RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Which was odd when Saints didn't remotely look like winning anything and were at no threat of going down. Hopefully he keeps playing, a perhaps forlorn hope if Brussow and Shields join

Its a shame that Mallinder hasn't developed as a coach

It's even a shame he doesn't seem to have even tried to develop. There re are of course plenty of good things happening at Saints, just on balance not enough,their game hasn't progressed enough, nor taken account of what they could be doing with the assets they have. He's England's version of Gatland, he's got a plan that can work with the right players even if a little limited, and sticks to it no matter whether it's working

I thought his start at Saints showed promise, but it turned out he had just the one style.

Banquo wrote: I thought his start at Saints showed promise, but it turned out he had just the one style.

Mallball?
Jimball?
Mallyball?

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: I thought his start at Saints showed promise, but it turned out he had just the one style.

Mallball?
Jimball?
Mallyball?

misera-ball

Banquo wrote: misera-ball

If he keeps it up he just might be the next Jamboree coach, unless that's Gats again

Re Clifford - Yes, 6/10 and letting slip an opportunity to thrust himself into the reckoning is about right.

And part of the problem was that he was stationed really wide for a lot of the game, where the ball simply didn't go, hence the low stats Raggs posted. No idea to what extent that was coach orders or not - I always assumed it was and Jones was being a bit unfair in axing him after. Still, you have to be busy when establishing yourself. Some lovely running lines and hands when it did get wide though.

Main issue though was that he simply didn't look breakdown savvy enough for the role and that's by the low standards of an England openside. If he did develop that and play more involved/physically, no reason he couldn't shoot back into contention.


Also, I'm enjoying the slagging off of Mallinder's Gatlite approach.

That sounds perfectly believable. I really hope he can put in some consistent performances without drifting in and out of games.

I'm probably quite biased/defensive about his England chances but with Hughes getting so many chances before turning in a decent performance it seemed a shame we didn't get anything more out of Clifford.

We're heading in the right direction with the backrow I think. Clifford has an awful lot to do if he wants to be involved again. Can't wait to see how Underhill gets on in that Bath backrow.

Peat wrote:Re Clifford - Yes, 6/10 and letting slip an opportunity to thrust himself into the reckoning is about right.

And part of the problem was that he was stationed really wide for a lot of the game, where the ball simply didn't go, hence the low stats Raggs posted. No idea to what extent that was coach orders or not - I always assumed it was and Jones was being a bit unfair in axing him after. Still, you have to be busy when establishing yourself. Some lovely running lines and hands when it did get wide though.

Main issue though was that he simply didn't look breakdown savvy enough for the role and that's by the low standards of an England openside. If he did develop that and play more involved/physically, no reason he couldn't shoot back into contention.


Also, I'm enjoying the slagging off of Mallinder's Gatlite approach.

Mallinder's early teams played quick physical, direct rugby with strong set piece basics (bit of a dubious scrum from time to time).....and the backs played some really good rugby, with G Pisi, Foden and Ashton at their best, teed up by some go forward from the likes of Eugene's favourite player, Downey. Unfortunately, it relied on some excellent carriers up front (and Downey), who gradually left and weren't replaced by the same calibre....this lead to trying to play the same way with slow ball. And then they were screwed- see Lee Dickson as the epitome of that screwedness- with the pack on top, he could get away with just following the ball and distributing (albeit a bit haphazardly) quickly....without forward dominance he was plain average/bad. But the rugby they played early in his reign was enjoyable in its simplicity and in fact in some very decent outside back play. In fact, I didn't think it a bad start point/blueprint for the national side.....with a lot of tweaks; but it simply had no back up, nor did it evolve,

I do miss watching the Tongahuia/Mujati combo rampaging around.

I miss those two props immensely

Indeed, those two were a central part of why Saints looked useful for a while.

Adam_P wrote:

I miss those two props immensely

Reminiscent of England Ireland in 2012.