RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

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.

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 ...

Mikey Brown wrote:Yeah this seems odd. You know club teams all field a backrow too?

jngf wrote:

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 ...

By way of clarification What I actually said was that I didn’t watch much club level rugby, I’ve seen all the test level matches Billy’s played in and it’s through that lens I’m commenting upon. I don’t per se rely on others to principally guide my opinions but if somebody’s seen a lot more of a player than I have (e.g. when they’ve played in Premiership but yet to break into test side) I will of course listen and learn from what they have to say.

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Yeah this seems odd. You know club teams all field a backrow too?

You don't know, he might if picking a club game watch Leicester

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Yeah this seems odd. You know club teams all field a backrow too?

You don't know, he might if picking a club game watch Leicester

Hey! We field at least one back row player each game, without fail!

Well, one in the XXIII at least.

Puja

Mikey Brown wrote:Only just caught up on the Harry Williams incident which I didn't see at the time. I don't often enjoy these scuffles so much but this one was quite entertaining.



The moment Lozowski realises Simmonds is going to fling him over the barriers and Faz has to come and save him is quite funny. As is Williams/LCD's faces throughout.

Really unimpressive discipline from Vunipola as Barnes talks to him near the end. Surprised Barnes didn't card him, he'd been warned and just wasn't budging until Wray dragged him away.

Nic White looks even more like a cartoon villain wagging his finger in Taylor's face. Can you imagine that tache and that haircut on the same person?

After all that I think Taylor did actually get the ball away before hitting touch.

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.

Doorzetbornandbred 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.

Canterbury Crusaders are the best at running straight and fixing oppo and retaining space outside in the world. Look how many times they get a 4v3 and will score(apparently they do that a lot in training).

Digby wrote:I don't think a lot of sides do actually spend a lot of time on that, it's more an afterthought once they get the important stuff (weights and defence) done

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't think a lot of sides do actually spend a lot of time on that, it's more an afterthought once they get the important stuff (weights and defence) done

daft, innit. Its not like they have limited time.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't think a lot of sides do actually spend a lot of time on that, it's more an afterthought once they get the important stuff (weights and defence) done

daft, innit. Its not like they have limited time.

It's not an easy thing to drill properly, and you can easily waste a lot of time given the error rates given the speed defences operate at. But to me that suggests just give it even more time more often 'cause it's kind of how you win matches, but, each to their own

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: daft, innit. Its not like they have limited time.

It's not an easy thing to drill properly, and you can easily waste a lot of time given the error rates given the speed defences operate at. But to me that suggests just give it even more time more often 'cause it's kind of how you win matches, but, each to their own

worst case is that you improve skills sets and decision making, but doing it 'properly' does take time, but imo is worth it; chances are few and far between at the top level, and taking them is important.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
It's not an easy thing to drill properly, and you can easily waste a lot of time given the error rates given the speed defences operate at. But to me that suggests just give it even more time more often 'cause it's kind of how you win matches, but, each to their own

worst case is that you improve skills sets and decision making, but doing it 'properly' does take time, but imo is worth it; chances are few and far between at the top level, and taking them is important.

We're in agreement on this, but I don't see us changing. One thing that does surprise me is all those Kiwi coaches coming over here and shifting their focus to take account of our way of doing things. That said we do play in some worse conditions, and thus we're due some improvement from the improved pitches

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: worst case is that you improve skills sets and decision making, but doing it 'properly' does take time, but imo is worth it; chances are few and far between at the top level, and taking them is important.

We're in agreement on this, but I don't see us changing. One thing that does surprise me is all those Kiwi coaches coming over here and shifting their focus to take account of our way of doing things. That said we do play in some worse conditions, and thus we're due some improvement from the improved pitches

worse conditions than NZ?

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
We're in agreement on this, but I don't see us changing. One thing that does surprise me is all those Kiwi coaches coming over here and shifting their focus to take account of our way of doing things. That said we do play in some worse conditions, and thus we're due some improvement from the improved pitches

worse conditions than NZ?

Slightly better in fairness, and certainly a different view on priorities, also they're picking from a different pool