RugbyRebels

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:52 pm**

Cameo wrote:
Adder wrote:
Cameo wrote:Im pretty happy with that. Would probs have liked Bradbury but wouldnt have started him. I like Kinghorn but for now I think Maitland is our second choice full back
Followed by seymour

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
I think this in theory but has he ever actually played there

Yes.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:26 pm**

whatisthejava wrote:
Cameo wrote:
OptimisticJock wrote: In the last 3 years in 36 games they've scored 4 or more tries v Georgia (AI), USA (RWC), Japan (RWC), Italy (ST), Tonga (AI), Argentina (AI).
I think the bonus points is a bit of a red herring to be honest. We might get one or two try scoring ones if we jave a good tournament and maybe a losing one or two but it will be rare that it leads to overtaking a team that has more wins that you.
Possibly but 3 losing BP would overcome a draw by 2 other teams

Assuming neither of them have any bonus points in the tournament. Not impossible just most years I see it as splitting teams on equal wins rather than making up for losing all the time

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:32 pm**

Six centres, four back three players. Have to wonder if one of those wings might see some time on the wing.

Other than that it's pretty much as expected, Bradbury aside. Squads are never that exciting when we have such a small potential pool of players. I wonder who wouldn't have made it if Horne had been fit. Weir or Scott?

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:30 pm**

switchskier wrote:Six centres, four back three players. Have to wonder if one of those wings might see some time on the wing. [\B]

Other than that it's pretty much as expected, Bradbury aside. Squads are never that exciting when we have such a small potential pool of players. I wonder who wouldn't have made it if Horne had been fit. Weir or Scott?

I think you may be on to something.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:38 pm**

ARM wrote:
switchskier wrote:Six centres, four back three players. Have to wonder if one of those wings might see some time on the wing. [\B]

Other than that it's pretty much as expected, Bradbury aside. Squads are never that exciting when we have such a small potential pool of players. I wonder who wouldn't have made it if Horne had been fit. Weir or Scott?

I think you may be on to something.

5 back 3 players? Hogg, Seymour, Visser, maitland and Hoyland?

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:34 pm**

The Bradbury thing still irks me. Even if HP's point about his rucking is true he brings so many fantastic attributes to the team. He'd be best used off the bench for impact anyway.

What kind of message does it send to a young bloke who has put in good performance after performance when guys like Gilchrist, Hardie, Taylor and probably others are there despite doing very little to warrant their places?

Besides the difference in age, how is his situation any different from Hamish Watson's? Both were relatively inexperienced at int level, both took their chance in the AIs, both are consistently top performers for their club. One gets dropped entirely and excluded from the next international squad while the other wins the shirt & is retained?

I'd be a little less annoyed about this if he'd not gone for CDP.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 10:04 pm**

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:The Bradbury thing still irks me. Even if HP's point about his rucking is true he brings so many fantastic attributes to the team. He'd be best used off the bench for impact anyway.

What kind of message does it send to a young bloke who has put in good performance after performance when guys like Gilchrist, Hardie, Taylor and probably others are there despite doing very little to warrant their places?

Besides the difference in age, how is his situation any different from Hamish Watson's? Both were relatively inexperienced at int level, both took their chance in the AIs, both are consistently top performers for their club. One gets dropped entirely and excluded from the next international squad while the other wins the shirt & is retained?

I'd be a little less annoyed about this if he'd not gone for CDP.

The difference is Watson had 3 good performances, Bradbury had one and it may be that Cotter wasnt completely sold yet. Remeber Watson has also had some time on the fringes and didnt get a game for a while after his first game. The message is that international pedigree counts for something. Im all for form players and probs would have had Bradbury in the squad but I can see why Cotter has faith in some people who have performed at that level before like Hardie and Taylor. Dont either of those will play in the first game anyway

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:18 pm**

Interesting article, looks like some detailed reasoning on the squad. https://theoffsideline.com/2017/01/18/s ... g-concern/

And Nel may be out for the 6N

Bradbury, Scott are both discussed.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:13 am**

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:The Bradbury thing still irks me. Even if HP's point about his rucking is true he brings so many fantastic attributes to the team. He'd be best used off the bench for impact anyway.

What kind of message does it send to a young bloke who has put in good performance after performance when guys like Gilchrist, Hardie, Taylor and probably others are there despite doing very little to warrant their places?

Besides the difference in age, how is his situation any different from Hamish Watson's? Both were relatively inexperienced at int level, both took their chance in the AIs, both are consistently top performers for their club. One gets dropped entirely and excluded from the next international squad while the other wins the shirt & is retained?

I'd be a little less annoyed about this if he'd not gone for CDP.

Gilchrist is the teachers pet, Hardie and Taylor are proven internationals, if they train well you know they'll do the job. Message to Bradbury? You're good but you need to be better, he's also not competing with any of the players you've listed, the ones he is up against are in good form and have proven ability at international level.

