Team news for Ireland.

[Danno]

Curry looks better in practice. I'd drop Lawes off that list, or at least down it and add in George and Itoje. I also don't think we can have too many carriers given we refuse to even try and play rugby

Lawes is surely a far,far, far better carrier than Curry, and frankly better than any of our other forwards in this respect Vunipola brothers excepted. (Apologies to Mikey Brown)

Better than Sincks and Genge? Behave

Lawes is okay, but he doesn't smash contact, he doesn't have fantastic leg drive once in contact, he doesn't offload or pass much out of contact and his ball presentation is okay-decent. Lawes also isn't rapid in the event he does get behind the line.

Really struggling to recall a single occurrence of this, he's usually chopped down

[jngf]

Curry looks better in practice. I'd drop Lawes off that list, or at least down it and add in George and Itoje. I also don't think we can have too many carriers given we refuse to even try and play rugby

Lawes is surely a far,far, far better carrier than Curry, and frankly better than any of our other forwards in this respect Vunipola brothers excepted. (Apologies to Mik pop ey Brown)

Better than Sincks and Genge? Behave

Lawes is okay, but he doesn't smash contact, he doesn't have fantastic leg drive once in contact, he doesn't offload or pass much out of contact and his ball presentation is okay-decent. Lawes also isn't rapid in the event he does get behind the line

True enough Sinckler has done some exciting (especially by tight head standards) broken field runs but his impact as hard yards carrier into tight traffic hasn’t been so conspicuous and can’t recall Genge’s hard yard’s carrying being anything particularly special so far tbh (though his undoubted PR skills and knowledge of the butchery trade are an X factor ) - what have I missed?

[Stom]

Lawes is surely a far,far, far better carrier than Curry, and frankly better than any of our other forwards in this respect Vunipola brothers excepted. (Apologies to Mik pop ey Brown)

Better than Sincks and Genge? Behave

Lawes is okay, but he doesn't smash contact, he doesn't have fantastic leg drive once in contact, he doesn't offload or pass much out of contact and his ball presentation is okay-decent. Lawes also isn't rapid in the event he does get behind the line

True enough Sinckler has done some exciting (especially by tight head standards) broken field runs but his impact as hard yards carrier into tight traffic hasn’t been so conspicuous and can’t recall Genge’s hard yard’s carrying being anything particularly special so far tbh (though his undoubted PR skills and knowledge of the butchery trade are an X factor ) - what have I missed?

Lawes doesn’t seem to do many pick and goes. Genge and Sinckler booth regularly make some yards there and present the ball. Lawes seems to often be one out, if someone can confirm my thoughts, that’d be great.

Lawes is a lot better than he used to be, but he’s merely OK now. He was crap before. You don’t pick him for his carrying. Which is a problem as of all our locks, only really Launch is an effective carrier. Which makes picking Lawes at 6a crazy decision for me, you’re basically just removing a potential carrier.

[Banquo]

Lawes is good on the fringes of the ruck defence I feel. Curry is building more and more. Underhill isn't bad when hitting the line at pace. Lawes is below Mako, Genge, LCD, BV, Curry and Sink for me. Then it's arguable with regards to what sort of carrying against some of the others.

yep. As repeatedly noted, Underhill and Curry offer differing and complementary strengths. Curry is doing much more carrying than Underhill in last 'x' games,I do think he should be deployed less as a one out carrier though.

[Oakboy]

I've never understood the statistical evidence of carrying. On paper, a forward that bursts through a tackle and carries for 20 yards has done more than one that carries for 3 yards but requires three or four tacklers to stop him. The second instance can have more effect on the game obviously though not necessarily.

Another factor that gets no statistical measure (that I have seen) is close physical support of the carrier - pairing up etc. That is a very significant part of Exeter's play, for example.

[fivepointer]

If England want a strong carrying, hard hitting No 6 then why isn't Dave Ewers in the squad?

[Digby]

We're probably looking at the wrong things tbf, things that look good on TV aren't necessarily going to be the same thing as Eddie wants. But what is Eddie looking at? If he's going all Moneyball then he might not look so much at breaks but numbers of carries, number of tacklers taken to floor per carry, amount of time tacklers take to recover to feet vs bounce time for the carrier, and then things like ball presentation then offloads and then actual linebreaks (or halfbeaks)

[Mikey Brown]

I’m sure I saw an interesting stats list for carries like that a while back. It may have just been a one off for a particular match though.

Metres carried from the point of contact is a particularly interesting one, but has its own issues if players are slamming straight in to people rather than running through gaps.

[Oakboy]

I’m sure I saw an interesting stats list for carries like that a while back. It may have just been a one off for a particular match though.

Metres carried from the point of contact is a particularly interesting one, but has its own issues if players are slamming straight in to people rather than running through gaps.

