RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:One wonders why when he's such a good 10 though?

Because he's short.
Because I'm a huge fan of the French style halfbacks who can play both positions and want one of them for us.
Because GF seemed the best bet (AKA best hands, good commincation, range of passing) to take that roll since Lamb had failed to.
Because I think SH is a particularly important position, and want one of our best players there - rather than the least important of the backs, who gets the "not quite good enough to play anywhere else" rejects that English rugby likes to put in the 9 shirt.
Because we had nad no particularly promising age-grade SHs for a while when GF was in the U18s.
Because we had several strong options available at FH, and I was expecting Cipriani to be the established starter (with probably Burns as the understudy) by the time Ford&Faz were challenging.
Because we'd had to move Fazlet into the centres to accomodate GF at FH, despite GF being the younger.


Abstract: We were weak at SH, and had been for a while. We were strong at FH and had been for a while. I love players who can play both positions. Ford looked the perfect player to try to play both positions.


Of course, a pointless discussion now, and I was shouted down for wanting to waste a talented FH by trying to teach him SH play 9-10 years ago, so I have no expectation of winning the argument now either.

Beasties wrote:Just musing over what's gonna happen now Manu's out. Is Eddie gonna do an Eddie and call Francis into the squad and put him straight into the team or what? Or is Devoto actually gonna get some decent minutes? Ford, Faz, JJ seems to be lacking something.....

Banquo wrote:

twitchy wrote:Do you think kids don't want to play 9 any more for some reason I haven't figured out?

They say in football that kids don't want to play centre back or as a classic 9 (they all want to be a 10). Maybe some thing similar has happened?

It is weird though.

We don't really have a rich history at 9 tbh, so not sure how weird it is (other than it being weird that we havent produced that many top 9's); its compounded by clubs bringing in/sticking with tried and trusted into what has become the key decision making position.

On converting Ford back in the day- was that Dan Robson's 'year'? I remember many saying he was a pants 9 and would never hack it....

Oakboy wrote:

Beasties wrote:Just musing over what's gonna happen now Manu's out. Is Eddie gonna do an Eddie and call Francis into the squad and put him straight into the team or what? Or is Devoto actually gonna get some decent minutes? Ford, Faz, JJ seems to be lacking something.....

The snag is that Ford/Farrell, Devoto, Joseph does not totally convince either. How long is Slade out for?

Banquo wrote:

twitchy wrote:Do you think kids don't want to play 9 any more for some reason I haven't figured out?

They say in football that kids don't want to play centre back or as a classic 9 (they all want to be a 10). Maybe some thing similar has happened?

It is weird though.

We don't really have a rich history at 9 tbh, so not sure how weird it is (other than it being weird that we havent produced that many top 9's); its compounded by clubs bringing in/sticking with tried and trusted into what has become the key decision making position.

On converting Ford back in the day- was that Dan Robson's 'year'? I remember many saying he was a pants 9 and would never hack it....

TheDasher wrote: I was a passionate drop Danny Care man, his brain farts were too much to take. God we missed some of his zip against the French though. I feel like he might have scored when we were on the French line for 30 minutes.

Mikey Brown wrote:

TheDasher wrote: I was a passionate drop Danny Care man, his brain farts were too much to take. God we missed some of his zip against the French though. I feel like he might have scored when we were on the French line for 30 minutes.

Yup. I know it’s flogging a long-dead horse at this point, but I’d still have rather have Danny Care occasionally brain-sharting his way around the pitch than Youngs’s slightly less obvious, but far more persistent, diarrhoea.

Youngs has some fantastic moments going forwards but are surely matched in frequency by the fling-it-into-touch-in-a-RWC-final sort of moments.

I’d start Heinz for England at scrumhalf, which just feels like a mad thing to be saying. Particularly as 2 years ago we all thought it was kind of funny he’d even got called up to a training squad to hold tackle bags.

TheDasher wrote:

Banquo wrote:

twitchy wrote:Do you think kids don't want to play 9 any more for some reason I haven't figured out?

They say in football that kids don't want to play centre back or as a classic 9 (they all want to be a 10). Maybe some thing similar has happened?

It is weird though.

We don't really have a rich history at 9 tbh, so not sure how weird it is (other than it being weird that we havent produced that many top 9's); its compounded by clubs bringing in/sticking with tried and trusted into what has become the key decision making position.

On converting Ford back in the day- was that Dan Robson's 'year'? I remember many saying he was a pants 9 and would never hack it....

Growing up playing rugby for 20 years it was so often the 9 who was the most talented player on the park, it's funny, you're right we don't have a rich history of great scrum halves. Odd.

