RugbyRebels

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 8:07 am

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 7:57 am A bit harsh. I thought both centres were good whenever they were given an opportunity to play.

Obviously the standard of opposition needs to be taken into account, but credit where credit is due … Ojomoh’s physicality in defence was good to see too. Looks like he would fit the gameplan nicely.

I was underwhelmed by Pepper. After a couple of good cameos, I thought he was going to rip it up, but he was pretty anonymous. In fairness, it can be harder to shine as a flanker in these sort of games, but he suffered in comparison to CCS who was very busy a prominent on both sides of the ball.

It was always going to be hard to shine in that back row- his job was mostly to clear rucks and let the other 2 stay out ready to carry.

I know they are different players but watching Dombrandt after 2 games of Willis is just depressing. The ferocity of the carry, protection of the ball, all round workrate are just night and day.

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 9:09 am

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 8:07 am

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 7:57 am A bit harsh. I thought both centres were good whenever they were given an opportunity to play.

Obviously the standard of opposition needs to be taken into account, but credit where credit is due … Ojomoh’s physicality in defence was good to see too. Looks like he would fit the gameplan nicely.

I was underwhelmed by Pepper. After a couple of good cameos, I thought he was going to rip it up, but he was pretty anonymous. In fairness, it can be harder to shine as a flanker in these sort of games, but he suffered in comparison to CCS who was very busy a prominent on both sides of the ball.

It was always going to be hard to shine in that back row- his job was mostly to clear rucks and let the other 2 stay out ready to carry.

I know they are different players but watching Dombrandt after 2 games of Willis is just depressing. The ferocity of the carry, protection of the ball, all round workrate are just night and day.

Sure. I did acknowledge it’s hard for a flanker to shine in these sorts of games.

TBF, the carrying wasn't what stood out to me about CCS. I expect him to do that. What impressed me more was his work rate and being a real nuisance in mauls and around the ruck. In essence, lots of small but effective interventions. I thought that was more what I'd see from Pepper, but didn't.

Don't get me wrong, he was fine. I just hoped to see a bit more from him. Perhaps we'd have seen more link play if we'd held on to the ball a bit more.

Banquo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 10:20 am

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 9:09 am

Captainhaircut wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 8:07 am

It was always going to be hard to shine in that back row- his job was mostly to clear rucks and let the other 2 stay out ready to carry.

I know they are different players but watching Dombrandt after 2 games of Willis is just depressing. The ferocity of the carry, protection of the ball, all round workrate are just night and day.

Sure. I did acknowledge it’s hard for a flanker to shine in these sorts of games.

TBF, the carrying wasn't what stood out to me about CCS. I expect him to do that. What impressed me more was his work rate and being a real nuisance in mauls and around the ruck. In essence, lots of small but effective interventions. I thought that was more what I'd see from Pepper, but didn't.

Don't get me wrong, he was fine. I just hoped to see a bit more from him. Perhaps we'd have seen more link play if we'd held on to the ball a bit more.

Did CCS do the whole game at 6? I feel a bit for him, I think he could be immense as a 6 if backed.

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 10:30 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 10:20 am

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 9:09 am

Sure. I did acknowledge it’s hard for a flanker to shine in these sorts of games.

TBF, the carrying wasn't what stood out to me about CCS. I expect him to do that. What impressed me more was his work rate and being a real nuisance in mauls and around the ruck. In essence, lots of small but effective interventions. I thought that was more what I'd see from Pepper, but didn't.

Don't get me wrong, he was fine. I just hoped to see a bit more from him. Perhaps we'd have seen more link play if we'd held on to the ball a bit more.

Did CCS do the whole game at 6? I feel a bit for him, I think he could be immense as a 6 if backed.

When Dommers left he moved to 8. Then when Hill came on, Curry went to 8.

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 7:30 am
I think the problem was that we caught the ball, players came in to form the maul and the catcher gave the ball over the top of them to Dombrandt, who then bound on. There was an IRB law clarification a while back on that - the ball can be transferred within a maul by ripping it backwards, but you can't pass it over the top of already bound people (cause teams were doing that and making nigh-undefendable mauls).

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 11:12 am Biggest winners from the tour are the centres, all of whom did well with what they had.
I see no need for Slade to wear an England shirt again. I'd rather see Freeman given a shot at 13 than Slade there again.
We've now got Lawrence, Atkinson, Dingwall, Northmore and Ojomoh to invest time in, and enough round pegs to fill the round hole at IC that we can let Ollie play in his actual position.
Also worth noting that 2 of those 5 are comfortable in either centre berth, which allows a lot of extra freedom, only pairing the two OCs together could end up looking unbalanced, and even that wouldn't be terrible.

Only real losers from the tour would be Dan and Dombrandt, but both seem to have protected status, so will probably hold on to 3rd place in the pecking order - Dommers could lose out if CCS moves to 8 (unlikely given that they're a club combination), but neither really being challenged by their 4th choice.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 11:20 am

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 7:30 am
I think the problem was that we caught the ball, players came in to form the maul and the catcher gave the ball over the top of them to Dombrandt, who then bound on. There was an IRB law clarification a while back on that - the ball can be transferred within a maul by ripping it backwards, but you can't pass it over the top of already bound people (cause teams were doing that and making nigh-undefendable mauls).

Thank you. Didn't know that one - I guess it makes sense if it's a pass, as the moment the balls in the air, it's a pass with blockers. Not sure it makes sense as a hand-over, but if that's the law, and reason, then fair enough.

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 12:53 pm I think the problem was that we caught the ball, players came in to form the maul and the catcher gave the ball over the top of them to Dombrandt, who then bound on. There was an IRB law clarification a while back on that - the ball can be transferred within a maul by ripping it backwards, but you can't pass it over the top of already bound people (cause teams were doing that and making nigh-undefendable mauls).

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Jul 20, 2025 7:30 amThe reason they clarified it as still being offside with a handover is that it removed any competition - if the ball doesn't have to be transferred to somone binding onto the first man, then a lock could jump in the lineout, have two players bound onto his midriff in perfect driving position (with no need to pay any attention to the ball) as soon as he landed, and then use long arms to just hand it back to someone at the back who could then plonk themselves at the back of a wedge. Better to rule that the ball can only be transferred to someone directly bound onto you, otherwise it stops being a maul.