Banquo wrote:
I don't think he was fit to pick for an international last weekend though, its been a long lay off.
Fair comment though, on similar lines, it makes me think the sun must shine dramatically from a certain Slade orifice. Was he really ready to be one of only two backs on the bench? Needs must, I suppose, but where foes that leave Devoto, Thorley and a few others?
It's a shame for Devoto that Slade's return might mean his brush with the Eng team has slipped back down the agenda just as he was finally showing fitness and form. Banquo did say however that Eddie is a big fan of Slade from his book so it's not surprising he's been rushed back in. Thorley's a bit different in that Eddie saw fit to plunge Furbank in at the deep end in Paris but didn't countenance Thorley at home v Ire. I wonder what the thinking was.
Eddie is only happy when he has 5 locks and 3/4 outside centres in the matchday squad
Scrumhead wrote:Wilson is fit. He played 80 (ironically at 7) for Sale last week.
I wouldn’t be hugely surprised to see him drafted in to the squad for Wales.
I don't think he was fit to pick for an international last weekend though, its been a long lay off.
Fair comment though, on similar lines, it makes me think the sun must shine dramatically from a certain Slade orifice. Was he really ready to be one of only two backs on the bench? Needs must, I suppose, but where foes that leave Devoto, Thorley and a few others?
It leaves Thorley wondering why he bothered turning up for England training, given that two outside centres are preferred in the 23 over him.
Banquo wrote:
I don't think he was fit to pick for an international last weekend though, its been a long lay off.
Fair comment though, on similar lines, it makes me think the sun must shine dramatically from a certain Slade orifice. Was he really ready to be one of only two backs on the bench? Needs must, I suppose, but where foes that leave Devoto, Thorley and a few others?
It leaves Thorley wondering why he bothered turning up for England training, given that two outside centres are preferred in the 23 over him.
Puja
Yes, one can only derive that he's not convinced Eddie in training.
I clicked on the link so I could paste the text telling me I’ve already used my 1 free article, but unfortunately it worked this time so here you go.
In each edition of the Six Nations since 2013, Opta have used a dedicated team to collect qualitative ruck data.
They chart and evaluate the involvements of every player at every breakdown. For attacking sides, that entails marking the order in which support players arrive and judging whether or not a ruck contribution has been effective – i.e. whether or not the individual has helped to recycle the ball.
Obviously, weak clear-outs and penalties for illegal entry into a ruck bring about an ineffective contribution to a player’s attacking tally. Effective contributions to defensive breakdowns comprise jackal turnovers, instances when opponents’ ruck-speed is sapped and when the attacking team is caused to commit extra numbers to the tackle area.
Thanks to these figures from Opta, ‘unseen work’, that staple phrase of the 6/10 player rating, can be measured. We reviewed each game last season and will do the same in 2020, because ruck statistics also provide insight into elements of team strategy and kicking approach. Look back at round one via this link and review round two here.
Here are the game-by-game ruck ratings from last weekend, starting with Sunday.
England (66 attacking rucks won out of 69) vs Ireland (108 out of 110)
You may have seen this clip circulating around social media. It is not a glowing endorsement of the breakdown in modern rugby union:
To mitigate the mess ever so slightly, referees usually do their best to allow knock-on advantages every chance to play out. Avoiding time-consuming scrums seems to be the rationale for this.
England had spilled, and Jaco Peyper is waiting to see if Ireland can recover possession. Still, James Ryan’s spearing attempt to clear-out Maro Itoje comes from the side and is extremely dangerous. A follow-up on a prone Tom Curry is not pretty, either.
Sunday at Twickenham brought many examples of how the breakdown has become a vicious circle of defenders pushing their luck – and getting away with it – so attacking support players have to adapt in order to recycle possession, invariably flying off their feet from dodgy angles in the process.
There is a common argument that officials can clean things up simply by applying existing laws, but that cannot be easy at all given how the pace of the game, and the power of athletes playing it, is increasing.
CJ Stander and Owen Farrell
Some breakdown contributions from a tetchy encounter are worth celebrating. George Kruis (25 attacking ruck arrivals, 23 effective), Maro Itoje (24 attacking arrivals, 22 effective) and Sam Underhill (20 attacking arrivals, all effective) worked hard.