Difference is Watson (after a couple of years on the fringes) played well enough to secure his place.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:33 am**

Well, apart from Strauss and Wilson.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:52 am**

Surprised no Bradbury at least in the squad, but there you go.

I wasn't expecting to see King Blairhorn in the squad - whenever I've seen him he has generally played well, but he is a little inconsistent at the moment for me. See glasgow's first try at Murrayfield. Think he'll benefit from more games at Edinburgh when he has to take a bit more responsibility in the absence of their international players. Harsh, but General Zod is not known for tolerance.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:13 pm**

General Zod wrote:Surprised no Bradbury at least in the squad, but there you go.

I wasn't expecting to see King Blairhorn in the squad - whenever I've seen him he has generally played well, but he is a little inconsistent at the moment for me. See glasgow's first try at Murrayfield. Think he'll benefit from more games at Edinburgh when he has to take a bit more responsibility in the absence of their international players. Harsh, but General Zod is not known for tolerance.

I wouldn't expect him to start but as a country we could do more to expose our talented youngsters to the international experience around training/being with the squad. It surely couldn't hurt to have the likes of Kinghorn, Bradbury and even Hastings in and around the squad? NZ have their "apprentice" for tours, I don't see why we can't have 2/3 training with the squad during the 6N. Working with Richie Gray would clearly help Bradbury, being around Hogg and Seymour would help bring Kinghorn on.

We did it before with Barclay, he was around the senior squad, even as water boy on matchdays from a very early age IIRC.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:34 pm**

OptimisticJock wrote:Well, apart from Strauss and Wilson.

Proven at international level? Well, they are. Wilson always had a good all round skill set and flexibility but never hit the heights necessary until the last 6ish months. Strauss took time to get up to speed but is now worth persisting with, particularly as there's no carrier like him, at least not tested yet.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:34 pm**

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:37 pm**

OptimisticJock wrote:

You disagree?

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:43 pm**

I didn't think you'd really take the bait.

It was basically smart price bread disguised as bait.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:44 pm**

OptimisticJock wrote:I didn't think you'd really take the bait.

It was basically smart price bread disguised as bait.

Fair play. In my defence, whenever I log in here I have to interact with Hugh.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:45 pm**

hp18 wrote:
OptimisticJock wrote:Well, apart from Strauss and Wilson.
Proven at international level? Well, they are. Wilson always had a good all round skill set and flexibility but never hit the heights necessary until the last 6ish months. Strauss took time to get up to speed but is now worth persisting with, particularly as there's no carrier like him, at least not tested yet.

A large part of the back row options are unproven at international level IMO
:
CdP - No experience.
Watson - Needs to follow up 1 good series with a good 6N.
Harley - Has a lot to prove at international level IMO.
To be fair "worth persisting with" hardly suggests proven at international level.
Wilson still needs to do it more consistently too at international level. But has shown a lot of good bits and pieces.

Hardie and Barclay are the only two who have been mostly consistent in a blue shirt over more than a 3 game stretch.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:14 pm**

I think there is a whole load of U20 that would benefit from training with the top team, im sure id benefit training with the Gray brothers but the coaches have X amount of time to get a 23 ready for Ireland and they need to focus on a limited number of players to make sure that the 30 odd guys that could play and cover injury and well prepared.

Kinghorn, Bradbury etc will all get their turn in this 6N or the summer but they need to wait,

interestingly VC said that Bradbury finishes games well but he doesn't start strongly and thats what they want which is why CDP is preferred (see link I posted above) against Ireland we can't afford anyone starting slowly which is why I think we cold potentially see Brown, Swinson and CDP starting as all three start strongly Imo

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:25 pm**

I don't think Brown will be anywhere near the starting 2 shirt if Nel is out. He's definitely the form hooker in Scotland but you're asking a lot from a pretty green front row of Dell, Brown and Fagerson. If Dicko and Nel were both available i reckon Brown would be a shoo-in for the 2 shirt.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:12 pm**

Is MacInally crocked? Always interested in seeing how he's doing since his conversion.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:40 pm**

Much as I like the idea of getting him on the field it just doesn't look like he's kicking on there. When he made the switch it seemed like Denton was doing well and Strauss would storm his way in to the shirt, but now I feel like he could have been much more use a back tower, despite no real depth at 2.

I'd love to be proven wrong though, as he really seems to get the game.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:12 pm**

QwentyJ wrote:Is MacInally crocked? Always interested in seeing how he's doing since his conversion.

Cochrane is second choice at Edinburgh.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:18 pm**

QwentyJ wrote:Is MacInally crocked? Always interested in seeing how he's doing since his conversion.

Qwenty! Fck me (not really) - we'll have grumpy back next and a monkey or two.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:04 pm**

whatisthejava wrote:Interesting article, looks like some detailed reasoning on the squad. https://theoffsideline.com/2017/01/18/s ... g-concern/

And Nel may be out for the 6N

Bradbury, Scott are both discussed.

Thats a great link, would love to hear more analysis like that

RugbyRebels

6 Nations

Re: RE: Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: RE: Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations

Re: 6 Nations