I was a passionate drop Danny Care man, his brain farts were too much to take. God we missed some of his zip against the French though. I feel like he might have scored when we were on the French line for 30 minutes.

Just no logic in not trying Spencer, Robson etc, none at all from little Eddie.

Banquo wrote:

TheDasher wrote:

Banquo wrote: We don't really have a rich history at 9 tbh, so not sure how weird it is (other than it being weird that we havent produced that many top 9's); its compounded by clubs bringing in/sticking with tried and trusted into what has become the key decision making position.

On converting Ford back in the day- was that Dan Robson's 'year'? I remember many saying he was a pants 9 and would never hack it....

Growing up playing rugby for 20 years it was so often the 9 who was the most talented player on the park, it's funny, you're right we don't have a rich history of great scrum halves. Odd.

I was a passionate drop Danny Care man, his brain farts were too much to take. God we missed some of his zip against the French though. I feel like he might have scored when we were on the French line for 30 minutes.

Just no logic in not trying Spencer, Robson etc, none at all from little Eddie.

My 9 at school was Paul Thorburn

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

TheDasher wrote:
Growing up playing rugby for 20 years it was so often the 9 who was the most talented player on the park, it's funny, you're right we don't have a rich history of great scrum halves. Odd.

I was a passionate drop Danny Care man, his brain farts were too much to take. God we missed some of his zip against the French though. I feel like he might have scored when we were on the French line for 30 minutes.

Just no logic in not trying Spencer, Robson etc, none at all from little Eddie.

My 9 at school was Paul Thorburn

Mine was Cliff Thorburn

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: even in 2011/2?

I think my contention was he was a decent player hopelessly out of place at 9. I had to acknowledge that was extreme poor judgement on my part quite some time back, which I could try and caveat by saying he developed in the role, but really when the call is that bad it's better just to accept it was gash

I was more referring to the comb over

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

TheDasher wrote:
Growing up playing rugby for 20 years it was so often the 9 who was the most talented player on the park, it's funny, you're right we don't have a rich history of great scrum halves. Odd.

I was a passionate drop Danny Care man, his brain farts were too much to take. God we missed some of his zip against the French though. I feel like he might have scored when we were on the French line for 30 minutes.

Just no logic in not trying Spencer, Robson etc, none at all from little Eddie.

My 9 at school was Paul Thorburn

Mine was Cliff Thorburn

Oakboy wrote:

Beasties wrote:Just musing over what's gonna happen now Manu's out. Is Eddie gonna do an Eddie and call Francis into the squad and put him straight into the team or what? Or is Devoto actually gonna get some decent minutes? Ford, Faz, JJ seems to be lacking something.....

The snag is that Ford/Farrell, Devoto, Joseph does not totally convince either. How long is Slade out for?

Which Tyler wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I don’t know, but in my own case, I wished someone had said to me ‘you’re a decent player, but not going to be big enough to be a flanker’ and convinced me to train as a 9.

Exactly the same here - wish I'd found SH when I was 12-13, rather than 18 and returning to playing having given up because I was simply getting constantly beaten up on the flank (where I was played because "your brother was a good flanker 2 years ago").

Danno wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Beasties wrote:Just musing over what's gonna happen now Manu's out. Is Eddie gonna do an Eddie and call Francis into the squad and put him straight into the team or what? Or is Devoto actually gonna get some decent minutes? Ford, Faz, JJ seems to be lacking something.....

The snag is that Ford/Farrell, Devoto, Joseph does not totally convince either. How long is Slade out for?

The issue isn't 10-13 in isolation. We've lost virtually all of our carriers at once and neglected to bring any others in, effectively nullifying the backs. Manu was the only dynamic carrier on Saturday (Sinkler was trying buuuut) and lasted all of 15mins. Everyone else lost it for various reasons and there was no platform for anyone to play off of. Slade wouldn't fix any of that.

Danno wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Beasties wrote:Just musing over what's gonna happen now Manu's out. Is Eddie gonna do an Eddie and call Francis into the squad and put him straight into the team or what? Or is Devoto actually gonna get some decent minutes? Ford, Faz, JJ seems to be lacking something.....

The snag is that Ford/Farrell, Devoto, Joseph does not totally convince either. How long is Slade out for?

The issue isn't 10-13 in isolation. We've lost virtually all of our carriers at once and neglected to bring any others in, effectively nullifying the backs. Manu was the only dynamic carrier on Saturday (Sinkler was trying buuuut) and lasted all of 15mins. Everyone else lost it for various reasons and there was no platform for anyone to play off of. Slade wouldn't fix any of that.

