Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:36 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73931 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1730, 1731, 1732, 1733, 1734, 1735, 1736 ... 1849  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 7:03 pm
Posts: 41
4071 wrote:
englishchief wrote:
No need for full panic stations yet. With some minor tweaks England could be right back up there, looking at the penalty count for example:

SA 4 vs 12 England. Obviously not all penalties are a straight conversion to 3 points, but if you imagine that at least 4 of those 8 penalties were kickable, then England now win by 9 points.

It was the same story against Scotland. Lesser sides would lose by far more points with those sorts of differences in the penalty count.


It was 13-7 v Scotland, 10-2 v Wales, 15-11 v France. It's something of a habit now to be on the wrong side of the penalty count. Ireland is the one exception, when the count was even.



Last 6 test matches (6 Nations plus first test v SA) the average is 12 penalties conceded vs 8 awarded against the opposition. That's with 6 different refs.

Possible reasons:
1. We are poor at the breakdown and give away a lot of pens there.
2. The players are ill-disciplined and the coaches can't get through to them.
3. The coaches and senior players are failing to prepare well for how the refs officiate.
4. The captain and other leaders on the pitch are failing to influence refs positively.
5. Refs have some kind of unconscious bias against England because they are perceived as ill-disciplined.

5 seems unlikely, but if true is a function of 1-4, which is down to the coaches and senior players.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18872
Location: Investigating racism in the NHS
ovalball wrote:
Singleton called up as cover for LCD who reported tightness in his hamstring after the 1st test.

Why did we only have 2 Hookers on a 3 test tour ?????


What? Can Brad Shields not play hooker?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13158
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
openclashXX wrote:
ovalball wrote:
Singleton called up as cover for LCD who reported tightness in his hamstring after the 1st test.

Why did we only have 2 Hookers on a 3 test tour ?????


What? Can Brad Shields not play hooker?


Him or Mike Brown.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1178
happyhooker wrote:
45jumper wrote:
God knows. It's one of Eddie's strange quirks. :lol:

While you're here, if you make any 'jokey' predictions about stupid selections for this test, I will fûcking cut you


Believe me, my lips are firmly sealed in that regard for this test :nod: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25412
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
The Man Without Fear wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
ovalball wrote:
Singleton called up as cover for LCD who reported tightness in his hamstring after the 1st test.

Why did we only have 2 Hookers on a 3 test tour ?????


What? Can Brad Shields not play hooker?


Him or Mike Brown.


I think we’re looking for a bit of pace at hooker to supplement the back row?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Posts: 2504
Boris wrote:
4071 wrote:
englishchief wrote:
No need for full panic stations yet. With some minor tweaks England could be right back up there, looking at the penalty count for example:

SA 4 vs 12 England. Obviously not all penalties are a straight conversion to 3 points, but if you imagine that at least 4 of those 8 penalties were kickable, then England now win by 9 points.

It was the same story against Scotland. Lesser sides would lose by far more points with those sorts of differences in the penalty count.


It was 13-7 v Scotland, 10-2 v Wales, 15-11 v France. It's something of a habit now to be on the wrong side of the penalty count. Ireland is the one exception, when the count was even.



Last 6 test matches (6 Nations plus first test v SA) the average is 12 penalties conceded vs 8 awarded against the opposition. That's with 6 different refs.

Possible reasons:
1. We are poor at the breakdown and give away a lot of pens there.
2. The players are ill-disciplined and the coaches can't get through to them.
3. The coaches and senior players are failing to prepare well for how the refs officiate.
4. The captain and other leaders on the pitch are failing to influence refs positively.
5. Refs have some kind of unconscious bias against England because they are perceived as ill-disciplined.

5 seems unlikely, but if true is a function of 1-4, which is down to the coaches and senior players.


The fact that Eddie and his f**king team of analysts haven't done much yet is the most worrying part. I at least hope they've identified where the problems are, and are now trying to fix those problems. Obviously Eddie's not going to be broadcasting our problems over a loudspeaker so we don't know, but you'd like to think so given the amount of resources he has available.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25412
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
I feel so much is based around our stodgy back row.

Small locks.
Wings to carry around the fringes.
Etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16616
Location: West of Londinium
We're missing a 'Haskell'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25412
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
Gospel wrote:
We're missing a 'Haskell'.


Can’t really argue with that.

Curry did well but billy doesn’t contribute and robshaw is knackered.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13158
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
DragsterDriver wrote:
The Man Without Fear wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
ovalball wrote:
Singleton called up as cover for LCD who reported tightness in his hamstring after the 1st test.

Why did we only have 2 Hookers on a 3 test tour ?????


