Chat Forum
It is currently Mon Jul 16, 2018 9:42 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70386 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1429, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435 ... 1760  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm
Posts: 14634
Location: Westerlands
Wendigo7 wrote:
englishchief wrote:
On the positive side, did that NZ performance really really scare you? It didn't exactly make quiver in my boots at the thought of having to play them.

Eddie will see that the Lions' main pitfalls were discipline errors or just being sloppy, both of which you can work on. Up to 50 minutes the Lions were right in the game (incidentally around the time they took Mako off), and then they just made a catalogue of errors which meant they could never leave their own half.

Supposedly only England and NZ currently play at 100 metres per minute (was stated in a Canada game a couple of months back)

I still think we need to work the fringe defence much harder than the lions did to get any change. Keeping up the pace is one thing. Tieing in enough defenders to make the all blacks tire is a completely different issue.

The All blacks scramble defence and want to defend is tremendous.


Am I being thick...?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Posts: 2504
Hawk97 wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
englishchief wrote:
On the positive side, did that NZ performance really really scare you? It didn't exactly make quiver in my boots at the thought of having to play them.

Eddie will see that the Lions' main pitfalls were discipline errors or just being sloppy, both of which you can work on. Up to 50 minutes the Lions were right in the game (incidentally around the time they took Mako off), and then they just made a catalogue of errors which meant they could never leave their own half.

Supposedly only England and NZ currently play at 100 metres per minute (was stated in a Canada game a couple of months back)

I still think we need to work the fringe defence much harder than the lions did to get any change. Keeping up the pace is one thing. Tieing in enough defenders to make the all blacks tire is a completely different issue.

The All blacks scramble defence and want to defend is tremendous.


Am I being thick...?


In the same boat here


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12414
Hawk97 wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
englishchief wrote:
On the positive side, did that NZ performance really really scare you? It didn't exactly make quiver in my boots at the thought of having to play them.

Eddie will see that the Lions' main pitfalls were discipline errors or just being sloppy, both of which you can work on. Up to 50 minutes the Lions were right in the game (incidentally around the time they took Mako off), and then they just made a catalogue of errors which meant they could never leave their own half.

Supposedly only England and NZ currently play at 100 metres per minute (was stated in a Canada game a couple of months back)

I still think we need to work the fringe defence much harder than the lions did to get any change. Keeping up the pace is one thing. Tieing in enough defenders to make the all blacks tire is a completely different issue.

The All blacks scramble defence and want to defend is tremendous.


Am I being thick...?

English and NZ players cover and work an average of just over 100metres per minute.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25507
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
Hawk97 wrote:
DD - harsh on George. You don't make 17 tackles (second most) if you're not fit.


Yeah it is harsh- hard to be objective sometimes but maybe easier watching the lions that england?

He tackled well- but is that enough? When you're using the kiwis as a benchmark would they allow a player to look like that? Or would they be saying that a change in body shape would improve aspects of your game?

If Best could throw/if my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11687
George revised up to 20 tackles. Pretty decent for 65 minutes, but tells the story of the game unfortunately. If you are having to make that many, you probably aren't winning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm
Posts: 14634
Location: Westerlands
Wendigo7 wrote:
Hawk97 wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
englishchief wrote:
On the positive side, did that NZ performance really really scare you? It didn't exactly make quiver in my boots at the thought of having to play them.

Eddie will see that the Lions' main pitfalls were discipline errors or just being sloppy, both of which you can work on. Up to 50 minutes the Lions were right in the game (incidentally around the time they took Mako off), and then they just made a catalogue of errors which meant they could never leave their own half.

Supposedly only England and NZ currently play at 100 metres per minute (was stated in a Canada game a couple of months back)

I still think we need to work the fringe defence much harder than the lions did to get any change. Keeping up the pace is one thing. Tieing in enough defenders to make the all blacks tire is a completely different issue.

The All blacks scramble defence and want to defend is tremendous.


Am I being thick...?

English and NZ players cover and work an average of just over 100metres per minute.