For Ireland, Ryan (30 attacking arrivals, all effective) emptied the tank with a haul that was particularly impressive given his 14 carries. As for the other side of the ball, Bundee Aki (10 defensive ruck arrivals, five effective) was the biggest nuisance to England.
He forced one of Ireland’s three jackal turnovers with CJ Stander (nine defensive arrivals, four effective) and Josh van der Flier (four defensive arrivals, all effective) completing the list.
Peter O’Mahony (six defensive arrivals, three effective) should have won another. Peyper adjudges the ruck to have been formed prior to his jackal here. O’Mahony is unlucky:
Manu Tuilagi seems to have over-run Jonny May. After a very good tackle from Andrew Conway, O’Mahony swoops over an isolated carrier.
England’s destructive defence shone, especially in the second quarter. Luke Cowan-Dickie (five defensive arrivals, three effective) scraped back the hosts’ sole jackal turnover. Courtney Lawes (seven defensive arrivals, six effective), Underhill (nine defensive arrivals, five effective), Curry and Owen Farrell (both seven defensive arrivals, four effective) all challenged Ireland.
Besides the Cowan-Dickie jackal, the other ruck surrendered by Ireland was this one:
Jonathan Joseph’s only defensive ruck arrival is an effective and opportunistic one that wins the ball back for England. Then again, you could pick out five or six offences, shared across both sides, from the clip above alone.
Italy (95 attacking rucks won out 103) vs Scotland (106 out of 113)
A frenetic and fairly loose contest in Rome is reflected in the sketchy breakdown efficiency of both teams.
For Italy, Jake Polledri (29 attacking ruck arrivals, 24 effective) was the most industrious support player, carrying 13 times as well. Dean Budd (16 attacking arrivals, 15 effective) busied himself over 37 minutes from the bench.
Hamish Watson (30 attacking arrivals, 29 effective) stood out for Scotland. The all-action openside flanker racked up 32 metres from 14 carries, too. But this game saw scavengers thrive as referee Ben O’Keeffe usually gave the benefit of any breakdown doubt to the defending side.
Ben O'Keeffe
Both teams recorded six jackal turnovers each. For context, Ireland were the next most prolific poachers across the weekend. They managed three. O’Keeffe rewarded defenders who attacked the ball and stayed in the contest. It spoke volumes that the afternoon’s only yellow card was shown to Federico Zani for a clear-out that tipped Grant Gilchrist beyond the horizontal.
O’Keeffe was also hot on attacking players keeping their balance. The New Zealander takes charge of England’s meeting with Wales at Twickenham next weekend.
Polledri (nine defensive ruck arrivals, all effective) and Giovanni Licata (two defensive ruck arrivals, both effective) recorded two jackal turnovers each. Luca Morisi (five defensive arrivals, four effective) and Matteo Minozzi (two defensive arrivals, both effective) chalked up steals for Italy’s backs.
Jake Polledri
Watson (five defensive arrivals, all effective) and Jamie Ritchie (eight defensive arrivals, seven effective) typically forced turnovers. Grant Gilchrist (two defensive arrivals, one effective), Magnus Bradbury (four defensive arrivals, three effective), Zander Fagerson (five defensive arrivals, all effective) and Adam Hastings (four defensive arrivals, three effective) also did so.
These two phases are a good example of O’Keeffe’s approach – and, indeed, what we have seen from officials generally over the course of this tournament. With Italy on the attack inside the Scotland 22, a strong carry causes tackler Fagerson to fall on the wrong side.
This has a marked effect on the hosts’ ruck-speed, but no penalty comes. On the next phase, Polledri is felled by Watson, Ritchie and Bradbury. Ritchie trips into the tackle-area and Bradbury does not make much of a release before clamping on to the ball:
O’Keeffe awards the penalty to Scotland. He was pretty consistent in favouring the defensive side, and lax support play in a disjointed match will always result in turnovers. Still, Eddie Jones and Wayne Pivac – and the respective breakdown specialists on their coaching teams, John Mitchell and Sam Warburton – will have taken note.