What? Can Brad Shields not play hooker?


Him or Mike Brown.


I think we’re looking for a bit of pace at hooker to supplement the back row?


And here I was thinking you were all clamouring for more aggression in the pack.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25412
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
The Man Without Fear wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
The Man Without Fear wrote:
openclashXX wrote:
ovalball wrote:
Singleton called up as cover for LCD who reported tightness in his hamstring after the 1st test.

Why did we only have 2 Hookers on a 3 test tour ?????


What? Can Brad Shields not play hooker?


Him or Mike Brown.


I think we’re looking for a bit of pace at hooker to supplement the back row?


And here I was thinking you were all clamouring for more aggression in the pack.


I’d deffo have iron mike at 15- starting to worry borthwick is building a pack in his own image though x(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4544
The truth of the matter is that SA targeted two areas- Robshaw's lack of pace when there's a wide blindside and Ford in the route 1 channel.

Anything else is just fluff although it was a masterstroke to abdicate the lineout completely.

Can't understand why BV wasn't used to defend in 10 channel as he did in 2017.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4544
45jumper wrote:
The decision to take Isiekwe off looked like lunacy to me. I personally thought he was playing well, and the Boks were beginning to win the collisions and get front foot ball – so what on earth possessed Eddie to take one of our biggest players out of the engine room and replace him with a flanker making him debut, I don’t know


You need to watch the game again. Isiekwe abdicated any form of ruck clearing. He made his first completed tackle around the 30 min mark and fell off so many it wasn't funny. He was shockingly bad and the freedom and speed of ruck SA enjoyed was embarassing- people call Launchbury and Cole plodders but by christ they clear out the rucks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5802
Launchbury gets through a hell of a lot of work. He's usually high in the tackle stats.
Itoje and Isikewe made 8 tackles each, Robshaw 7; Curry made 20


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18660
Isiekwe was fine in tackles, he blew himself out by 30, but he was tackling. No arguments over the ruck work, as shown in my analysis. Can't blame Isiekwe as such, it's Eddies fault that he relied on his first 2 locks being fit. I do wonder if Isiekwe would even be there if he didn't play for Sarries though. He doesn't stand out anywhere near as much as Itoje did at a similar stage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25412
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
Marler does excellent clearing work, I’d give mako a breather and start marler with genge benching :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18660
DragsterDriver wrote:
Marler does excellent clearing work, I’d give mako a breather and start marler with genge benching :)


I'd need to check my notes :D. I do think he does more than Mako, but then Mako does more carrying (and often a ton of tackles too I believe), so it's swings and roundabouts in a sense.

Marler takes a carrier away, Launch puts one back, but that's only because we were missing one to begin with. I do agree that resting mako could be a good thing though, and starting Genge seems risky.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25412
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
Raggs wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
Marler does excellent clearing work, I’d give mako a breather and start marler with genge benching :)


I'd need to check my notes :D. I do think he does more than Mako, but then Mako does more carrying (and often a ton of tackles too I believe), so it's swings and roundabouts in a sense.

Marler takes a carrier away, Launch puts one back, but that's only because we were missing one to begin with. I do agree that resting mako could be a good thing though, and starting Genge seems risky.


Again, it’s covering for the back row deficiencies. Mako probably does more than his brother?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46198
Jake wrote:
45jumper wrote:
The decision to take Isiekwe off looked like lunacy to me. I personally thought he was playing well, and the Boks were beginning to win the collisions and get front foot ball – so what on earth possessed Eddie to take one of our biggest players out of the engine room and replace him with a flanker making him debut, I don’t know


You need to watch the game again. Isiekwe abdicated any form of ruck clearing. He made his first completed tackle around the 30 min mark and fell off so many it wasn't funny. He was shockingly bad and the freedom and speed of ruck SA enjoyed was embarassing- people call Launchbury and Cole plodders but by christ they clear out the rucks.


Isiekwe made as many tackles in his brief period on the pitch than most of the England pack managed for their entire time. He missed one.

Sinckler's developed a habit of missing a ton of tackles, and did so again. Robshaw barely did anything of note. Shields decided rucks were his thing but carries and tackles weren't, Curry tried his heart out, Mako took the day off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25412
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
I believe they said shields was sent on to try and stem the quick ball?

Sinkler doesn’t tackle, he seems to chop only? Gonna hurt himself soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 941
I felt sorry for Curry, he worked his absolute socks off for very little reward and had to do it all on his own.
I've always been a fan of Robshaw but he looks seriously done now. Like the Baabaas, as soon as SA put pace on it he looked like he was chasing shadows. Sheilds or Wilson really must come in for the 2nd test.
Billy looked unfit but will hopefully be better for the workout and he's still better than our other options.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46198
Oh, and just as importantly, Isiekwe's discipline was excellent. George was hard done by, but Robshaw and Sinckler coughed up 2 each (only one of Sinckler's was scrum I think?), Mako 3 and a yellow.