So, taking a forward for example, they're individually tracked running from ruck to ruck, in metres per min? I reckon that could say more about how effective a strategy is, or something...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12414
I'm not entirely sure on how it's applied Hawk. Only that's the stat.

Think internationally Ireland were next at 70, Wales, SA and Australia about 65-68 ish.

Super Rugby was around 70-75 ish per minute.

Edit: Comparatively Canada had a high of 54 and a low of 32 :uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25507
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
Margin_Walker wrote:
George revised up to 20 tackles. Pretty decent for 65 minutes, but tells the story of the game unfortunately. If you are having to make that many, you probably aren't winning.


NZ smashed the gainline and made a million carries- 20 tackles at post is good but achievable. Lions gave up decent yards at most, not many dominant sit downs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm
Posts: 14634
Location: Westerlands
Another narrative that has been given rise; we overrate Farrell. I'm not sure about that. I used to be his biggest detractor, but he's won me over over the last year and a half. He's genuinely creative, no?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm
Posts: 14634
Location: Westerlands
Wendigo7 wrote:
I'm not entirely sure on how it's applied Hawk. Only that's the stat.

Think internationally Ireland were next at 70, Wales, SA and Australia about 65-68 ish.

Super Rugby was around 70-75 ish per minute.

Edit: Comparatively Canada had a high of 54 and a low of 32 :uhoh:


Seems like a decent barometer of success/results, to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12414
Hawk97 wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
I'm not entirely sure on how it's applied Hawk. Only that's the stat.

Think internationally Ireland were next at 70, Wales, SA and Australia about 65-68 ish.

Super Rugby was around 70-75 ish per minute.

Edit: Comparatively Canada had a high of 54 and a low of 32 :uhoh:


Seems like a decent barometer of success/results, to me.

Yep. I think we should probably assume with the workrate per minute stat on Super rugby sides, the Nz sides are nearer 85-90 ish and are brought down by the other nations sides. :nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm
Posts: 14634
Location: Westerlands
Wendigo7 wrote:
Hawk97 wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
I'm not entirely sure on how it's applied Hawk. Only that's the stat.

Think internationally Ireland were next at 70, Wales, SA and Australia about 65-68 ish.

Super Rugby was around 70-75 ish per minute.

Edit: Comparatively Canada had a high of 54 and a low of 32 :uhoh:


Seems like a decent barometer of success/results, to me.

Yep. I think we should probably assume with the workrate per minute stat on Super rugby sides, the Nz sides are nearer 85-90 ish and are brought down by the other nations sides. :nod:



You're on to something here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25507
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
Hawk97 wrote:
Another narrative that has been given rise; we overrate Farrell. I'm not sure about that. I used to be his biggest detractor, but he's won me over over the last year and a half. He's genuinely creative, no?


The non-english overrate farrell, it's only a minority of english that think he's a 10. He's not creative.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Posts: 2504
Hawk97 wrote:
Another narrative that has been given rise; we overrate Farrell. I'm not sure about that. I used to be his biggest detractor, but he's won me over over the last year and a half. He's genuinely creative, no?


Didn't look completely in control today. Nothing wrong with Ford being at 10. I find the 'he's too small' line quite tiresome, Farrell is hardly an excellent defender.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm
Posts: 14634
Location: Westerlands
DragsterDriver wrote:
Hawk97 wrote:
Another narrative that has been given rise; we overrate Farrell. I'm not sure about that. I used to be his biggest detractor, but he's won me over over the last year and a half. He's genuinely creative, no?


The non-english overrate farrell, it's only a minority of english that think he's a 10. He's not creative.


Do you not think? I reckon he is. His passes are flat, and puts players into holes. Throws a lovely pass behind dummy runners (screen).


Edit: I'm talking about him over the past 2 years.


Last edited by Hawk97 on Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:12 pm
Posts: 3785
DragsterDriver wrote:
Margin_Walker wrote:
George revised up to 20 tackles. Pretty decent for 65 minutes, but tells the story of the game unfortunately. If you are having to make that many, you probably aren't winning.


NZ smashed the gainline and made a million carries- 20 tackles at post is good but achievable. Lions gave up decent yards at most, not many dominant sit downs.

