RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote: I don't agree with Spiffy either- but yesterday, as someone I consider as a world class player, he was disappointing with his handling and especially with his ball retention, and couldn't make the impact I'd expect.
It seems to have become common amongst critics to call him out as being a one dimensional bosher- he is very far from that, and his handling is (generally) very good and improving- he's used much more as a distributor; he's also very good over the ball.

On the one hand Billy’s handling, offloading are very good however I do feel there’s an element of truth in that his style is basically all about bulldozing through heavy traffic - imo he doesn’t have the athleticism, pace or engine to play a wider game that many (if not most) test no.8s have. and If I was picking a Lions side I’d say Falatau was the better all round 8 - similarly (if not quite as) powerful but more arthleticism.

I don’t agree about his pace and athleticism and he could play a wider game.

I must have blinked and missed that:)

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:
we must be talking about different things. Certainly with Dwyers flat play and straight runners it was about foxing fast defences.

Were there any fast defences?

It's still doable, and it'd work if it worked. Just there's much more pressure on the skill execution now so even with vastly improved skills it's a risk, but you've got to take a risk somewhere

Ah I did wonder if you were referring to the applicability to the modern game- fair point, but that was why I said I thought some of their methods were still relevant today. Running straight- or at least knowing what your running line is- still seems good to me.

I can accept ball down the line isn't enough to unlock a set defence, but I do think once defences are stretched teams spend a lot of time trying to get back into their attack structure when by that point just running straight and passing the ball down the line out in front would get the job done. Not easy mind to get the communication sorted on that front

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:
On the one hand Billy’s handling, offloading are very good however I do feel there’s an element of truth in that his style is basically all about bulldozing through heavy traffic - imo he doesn’t have the athleticism, pace or engine to play a wider game that many (if not most) test no.8s have. and If I was picking a Lions side I’d say Falatau was the better all round 8 - similarly (if not quite as) powerful but more arthleticism.

I don’t agree about his pace and athleticism and he could play a wider game.

I must have blinked and missed that:)

Blinkered certainly. He covers a lot of ground, is very athletic over the ball, and by no means slow; I think you really need to watch him, and a lot of other back row players harder to see what they actually do, rather than the pre-conceptions you carry around with you.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Were there any fast defences?

It's still doable, and it'd work if it worked. Just there's much more pressure on the skill execution now so even with vastly improved skills it's a risk, but you've got to take a risk somewhere

Ah I did wonder if you were referring to the applicability to the modern game- fair point, but that was why I said I thought some of their methods were still relevant today. Running straight- or at least knowing what your running line is- still seems good to me.

I can accept ball down the line isn't enough to unlock a set defence, but I do think once defences are stretched teams spend a lot of time trying to get back into their attack structure when by that point just running straight and passing the ball down the line out in front would get the job done. Not easy mind to get the communication sorted on that front

Dwyer and Greenwood spent a lot of time equipping players to not 'send it down the line', particularly the former, and their tenets of coaching running straight (and helping players be aware that they weren't running straight (or indeed at other 'angles') ) and doing simple things well are exactly to your second point. In the game we are discussing I lost count of the number of times a simple 2 v 1 (and in one memorable case a 4 v 2, when Faz kicked it and the commentator said...there was nothing on!) was ignored in favour of a poor running line, a falling over, or simply ignoring a bloke free outside.

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote: I don’t agree about his pace and athleticism and he could play a wider game.

I must have blinked and missed that:)

Blinkered certainly. He covers a lot of ground, is very athletic over the ball, and by no means slow; I think you really need to watch him, and a lot of other back row players harder to see what they actually do, rather than the pre-conceptions you carry around with you.

His pace may not be high enough, but then he'd not be relying on it anyway, he'd be relying on smashing tiny humans. In terms of fitness, personally I feel that making 15+ heavy carries, hitting numerous tight rucks, and making lots of tackles, to be harder than standing out wide trying to keep warm.

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote: I don’t agree about his pace and athleticism and he could play a wider game.

I must have blinked and missed that:)

Blinkered certainly. He covers a lot of ground, is very athletic over the ball, and by no means slow; I think you really need to watch him, and a lot of other back row players harder to see what they actually do, rather than the pre-conceptions you carry around with you.

Think using terms such as ‘blinkered’ is a bit harsh just because somebody happens to disagree with you unless you consider you have a monopoly on wisdom?

Ordinarily I might agree with your principle, but since you’ve previously admitted that you base a lot of your opinions on what others say rather than what you see for yourself ...

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:
I must have blinked and missed that:)

Blinkered certainly. He covers a lot of ground, is very athletic over the ball, and by no means slow; I think you really need to watch him, and a lot of other back row players harder to see what they actually do, rather than the pre-conceptions you carry around with you.