Wales (114 attacking rucks won out of 116) vs France (66 out of 68)
Ironically, one of the very few occasions that Wales managed to generate quick ball ended up in a game-defining try for France as Romain Ntamack stole up from the back-field and snaffled Nick Tompkins’ pass:
Again, Les Bleus kicked a great deal – 40 times – and absorbed punishment with tireless defence and muscular spoiling on the floor. Julien Marchand, Bernard Le Roux, Francois Cros, Charles Ollivon and, of course, Grégory Alldritt made double figures for defensive ruck arrivals.
The back-rower spent 10 minutes in the sin-bin for this offence…
…which does not look altogether different from the numerous jackals that Nigel Owens allowed at Stade de France in round one.
Matthew Carley does shout “Eight, off!” before Alldritt completes the steal. After brandishing the yellow card, the referee seems to indicate to France captain Ollivon that Alldritt had not released carrier Ken Owens prior to attacking the ball:
Rucks
Alldritt still racked up 18 defensive ruck arrivals, with four of them effective, and made one of his team’s two jackal turnovers. Camille Chat forced the other at the very end:
Ntamack took the official man of the match gong but Le Roux (12 defensive ruck arrivals, three effective and 30 attacking ruck arrivals, 29 effective) summed up France’s steel.
This sequence represents a masterful piece of enforcing, with Marchand, Ollivon and even wing Teddy Thomas mucking in. Follow the red scrum cao:
Wales keep the ball but lose all momentum.
Over 69 minutes on the field for Wales, tighthead prop Dillon Lewis accumulated 39 attacking ruck arrivals, with all of them effective. His 13 defensive ruck arrivals, with just one effective, gave him a monstrous total of 52 breakdown arrivals – the highest of round three.
Taulupe Faletau (six defensive ruck arrivals, one effective) earned Wales’ sole jackal turnover
Mikey Brown wrote:I clicked on the link so I could paste the text telling me I’ve already used my 1 free article, but unfortunately it worked this time so here you go.
On a different tack, I thought Launchbury looked good when he came on especially in the mauls. He’s our one lock with substantial physical presence and playing him behind the tighthead and coupling him with either Itoje or Lawes gives us a balanced second row. For me neither Kruis or Ewels have that same physical presence or on the other hand the athleticism of Itoje or Lawes to be in the starting XV.
jngf wrote:On a different tack, I thought Launchbury looked good when he came on especially in the mauls. He’s our one lock with substantial physical presence and playing him behind the tighthead and coupling him with either Itoje or Lawes gives us a balanced second row. For me neither Kruis or Ewels have that presence or on the other hand the athleticism of Itoje or Lawes to be in the starting XV.
I'm a huge fan of Launchbury and he would be in my starting XV. The one case for Kruis, IMO, is that he might get more out of Itoje such that their pairing offers more than other combinations.
So much is perception. I still shudderr at Kruis's failure to get the ball down over the try line against France. Hill scores quite often in that situation for Exeter but does not get a look-in, for example.
jngf wrote:On a different tack, I thought Launchbury looked good when he came on especially in the mauls. He’s our one lock with substantial physical presence and playing him behind the tighthead and coupling him with either Itoje or Lawes gives us a balanced second row. For me neither Kruis or Ewels have that same physical presence or on the other hand the athleticism of Itoje or Lawes to be in the starting XV.
Would you pick Willemse if he was available for England? Just out of curiosity.
So you don't rate the massive amount of work he (Kruis) does around the park in attack (scroll up), his leadership and jumping in the lineout, his scrummaging ability?
Launchbury did zero carrying when he came on btw- though we didn't have that much ball in fairness in the 2nd half. He's a top 2nd row, but again, Eddie isn't convinced.
Banquo wrote:So you don't rate the massive amount of work he (Kruis) does around the park in attack (scroll up), his leadership and jumping in the lineout, his scrummaging ability?
Launchbury did zero carrying when he came on btw- though we didn't have that much ball in fairness in the 2nd half. He's a top 2nd row, but again, Eddie isn't convinced.