Danno wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Beasties wrote:Just musing over what's gonna happen now Manu's out. Is Eddie gonna do an Eddie and call Francis into the squad and put him straight into the team or what? Or is Devoto actually gonna get some decent minutes? Ford, Faz, JJ seems to be lacking something.....

The snag is that Ford/Farrell, Devoto, Joseph does not totally convince either. How long is Slade out for?

The issue isn't 10-13 in isolation. We've lost virtually all of our carriers at once and neglected to bring any others in, effectively nullifying the backs. Manu was the only dynamic carrier on Saturday (Sinkler was trying buuuut) and lasted all of 15mins. Everyone else lost it for various reasons and there was no platform for anyone to play off of. Slade wouldn't fix any of that.

fivepointer wrote:The main attraction of Devoto is that he isnt Farrell.

Even after his comically bad turn on Sunday, Faz isnt going to be dropped. Ford might get dumped if Jones seriously wants to have a proper look at Devoto.

Digby wrote:I don't think we had an out and out problem with carriers on Sunday. We lost contact for a large part of the game, yet a fair amount of that was us going back in defence, and we did carry over the gainline and we did gain territory. Problems for me would be the our lineout, ball presentation having gone into contact, ruck clearout, and the slow speed at which we played the ball (much of that stemming from the ball presentation and ruck work, but perhaps also the shape we want to get into in attack and Youngs) and our discipline.

Of course having people who can carry 5m over the gainline would address much of that, it'd address much of anything, but nobody really has those sort of players, and certainly nobody has them and isn't picking them already. So the slightly better carriers we'd be possibly adding aren't going to shift our game much if we retain those other problems stated above.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't think we had an out and out problem with carriers on Sunday. We lost contact for a large part of the game, yet a fair amount of that was us going back in defence, and we did carry over the gainline and we did gain territory. Problems for me would be the our lineout, ball presentation having gone into contact, ruck clearout, and the slow speed at which we played the ball (much of that stemming from the ball presentation and ruck work, but perhaps also the shape we want to get into in attack and Youngs) and our discipline.

Of course having people who can carry 5m over the gainline would address much of that, it'd address much of anything, but nobody really has those sort of players, and certainly nobody has them and isn't picking them already. So the slightly better carriers we'd be possibly adding aren't going to shift our game much if we retain those other problems stated above.

So you mean picking a breakdown specialist instead of a 3rd lock might have been a good idea? I'll be damned.

Look, I'm a big fan of what Lawes brings to the team nowadays. But he is far from an international flanker.

Will Mako be fit? That'd take some of the carrying burden. An actual 8 would take more.

I wouldn't be averse to seeing Devoto at 12, even if it meant Farrell at 10. But considering the impact that will have on our already limited attack, all that'll happen is Devoto getting scapegoated for the shit show inside him and dropped promptly again.

I seriously wonder at how many of our problems could be resolved by just removing Farrell...

Digby wrote:I don't think we had an out and out problem with carriers on Sunday. We lost contact for a large part of the game, yet a fair amount of that was us going back in defence, and we did carry over the gainline and we did gain territory. Problems for me would be the our lineout, ball presentation having gone into contact, ruck clearout, and the slow speed at which we played the ball (much of that stemming from the ball presentation and ruck work, but perhaps also the shape we want to get into in attack and Youngs) and our discipline.

Of course having people who can carry 5m over the gainline would address much of that, it'd address much of anything, but nobody really has those sort of players, and certainly nobody has them and isn't picking them already. So the slightly better carriers we'd be possibly adding aren't going to shift our game much if we retain those other problems stated above.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't think we had an out and out problem with carriers on Sunday. We lost contact for a large part of the game, yet a fair amount of that was us going back in defence, and we did carry over the gainline and we did gain territory. Problems for me would be the our lineout, ball presentation having gone into contact, ruck clearout, and the slow speed at which we played the ball (much of that stemming from the ball presentation and ruck work, but perhaps also the shape we want to get into in attack and Youngs) and our discipline.

Of course having people who can carry 5m over the gainline would address much of that, it'd address much of anything, but nobody really has those sort of players, and certainly nobody has them and isn't picking them already. So the slightly better carriers we'd be possibly adding aren't going to shift our game much if we retain those other problems stated above.

Given that most forwards made less yards than carries, I think you could say we had an out and out problem with carrying....if they aren’t even getting through the tackle line, clearing becomes very difficult. Chicken meet egg. Addressing setting up said carriers to succeed might be the way forward?