RugbyRebels

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:If Fagerson is third choice who is second choice?

Was talking about Low. He shouldn't even be third choice.

No mention of us finally securing restart ball?

We even secured one from our own kick..

That's the best achievement of the autumn series

Quite on here, strange Laidlaw, Wilson, R Gray, Fordhave a good game and it's dead on here.

whatisthejava wrote:Quite on here, strange Laidlaw, Wilson, R Gray, Fordhave a good game and it's dead on here.

I've taken issue with a few things said in other places so I'm watching it back before I go into detail.

There isn't a game next week to talk about to be fair.

I think I praised the 2 I have been out spoken about. That being said, it was Georgia not Australia or Argentina and I thought the way the tight 5 played in the loose that any 8 and 9 would have an easy day but the both played well.

It hasn't really changed my views. Laidlaw is what we have for now and Wilson is not our best number 8.

hp18 wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:Quite on here, strange Laidlaw, Wilson, R Gray, Fordhave a good game and it's dead on here.

I've taken issue with a few things said in other places so I'm watching it back before I go into detail.

Anything in particular?

Who is our best 8 then.

Denton
Straus
Barclay
Bradbury
Wilson

:

Big D wrote:

hp18 wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:Quite on here, strange Laidlaw, Wilson, R Gray, Fordhave a good game and it's dead on here.

I've taken issue with a few things said in other places so I'm watching it back before I go into detail.

Anything in particular?

Bennett, Wilson and exactly when Georgia gained momentum.

hp18 wrote::

Big D wrote:

hp18 wrote:

I've taken issue with a few things said in other places so I'm watching it back before I go into detail.

Anything in particular?

Bennett, Wilson and exactly when Georgia gained momentum.

Bennett was quietly effective IMO.

Wilson had a good game.

Georgia gained momentum after the game was dead. Maybe after front row subs?

whatisthejava wrote:Who is our best 8 then.

Denton
Straus
Barclay
Bradbury
Wilson

Assuming near their best and fit I'd possibly still have Denton or Strauss at 8. Wilson still hasn't shown anything against the better teams. His two best games have came against a poor Italy and a game we had 60odd percent possession.

I do think in time Bradbury will be better than them all.

There needs to be some perspective by some (not saying you btw). This was Georgia in a game we dominated, it shouldn't be used to definitively answer long term questions.

I like Ford, and have long argued he should be kept the no.1 hooker but I wouldn't use yesterday to argue reasons why he should start.

I had a quick rewatch last night. How good was Dells two turnovers within about 2 mins of each other?

If Fagerson and Dell (and get ahead of Sutherland) can continue to pick up experience and the likes of McCallum kick on I think we will be OK at prop.

As yet we are not seeing the next generation at hooker though which is a worry.

Possibly the most interesting thing for me yesterday was the surface. First half it felt like we were far more comfortable on it and as a consequence Georgia were constantly on their heels and missing tackles. Witness fords sudden ability to side step.

On the other hand it seemed to provide a decent platform for scrimmaging.

From which there is only one obvious conclusion. Rugby matches should be played on ice but props get crampons.

In the cold light of dawn, I'm wondering what the benefit of this game was to us. I don't think we've learned much and, giving a young front row some experience aside, hasn't done much for player development. It certainly can't have been a commercial success - was Rugby Park even full?
I'm left feeling that I wish we'd had a crack at South Africa instead.

Stones of granite wrote:In the cold light of dawn, I'm wondering what the benefit of this game was to us. I don't think we've learned much and, giving a young front row some experience aside, hasn't done much for player development. It certainly can't have been a commercial success - was Rugby Park even full?
I'm left feeling that I wish we'd had a crack at South Africa instead.

Aye, the SRU fucked up there. After all we only have to pick our AI opponents the week beforehand...

I am not a fan of the weaker team being the 3rd game in the AIs but it is what it is. We are not one of the big games for the other sides. Ideally would be much better 1st or 2nd and then having a crack at Australia etc. Would love a game coming off that performance.

hp18 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:In the cold light of dawn, I'm wondering what the benefit of this game was to us. I don't think we've learned much and, giving a young front row some experience aside, hasn't done much for player development. It certainly can't have been a commercial success - was Rugby Park even full?
I'm left feeling that I wish we'd had a crack at South Africa instead.