I've never been convinced by Kruis compared with the other three, no. Jones likes him. Gatland dumped him. Assuming I was picking a 23 with 3 locks , I'd always have Itoje, Launchbury and Lawes ahead of him.
Banquo wrote:So you don't rate the massive amount of work he (Kruis) does around the park in attack (scroll up), his leadership and jumping in the lineout, his scrummaging ability?
Launchbury did zero carrying when he came on btw- though we didn't have that much ball in fairness in the 2nd half. He's a top 2nd row, but again, Eddie isn't convinced.
I've never been convinced by Kruis compared with the other three, no. Jones likes him. Gatland dumped him. Assuming I was picking a 23 with 3 locks , I'd always have Itoje, Launchbury and Lawes ahead of him.
Launch didn't even make the party
Last edited by Banquo on Tue Feb 25, 2020 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Some breakdown contributions from a tetchy encounter are worth celebrating. George Kruis (25 attacking ruck arrivals, 23 effective), Maro Itoje (24 attacking arrivals, 22 effective) and Sam Underhill (20 attacking arrivals, all effective) worked hard.
Think this is a major reason why Kruis is preferred. And its the reason Jones likes Ewels, who is also very good and consistent in clearing rucks.
Launchbury is a fine player but isnt as good in the l/o and maybe isnt quite as mobile as the other locks at our disposal.
Itoje's contributions across all areas is simply incredible. He made 17 tackles on Sunday in addition to his other work.
fivepointer wrote:Some breakdown contributions from a tetchy encounter are worth celebrating. George Kruis (25 attacking ruck arrivals, 23 effective), Maro Itoje (24 attacking arrivals, 22 effective) and Sam Underhill (20 attacking arrivals, all effective) worked hard.
Think this is a major reason why Kruis is preferred. And its the reason Jones likes Ewels, who is also very good and consistent in clearing rucks.
Launchbury is a fine player but isnt as good in the l/o and maybe isnt quite as mobile as the other locks at our disposal.
Itoje's contributions across all areas is simply incredible. He made 17 tackles on Sunday in addition to his other work.
all this. Its super important the locks put in a shift at the breakdown when Lawes is at 6.
Launch hits a ton of breakdowns when he's playing, and is a more effective carrier than Kruis, with better passing I believe. Kruis is a better lineout option I believe, potentially better in the scrum (but it'll be close), and better at restarts (but then all our locks are).
I'd generally take Launch, as the extra solid carrier makes everything easier, and Kruis can still have his ups and downs with form I feel.
Raggs wrote:Launch hits a ton of breakdowns when he's playing, and is a more effective carrier than Kruis, with better passing I believe. Kruis is a better lineout option I believe, potentially better in the scrum (but it'll be close), and better at restarts (but then all our locks are).
I'd generally take Launch, as the extra solid carrier makes everything easier, and Kruis can still have his ups and downs with form I feel.
Yes, Launch's restarts are awful; hitting breakdowns vs effective interventions would be interesting. Launch imo has been a bit inconsistent too since coming back from the long injury, plus I don't think he was fit when he first reappeared in Eddie's camps (no science there, just my perception). I think, rightly or wrongly, Eddie think Kruis brings a harder edge to proceedings.
For me its a judgement call, that's why we pay the coach.
It’s great to be arguing over players of Kruis and Launchbury’s quality. I think Kruis has two things in his favour. Predominantly that he’s far superior at lineout time and to a lesser extent consistency. You can get 9/10 performances from Launchbury but occasionally you get a 5 or 6/10. Kruis is invariably 7/8 out of 10. Both quality players, though. Like choosing between Liz Hurley and Kate Beckinsale.
Raggs wrote:Launch hits a ton of breakdowns when he's playing, and is a more effective carrier than Kruis, with better passing I believe. Kruis is a better lineout option I believe, potentially better in the scrum (but it'll be close), and better at restarts (but then all our locks are).
I'd generally take Launch, as the extra solid carrier makes everything easier, and Kruis can still have his ups and downs with form I feel.