I might well watch that first half again but pulling Isiekwe to bring on a fucking flanker at second row was just asking for a beating and it's what we got.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46198
forrester wrote:
I felt sorry for Curry, he worked his absolute socks off for very little reward and had to do it all on his own.
I've always been a fan of Robshaw but he looks seriously done now. Like the Baabaas, as soon as SA put pace on it he looked like he was chasing shadows. Sheilds or Wilson really must come in for the 2nd test.
Billy looked unfit but will hopefully be better for the workout and he's still better than our other options.


Baabaas game saw Robshaw missing countless tackles and having people just run through him constantly. He didn't miss a tackle against the Saffers, though he certainly looked off the pace at times. He was anonymous, not a liability.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 941
DragsterDriver wrote:
I believe they said shields was sent on to try and stem the quick ball?

Sinkler doesn’t tackle, he seems to chop only? Gonna hurt himself soon.


Sinkler was very disappointing, definitely need Williams' work rate for next week.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46198
DragsterDriver wrote:
I believe they said shields was sent on to try and stem the quick ball?

Sinkler doesn’t tackle, he seems to chop only? Gonna hurt himself soon.

Sinckler really should try and do his one man choke tackle more, he's bloody brilliant at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2427
Raggs wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
To clarify- who defends the 10 channel while ford takes a breather?


Farrell. It's not about a breather, it's about having a bit more bulk to prevent easy yards. I'm not a fan of Farrell's blitz in regular open play, where he just swings an arm, but here I'd hope he'd slow someone down a bit more than Ford. Even better would be replacing Farrell with a proper 12, but we don't seem to have one of those lying around.

Isiekwe was seemingly a bit off the pace with his workrate, and his clearouts at ruck time were awful, twice out of 4 proper rucks, he failed to clear out, leading to turnovers. He went up twice in the lineout in his time on the pitch, (not sure how many opportunities to be fair), Shields went up 4 times, 3 of those were competing for opposition ball. Our scrum also didn't seem to be too awful until the 2nd half, when Sinckler was knackered and Williams wasn't coping so well. Perhaps more importantly, I think Shields did a better job than Hill would have managed, and Isiekwe wasn't upto scratch.

Hill?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46198
Dunnikin Diver wrote:
Raggs wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
To clarify- who defends the 10 channel while ford takes a breather?


Farrell. It's not about a breather, it's about having a bit more bulk to prevent easy yards. I'm not a fan of Farrell's blitz in regular open play, where he just swings an arm, but here I'd hope he'd slow someone down a bit more than Ford. Even better would be replacing Farrell with a proper 12, but we don't seem to have one of those lying around.

Isiekwe was seemingly a bit off the pace with his workrate, and his clearouts at ruck time were awful, twice out of 4 proper rucks, he failed to clear out, leading to turnovers. He went up twice in the lineout in his time on the pitch, (not sure how many opportunities to be fair), Shields went up 4 times, 3 of those were competing for opposition ball. Our scrum also didn't seem to be too awful until the 2nd half, when Sinckler was knackered and Williams wasn't coping so well. Perhaps more importantly, I think Shields did a better job than Hill would have managed, and Isiekwe wasn't upto scratch.

Hill?


Johnny. Not sure how Raggs reached that conclusion, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Posts: 2504
Yep, pulling off Isiekwe was a shit move. It should be highly embarrassing to the senior players that he and Curry were the best 2 performers in the forwards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25412
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
JM2K6 wrote:
Oh, and just as importantly, Isiekwe's discipline was excellent. George was hard done by, but Robshaw and Sinckler coughed up 2 each (only one of Sinckler's was scrum I think?), Mako 3 and a yellow.

I might well watch that first half again but pulling Isiekwe to bring on a fucking flanker at second row was just asking for a beating and it's what we got.


From memory it stemmed the tide? Not sure on the score at the time?

But there’s no blame on Isiekwe, it was all fudged up by the coaches not the players. Gatland and Edwards can pick teams of virtual nobodies and at least get them playing with some shape and structure. We’re like Ossie Ardilies spurs team at the moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46198
DragsterDriver wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Oh, and just as importantly, Isiekwe's discipline was excellent. George was hard done by, but Robshaw and Sinckler coughed up 2 each (only one of Sinckler's was scrum I think?), Mako 3 and a yellow.

