RugbyRebels

Please just remove the * from the front, whenever I post it straight, it opens in the forum and slows everything down.

*

Lawes worked hard, but not doing flanker work. Underhill scored low, I suspect missed tackles hurt his score, but still surprising to me.

If Jones knew who and what Aldritt was, he really sold us down the river by playing Lawes at 6. That guy was a huge pain in our rucks.

Raggs wrote:Please just remove the * from the front, whenever I post it straight, it opens in the forum and slows everything down.

*

Lawes worked hard, but not doing flanker work. Underhill scored low, I suspect missed tackles hurt his score, but still surprising to me.

If Jones knew who and what Aldritt was, he really sold us down the river by playing Lawes at 6. That guy was a huge pain in our rucks.

Proper labour of love. It struck me when watching that Lawes was actually playing ok......for someone playing second row!

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Please just remove the * from the front, whenever I post it straight, it opens in the forum and slows everything down.

*

Lawes worked hard, but not doing flanker work. Underhill scored low, I suspect missed tackles hurt his score, but still surprising to me.

If Jones knew who and what Aldritt was, he really sold us down the river by playing Lawes at 6. That guy was a huge pain in our rucks.

Proper labour of love. It struck me when watching that Lawes was actually playing ok......for someone playing second row!

He hits a low number of rucks even for a lock, but it's at least not what his primary mission is there, he makes up for it with lineout work.

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Please just remove the * from the front, whenever I post it straight, it opens in the forum and slows everything down.

*

Lawes worked hard, but not doing flanker work. Underhill scored low, I suspect missed tackles hurt his score, but still surprising to me.

If Jones knew who and what Aldritt was, he really sold us down the river by playing Lawes at 6. That guy was a huge pain in our rucks.

Proper labour of love. It struck me when watching that Lawes was actually playing ok......for someone playing second row!

He hits a low number of rucks even for a lock, but it's at least not what his primary mission is there, he makes up for it with lineout work.

yes a lot of lineout work, and his tackle impact (not just rate) is worth a few points.

Marler seems to have been doing a lot better than Sinckler in terms of overall benefit, though Sinckler did have an unusual stinker in the loose.

Confirms the subs had a positive impact, albeit its easier when the oppo are more tired, even factoring in their subs.

Marler likely knew he only had 10 or so minutes in the 2nd half to play. Sink was going to stay on until he was blowing, and even then a bit longer.

Raggs wrote:Marler likely knew he only had 10 or so minutes in the 2nd half to play. Sink was going to stay on until he was blowing, and even then a bit longer.

Fair, but some have been categorising Marler as doing eff all in the loose, and that's harsh. Sink was a shambles outside the scrum though- I hope he's had some ;good chats' with the coaches

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Marler likely knew he only had 10 or so minutes in the 2nd half to play. Sink was going to stay on until he was blowing, and even then a bit longer.

Fair, but some have been categorising Marler as doing eff all in the loose, and that's harsh. Sink was a shambles outside the scrum though- I hope he's had some ;good chats' with the coaches

Some of his carries were simply bizarre. He literally fell over before being tackled.

I actually thought Marler had a reasonable game. Some real venom in home of his hits

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Marler likely knew he only had 10 or so minutes in the 2nd half to play. Sink was going to stay on until he was blowing, and even then a bit longer.

Fair, but some have been categorising Marler as doing eff all in the loose, and that's harsh. Sink was a shambles outside the scrum though- I hope he's had some ;good chats' with the coaches

Some of his carries were simply bizarre. He literally fell over before being tackled.

And still didn't present the ball back despite literally being tackled on his terms. That said some of Marler's ruck work was far too polite.

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote: Fair, but some have been categorising Marler as doing eff all in the loose, and that's harsh. Sink was a shambles outside the scrum though- I hope he's had some ;good chats' with the coaches

Some of his carries were simply bizarre. He literally fell over before being tackled.

And still didn't present the ball back despite literally being tackled on his terms. That said some of Marler's ruck work was far too polite.

what, not entirely illegal like everyone else

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:
Some of his carries were simply bizarre. He literally fell over before being tackled.

And still didn't present the ball back despite literally being tackled on his terms. That said some of Marler's ruck work was far too polite.

what, not entirely illegal like everyone else

I don't like modern rucking, but there's a word that describes what's required given how the game is allowed to play out, brutal, and we came much closer to nice. Things improved with Ludlam, Genge and Kruis on the pitch, though France had subbed off some players too, and I think France might have run out of steam somewhat.

France could easily lose 3 games yet if teams simply don't gave away daft penalties, and can run at Ntamack and recycle ball

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
And still didn't present the ball back despite literally being tackled on his terms. That said some of Marler's ruck work was far too polite.

what, not entirely illegal like everyone else

I don't like modern rucking, but there's a word that describes what's required given how the game is allowed to play out, brutal, and we came much closer to nice. Things improved with Ludlam, Genge and Kruis on the pitch, though France had subbed off some players too, and I think France might have run out of steam somewhat.

France could easily lose 3 games yet if teams simply don't gave away daft penalties, and can run at Ntamack and recycle ball

well yes. not many other sides would dominate possession and territory - away from home to boot- yet manage to lose; we did get the ball over the line twice more and failed to score (possibly three times); and that included tens of knock ons, crap rucking and crap tackling.

Modern rucking is a shambles, and imo the biggest single thing the law makers could do to create space and speed the game up is keep rucking players on their feet.

Peej wrote:I actually thought Marler had a reasonable game. Some real venom in home of his hits

A handful of his tackles made up a large % of our dominance in contact.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
And still didn't present the ball back despite literally being tackled on his terms. That said some of Marler's ruck work was far too polite.

what, not entirely illegal like everyone else

I don't like modern rucking, but there's a word that describes what's required given how the game is allowed to play out, brutal, and we came much closer to nice. Things improved with Ludlam, Genge and Kruis on the pitch, though France had subbed off some players too, and I think France might have run out of steam somewhat.

France could easily lose 3 games yet if teams simply don't gave away daft penalties, and can run at Ntamack and recycle ball

True, but they'll have to get through that French pack first. I thought Le Roux was phenomenal at the weekend, smashing everything. I always thought he was a bit meh as a back row, but maybe lock is working for him?

For teams playing France now I think the tactic should be to go round them, to pull them side to side and tire them. Think Ireland and Scotland could do this - not clear how far Wales have moved on from Warrenball yet