Planet Rugby Forum

The best 10 this season, sure. Form? Hmmmm.

Crash_12 wrote:The best 10 this season, sure. Form? Hmmmm.

Has he not been good on this tour?

theo wrote:

Crash_12 wrote:The best 10 this season, sure. Form? Hmmmm.

Has he not been good on this tour?

He has indeed, but sextons form against the crusaders and Maori (plus Farrells injury) has made the decision a lot more complicated

Personally I'd pick them both with Teo on the bench ..... harsh on Teo but he'd have been a marked man and we need to open NZ up in midfield, cos they won't be run over

The backs were shit against the Moari despite an armchair ride from the forwards and a half back partnership that has played together multiple times.

He had Farrell with him v The Crusaders.

He's been decent, but Sexton againt the Maori was better. And the combination with Murray.

Both sets of backs were meh. It was absolutely hosing it down out there - having watched a replay I can almost understand our backs reluctance to pass.

theo wrote:The backs were shit against the Moari despite an armchair ride from the forwards and a half back partnership that has played together multiple times.

He had Farrell with him v The Crusaders.

um, thats sort of the point I was making

Crash_12 wrote:He's been decent, but Sexton againt the Maori was better. And the combination with Murray.

Both sets of backs were meh. It was absolutely hosing it down out there - having watched a replay I can almost understand our backs reluctance to pass.

Not sure about Sexton, but the second bit is true. We were told about this incredible Maori backline before the game, but they didn't even break our line, never mind finishing chances off.

You're all overlooking the obvious solution - play Sexton, Farrell, Te'o and Davies. Think outside the box, people. Woodward was ahead of his time.

The obvious solution is

Sexton Farrell Teo

with Farrell organising the defence from 12.

Murray, Farrell, Te'o, JD2.

It is written.

frillage wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

Jeff the Bear wrote:For most teams it's a means to an end. For Gatland it is the end. Or to put it another way, that 'offensive defence' is a key component of the attacking play of the team...which is why I think he picks his centres based on their defensive prowess, rather than any attacking capability.

So you're in broad agreement with everyone who thinks we're playing Gatlandball, or...?

Closer to Schmidt-ball (which tbf, is a similar gameplan based on similar principles). A lot more kicking from 9 for starters with a view to regaining it. Gatlandball adopts downtown kicks with the belief that the defence will contain any run backs.

And that always goes well against the All Blacks!!

Well it was how we put 40 on them in Chicago and limited them to their lowest score in years in Dublin.

Hang time is very important. Which is why Murray is vital as Webb either kicks too long or doesn't get the same hang time.

I don't believe it's a blueprint for victory in a 3 test series against a full strength NZ side in NZ.

I'm not sure about the Sexton/Farrell axis being an option at all. Against the Crusaders they lined up with Sexton at 10 for defence but in the centre on attack and that's just a bit too mishmashed to be in Gatland's thinking going into a test. It pointed towards him wanting Farrell at 10 above all others. The Maori selection is hard to read as Farrell possibly had the niggle prior to selection so it wasn't a straight decision to pick Sexton over him. We could very well be reverting to what we expected with Farrell starting at 10 and Sexton on the bench and I have no real problem with that. And we're in a much better position now than we were 2 weeks ago knowing that a) Sexton can step in and perform and b) Sexton/Farrell does work if we need it to.

I wouldn't have wanted us to arrive at Teo/Davies before the tour and still have my problems with it but I can't see it being anyone else.

JM2K6 wrote:I don't believe it's a blueprint for victory in a 3 test series against a full strength NZ side in NZ.

Probably not, but I think it's the nearest thing we have to a blueprint, that we actually have the ability to play, that may win us the series.

JM2K6 wrote:I don't believe it's a blueprint for victory in a 3 test series against a full strength NZ side in NZ.

I think it's the only chance we have. We ain't going to win a series trying to run everything at them. Ireland forced NZ into a mountain of penalties from which we gained field position to score the tries while having a very low error count ourselves and that's pretty much what happened v the Crusaders and Maori.

