RugbyRebels

Bath: Watson; Cokanasiga, Joseph, Redpath, Muir; Bailey, Spencer; Schoeman, Dunn, Stuart, McNally, Ewels (capt), Faletau, Underhill, Mercer

Replacements: Walker, Bhatti, Thomas, Stooke, Bayliss, Reid, Chudley, Clark

Montpellier: Bouthier; Tisseron, Goosen, Vincent, Rattez; Lozowski, Paillaugue; Forletta, Guirado (capt), Haouas, Verhaeghe, Willemse, Janse van Rensburg, Camara, Becognee

Replacements: Du Plessis, Fichten, Lamositele, Duguid, Ouedraogo, Reinach, Pollard, Martin

fivepointer wrote:Bath: Watson; Cokanasiga, Joseph, Redpath, Muir; Bailey, Spencer; Schoeman, Dunn, Stuart, McNally, Ewels (capt), Faletau, Underhill, Mercer

Replacements: Walker, Bhatti, Thomas, Stooke, Bayliss, Reid, Chudley, Clark

Montpellier: Bouthier; Tisseron, Goosen, Vincent, Rattez; Lozowski, Paillaugue; Forletta, Guirado (capt), Haouas, Verhaeghe, Willemse, Janse van Rensburg, Camara, Becognee

Replacements: Du Plessis, Fichten, Lamositele, Duguid, Ouedraogo, Reinach, Pollard, Martin

Bath have a very tasty team on paper....lets see. Be great to see Lozowski, and Du Plessis, Reinach, Pollard on the bench says summat...

Bath always look good on paper. It’s on the field where you just can’t say how they’ll do.

I find it quite bizarre really, their team should be near the top of the league but it never quite works that way for them

Hope they win tonight

It's leadership we lack, IMO. We've plenty of good-great players and those who lead by example, and in Ewels we've a skipper who's a student of the game, making the right decisions at the right time.
But only really Spencer who drives others to up their gameand he wasnt even a lieutenant at Saracens.

I hate to say it but we could really do with a Farrell type character.

Shoulder to the head after the grounding?

Joined late so missed the Bath try. Montpellier look to have lots of talent but they don't have a lot of structure. They are slowly working their way into the game and mainly on the back of Bath indiscipline.

Bath just need to settle back into this and get some possession. Get back on the good side of the ref. Another nice break from Lezowski. Bath can't allow him to keep making breaks from 10.

I'm not sure how Bath managed to lose that.

TheNomad wrote:Bath always look good on paper. It’s on the field where you just can’t say how they’ll do.

I find it quite bizarre really, their team should be near the top of the league but it never quite works that way for them

Hope they win tonight

Bath are the most bizarre team.

So…the line out…

There’s an amazing team that’s waiting to come out of that squad, but blimey…’less than the sum of the parts’ doesn’t even come close

That was there for them to win

The lineout though, head coach was a great lineout operator in his day and he's got McInally who's good at the lineout and Ewels who's no slouch in that department and an England international. The hooker also an England international and current third choice. That should be a well oiled machine by now.

Do we go back to the winger at fullback thing? Watson opts to run virtually every kick that comes his way. Ok fair enough ball in hand he's more than a little tidy but would someone with a more traditional fullback skillset be able to mix it up and bring in the wingers? Watson took a lot of kicks with no pressure.

I think Hooper is increasingly living on borrowed time. That Bath squad is outrageously talented and somehow they tend to look less than the sum of their parts. Bath's previous for choosing head coaches isn't great mind...

FKAS wrote:The lineout though, head coach was a great lineout operator in his day and he's got McInally who's good at the lineout and Ewels who's no slouch in that department and an England international. The hooker also an England international and current third choice. That should be a well oiled machine by now.

Not to mention Charteris in the backroom team.

Speaking as someone who's played hooker and suffered his share of yips, I'd say that collapse was entirely mental. Dunn underthrew a couple of early throws and suddenly Bath got it in their head that Montpellier were all over them and vice versa. They then called one to the back which was overthrown and then everyone just tightened up, telegraphing their movements (to what was excellent defensive reading by Montpellier as well) and making poor calls. Swapping Dunn for Walker made no difference because Walker came on *needing* to hit his first lineout which was poorly called and averagely thrown and thus the pressure got inside his head too. Every forward walked to every lineout with their muscles tense and their heads full of, "Don't f*ck it up don't f*ck it up don't f*ck it up".

I rarely agree with Dallaglio as a pundit, but he was spot on with his diagnosis - cut the lineout and bring in a 3-man or 4-man play to move Montpellier back and forwards and jump where they're not. Just continuing to bang away with the same strategy over and over was idiotic.

Bad leadership and poor mental strength - not a sign of a well-coached camp.

