RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
Hmm. I'm clearly biased but I think the gap between the two is far smaller than a lot of people suggest. No he's not that dynamic but he's pretty canny around the field and always seems to make some good contributions* even outside the scrum/big hits.

*Holding on to people at rucks and blocking lines

I agree.

Mako is a better rugby player who, at is best is almost unanimously regarded as World Class, but Marler is a better prop, a very good defender and great at clearing rucks etc.

Mako makes a huge difference in attack as handler and carrier, and that's why he should be starting and staying on longer imo. Who is the better lifter at lineout and restarts? Given Mako plays with both our starting locks, that has to have some bearing.

Mako is such an active defender too, and more of a ruck threat when it comes to turnovers (though maybe with his hamstring we tell him to ignore that). Okay he's not going to hit the heights of that Ireland game every week, but it's not close imo as to which one you'd want 50-60 minutes from

Mikey Brown wrote:

jngf wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I've got a good idea for the fast athletic 8 alternative. Continue picking Curry and Billy but swap their shirt numbers. Does that do the job, Jngf?

Given, I’ve some reservations about Curry being big enough to play 6 you can probably infer my answer about a position requiring even more power and size.

My point is the balance of it. Are we changing the game-plan entirely and not requiring a big, heavy carrier like Vunipola (who even at his least effective draws in a huge number of defenders) or are we shuffling the shape of the backrow to have a big hitter/carrier at 6 for instance?

Given you've just said 8 requires more power and size than 6 I'd guess not the latter one. If we can rebalance the pack to allow for a Simmonds/Mercer to be used effectively at 8 (and not have it all fall apart as soon as it starts raining) then great, but I'm curious how you picture the end goal of this that it makes removing one of our best players (over the last 4 years) worth it.

That's a big part of it, no side looking to defend Billy is possibly going to assume he'll have a bad day, you'd have to be mental to do that. What we do need are more options, and to make better decisions if Billy isn't being a superman

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
I agree.

Mako is a better rugby player who, at is best is almost unanimously regarded as World Class, but Marler is a better prop, a very good defender and great at clearing rucks etc.

Mako makes a huge difference in attack as handler and carrier, and that's why he should be starting and staying on longer imo. Who is the better lifter at lineout and restarts? Given Mako plays with both our starting locks, that has to have some bearing.

Mako is such an active defender too, and more of a ruck threat when it comes to turnovers (though maybe with his hamstring we tell him to ignore that). Okay he's not going to hit the heights of that Ireland game every week, but it's not close imo as to which one you'd want 50-60 minutes from

Good point, much better over the ball than Marler.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Mako makes a huge difference in attack as handler and carrier, and that's why he should be starting and staying on longer imo. Who is the better lifter at lineout and restarts? Given Mako plays with both our starting locks, that has to have some bearing.

Mako is such an active defender too, and more of a ruck threat when it comes to turnovers (though maybe with his hamstring we tell him to ignore that). Okay he's not going to hit the heights of that Ireland game every week, but it's not close imo as to which one you'd want 50-60 minutes from

Good point, much better over the ball than Marler.

But who's funnier?

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

jngf wrote:
Given, I’ve some reservations about Curry being big enough to play 6 you can probably infer my answer about a position requiring even more power and size.

My point is the balance of it. Are we changing the game-plan entirely and not requiring a big, heavy carrier like Vunipola (who even at his least effective draws in a huge number of defenders) or are we shuffling the shape of the backrow to have a big hitter/carrier at 6 for instance?

Given you've just said 8 requires more power and size than 6 I'd guess not the latter one. If we can rebalance the pack to allow for a Simmonds/Mercer to be used effectively at 8 (and not have it all fall apart as soon as it starts raining) then great, but I'm curious how you picture the end goal of this that it makes removing one of our best players (over the last 4 years) worth it.

That's a big part of it, no side looking to defend Billy is possibly going to assume he'll have a bad day, you'd have to be mental to do that. What we do need are more options, and to make better decisions if Billy isn't being a superman

Yep, the carrying stats v Argentina outside of BV and Itoje's break weren't pretty in the forwards, partly because we kicked the leather off the ball, and partly because the likes of Curry got nowhere.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Mako is such an active defender too, and more of a ruck threat when it comes to turnovers (though maybe with his hamstring we tell him to ignore that). Okay he's not going to hit the heights of that Ireland game every week, but it's not close imo as to which one you'd want 50-60 minutes from

Good point, much better over the ball than Marler.

But who's funnier?

Mako. Marler thinks he is though.

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote: Good point, much better over the ball than Marler.

But who's funnier?

Mako. Marler thinks he is though.

Ah. Well then I think we've taken this conversation as far as it can go.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
But who's funnier?

Mako. Marler thinks he is though.

Ah. Well then I think we've taken this conversation as far as it can go.

Only a jest.

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote: Mako. Marler thinks he is though.

Ah. Well then I think we've taken this conversation as far as it can go.

Only a jest.