CM11 wrote:I'm not sure about the Sexton/Farrell axis being an option at all. Against the Crusaders they lined up with Sexton at 10 for defence but in the centre on attack and that's just a bit too mishmashed to be in Gatland's thinking going into a test. It pointed towards him wanting Farrell at 10 above all others. The Maori selection is hard to read as Farrell possibly had the niggle prior to selection so it wasn't a straight decision to pick Sexton over him. We could very well be reverting to what we expected with Farrell starting at 10 and Sexton on the bench and I have no real problem with that. And we're in a much better position now than we were 2 weeks ago knowing that a) Sexton can step in and perform and b) Sexton/Farrell does work if we need it to.

I wouldn't have wanted us to arrive at Teo/Davies before the tour and still have my problems with it but I can't see it being anyone else.

I had a Henshaw - Davies midfield in mind, but that ain't happening.

Jeff the Bear wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:I don't believe it's a blueprint for victory in a 3 test series against a full strength NZ side in NZ.

Probably not, but I think it's the nearest thing we have to a blueprint, that we actually have the ability to play, that may win us the series.

We have a squad with the ability to do far more. Just not the coaches.

Do we?

Sexton/Farrell 10/12 analysis.

http://www.the42.ie/analysis-sexton-far ... 7-Jun2017/

Crash_12 wrote:Do we?

Yes.

rfurlong wrote:

theo wrote:

Crash_12 wrote:The best 10 this season, sure. Form? Hmmmm.

Has he not been good on this tour?

He has indeed, but sextons form against the crusaders and Maori (plus Farrells injury) has made the decision a lot more complicated

Personally I'd pick them both with Teo on the bench ..... harsh on Teo but he'd have been a marked man and we need to open NZ up in midfield, cos they won't be run over

Yeah I think it's a better call to start them both and get the two tacticians to try and unpick the AB defence early on. Harsh on Te'o as he's been great but he'll still be there to be used, as England have used him, finding holes in a tiring line later on. Probably won't happen though.

The biggest surprise for me with this team to face the Chiefs is no North. I'd assumed he had played himself out of contention. I'd have gone with Daly for the first test. Two left boots in the outside backs to add to Murray, Farrell, potentially Sexton and 1/2P. Win the battle up front as well as the kicking game and you have a chance. In a way North makes more sense if you go with two playmakers who can find ways of bringing him into the game. If he's just there to chase kicks all day it's a bad call.

Before the tour I strongly believed there was a 15/23 out there that could win this series.

I still believe it is there, but there isn't the time nor the flexibility within the coaches to find it....

In Howley's case you can add ability to the list of failings.

Flametop wrote:Sexton/Farrell 10/12 analysis.

http://www.the42.ie/analysis-sexton-far ... 7-Jun2017/

No offence, but all I see in those clips are excellent play from Farrell with Sexton along for the ride.

Graham Henrys test 23 is interesting - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... st-blacks/

rfurlong wrote:Graham Henrys test 23 is interesting - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... st-blacks/

Not as interesting as his pronunciation of Vunipola and Itoje

cubby boi wrote:

Flametop wrote:Sexton/Farrell 10/12 analysis.

http://www.the42.ie/analysis-sexton-far ... 7-Jun2017/

No offence, but all I see in those clips are excellent play from Farrell with Sexton along for the ride.

That's what Gatland is banking on.

cubby boi wrote:

Flametop wrote:Sexton/Farrell 10/12 analysis.

http://www.the42.ie/analysis-sexton-far ... 7-Jun2017/

No offence, but all I see in those clips are excellent play from Farrell with Sexton along for the ride.

No offence, but you'd have been better off keeping your mouth shut rather than proving, again, that you haven't a clue.

Even though there was some very good play from Sexton too, the whole point of the clips was to show two playmakers. So, for example, even if all Sexton did in the first was put in a decent pass to Farrell, the point was that Farrell was there instead of being the one passing to someone incapable of putting POM into space.

While I'm glad that we have two lads in the squad that can pass, it's a bit embarrassing that we are marvelling about it. The skill level in the backs picked to your is not particularly impressive. It's almost like Gatland picked them just cos they're big.

Flametop wrote:While I'm glad that we have two lads in the squad that can pass, it's a bit embarrassing that we are marvelling about it. The skill level in the backs picked to your is not particularly impressive. It's almost like Gatland picked them just cos they're big.

