Wasps vs Wuss Sat 3pm

[Raggs]

Unfortunately without crowds.





I said a while ago that the only way Wasps are likely to keep hold of Atkinson and Umaga is playing them at 10 and fullback. Hopefully it sticks and works.

[FKAS]

If Wasps can work up Umaga's defence I think he'd be a great 12 personally. Atkinson looks like he'll grow into the ability to control the game where as Umaga seems to make a mess of that on and off. If you could structure the midfield for Umaga at 12 then you can bring him into the game as you need him and unleash his talents when they are required but aren't reliant on him to manage things. Not sure that would work that we'll given the personnel Wasps have at the minute so I can see why one is at 15.

Worcester's bench looks a bit hit and miss, Wasps should just pull away as the game goes on.

[Peej]

For a long time it looked as if Umaga would end up playing 12 once he'd bulked up a bit. But the coaches seem to have changed course on that a bit. I think Atkinson's game management could be better, but I also think he's in as a second playmaker with the centres not exactly offering a lot of ball playing.

On paper this should be a Wasps win, but I think the team is shot mentally, and if Worcester can be in touch or even ahead with 15 minutes to go I can see Wasps panicking and imploding again.

[Banquo]

If Wasps can work up Umaga's defence I think he'd be a great 12 personally. Atkinson looks like he'll grow into the ability to control the game where as Umaga seems to make a mess of that on and off. If you could structure the midfield for Umaga at 12 then you can bring him into the game as you need him and unleash his talents when they are required but aren't reliant on him to manage things. Not sure that would work that we'll given the personnel Wasps have at the minute so I can see why one is at 15.

Worcester's bench looks a bit hit and miss, Wasps should just pull away as the game goes on.

You've said that before, but its a huge IF and only one part of what would be needed.

[FKAS]

If Wasps can work up Umaga's defence I think he'd be a great 12 personally. Atkinson looks like he'll grow into the ability to control the game where as Umaga seems to make a mess of that on and off. If you could structure the midfield for Umaga at 12 then you can bring him into the game as you need him and unleash his talents when they are required but aren't reliant on him to manage things. Not sure that would work that we'll given the personnel Wasps have at the minute so I can see why one is at 15.

Worcester's bench looks a bit hit and miss, Wasps should just pull away as the game goes on.

You've said that before, but its a huge IF and only one part of what would be needed.

I think he has most of the other assets though. If there's a defensive leader like Fekitoa at 13 as well it would be a fairly easy transition. He's got the frame to add a little weight so it would really just be his mindset. Defending at 12 is mainly communication, bravery and not jumping into contact too early. He can manage that.

[TheNomad]

If Wasps can work up Umaga's defence I think he'd be a great 12 personally. Atkinson looks like he'll grow into the ability to control the game where as Umaga seems to make a mess of that on and off. If you could structure the midfield for Umaga at 12 then you can bring him into the game as you need him and unleash his talents when they are required but aren't reliant on him to manage things. Not sure that would work that we'll given the personnel Wasps have at the minute so I can see why one is at 15.

Worcester's bench looks a bit hit and miss, Wasps should just pull away as the game goes on.

You've said that before, but its a huge IF and only one part of what would be needed.

We need a 12 for England, and I think we all want him to be a good 12, but like Harry Mallinder - it doesn't mean he will be.

I see the arguments for - he's a real threat with ball in hand, a strong runner, a good boot and good distribution. He could end up as a good 12, but he'd need a fundamentally change in mind set before he could make it there

[Banquo]

If Wasps can work up Umaga's defence I think he'd be a great 12 personally. Atkinson looks like he'll grow into the ability to control the game where as Umaga seems to make a mess of that on and off. If you could structure the midfield for Umaga at 12 then you can bring him into the game as you need him and unleash his talents when they are required but aren't reliant on him to manage things. Not sure that would work that we'll given the personnel Wasps have at the minute so I can see why one is at 15.

Worcester's bench looks a bit hit and miss, Wasps should just pull away as the game goes on.

You've said that before, but its a huge IF and only one part of what would be needed.

I think he has most of the other assets though. If there's a defensive leader like Fekitoa at 13 as well it would be a fairly easy transition. He's got the frame to add a little weight so it would really just be his mindset. Defending at 12 is mainly communication, bravery and not jumping into contact too early. He can manage that.