Mako is comedically in a grump, always. Perhaps not as badly as Gethin Jenkins

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
My point is the balance of it. Are we changing the game-plan entirely and not requiring a big, heavy carrier like Vunipola (who even at his least effective draws in a huge number of defenders) or are we shuffling the shape of the backrow to have a big hitter/carrier at 6 for instance?

Given you've just said 8 requires more power and size than 6 I'd guess not the latter one. If we can rebalance the pack to allow for a Simmonds/Mercer to be used effectively at 8 (and not have it all fall apart as soon as it starts raining) then great, but I'm curious how you picture the end goal of this that it makes removing one of our best players (over the last 4 years) worth it.

That's a big part of it, no side looking to defend Billy is possibly going to assume he'll have a bad day, you'd have to be mental to do that. What we do need are more options, and to make better decisions if Billy isn't being a superman

Yep, the carrying stats v Argentina outside of BV and Itoje's break weren't pretty in the forwards, partly because we kicked the leather off the ball, and partly because the likes of Curry got nowhere.

I'm really starting to wonder if Eddie has built a WC campaign strategy from the off. We're taking far fewer hits by kicking so much. If we start to come strong as the tournament progresses maybe there's something in that cumulative reduction of ruck work, or then again maybe not

Not that Eddie might not have identified kicking as the best way for England to use/exploit space anyway, but not spending 4-5 games taking the same hits as Wales, Ireland or NZ might/will could wok in our favour. I nearly wrote additionally work in our favour before I remembered I don't much like our kicking game

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

That's a big part of it, no side looking to defend Billy is possibly going to assume he'll have a bad day, you'd have to be mental to do that. What we do need are more options, and to make better decisions if Billy isn't being a superman

Yep, the carrying stats v Argentina outside of BV and Itoje's break weren't pretty in the forwards, partly because we kicked the leather off the ball, and partly because the likes of Curry got nowhere.

I'm really starting to wonder if Eddie has built a WC campaign strategy from the off. We're taking far fewer hits by kicking so much. If we start to come strong as the tournament progresses maybe there's something in that cumulative reduction of ruck work, or then again maybe not

Not that Eddie might not have identified kicking as the best way for England to use/exploit space anyway, but not spending 4-5 games taking the same hits as Wales, Ireland or NZ might/will could wok in our favour. I nearly wrote additionally work in our favour before I remembered I don't much like our kicking game

as opposed to making a stir about a wok?

Could be, suspect that was definitely the case v Tonga; instead of being battered about, let them try and do something with the ball.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Yep, the carrying stats v Argentina outside of BV and Itoje's break weren't pretty in the forwards, partly because we kicked the leather off the ball, and partly because the likes of Curry got nowhere.

I'm really starting to wonder if Eddie has built a WC campaign strategy from the off. We're taking far fewer hits by kicking so much. If we start to come strong as the tournament progresses maybe there's something in that cumulative reduction of ruck work, or then again maybe not

Not that Eddie might not have identified kicking as the best way for England to use/exploit space anyway, but not spending 4-5 games taking the same hits as Wales, Ireland or NZ might/will could wok in our favour. I nearly wrote additionally work in our favour before I remembered I don't much like our kicking game

as opposed to making a stir about a wok?

Could be, suspect that was definitely the case v Tonga; instead of being battered about, let them try and do something with the ball.

By the semi-finals we could have hit 100+ rucks less per forward than say Wales based on plucking a figure from the air. Whether it's intentional and/or helps I don't know, but it didn't really even occur to me until the WC was underway. This might of course have occurred to everyone else as soon as Eddie came in

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

That's a big part of it, no side looking to defend Billy is possibly going to assume he'll have a bad day, you'd have to be mental to do that. What we do need are more options, and to make better decisions if Billy isn't being a superman

Yep, the carrying stats v Argentina outside of BV and Itoje's break weren't pretty in the forwards, partly because we kicked the leather off the ball, and partly because the likes of Curry got nowhere.

I'm really starting to wonder if Eddie has built a WC campaign strategy from the off. We're taking far fewer hits by kicking so much. If we start to come strong as the tournament progresses maybe there's something in that cumulative reduction of ruck work, or then again maybe not

Not that Eddie might not have identified kicking as the best way for England to use/exploit space anyway, but not spending 4-5 games taking the same hits as Wales, Ireland or NZ might/will could wok in our favour. I nearly wrote additionally work in our favour before I remembered I don't much like our kicking game

Deep.

Maybe this could be a manifestation of the mythical " Having a plan A.....and a plan B"?!!!!!

England coaches have been searching for the secret for years...some say it doesn't exist.

There's a chance of this match being called off, or relocated (as well as the Japan v Scotland match, which would be a crying shame) due to SUPER TYPHOON HAGIBIS (which deserves all caps because it sounds like a cheap anime villain)

Possibly not the place for it but whatever- did anybody catch this part of the post-match PC where Farrell is asked about taking knocks to the head and what tests were done to ensure he is fit to carry on? His answer is, err... pretty sketchy.

Starts by saying "I feel fine, it's obviously a concussion" but I think he just misspoke. Then suggests it's not a concern because it wasn't "near the top of the head" which seems like a pretty clumsy answer at best.