Yes, Launch's restarts are awful; hitting breakdowns vs effective interventions would be interesting. Launch imo has been a bit inconsistent too since coming back from the long injury, plus I don't think he was fit when he first reappeared in Eddie's camps (no science there, just my perception). I think, rightly or wrongly, Eddie think Kruis brings a harder edge to proceedings.
For me its a judgement call, that's why we pay the coach.
Every time I've done ruck marks Launch has always scored very well. Itoje generally only gets ahead of him in workrate due to more lineouts taken, but then I'd prefer Launch's carrying. As for Kruis, I'm not sure how much lineout ball he's actually been taking recently thinking about it, Lawes and itoje seem to be more prevalent.
Mellsblue wrote:It’s great to be arguing over players of Kruis and Launchbury’s quality. I think Kruis has two things in his favour. Predominantly that he’s far superior at lineout time and to a lesser extent consistency. You can get 9/10 performances from Launchbury but occasionally you get a 5 or 6/10. Kruis is invariably 7/8 out of 10. Both quality players, though. Like choosing between Liz Hurley and Kate Beckinsale.
Funny, I'd say Launch is a consistent 8-9, whereas Kruis is the one who occasionally disappears from a game entirely.
Raggs wrote:
Funny, I'd say Launch is a consistent 8-9, whereas Kruis is the one who occasionally disappears from a game entirely.
Totally agree.
I also think that when it comes to leadership and thinking on his feet, Launchbury is our best lock: right place, right time, right decision.
What is disappointing is that Itoje's leadership qualities have not moved on from his 'favourite hooligan' status. As a 100% starter and nearly always doing the full 80, he should be captain by now. In a twisted logic kind of way, leaving Kruis out might have a fair long-term affect on the team should Itoje take more responsibility rather than supporting his club team-mate. In the DT this morning, I read that, according to Jones, Farrell did his wonderful leadership bit before they got on to the pitch. Maybe that's the answer, let Farrell mouth off in training but find a forward to be captain on the pitch.
Raggs wrote:Launch hits a ton of breakdowns when he's playing, and is a more effective carrier than Kruis, with better passing I believe. Kruis is a better lineout option I believe, potentially better in the scrum (but it'll be close), and better at restarts (but then all our locks are).
I'd generally take Launch, as the extra solid carrier makes everything easier, and Kruis can still have his ups and downs with form I feel.
Yes, Launch's restarts are awful; hitting breakdowns vs effective interventions would be interesting. Launch imo has been a bit inconsistent too since coming back from the long injury, plus I don't think he was fit when he first reappeared in Eddie's camps (no science there, just my perception). I think, rightly or wrongly, Eddie think Kruis brings a harder edge to proceedings.
For me its a judgement call, that's why we pay the coach.
Every time I've done ruck marks Launch has always scored very well. Itoje generally only gets ahead of him in workrate due to more lineouts taken, but then I'd prefer Launch's carrying. As for Kruis, I'm not sure how much lineout ball he's actually been taking recently thinking about it, Lawes and itoje seem to be more prevalent.
Mellsblue wrote:It’s great to be arguing over players of Kruis and Launchbury’s quality. I think Kruis has two things in his favour. Predominantly that he’s far superior at lineout time and to a lesser extent consistency. You can get 9/10 performances from Launchbury but occasionally you get a 5 or 6/10. Kruis is invariably 7/8 out of 10. Both quality players, though. Like choosing between Liz Hurley and Kate Beckinsale.
Funny, I'd say Launch is a consistent 8-9, whereas Kruis is the one who occasionally disappears from a game entirely.
Launch is a consistent 8 or 9/10 whilst Kruis occasionally disappears entirely!! Feels there might be a slight bit of Wasps bias in that evaluation.
Kruis may not take that many lineouts in comparison to Lawes and Itoje but as he runs the entire thing I reckon he can take credit for more than just his own catches. The lineout is so critical to rugby these days.
Agreed that Launchbury has better hands, despite the US debacle in Japan, and I’d say they’re fairly even as carriers with Launchbury possibly slightly better. As Banquo points out, his restarts are barely Prem quality. It’s a glaring and persistent weakness in another critical part of the game.
However, as I said, both test quality players and a good debate to be having.