You are back to Ashton's line of dustbins and whether players see the bins or the gaps between them. The fundamental issue, for forwards as well as backs in the modern game, is knowing when to take risks. The state of the game might affect how a player carries, for example - is retaining the ball absolutely essential or is getting the arms free to offload more important? On-field leadership has to allow for such tactical changes on the hoof, I think.

[Which Tyler]

On-field leadership has to allow for such tactical changes on the hoof, I think.

Now who's using Brian Ashton thinking?
Do you remember what happened last time a coach tried to enable players to make tactical changes on the hoof? They staged a player revolt so that they could do exactly what the coach they revolted against wanted them to do!

[jngf]

I’m sure I saw an interesting stats list for carries like that a while back. It may have just been a one off for a particular match though.

Metres carried from the point of contact is a particularly interesting one, but has its own issues if players are slamming straight in to people rather than running through gaps.

Always remember Ashton first distinguishing between Haskell and Croft in about 2007, by saying one of these players instinctively ran into other players whereas the other’s instinct was to try and run round them. Wonder which was which?

[Mikey Brown]

I’m not Brian Ashton, okay? Please all stop accusing me of being Brian Ashton.

[Which Tyler]

I’m sure I saw an interesting stats list for carries like that a while back. It may have just been a one off for a particular match though.

Metres carried from the point of contact is a particularly interesting one, but has its own issues if players are slamming straight in to people rather than running through gaps.

Always remember Ashton first distinguishing between Haskell and Croft in about 2007, by saying one of these players instinctively ran into other players whereas the other’s instinct was to try and run round them. Wonder which was which?

If ever this was appropriate...

[Oakboy]

I’m not Brian Ashton, okay? Please all stop accusing me of being Brian Ashton.

Damn, thought we had you sussed!

[Oakboy]

On-field leadership has to allow for such tactical changes on the hoof, I think.

Now who's using Brian Ashton thinking?
Do you remember what happened last time a coach tried to enable players to make tactical changes on the hoof? They staged a player revolt so that they could do exactly what the coach they revolted against wanted them to do!

I'm only suggesting they are allowed to think. Rebellion is a tad extreme - even with Jones in charge!

[Digby]

I’m sure I saw an interesting stats list for carries like that a while back. It may have just been a one off for a particular match though.

Metres carried from the point of contact is a particularly interesting one, but has its own issues if players are slamming straight in to people rather than running through gaps.

Depends what happens when you run into players. If you're getting close to an average of putting one tackler on the ground for each carry coaches are probably going to like that

[Banquo]

I've never understood the statistical evidence of carrying. On paper, a forward that bursts through a tackle and carries for 20 yards has done more than one that carries for 3 yards but requires three or four tacklers to stop him. The second instance can have more effect on the game obviously though not necessarily.

Another factor that gets no statistical measure (that I have seen) is close physical support of the carrier - pairing up etc. That is a very significant part of Exeter's play, for example.

Combo of number of carries and yards made is quite revealing.

[Banquo]

On-field leadership has to allow for such tactical changes on the hoof, I think.

Now who's using Brian Ashton thinking?
Do you remember what happened last time a coach tried to enable players to make tactical changes on the hoof? They staged a player revolt so that they could do exactly what the coach they revolted against wanted them to do!

I'm only suggesting they are allowed to think. Rebellion is a tad extreme - even with Jones in charge!

Bizarrely, its Eddie's view that English players are coached not to think - or rather not coached to make their own decisions- that leads to his specific game planning, based on not overly thinking . With the Brumbies, his attacking strategy was to basically have three phases described from any restart, and then let players play; helps when you have the likes of Smith, Gregan and Larkham etc, and the game is vastly different now.

The Ashton rebellion was the players knowing they didn't have the 'ability' to do what he was trying to do- technical and decision making- and win games; the embarrassment v SA was the trigger.

[Oakboy]

I've never understood the statistical evidence of carrying. On paper, a forward that bursts through a tackle and carries for 20 yards has done more than one that carries for 3 yards but requires three or four tacklers to stop him. The second instance can have more effect on the game obviously though not necessarily.

Another factor that gets no statistical measure (that I have seen) is close physical support of the carrier - pairing up etc. That is a very significant part of Exeter's play, for example.

Combo of number of carries and yards made is quite revealing.

To an extent, I suppose, but should the outcome not always be a factor? Exaggerating, for example, if a player made ten carries and a 100 yd but coughed up the ball every time might he be a statistical success but an actual liability?

[Banquo]

I've never understood the statistical evidence of carrying. On paper, a forward that bursts through a tackle and carries for 20 yards has done more than one that carries for 3 yards but requires three or four tacklers to stop him. The second instance can have more effect on the game obviously though not necessarily.

Another factor that gets no statistical measure (that I have seen) is close physical support of the carrier - pairing up etc. That is a very significant part of Exeter's play, for example.

Combo of number of carries and yards made is quite revealing.