I'll beg to differ about it being a 'fairly easy' transition. Very different role and mindset- also, what is his bravery like, out of interest. I'd also add you need excellent footwork and decision making to defend at 12, even with a defensive leader giving you the verbals. Ball in hand, its a different game too, less time, more emphasis on running and physicality ideally.

[Raggs]

I honestly don't see him as a 12. I don't really want him to move either. He has good attacking vision, very good distribution, and runs the game well at 10. Even with a "strong" 9 like Robson, he still gets a very large amount of ball because he is calling the shots.

As for putting on more weight, he's been told that for years, and it's not happened, clearly not got those PI genes, and I think it's been harmful to his development that everyone has been waiting on them, rather than taking advantage of what he can do.

If one of the pair was going to end up at 12, I would imagine it would be Atkinson.

[Banquo]

I honestly don't see him as a 12. I don't really want him to move either. He has good attacking vision, very good distribution, and runs the game well at 10. Even with a "strong" 9 like Robson, he still gets a very large amount of ball because he is calling the shots.

As for putting on more weight, he's been told that for years, and it's not happened, clearly not got those PI genes, and I think it's been harmful to his development that everyone has been waiting on them, rather than taking advantage of what he can do.

If one of the pair was going to end up at 12, I would imagine it would be Atkinson.

Quite.

[Puja]

He was a 10/12 when he was at Leicester though, so it's not like it's a move out of the blue for him.

Puja

[Raggs]

He was a 10/12 when he was at Leicester though, so it's not like it's a move out of the blue for him.

Puja

That was when he was 16/17 though, and again, when people were expecting the PI genes to kick in. He's not big, he's not solid. He tackles like Ford, he'll slow them down and eventually get them down, but he's not even close to a hard hitter. Without that extra size, I really don't see why people would prefer him at 12 over 10.

[fivepointer]

I dont get the Umaga to 12 notion. He doesnt have the physical presence required. Let him stay at 10 and develop his game there.

[Banquo]

I dont get the Umaga to 12 notion. He doesnt have the physical presence required. Let him stay at 10 and develop his game there.

Quite, again.

[Banquo]

He was a 10/12 when he was at Leicester though, so it's not like it's a move out of the blue for him.

Puja

It is in the grown up game. Massive difference.

[Oakboy]

I dont get the Umaga to 12 notion. He doesnt have the physical presence required. Let him stay at 10 and develop his game there.

Agreed, with the tentative proviso that his lack of physicality will also hamper him defensively at 10 - perhaps to the extent of needing grunt at 12 in an international scene. It's why I'd rank the FH candidates: 1. Simmonds, 2. Smith, 3. Umaga.

[Banquo]

I dont get the Umaga to 12 notion. He doesnt have the physical presence required. Let him stay at 10 and develop his game there.

Agreed, with the tentative proviso that his lack of physicality will also hamper him defensively at 10 - perhaps to the extent of needing grunt at 12 in an international scene. It's why I'd rank the FH candidates: 1. Simmonds, 2. Smith, 3. Umaga.

Said the bloke who championed Cipriani. Not exactly the most robust defender at 10, even after he'd decided to try tackling

[Oakboy]

I dont get the Umaga to 12 notion. He doesnt have the physical presence required. Let him stay at 10 and develop his game there.

Agreed, with the tentative proviso that his lack of physicality will also hamper him defensively at 10 - perhaps to the extent of needing grunt at 12 in an international scene. It's why I'd rank the FH candidates: 1. Simmonds, 2. Smith, 3. Umaga.

Said the bloke who championed Cipriani. Not exactly the most robust defender at 10, even after he'd decided to try tackling

Fair point but my counter-argument is that Cipriani's attacking flair was way above any of the current candidates. The biggest problem he had for the few minutes that Jones gave him was trying to get a team to perform despite 'no arms' blocking everything at 12.

If any of Simmonds, Smith or Umaga ever get realistic consideration for the starting 10 shirt I hope that they get something better to work with outside them.

[FKAS]

You've said that before, but its a huge IF and only one part of what would be needed.

I think he has most of the other assets though. If there's a defensive leader like Fekitoa at 13 as well it would be a fairly easy transition. He's got the frame to add a little weight so it would really just be his mindset. Defending at 12 is mainly communication, bravery and not jumping into contact too early. He can manage that.