I might well watch that first half again but pulling Isiekwe to bring on a fucking flanker at second row was just asking for a beating and it's what we got.


From memory it stemmed the tide? Not sure on the score at the time?

But there’s no blame on Isiekwe, it was all fudged up by the coaches not the players. Gatland and Edwards can pick teams of virtual nobodies and at least get them playing with some shape and structure. We’re like Ossie Ardilies spurs team at the moment.


Isiekwe came off the field after 35 minutes. England were winning at that point. SA scored the try to give them the lead soon after.

The biggest impact on the game slowing down a bit was halftime - nothing to do with personnel. Ill discipline and running out of gas was a bigger theme in the second half.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18660
Isiekwe was dire in clearing rucks, and his poor clearouts lead to two turnovers. My spreadsheet doesn't take points away from OPI for unnecessary or insufficient ruck scores, and it should. If it does, his score drops to 0.42. OK, others will drop a bit too, but not as much, since they've all got a lot more than 18 interactions to work with. The last 5 minutes he played he missed two tackles I believe (one may have generously not been counted as an attempt). He was shagged out, and he simply wasn't capable of shifting players off the ruck.

The suggestion he was one of the two best forwards in the pack is quite simply laughable. I'm fairly happy to agree with Curry being one of the best though.

I don't see why we'd have expected more from Hill to be honest, another youngster, good when supported by a strong team, but if Eddie has taken a look and decided not to risk it, then I'm not doubting him here. Shields actually impressed me more than I thought I would be, he was playing with a bit of desire that quite a few others seemed to be lacking. Our scrum was mostly solid until the boks brought on their subs, and then even with Williams on fresh, we were still going slightly backwards.

EDIT - England were winning when Isiekwe came off, but it's not as though the floodgates weren't open at that point. Shields did a hell of a lot more in the breakdown than I'd have expected from Isiekwe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25412
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
JM2K6 wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Oh, and just as importantly, Isiekwe's discipline was excellent. George was hard done by, but Robshaw and Sinckler coughed up 2 each (only one of Sinckler's was scrum I think?), Mako 3 and a yellow.

I might well watch that first half again but pulling Isiekwe to bring on a fucking flanker at second row was just asking for a beating and it's what we got.


From memory it stemmed the tide? Not sure on the score at the time?

But there’s no blame on Isiekwe, it was all fudged up by the coaches not the players. Gatland and Edwards can pick teams of virtual nobodies and at least get them playing with some shape and structure. We’re like Ossie Ardilies spurs team at the moment.


Isiekwe came off the field after 35 minutes. England were winning at that point. SA scored the try to give them the lead soon after.

The biggest impact on the game slowing down a bit was halftime - nothing to do with personnel. Ill discipline and running out of gas was a bigger theme in the second half.


That’s kind of the point- we were getting swamped


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2427
JM2K6 wrote:
Dunnikin Diver wrote:
Raggs wrote:
DragsterDriver wrote:
To clarify- who defends the 10 channel while ford takes a breather?


Farrell. It's not about a breather, it's about having a bit more bulk to prevent easy yards. I'm not a fan of Farrell's blitz in regular open play, where he just swings an arm, but here I'd hope he'd slow someone down a bit more than Ford. Even better would be replacing Farrell with a proper 12, but we don't seem to have one of those lying around.

Isiekwe was seemingly a bit off the pace with his workrate, and his clearouts at ruck time were awful, twice out of 4 proper rucks, he failed to clear out, leading to turnovers. He went up twice in the lineout in his time on the pitch, (not sure how many opportunities to be fair), Shields went up 4 times, 3 of those were competing for opposition ball. Our scrum also didn't seem to be too awful until the 2nd half, when Sinckler was knackered and Williams wasn't coping so well. Perhaps more importantly, I think Shields did a better job than Hill would have managed, and Isiekwe wasn't upto scratch.

Hill?


Johnny. Not sure how Raggs reached that conclusion, though.

Ah of course - probably best I know the current squad than be stuck in another, albeit happier, era.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46198
Raggs wrote:
Isiekwe was dire in clearing rucks, and his poor clearouts lead to two turnovers. My spreadsheet doesn't take points away from OPI for unnecessary or insufficient ruck scores, and it should. If it does, his score drops to 0.42. OK, others will drop a bit too, but not as much, since they've all got a lot more than 18 interactions to work with. The last 5 minutes he played he missed two tackles I believe (one may have generously not been counted as an attempt). He was shagged out, and he simply wasn't capable of shifting players off the ruck.