To an extent, I suppose, but should the outcome not always be a factor? Exaggerating, for example, if a player made ten carries and a 100 yd but coughed up the ball every time might he be a statistical success but an actual liability?

well yes, but its a fair indication over time of how a player is used and their effectiveness. If you look at our carrying stats after the SA final, its pretty clear what our problem with the ball was, ditto Ireland's stats from last weekend. Its much less useful in the backs, I agree. Its also quite easy to see how much each player has turned it over; Raggs ruck marks are extremely good, but you can use ESPN's to form a general impression. Speficially, when jngf says Underhill is more of a carrier than Curry, factually that just isn't so in terms of numbers of carries (every game for at least the last 5) and yards gained (every game bar one for the last 5 games, where Underhill made a 20 yard break iirc).

[jngf]

Combo of number of carries and yards made is quite revealing.

To an extent, I suppose, but should the outcome not always be a factor? Exaggerating, for example, if a player made ten carries and a 100 yd but coughed up the ball every time might he be a statistical success but an actual liability?

well yes, but its a fair indication over time of how a player is used and their effectiveness. If you look at our carrying stats after the SA final, its pretty clear what our problem with the ball was, ditto Ireland's stats from last weekend. Its much less useful in the backs, I agree. Its also quite easy to see how much each player has turned it over; Raggs ruck marks are extremely good, but you can use ESPN's to form a general impression. Speficially, when jngf says Underhill is more of a carrier than Curry, factually that just isn't so in terms of numbers of carries (every game for at least the last 5) and yards gained (every game bar one for the last 5 games, where Underhill made a 20 yard break iirc).

One only has to watch them both in test action to see that it takes a helluva lot more power and effort (and frankly shear bravery!) to stop Underhill on the charge than it does Curry.

[Digby]

One only has to watch them both in test action to see that it takes a helluva lot more power and effort (and frankly shear bravery!) to stop Underhill on the charge than it does Curry.

Having watched them I'd think Curry the more powerful carrier, but not by a 'helluva lot more power'

[Banquo]

To an extent, I suppose, but should the outcome not always be a factor? Exaggerating, for example, if a player made ten carries and a 100 yd but coughed up the ball every time might he be a statistical success but an actual liability?

well yes, but its a fair indication over time of how a player is used and their effectiveness. If you look at our carrying stats after the SA final, its pretty clear what our problem with the ball was, ditto Ireland's stats from last weekend. Its much less useful in the backs, I agree. Its also quite easy to see how much each player has turned it over; Raggs ruck marks are extremely good, but you can use ESPN's to form a general impression. Speficially, when jngf says Underhill is more of a carrier than Curry, factually that just isn't so in terms of numbers of carries (every game for at least the last 5) and yards gained (every game bar one for the last 5 games, where Underhill made a 20 yard break iirc).

One only has to watch them both in test action to see that it takes a helluva lot more power and effort (and frankly shear bravery!) to stop Underhill on the charge than it does Curry.

So you are talking about him being 'more of a carrier' in theory, because in practice he carries a lot less, and generally for less yards per carry, because he runs at people rather than at gaps? He has improved as a carrier, its true- he was looking pretty poor when he first rocked up, then had a good old carry v NZ, then disappeared as a carrier again pretty much, bar the odd random break.

[Digby]

Talking of power runners, Ireland kept trying to run this last game with either the ball being kicked away or playing off Sexton, and in recent times they've lost to us with forward runners taking the ball of Murray at 9 so maybe they wanted to avoid that, and they've recently forgotten how to kick which is a problem, but they did have 2 power runners in the centre. Their game was faster in the last quarter, partly Cooney and Byrne and partly England hand given up trying, but early doors was anyone wondering why Aki and Henshaw weren't smashing the ball up off Murray to try and get over the gainline before feeding Sexton?

Seeing as some chap has just reminded us of Gregan and Larkham their jobs were made so much easier at times by Gregan dropping anything he or Larkham didn't want off to the likes of Grey and Herbert. Christ even if one person has to come up into the line you've just made kicking so much easier (and actually Ireland didn't kick enough beyond they were also bad at kicking)

[Banquo]

Talking of power runners, Ireland kept trying to run this last game with either the ball being kicked away or playing off Sexton, and in recent times they've lost to us with forward runners taking the ball of Murray at 9 so maybe they wanted to avoid that, and they've recently forgotten how to kick which is a problem, but they did have 2 power runners in the centre. Their game was faster in the last quarter, partly Cooney and Byrne and partly England hand given up trying, but early doors was anyone wondering why Aki and Henshaw weren't smashing the ball up off Murray to try and get over the gainline before feeding Sexton?

Seeing as some chap has just reminded us of Gregan and Larkham their jobs were made so much easier at times by Gregan dropping anything he or Larkham didn't want off to the likes of Grey and Herbert. Christ even if one person has to come up into the line you've just made kicking so much easier (and actually Ireland didn't kick enough beyond they were also bad at kicking)

Indeed, the benefit of having an 'out' option. Mind, even as few as 20 years ago, backfield coverage was much thinner.