I'll beg to differ about it being a 'fairly easy' transition. Very different role and mindset- also, what is his bravery like, out of interest. I'd also add you need excellent footwork and decision making to defend at 12, even with a defensive leader giving you the verbals. Ball in hand, its a different game too, less time, more emphasis on running and physicality ideally.

It's a lot nicer to defend at 12 than 13 and you get less big forwards thundering down your channel than you do at 10. I used to love defending at 12 you are sandwiched between your two midfield mates so as long as the communication is good and you don't jump into tackles and buy the dummy runner it's quite nice. Well as long as your 10 doesn't do a disappearing act in defence.

Is there more emphasis on physicality? I remember Matt Giteau lighting it up internationally and domestically for Toulon but for his many attributes I'm not sure physicality was one. It really depends on how the side wants to play, most teams have two playmakers in the backline with the secondary one normally at 12 or 15. Chiefs and Sale use the 13 and a direct 12 as a slight difference but despite Umaga's pace 13 is far too difficult a defensive challenge.

Matt Giteau at 5ft10 and 85kg (per Wiki)
Cam Redpath at 6ft2 and 95kg (per Bath website)
Jacob Umaga at 6ft and 91kg (per Wasps website)
Jimmy Gopperth at 5ft10 and 90kg (per Wasps website)

If the Wasps coaches lay the challenge at his door he may step up. If he does then he could be an international by the next 6N if not then I don't see him being capped anytime soon because he has too many brain farts to be able to control a game at club level. He'd be eaten alive at international level by any of the top 10 international sides. At 12 Umaga really could be exceptional, he's got all the attacking attributes it's only whether he has right mindset to step up and own that defensive channel.

[Banquo]

I think he has most of the other assets though. If there's a defensive leader like Fekitoa at 13 as well it would be a fairly easy transition. He's got the frame to add a little weight so it would really just be his mindset. Defending at 12 is mainly communication, bravery and not jumping into contact too early. He can manage that.

I'll beg to differ about it being a 'fairly easy' transition. Very different role and mindset- also, what is his bravery like, out of interest. I'd also add you need excellent footwork and decision making to defend at 12, even with a defensive leader giving you the verbals. Ball in hand, its a different game too, less time, more emphasis on running and physicality ideally.

It's a lot nicer to defend at 12 than 13 and you get less big forwards thundering down your channel than you do at 10. I used to love defending at 12 you are sandwiched between your two midfield mates so as long as the communication is good and you don't jump into tackles and buy the dummy runner it's quite nice. Well as long as your 10 doesn't do a disappearing act in defence.

Is there more emphasis on physicality? I remember Matt Giteau lighting it up internationally and domestically for Toulon but for his many attributes I'm not sure physicality was one. It really depends on how the side wants to play, most teams have two playmakers in the backline with the secondary one normally at 12 or 15. Chiefs and Sale use the 13 and a direct 12 as a slight difference but despite Umaga's pace 13 is far too difficult a defensive challenge.

Matt Giteau at 5ft10 and 85kg (per Wiki)
Cam Redpath at 6ft2 and 95kg (per Bath website)
Jacob Umaga at 6ft and 91kg (per Wasps website)
Jimmy Gopperth at 5ft10 and 90kg (per Wasps website)

If the Wasps coaches lay the challenge at his door he may step up. If he does then he could be an international by the next 6N if not then I don't see him being capped anytime soon because he has too many brain farts to be able to control a game at club level. He'd be eaten alive at international level by any of the top 10 international sides. At 12 Umaga really could be exceptional, he's got all the attacking attributes it's only whether he has right mindset to step up and own that defensive channel.

'nicer' is not quite the word I'd use when describing defending at 12 in top flight rugby- its certainly very different to defending at 13 (which I preferred tbh, but that was more familiarity- only played 12 when my pace had finally gone ) but its a tough, physical job for which experience is needed and hard earned. There's more to physicality than quoting stats as well...and you will note I said ideally a 12 will be physical ball in hand as well as a decent runner, but am dimly aware there are other models of 12 who offer the 2nd 5/8th style of playing and are not necessarily always up for a bit of direct running. But all those you mention have /had a physical dimension to what they do/did- and all offer(ed) something slightly different ball in hand.

I'm still of the view that there is a hell of a lot for Umaga to do to be a top class 12, and not sure he will even get the opportunity, even if he has the wherewithal (which I don't really see tbh- you've already said he won't make it as a top 10 because of brainfarts; doesn't really encourage me to think that he'd be any less likely to have them at 12). We shall see- I'm pleased he has bounced back from a period of poor form where he was starting to be written off.