His pace may not be high enough, but then he'd not be relying on it anyway, he'd be relying on smashing tiny humans. In terms of fitness, personally I feel that making 15+ heavy carries, hitting numerous tight rucks, and making lots of tackles, to be harder than standing out wide trying to keep warm.

Agreed.

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:
I must have blinked and missed that:)

Blinkered certainly. He covers a lot of ground, is very athletic over the ball, and by no means slow; I think you really need to watch him, and a lot of other back row players harder to see what they actually do, rather than the pre-conceptions you carry around with you.

Think using terms such as ‘blinkered’ is a bit harsh just because somebody happens to disagree with you unless you consider you have a monopoly on wisdom?

Fair comment, and no I don’t have a monopoly. But you do have a particularly narrow view on back row play. Happy New Year

Scrumhead wrote:Ordinarily I might agree with your principle, but since you’ve previously admitted that you base a lot of your opinions on what others say rather than what you see for yourself ...

note to self

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:
I must have blinked and missed that:)

Blinkered certainly. He covers a lot of ground, is very athletic over the ball, and by no means slow; I think you really need to watch him, and a lot of other back row players harder to see what they actually do, rather than the pre-conceptions you carry around with you.

His pace may not be high enough, but then he'd not be relying on it anyway, he'd be relying on smashing tiny humans. In terms of fitness, personally I feel that making 15+ heavy carries, hitting numerous tight rucks, and making lots of tackles, to be harder than standing out wide trying to keep warm.

High enough for what, out of interest?

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote: Blinkered certainly. He covers a lot of ground, is very athletic over the ball, and by no means slow; I think you really need to watch him, and a lot of other back row players harder to see what they actually do, rather than the pre-conceptions you carry around with you.

Think using terms such as ‘blinkered’ is a bit harsh just because somebody happens to disagree with you unless you consider you have a monopoly on wisdom?

Fair comment, and no I don’t have a monopoly. But you do have a particularly narrow view on back row play. Happy New Year

That's probably the politest post we'll get all year. Myself I'd go with anyone not recognising Billy can play both tight and wide isn't so much blinkered as myopic.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote: Blinkered certainly. He covers a lot of ground, is very athletic over the ball, and by no means slow; I think you really need to watch him, and a lot of other back row players harder to see what they actually do, rather than the pre-conceptions you carry around with you.

His pace may not be high enough, but then he'd not be relying on it anyway, he'd be relying on smashing tiny humans. In terms of fitness, personally I feel that making 15+ heavy carries, hitting numerous tight rucks, and making lots of tackles, to be harder than standing out wide trying to keep warm.

High enough for what, out of interest?

Taking full advantage of the breaks he'd be making running against outside backs.

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:
His pace may not be high enough, but then he'd not be relying on it anyway, he'd be relying on smashing tiny humans. In terms of fitness, personally I feel that making 15+ heavy carries, hitting numerous tight rucks, and making lots of tackles, to be harder than standing out wide trying to keep warm.

High enough for what, out of interest?

Taking full advantage of the breaks he'd be making running against outside backs.

Ah ok. Well there's not too many backrow who fit that bill to be fair. This is a bit like the Tom Croft debate in reverse

When I look at Billy - his shape, strength, skill etc. - I get surprised several times a game that he somehow coughs the ball up in contact. Is it simply that he has now become too ambitious in off-loading intent?

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote: High enough for what, out of interest?

Taking full advantage of the breaks he'd be making running against outside backs.

Ah ok. Well there's not too many backrow who fit that bill to be fair. This is a bit like the Tom Croft debate in reverse

So Billy is a de rigueur hippo? Hippos for this explanation having neck that I'm going to claim is like Galdstone Small's

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:
Taking full advantage of the breaks he'd be making running against outside backs.

Ah ok. Well there's not too many backrow who fit that bill to be fair. This is a bit like the Tom Croft debate in reverse

So Billy is a de rigueur hippo? Hippos for this explanation having neck that I'm going to claim is like Galdstone Small's

You're 'avin a giraffe..with small gall stones?

Oakboy wrote:When I look at Billy - his shape, strength, skill etc. - I get surprised several times a game that he somehow coughs the ball up in contact. Is it simply that he has now become too ambitious in off-loading intent?

The secret of Billy's power is his immense and low-slung bum. The biggest bottie in the PL, only remotely challenged by that of Ashley Johnson. This produces an ultra low centre of gravity, which, coupled with his giant hams, produces a leg drive that makes him very difficult to bring down.

Oakboy wrote:When I look at Billy - his shape, strength, skill etc. - I get surprised several times a game that he somehow coughs the ball up in contact. Is it simply that he has now become too ambitious in off-loading intent?