I think you'd get more out of them if they were being trained to play more of a "keep the ball alive" game. Between the offloaders, the passers, and the strike runners we have the talent in the backs to do real damage, and most of the forwards are pretty good ball in hand (Mako, Sinckler, Furlong, Owens, George, Itoje, Faletau, SOB, etc) and aren't just head down runners.

We're wasting them, I think.

rfurlong wrote:Graham Henrys test 23 is interesting - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... st-blacks/

Can't watch the video. What's interesting about it?

JM2K6 wrote:

Flametop wrote:While I'm glad that we have two lads in the squad that can pass, it's a bit embarrassing that we are marvelling about it. The skill level in the backs picked to your is not particularly impressive. It's almost like Gatland picked them just cos they're big.

I think you'd get more out of them if they were being trained to play more of a "keep the ball alive" game. Between the offloaders, the passers, and the strike runners we have the talent in the backs to do real damage, and most of the forwards are pretty good ball in hand (Mako, Sinckler, Furlong, Owens, George, Itoje, Faletau, SOB, etc) and aren't just head down runners.

We're wasting them, I think.

The 10-12 thing is as much about kicking as it is about passing. Having two decision makers with good kicking games puts more pressure on the opposition. It is fortunate that Farrell is a big unit because most of those 10/12 guys can't hack it in Test rugby any more.

There was too much loose stuff in the first couple of games. They have tightened things up to the point where they are giving very little away with or without the ball. There are plenty of guys in there capable of playing very good rugby but they have to get the upper hand in terms of possession and the forwards battle.

Armchair_Superstar wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:

Flametop wrote:While I'm glad that we have two lads in the squad that can pass, it's a bit embarrassing that we are marvelling about it. The skill level in the backs picked to your is not particularly impressive. It's almost like Gatland picked them just cos they're big.

I think you'd get more out of them if they were being trained to play more of a "keep the ball alive" game. Between the offloaders, the passers, and the strike runners we have the talent in the backs to do real damage, and most of the forwards are pretty good ball in hand (Mako, Sinckler, Furlong, Owens, George, Itoje, Faletau, SOB, etc) and aren't just head down runners.

We're wasting them, I think.

The 10-12 thing is as much about kicking as it is about passing. Having two decision makers with good kicking games puts more pressure on the opposition. It is fortunate that Farrell is a big unit because most of those 10/12 guys can't hack it in Test rugby any more.

There was too much loose stuff in the first couple of games. They have tightened things up to the point where they are giving very little away with or without the ball. There are plenty of guys in there capable of playing very good rugby but they have to get the upper hand in terms of possession and the forwards battle.

There's a reason why the Kiwis are so keen on Ryan Crotty being fit, and he's not exactly a unit.

Certainly having a "second 5/8" 12 helps a lot with the kicking, but I don't think the issue was us being too loose.

Guys,
Teo is 12
JD2 is 13
Sexton or Faz at 10

That's happening. Sexton at 10 due to the combo with Murray. Last Saturday's team is just about the starting line-up with North thanking his lucky stars his direct competition are not stepping up

CM11 wrote:I'm not sure about the Sexton/Farrell axis being an option at all. Against the Crusaders they lined up with Sexton at 10 for defence but in the centre on attack and that's just a bit too mishmashed to be in Gatland's thinking going into a test. It pointed towards him wanting Farrell at 10 above all others. The Maori selection is hard to read as Farrell possibly had the niggle prior to selection so it wasn't a straight decision to pick Sexton over him. We could very well be reverting to what we expected with Farrell starting at 10 and Sexton on the bench and I have no real problem with that. And we're in a much better position now than we were 2 weeks ago knowing that a) Sexton can step in and perform and b) Sexton/Farrell does work if we need it to.

I wouldn't have wanted us to arrive at Teo/Davies before the tour and still have my problems with it but I can't see it being anyone else.

Good post, I'd also reluctantly agree.

theo wrote:He puts the form 10 in Europe on the bench.

The guys a joker.

Farrell to bench. Take it to the bank.