[FKAS]

The brain farts tend to come as part of his game management. Remove that element from the game and I think he could sparkle. He often looks a lot better at 10 when Gopperth is there for similar reasons.

If Wasps want to find a way to incorporate both Umaga and Atkinson into a backline I think that's the most likely way to make it work. There's a lot of innovating attacking stuff you can do with dual playmakers at 10 and 12 as well like splitting the attack right and left which again would suit Wasps. Keep them out of an arm wrestle and force the opposition's pack to work hard in defence and tire them faster.

We're both agreed that it's down to Umaga to front up mentality and add that physicality to his game. It's something that he could do whether he can we'll see.

I started at 13 and wing but ended up getting pushed into playing 10 after our flyhalf got pinched by a bigger side. By the time we had another 10 of better quality than me we had a much faster player at 13. I ended up at 12 leading the defence, my favourite role. I enjoyed defending at 13 as well but you have to be far more switched on there otherwise you find yourself in no man's land very quickly.

[Banquo]

The brain farts tend to come as part of his game management. Remove that element from the game and I think he could sparkle. He often looks a lot better at 10 when Gopperth is there for similar reasons.

If Wasps want to find a way to incorporate both Umaga and Atkinson into a backline I think that's the most likely way to make it work. There's a lot of innovating attacking stuff you can do with dual playmakers at 10 and 12 as well like splitting the attack right and left which again would suit Wasps. Keep them out of an arm wrestle and force the opposition's pack to work hard in defence and tire them faster.

We're both agreed that it's down to Umaga to front up mentality and add that physicality to his game. It's something that he could do whether he can we'll see.

I started at 13 and wing but ended up getting pushed into playing 10 after our flyhalf got pinched by a bigger side. By the time we had another 10 of better quality than me we had a much faster player at 13. I ended up at 12 leading the defence, my favourite role. I enjoyed defending at 13 as well but you have to be far more switched on there otherwise you find yourself in no man's land very quickly.

Lots of ways of skinning a cat; shoehorning players isn't my preferred approach. We shall see- personally, I'm not wedded to the necessity for multiple playmakers.

as I said, played a lot at 13 so well aware of defending there, though admittedly that was before pro rugby kicked in.

[Raggs]

Dual playmakers with the 2nd one being 15 can split the attack left and right just as easily, and seemed to be what Wasps were doing on centre ball against quins. With Atkinson stepping in at 10 when Umaga went on a run, or playing around 12/13 when Umaga was at 10.

[I R Geech]

I honestly don't see him as a 12. I don't really want him to move either. He has good attacking vision, very good distribution, and runs the game well at 10. Even with a "strong" 9 like Robson, he still gets a very large amount of ball because he is calling the shots.

As for putting on more weight, he's been told that for years, and it's not happened, clearly not got those PI genes, and I think it's been harmful to his development that everyone has been waiting on them, rather than taking advantage of what he can do.

If one of the pair was going to end up at 12, I would imagine it would be Atkinson.

Exactly. Don’t understand the calls for Umaga at 12. Atkinson is a strong defender and has all the skills to be a very good playmaking 12.

[Banquo]

Dual playmakers with the 2nd one being 15 can split the attack left and right just as easily, and seemed to be what Wasps were doing on centre ball against quins. With Atkinson stepping in at 10 when Umaga went on a run, or playing around 12/13 when Umaga was at 10.

Loads of sides also make do without one outside 9/10 as well. 15 can do it, but it does then impact on having a deeper running option. As ever, trade offs. Course, if both your centres actually have what used to be considered a centre's skill set, then not really an issue if you want to split the field.

Its kind of odd that England have regularly fielded 4 backs who (can) act as playmakers.

[FKAS]

Dual playmakers with the 2nd one being 15 can split the attack left and right just as easily, and seemed to be what Wasps were doing on centre ball against quins. With Atkinson stepping in at 10 when Umaga went on a run, or playing around 12/13 when Umaga was at 10.

True but if you're playing 15, particularly in the contestable kick happy days we have currently, there's a big emphasis on ability in the air. If you've got that great, it you haven't then you're a liability. Be interesting to see how Atkinson gets on though the Worcester won't be much of an examination I don't think.