Exactly, no one looks good going backwards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Posts: 2504
Malins is a much more natural fly half than Farrell.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 4:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:12 pm
Posts: 3785
Faz is the best 10 we have and Teo the best 12.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46954
Faz was putting people into holes even late into the game. It's fine.

We also stood up to wave after wave of incredibly accurate, inventive, and intense kiwi attacking in the first half. Most sides would've been beaten out of sight by half time. We'll lose all three tests and this will be the high point, so no-one should lose their shit just yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16031
Location: West of Londinium
JM2K6 wrote:
Faz was putting people into holes even late into the game. It's fine.

We also stood up to wave after wave of incredibly accurate, inventive, and intense kiwi attacking in the first half. Most sides would've been beaten out of sight by half time. We'll lose all three tests and this will be the high point, so no-one should lose their shit just yet.

We were receiving wave after wave simply because we did nothing to look after the ball and there was seemingly no one in the side who could win the gain-line. The idea of giving the All Blacks all the ball and told to have another go wasn't the most inspired bit of planning I've ever seen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 7:50 am
Posts: 2343
Location: Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...
JM2K6 wrote:
Faz was putting people into holes even late into the game. It's fine.

We also stood up to wave after wave of incredibly accurate, inventive, and intense kiwi attacking in the first half. Most sides would've been beaten out of sight by half time. We'll lose all three tests and this will be the high point, so no-one should lose their shit just yet.


I agree with your analysis (and am trying my best to disagree with your conclusions).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46954
Gospel wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Faz was putting people into holes even late into the game. It's fine.

We also stood up to wave after wave of incredibly accurate, inventive, and intense kiwi attacking in the first half. Most sides would've been beaten out of sight by half time. We'll lose all three tests and this will be the high point, so no-one should lose their shit just yet.

We were receiving wave after wave simply because we did nothing to look after the ball and there was seemingly no one in the side who could win the gain-line. The idea of giving the All Blacks all the ball and told to have another go wasn't the most inspired bit of planning I've ever seen.


Don't entirely disagree and we put them under some pressure with the kicking game early on but it eventually came to nothing. We looked our best after the try, the intensity went up and we caused their defence problems and several people made half breaks and looked for offload but the support wasnt there.

We're not suddenly going to fix that in a week but it showed our most likely path for success beyond awesome counter attacks from the back and putting pressure on their lineout.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:12 pm
Posts: 3785
They're beatable and we have the squad now to do it. I think we have the right coach too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 46551
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
DragsterDriver wrote:
Hawk97 wrote:
DD - harsh on George. You don't make 17 tackles (second most) if you're not fit.


Yeah it is harsh- hard to be objective sometimes but maybe easier watching the lions that england?

He tackled well- but is that enough? When you're using the kiwis as a benchmark would they allow a player to look like that? Or would they be saying that a change in body shape would improve aspects of your game?

If Best could throw/if my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle.


I think you've got it the wrong way around - the kiwis look at the contributions players make on the pitch rather than their appearance. George worked hard and did well at his assigned role. I see no reason whatsoever beyond blind panic to think the problems of today where attributable to him in general or his body shape in particular


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 46551
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
Alright, given that we should be relatively safe from the Swarm on here, can we talk about Tadhg Furlong? He was absolutely awful today, did nothing of meaning. We don't rave over Mako purely because he can crop up in the backline with a sexy pass every once in a while, the prop's job first and foremost is scrummaging, tackling and a bit of carrying, and from what I could see Furlong did almost none of those to any great impact


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8892
Location: hovering over the red button
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Alright, given that we should be relatively safe from the Swarm on here, can we talk about Tadhg Furlong? He was absolutely awful today, did nothing of meaning. We don't rave over Mako purely because he can crop up in the backline with a sexy pass every once in a while, the prop's job first and foremost is scrummaging, tackling and a bit of carrying, and from what I could see Furlong did almost none of those to any great impact


Forwards got shut down - simple as. Very few of them played badly but they were not given the opportunity to impose themselves. He was clearly beaten in the scrum and that always takes a lot out of a front rowers game anyway


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25507
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
Chuckles1188 wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
Hawk97 wrote:
DD - harsh on George. You don't make 17 tackles (second most) if you're not fit.


