. Thus the background query as to whether are we in a phase of over training, or are things actually worse than they look?

all arguments on individuals to one side, Ireland were excellent, and Eddie was thoroughly out thought by Farrell and (mainly, imo) POC.

Banquo wrote:

morepork wrote:He was injured, Shirley?

Ford? Nope.

So he put on a prematurely balding halfback with about 15 minutes combined international experience to fill in at 10 and kept the actual 10 off?


Are you sure Eddie Jones is not an Irish asset?

morepork wrote:

Banquo wrote:

morepork wrote:He was injured, Shirley?

Ford? Nope.

So he put on a prematurely balding halfback with about 15 minutes combined international experience to fill in at 10 and kept the actual 10 off?


Are you sure Eddie Jones is not an Irish asset?

Even I can accept that Jones was unlucky to lose Farrell to injury just after substituting Ford. No matter what else we accuse Farrell of, getting injured is not a normal problem. However, the whole episode did highlight other managerial errors: the lack of cover in the squad and using a 6:2 bench. Losing Slade (potential FH cover) automatically created the risk as the only two FHs started. Once Malins dropped out there was an accident waiting to happen.

Banquo wrote:

morepork wrote:He was injured, Shirley?

Ford? Nope.

Ford must have been otherwise they could have brought him back on during the Farrell HIA period.

Oakboy wrote:

morepork wrote:

Banquo wrote: Ford? Nope.

So he put on a prematurely balding halfback with about 15 minutes combined international experience to fill in at 10 and kept the actual 10 off?


Are you sure Eddie Jones is not an Irish asset?

Even I can accept that Jones was unlucky to lose Farrell to injury just after substituting Ford. No matter what else we accuse Farrell of, getting injured is not a normal problem. However, the whole episode did highlight other managerial errors: the lack of cover in the squad and using a 6:2 bench. Losing Slade (potential FH cover) automatically created the risk as the only two FHs started. Once Malins dropped out there was an accident waiting to happen.

My dude, Farrell leads most tackles with his head and spends more time in rucks than he does at receiver. The odds of picking up a knock are high. There is absolutely zero mitigation for the possibility ice balls might not be available for whatever passes for the game plan. None. That basically is the crux of the problem. When he went off, there were 15 "fuck knows" expressions on the pitch because its just not a scenario anyone has prepared them for. I'm thrilled England seem intent on forcing a prescriptive mantra based around the worlds most mediocre pundits darling you have while your natural talent withers away until it falls off at age 30 and rots on the ground, but fuck it is hard to watch. The thing that pissed me off most about you beating us in the WC semi was not so much that we lost as you were value for the win, but the fact we never fired a good accurate shot the whole game. England just play so many games without ever firing a shot.


Dunno why this pisses me off. Maybe I'm sick of watching dross.

Mikey Brown wrote:Is Curry next in line to the throne then?

This moment made me wince.

Youngs in that still manages to evoke both Laurel and Hardy

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

morepork wrote:He was injured, Shirley?

Ford? Nope.

Ford must have been otherwise they could have brought him back on during the Farrell HIA period.

not sure- Faz was immediately ruled out, and they said Ford couldn't be brought back on on commentary which i didnt understand....wheres my law book....
All the assumptions on here is that Ford off was tactical, so thats the question