Is "no need need for an HIA" his own assessment or that of a medical professional? I'd sort of assumed basically all the players have something close to an HIA post-game anyway.

Perhaps he is referring specifically to coming off the field at the time for an HIA. but if we're red carding people for any contact with the head (precisely because it's dangerous) then surely this must be a necessity?

He clearly should have had an hia after both incidents. It's bizarre that he didn't.

So would we be upset if this game was called off? Not great to have such a long break in some ways, but equally, more rest and recovery time.

Mikey Brown wrote:Possibly not the place for it but whatever- did anybody catch this part of the post-match PC where Farrell is asked about taking knocks to the head and what tests were done to ensure he is fit to carry on? His answer is, err... pretty sketchy.

Starts by saying "I feel fine, it's obviously a concussion" but I think he just misspoke. Then suggests it's not a concern because it wasn't "near the top of the head" which seems like a pretty clumsy answer at best.



Is "no need need for an HIA" his own assessment or that of a medical professional? I'd sort of assumed basically all the players have something close to an HIA post-game anyway.

Perhaps he is referring specifically to coming off the field at the time for an HIA. but if we're red carding people for any contact with the head (precisely because it's dangerous) then surely this must be a necessity?

I did mention it on another thread:

Puja wrote:Also on the BBC, Farrell says he was fine to play on, because that is exactly how concussion assessments work: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49945747

Apparently concussions only happen if you get hit on the top of your head and can't happen if you're smacked in the jaw, which I'm sure will be news to quite a few boxers out there. Glad to see that the education around head injuries has taken such solid root in England.

It is lunacy. Not even my local 3rd XV allows, "No, I feel fine," as an HIA nowadays.

Puja

Must have missed that. Has there been a whole discussion already? I figured someone else on here would be much more in the know about the protocols.

I guess I was just struck by it because presumably there is somebody in that room listening to him and wincing, knowing that they are the one responsible for making sure this stuff doesn't happen.

He's not been tested at the time, or seemingly even after the match, and has then spread some highly questionable information as justification for not being checked. It's hard not to think somebody might just find it too inconvenient for him to be stood down for 3 weeks if showing symptoms.

Listening to Dave Denton talk about it recently I think he said he wasn't feeling much at this equivalent stage, but a year later is still suffering symptoms.

Raggs wrote:So would we be upset if this game was called off? Not great to have such a long break in some ways, but equally, more rest and recovery time.

Called off at HT when 19 points up would be nice

It is a tough one, but taking a head knock shouldn't automatically mean a HIA. Farrell took most of the impact (from a head perspective) on his jaw creating a movement that the jaw is designed to accomodate. His head made a horizontal movement, rather than a bell ringing motion. And of course much is dependent on the individual as well as the impact itself. We absolutely should protect players and err on the side of caution, but where a player has taken an impact and is suffering no ill effects then it is OK to not perform a HIA. The medical staff are rather good here.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:It is a tough one, but taking a head knock shouldn't automatically mean a HIA. Farrell took most of the impact (from a head perspective) on his jaw creating a movement that the jaw is designed to accomodate. His head made a horizontal movement, rather than a bell ringing motion. And of course much is dependent on the individual as well as the impact itself. We absolutely should protect players and err on the side of caution, but where a player has taken an impact and is suffering no ill effects then it is OK to not perform a HIA. The medical staff are rather good here.

Is this a stance taken by said medical professionals or an opinion?

That's a sincere question, I haven't got the facts or knowledge to dispute any of it, but I feel like I've read the current wisdom going against basically everything you've said there. I've not heard the horizontal v bell ringing explanation before. Is the thinking that a horizontal shot to the jaw can't/doesn't rattle the brain in the same way?

In what way would just presuming he's fine be be "erring on the side of caution"?

Mikey Brown wrote:Must have missed that. Has there been a whole discussion already? I figured someone else on here would be much more in the know about the protocols.

I guess I was just struck by it because presumably there is somebody in that room listening to him and wincing, knowing that they are the one responsible for making sure this stuff doesn't happen.

He's not been tested at the time, or seemingly even after the match, and has then spread some highly questionable information as justification for not being checked. It's hard not to think somebody might just find it too inconvenient for him to be stood down for 3 weeks if showing symptoms.

Listening to Dave Denton talk about it recently I think he said he wasn't feeling much at this equivalent stage, but a year later is still suffering symptoms.

Oh no, it was a post by me. Everybody ignored it.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Must have missed that. Has there been a whole discussion already? I figured someone else on here would be much more in the know about the protocols.

I guess I was just struck by it because presumably there is somebody in that room listening to him and wincing, knowing that they are the one responsible for making sure this stuff doesn't happen.

He's not been tested at the time, or seemingly even after the match, and has then spread some highly questionable information as justification for not being checked. It's hard not to think somebody might just find it too inconvenient for him to be stood down for 3 weeks if showing symptoms.

Listening to Dave Denton talk about it recently I think he said he wasn't feeling much at this equivalent stage, but a year later is still suffering symptoms.

Oh no, it was a post by me. Everybody ignored it.

Puja

I didn't. He should have gone for an HIA.