Yeah it is harsh- hard to be objective sometimes but maybe easier watching the lions that england?

He tackled well- but is that enough? When you're using the kiwis as a benchmark would they allow a player to look like that? Or would they be saying that a change in body shape would improve aspects of your game?

If Best could throw/if my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle.


I think you've got it the wrong way around - the kiwis look at the contributions players make on the pitch rather than their appearance. George worked hard and did well at his assigned role. I see no reason whatsoever beyond blind panic to think the problems of today where attributable to him in general or his body shape in particular


They're certainly not gym obsessed- but not gut buckets either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3574
DragsterDriver wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
Hawk97 wrote:
DD - harsh on George. You don't make 17 tackles (second most) if you're not fit.


Yeah it is harsh- hard to be objective sometimes but maybe easier watching the lions that england?

He tackled well- but is that enough? When you're using the kiwis as a benchmark would they allow a player to look like that? Or would they be saying that a change in body shape would improve aspects of your game?

If Best could throw/if my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle.


I think you've got it the wrong way around - the kiwis look at the contributions players make on the pitch rather than their appearance. George worked hard and did well at his assigned role. I see no reason whatsoever beyond blind panic to think the problems of today where attributable to him in general or his body shape in particular


They're certainly not gym obsessed- but not gut buckets either.
I think you're right, they would whip him into better shape, they're a much fitter side than us

They also don't mess about, look at Savea being dropped, as soon as your game slips or someone plays better than you then you're out. They never pick on rep. That would mean for us at least Hartley out and Brown would've been in and out of the team.

Nowell picked at fullback for the Lions-Hope he plays well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm
Posts: 14634
Location: Westerlands
They're ruthless at making decisions like that. How many world class wingers over the past 10 years have been jettisoned for younger, newer, faster models?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:13 pm
Posts: 1958
Hawk97 wrote:
They're ruthless at making decisions like that. How many world class wingers over the past 10 years have been jettisoned for younger, newer, faster models?


Particularly when the player dropped is 26 years old with 46 test tries from 53 appearances ...

Although in truth, Savea has had a poor season and I'm not sure he works hard enough on improving the weaker aspects of his game to be a default pick.

Imagine if we had the luxury of not picking someone with an incredible re odd like that though?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 46551
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
Hawk97 wrote:
They're ruthless at making decisions like that. How many world class wingers over the past 10 years have been jettisoned for younger, newer, faster models?


It helps that they have a production line of fast, highly skilled wingers. How many English frontrowers have been jettisoned over the past 10 years for newer, tougher, stronger models?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46954
le chat wrote:
They also don't mess about, look at Savea being dropped, as soon as your game slips or someone plays better than you then you're out. They never pick on rep.


That's not really true. Savea's been given a fair few chances to prove himself over the last few years, having had multiple average displays, weight problems, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm
Posts: 14634
Location: Westerlands
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Hawk97 wrote:
They're ruthless at making decisions like that. How many world class wingers over the past 10 years have been jettisoned for younger, newer, faster models?


It helps that they have a production line of fast, highly skilled wingers. How many English frontrowers have been jettisoned over the past 10 years for newer, tougher, stronger models?


First bit; of course. Goes without saying.

Re our props; I'm not sure. I don't think the turnover is anything near AB winger production. Cole has been Tight-heading consistently for 7 years now. Looks like we've found a younger, FASTER, newer model now though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46954
Kieran Read wasn't dropped after having multiple poor matches in a row. Kaino wasn't dropped after a poor season. Nonu never surrendered his place to SBW despite relative form at one point all suggesting SBW start. Going back further, Nick Evans never got ahead of Dan Carter despite Carter having the only poor run of form in his life.

And they basically ignore Super Rugby form entirely for established players. Or in some cases, don't even give a shit if they've played many matches.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:13 pm
Posts: 1958
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Hawk97 wrote:
They're ruthless at making decisions like that. How many world class wingers over the past 10 years have been jettisoned for younger, newer, faster models?