CM11 wrote:I'm not sure about the Sexton/Farrell axis being an option at all. Against the Crusaders they lined up with Sexton at 10 for defence but in the centre on attack and that's just a bit too mishmashed to be in Gatland's thinking going into a test. It pointed towards him wanting Farrell at 10 above all others. The Maori selection is hard to read as Farrell possibly had the niggle prior to selection so it wasn't a straight decision to pick Sexton over him. We could very well be reverting to what we expected with Farrell starting at 10 and Sexton on the bench and I have no real problem with that. And we're in a much better position now than we were 2 weeks ago knowing that a) Sexton can step in and perform and b) Sexton/Farrell does work if we need it to.

I wouldn't have wanted us to arrive at Teo/Davies before the tour and still have my problems with it but I can't see it being anyone else.

See the article Flametop posted. That was not the case at all. They alternated in attack, to good effect.

hermie wrote:

rfurlong wrote:Graham Henrys test 23 is interesting - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/ ... st-blacks/

Can't watch the video. What's interesting about it?

He's pretty much saying what most are...the only thing that differs is that North would be dropped, but even that is not that interesting.

1. Mako Vunipola
2. Jamie George
3. Tadhg Furlong
4. Alun Wyn Jones
5. George Kruis
6. Peter O'Mahoney
7. Sean O'Brien
8. Taulupe Faletau
9. Connor Murray
10. Jonathan Sexton
11. Anthony Watson
12. Owen Farrell if fit, then Te'o
13. Jonathan Davies
14. Liam Williams
15. Leigh Halfpenny

Rory Best
McGrath
Dan Cole
Maro Itoje
Sam Warburton
Rhys Webb
Jonathan Joseph
George North if Farrell isn't fit and Te'o starts

CM11 wrote:

cubby boi wrote:

Flametop wrote:Sexton/Farrell 10/12 analysis.

http://www.the42.ie/analysis-sexton-far ... 7-Jun2017/

No offence, but all I see in those clips are excellent play from Farrell with Sexton along for the ride.

No offence, but you'd have been better off keeping your mouth shut rather than proving, again, that you haven't a clue.

Even though there was some very good play from Sexton too, the whole point of the clips was to show two playmakers. So, for example, even if all Sexton did in the first was put in a decent pass to Farrell, the point was that Farrell was there instead of being the one passing to someone incapable of putting POM into space.

Don't be a trolling baby. Davies, Teo, even Marler could have played the role that Sexton played in those clips. Farrell on the other hand was more skillful.

cubby boi wrote:

CM11 wrote:

cubby boi wrote:

Flametop wrote:Sexton/Farrell 10/12 analysis.

http://www.the42.ie/analysis-sexton-far ... 7-Jun2017/

No offence, but all I see in those clips are excellent play from Farrell with Sexton along for the ride.

No offence, but you'd have been better off keeping your mouth shut rather than proving, again, that you haven't a clue.

Even though there was some very good play from Sexton too, the whole point of the clips was to show two playmakers. So, for example, even if all Sexton did in the first was put in a decent pass to Farrell, the point was that Farrell was there instead of being the one passing to someone incapable of putting POM into space.

Don't be a trolling baby. Davies, Teo, even Marler could have played the role that Sexton played in those clips. Farrell on the other hand was more skillful.

You're just making it worse. It's ok, as long as you understand you have much to learn you'd do well to sit back and listen for a while.

hermie wrote:

CM11 wrote:I'm not sure about the Sexton/Farrell axis being an option at all. Against the Crusaders they lined up with Sexton at 10 for defence but in the centre on attack and that's just a bit too mishmashed to be in Gatland's thinking going into a test. It pointed towards him wanting Farrell at 10 above all others. The Maori selection is hard to read as Farrell possibly had the niggle prior to selection so it wasn't a straight decision to pick Sexton over him. We could very well be reverting to what we expected with Farrell starting at 10 and Sexton on the bench and I have no real problem with that. And we're in a much better position now than we were 2 weeks ago knowing that a) Sexton can step in and perform and b) Sexton/Farrell does work if we need it to.

I wouldn't have wanted us to arrive at Teo/Davies before the tour and still have my problems with it but I can't see it being anyone else.

See the article Flametop posted. That was not the case at all. They alternated in attack, to good effect.

Well, all the gifs in the article are from phase play when you'd always expect a bit of alternation if you had two playmakers. I didn't look at how they set up for every setpiece but any of the ones I paid attention to had Farrell at 10 in attack and Sexton there in defence.