The suggestion he was one of the two best forwards in the pack is quite simply laughable. I'm fairly happy to agree with Curry being one of the best though.

I don't see why we'd have expected more from Hill to be honest, another youngster, good when supported by a strong team, but if Eddie has taken a look and decided not to risk it, then I'm not doubting him here. Shields actually impressed me more than I thought I would be, he was playing with a bit of desire that quite a few others seemed to be lacking. Our scrum was mostly solid until the boks brought on their subs, and then even with Williams on fresh, we were still going slightly backwards.

EDIT - England were winning when Isiekwe came off, but it's not as though the floodgates weren't open at that point. Shields did a hell of a lot more in the breakdown than I'd have expected from Isiekwe.


OPI? Isn't that the name of that alternative cricket rankings thing that crazy Kiwi poster came up with?

Are you comparing scores at the time Isiekwe went off?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18660
I'm comparing per minute rates. Isiekwe is low, especially if he did in fact miss an extra tackle and i discount the poor rucks. 8 tackles is nice, but it really isn't everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 46198
OK, I was more interested in seeing how people compared at the time he went off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:49 am
Posts: 18660
JM2K6 wrote:
OK, I was more interested in seeing how people compared at the time he went off.


Can't help with tackles but rucks and carries are there and he came off at 35.30 ish. Should be easy enough to go through the raw data and count. Then give people who played 70/80 about half their tackles.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2427
Raggs wrote:
I'm comparing per minute rates. Isiekwe is low, especially if he did in fact miss an extra tackle and i discount the poor rucks. 8 tackles is nice, but it really isn't everything.

Given I didnt even know the squad, I am certainly not going to argue with the stats, but plenty of folk on here must have had the joy of an SH hotshot rocking up midseason and seeing their mate pulled in their favour. I am sure there must have been times this worked, but I am willing to bet most times it didn't. There does seem to be a plausible story that EJ's management is not quite on track at the moment and, associated with lack of lock-cover, this does seem to have been a balls up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12183
Jake wrote:
45jumper wrote:
The decision to take Isiekwe off looked like lunacy to me. I personally thought he was playing well, and the Boks were beginning to win the collisions and get front foot ball – so what on earth possessed Eddie to take one of our biggest players out of the engine room and replace him with a flanker making him debut, I don’t know


You need to watch the game again. Isiekwe abdicated any form of ruck clearing. He made his first completed tackle around the 30 min mark and fell off so many it wasn't funny. He was shockingly bad and the freedom and speed of ruck SA enjoyed was embarassing- people call Launchbury and Cole plodders but by christ they clear out the rucks.


Or even 41 seconds. Stop making shit up Jake

https://youtu.be/RmUoHOKdO6s?t=70


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4497
Raggs wrote:
Isiekwe was dire in clearing rucks, and his poor clearouts lead to two turnovers. My spreadsheet doesn't take points away from OPI for unnecessary or insufficient ruck scores, and it should. If it does, his score drops to 0.42. OK, others will drop a bit too, but not as much, since they've all got a lot more than 18 interactions to work with. The last 5 minutes he played he missed two tackles I believe (one may have generously not been counted as an attempt). He was shagged out, and he simply wasn't capable of shifting players off the ruck.

The suggestion he was one of the two best forwards in the pack is quite simply laughable. I'm fairly happy to agree with Curry being one of the best though.

I don't see why we'd have expected more from Hill to be honest, another youngster, good when supported by a strong team, but if Eddie has taken a look and decided not to risk it, then I'm not doubting him here. Shields actually impressed me more than I thought I would be, he was playing with a bit of desire that quite a few others seemed to be lacking. Our scrum was mostly solid until the boks brought on their subs, and then even with Williams on fresh, we were still going slightly backwards.

EDIT - England were winning when Isiekwe came off, but it's not as though the floodgates weren't open at that point. Shields did a hell of a lot more in the breakdown than I'd have expected from Isiekwe.


That's pretty much what I felt when I watched the game - and I hadn't even put on the beer googles by that point. I know the ESPN stats etc. seem to show NI having an ok game, but it really wasn't how it felt to me. Fine, he tackled a player when someone ran at him. But if his role actually involved having to move to a ruck, I don't remember seeing much action.

Conversely, Shields was absolutely playing as a third flanker (which admittedly caused issues in some other plays) so was getting far more involved in the rucks - both offensively and defensively. If that reduces his tackle count then so be it - my issue was other players didn't seem to be picking up the slack.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73931 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 1730, 1731, 1732, 1733, 1734, 1735, 1736 ... 1849  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BillW, Bing [Bot], Chilli, Google Adsense [Bot], mr flaps, UncleFB, village 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