It helps that they have a production line of fast, highly skilled wingers. How many English frontrowers have been jettisoned over the past 10 years for newer, tougher, stronger models?


Yes, but I think the expectation of what the modern prop is there to deliver has changed drastically in the last 10 years. Some of that is down to changes in the laws, but actually I'd say the bigger part is the overall change in the game becoming a faster, 15 man game with much more of a requirement for props to contribute in the loose. A prop is now expected to be able to tackle, carry, pass and be effective at the breakdown. The days of Adam Jones style props that don't do much more than scrummage are basically over.

I wouldn't say that difference is anywhere near as stark with wingers. It's definitely fair to say that wingers are expected to do a lot more than just finish in the modern game, but the demands on their skill set aren't as much of a sea change than they have been for props.

It was interesting to see how often our props stood at first receiver for the U20s - I mean to pass and not to truck it up. More often than not, it looked like a structured play to free up the playmakers behind them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm
Posts: 14634
Location: Westerlands
JM2K6 wrote:
Kieran Read wasn't dropped after having multiple poor matches in a row. Kaino wasn't dropped after a poor season. Nonu never surrendered his place to SBW despite relative form at one point all suggesting SBW start. Going back further, Nick Evans never got ahead of Dan Carter despite Carter having the only poor run of form in his life.

And they basically ignore Super Rugby form entirely for established players. Or in some cases, don't even give a shit if they've played many matches.


Was Kaino at all dropped for Messam, at any point? Might have been when he was in Japan.

SBW started plenty of games for the ABs, was this at Nonu's expense?

I don't know the answer, so I'm just asking.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 46551
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
Hawk97 wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Hawk97 wrote:
They're ruthless at making decisions like that. How many world class wingers over the past 10 years have been jettisoned for younger, newer, faster models?


It helps that they have a production line of fast, highly skilled wingers. How many English frontrowers have been jettisoned over the past 10 years for newer, tougher, stronger models?


First bit; of course. Goes without saying.

Re our props; I'm not sure. I don't think the turnover is anything near AB winger production. Cole has been Tight-heading consistently for 7 years now. Looks like we've found a younger, FASTER, newer model now though.


The difference is that NZ don't mind dropping first-choice players, with us we cycle through the backups like there's no tomorrow. Just in the last three years we've called up and then moved on from Wilson, Thomas, Webber, LCD, Youngs (fits both categories tbf), Hill, Brookes, and that's just who comes to mind without thinking really hard


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46954
Hawk97 wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Kieran Read wasn't dropped after having multiple poor matches in a row. Kaino wasn't dropped after a poor season. Nonu never surrendered his place to SBW despite relative form at one point all suggesting SBW start. Going back further, Nick Evans never got ahead of Dan Carter despite Carter having the only poor run of form in his life.

And they basically ignore Super Rugby form entirely for established players. Or in some cases, don't even give a shit if they've played many matches.


Was Kaino at all dropped for Messam, at any point? Might have been when he was in Japan.

SBW started plenty of games for the ABs, was this at Nonu's expense?

I don't know the answer, so I'm just asking.


SBW got starts but it was (from memory) almost always a "here, have a chance" game against weaker sides or in an experimental lineup or an end of year tour where they're giving someone a rest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18944
Location: Investigating racism in the NHS
Nowell at fullback for the Lions vs Hurricanes, interesting...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:21 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5800
England for next 6Ns

Nowell
Daly
Joseph
Teo
Watson
Farrell
Youngs

Billy
Underhill
Itoje
Launchbury
Kruis
Sinckler
George
Mako


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70386 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1429, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433, 1434, 1435 ... 1760  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: assfly, backrow, Bing [Bot], BokJock, Captain Average, CarrotGawks, Clogs, Couch, dam0, Google Adsense [Bot], handyman, Homer, houtkabouter, Jensrsa, JPNZ, lorcanoworms, Marshall Banana, Merciless, Mog The Almighty, Mullet 2, Nolanator, OomPB, penguin, P in VG, Plato'sCave, Raggs, Saint, SaintK, terryfinch, Tim13, Waka Nathan, Wylie Coyote, Yer Man and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group