No, I think its a weakness tbh. Though he coughed it up more than 'average' in this game, he does do it once or so a game regularly- he often gets held up, for example, which is slightly odd.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:
Taking full advantage of the breaks he'd be making running against outside backs.

Ah ok. Well there's not too many backrow who fit that bill to be fair. This is a bit like the Tom Croft debate in reverse

So Billy is a de rigueur hippo? Hippos for this explanation having neck that I'm going to claim is like Galdstone Small's

Hippos are pretty fast. So's Billy, but I'd back Earl, Young, Tipuric, Read etc to outpace him.

Not that I'd worry, he's a fantastic beast, great hands and power. Why would you want him out wide, when he adds so much to the team in close.

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Ah ok. Well there's not too many backrow who fit that bill to be fair. This is a bit like the Tom Croft debate in reverse

So Billy is a de rigueur hippo? Hippos for this explanation having neck that I'm going to claim is like Galdstone Small's

Hippos are pretty fast. So's Billy, but I'd back Earl, Young, Tipuric, Read etc to outpace him.

Not that I'd worry, he's a fantastic beast, great hands and power. Why would you want him out wide, when he adds so much to the team in close.

True, but a- outpacing him doesn't mean taking full advantage of an outside break, and b- as you say, why worry, just use what you've got.

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Ah ok. Well there's not too many backrow who fit that bill to be fair. This is a bit like the Tom Croft debate in reverse

So Billy is a de rigueur hippo? Hippos for this explanation having neck that I'm going to claim is like Galdstone Small's

Hippos are pretty fast. So's Billy, but I'd back Earl, Young, Tipuric, Read etc to outpace him.

Not that I'd worry, he's a fantastic beast, great hands and power. Why would you want him out wide, when he adds so much to the team in close.

If we could free up Billy to run in the 13 channel I'd be delighted. And we might be able to with Mako, George, Sinks, Itoje and maybe just picking one of Cunderhill (™ Which). Principally because I don't quite know what I'd do with Tuilagi, Billy and Cokanasiga all running at my 13 or space either side, you'd have to borrow some inside defenders, and Mako, George, Sinks, Itoje would then make easier ground. For now, it seems, we need Billy to play tighter, but pushed that little wider with his power and hands then Daly or May should be right on his shoulder in the event we're not just going unopposed up the middle.

Okay sometimes the defence is going to make a good read on who the target is between Billy, Joe and Manu, but over 80 minutes you'd be on a wing and a prayer, and/or borrowing at least a flanker from the inside and probably telling a winger he has to stay narrow. Well, if we win any set piece ball, which isn't a given it turns out

I sometimes wonder if we just expect too much of Billy. Maybe he tries to live up to his own hype in terms of the expectation being, say, 10 metre carries when 5 lots of 2 metre carries can actually damage the opposition defence more. I think he should be more of an integral part of multi-phase work involving all the forwards. 100% ball retention with patient grinding is better than getting turned over, even once or twice. Getting that approach right is a major issue for Jones at international level, especially when the backs' handling is costing us relative to the opposition's. We need a safety net when things are going wrong - a low-level but solid base from which to rebuild. Billy should be a central figure in that in the Dean Richards sense (i.e. approach/authority rather than any similarity of style).

Billy has always had that puppy like enthusiasm that has previously led him to making poor decisions and running out of gas super early because he didn't know how to moderate his activity.

He's done incredibly to rid most of that from his game, but sometimes a little bit seeps through and he overcommits. At least that's how I see it.

But if you work too hard on removing it, he ends up having less impact. Like in the WC.

You know who I think should be talked to (cross sports)? Lewis Hamilton. He's a master of mindset now, his ability to eke out his utmost nearly every week is amazing. Compare that to 6/7 years ago and his constant mistakes.

Find out who his coach is, too, and get them to work with Billy, Sinckler, and others of the England team who need it.

Oakboy wrote:I sometimes wonder if we just expect too much of Billy. Maybe he tries to live up to his own hype in terms of the expectation being, say, 10 metre carries when 5 lots of 2 metre carries can actually damage the opposition defence more. I think he should be more of an integral part of multi-phase work involving all the forwards. 100% ball retention with patient grinding is better than getting turned over, even once or twice. Getting that approach right is a major issue for Jones at international level, especially when the backs' handling is costing us relative to the opposition's. We need a safety net when things are going wrong - a low-level but solid base from which to rebuild. Billy should be a central figure in that in the Dean Richards sense (i.e. approach/authority rather than any similarity of style).

That's pretty much what he does do for Sarries and England. He just imo has a minor problem occasionally with ball retention.