Weird game in total - incredible how Bath managed not to score from those 4,000 phases on the Montpellier line, despite having loads of penalty advantages where they could've gone wide without risk. And the controversy over tackling the latchers as well - it doesn't feel right that one could tackle a latcher, but then you shouldn't be allowed to latch before contact anyway so they shouldn't even be there. Azam seemed very confident that he'd been told in refereeing meetings that they could be tackled and if that's the case, then Brace needs to swing as there's no excuse for reneging on something like that.

Puja

Puja wrote:

FKAS wrote:The lineout though, head coach was a great lineout operator in his day and he's got McInally who's good at the lineout and Ewels who's no slouch in that department and an England international. The hooker also an England international and current third choice. That should be a well oiled machine by now.

Not to mention Charteris in the backroom team.

Speaking as someone who's played hooker and suffered his share of yips, I'd say that collapse was entirely mental. Dunn underthrew a couple of early throws and suddenly Bath got it in their head that Montpellier were all over them and vice versa. They then called one to the back which was overthrown and then everyone just tightened up, telegraphing their movements (to what was excellent defensive reading by Montpellier as well) and making poor calls. Swapping Dunn for Walker made no difference because Walker came on *needing* to hit his first lineout which was poorly called and averagely thrown and thus the pressure got inside his head too. Every forward walked to every lineout with their muscles tense and their heads full of, "Don't f*ck it up don't f*ck it up don't f*ck it up".

I rarely agree with Dallaglio as a pundit, but he was spot on with his diagnosis - cut the lineout and bring in a 3-man or 4-man play to move Montpellier back and forwards and jump where they're not. Just continuing to bang away with the same strategy over and over was idiotic.

Bad leadership and poor mental strength - not a sign of a well-coached camp.

Weird game in total - incredible how Bath managed not to score from those 4,000 phases on the Montpellier line, despite having loads of penalty advantages where they could've gone wide without risk. And the controversy over tackling the latchers as well - it doesn't feel right that one could tackle a latcher, but then you shouldn't be allowed to latch before contact anyway so they shouldn't even be there. Azam seemed very confident that he'd been told in refereeing meetings that they could be tackled and if that's the case, then Brace needs to swing as there's no excuse for reneging on something like that.

Puja

Yes. Never mind the line out problems etc. Bath were camped out on the Montpelier goal line for great chunks of that game but could not figure out a way to score. Their only ploy was to blatter away time and again at close quarters against a relentless defence. Their total lack of ideas, variation, leadership, invention, decision making etc was astounding. The game was there for the taking but sadly they did not have the rugby brains for the job.

If any part of your game is misfiring as badly as Bath's lineout, you're going to lose.
If 2 parts (5m flop) misfire that badly, it shouldn't have been this competitive.


Frustrated comes about as close as "less than the sum of our parts".
But I really, really don't see how this can be used as a match to bash Watson at FB - where he was personally immense.

Puja wrote: incredible how Bath managed not to score from those 4,000 phases on the Montpellier line, despite having loads of penalty advantages where they could've gone wide without risk.

That bit, I can understand - Bath have made the 5m flop a real speciality, and have become very good at it. When you're getting repeat penalty offences and last warnings; you keep going until they lose a few players. I don't recall any occasions where our repeated flops were fast enough, or agile enough to start sucking in backs, to disorganise the wider defence to make going wide the better option (it also wasn't good enough to disorganise the closer defence - Montpellier were VERY well drilled there).
Then factor in youth and inexperience at 10 and 12 to arrange the backs and demand that they get the chance. The leadership group are all in the pack, or too far away to influence those specific decisions.

Another very frustrating performance from Bath. That was a terrible effort not to score a point after the opening quarter, despite having plenty of opportunities close to the line. The l/o did splutter but credit Montpelier by challenging every throw and using their very tall lock to good effect. Even with that element of their game in poor order they still had enough ball and territory to win.
Thought Stuart was very good, Watson likewise and Underhill had a good game but was subbed on about 50 minutes. He didnt seem to be injured, so why the early subbing?

fivepointer wrote:Another very frustrating performance from Bath. That was a terrible effort not to score a point after the opening quarter, despite having plenty of opportunities close to the line. The l/o did splutter but credit Montpelier by challenging every throw and using their very tall lock to good effect. Even with that element of their game in poor order they still had enough ball and territory to win.
Thought Stuart was very good, Watson likewise and Underhill had a good game but was subbed on about 50 minutes. He didnt seem to be injured, so why the early subbing?

Possibly because his replacement, Reid, has been playing really well in recent games?

Spiffy wrote:Possibly because his replacement, Reid, has been playing really well in recent games?

And will learn an absolute shit-tonne from being involved in a match like that.