Aye, the SRU fucked up there. After all we only have to pick our AI opponents the week beforehand...

How and when is it arranged? What is the logic behind the choices? It's all very well making a smart arsed comment, but it hasn't provided much enlightenment.

Stones of granite wrote:

hp18 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:In the cold light of dawn, I'm wondering what the benefit of this game was to us. I don't think we've learned much and, giving a young front row some experience aside, hasn't done much for player development. It certainly can't have been a commercial success - was Rugby Park even full?
I'm left feeling that I wish we'd had a crack at South Africa instead.

Aye, the SRU fucked up there. After all we only have to pick our AI opponents the week beforehand...

How and when is it arranged? What is the logic behind the choices? It's all very well making a smart arsed comment, but it hasn't provided much enlightenment.

I believe it is 12-18 months in advance. There are considerations like whether we pay the opposition or not to come here. I'm sure the SRU have stood up to the NZRFU but I think HP can say more on that one as I'm sure he's mentioned it before.

Clearly we are at best 5th best choice for the big teams and that assumes they don't fancy a stop in Milan over Edinburgh.

Given the crowd numbers yesterday I would keep the 3rd game at MF or go Pittodrie next year.

whatisthejava wrote:Quite on here, strange Laidlaw, Wilson, R Gray, Fordhave a good game and it's dead on here.

I thought Wilson was excellent yesterday.

You went to this right? What was that fight he got into all about? They didn't show much of it on telly.

I genuinely don't think I've seen Ford play any better than he did in the first half on Saturday. He's usual king of the one inch gain. Never goes behind the gain line, but rarely makes it more than a couple of feet past it. That's not a bad thing by any stretch, but it was really good to see him making more than normal.

I would have posted this sooner, but I was so blinded by my seething rage of seeing all the above play well, I broke my finger punching a Lego effigy of Greg Laidlaw.

It took me ages to build. I hope you are happy Java.

Stones of granite wrote:In the cold light of dawn, I'm wondering what the benefit of this game was to us. I don't think we've learned much and, giving a young front row some experience aside, hasn't done much for player development. It certainly can't have been a commercial success - was Rugby Park even full?
I'm left feeling that I wish we'd had a crack at South Africa instead.

I felt like we knew that might kind of be the case though, no? Hence some frustration at the selection. Has this made us think Wilson could be a good test 8 for example?

As to the silence on here, I wasnt able to catch the game, but tbe second I do I'll come on here to slag off Laidlaw. Dont you guys worry.

Big D wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

hp18 wrote: Aye, the SRU fucked up there. After all we only have to pick our AI opponents the week beforehand...

How and when is it arranged? What is the logic behind the choices? It's all very well making a smart arsed comment, but it hasn't provided much enlightenment.

I believe it is 12-18 months in advance. There are considerations like whether we pay the opposition or not to come here. I'm sure the SRU have stood up to the NZRFU but I think HP can say more on that one as I'm sure he's mentioned it before.

Clearly we are at best 5th best choice for the big teams and that assumes they don't fancy a stop in Milan over Edinburgh.

Given the crowd numbers yesterday I would keep the 3rd game at MF or go Pittodrie next year.

Agree with that although I think it is worh keeping one game away from Murrayfield. In terms of benefit I think it is important to remember it is not all about us. Everyone wants to play glamorous sides that will test them but not everyone can have their way all the time (otherwise we wouldnt get many games against the top few teams!). I think it was a worthwhile game and good to watch too.

I do wish we had SA now though

Cameo wrote:

Big D wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: How and when is it arranged? What is the logic behind the choices? It's all very well making a smart arsed comment, but it hasn't provided much enlightenment.

I believe it is 12-18 months in advance. There are considerations like whether we pay the opposition or not to come here. I'm sure the SRU have stood up to the NZRFU but I think HP can say more on that one as I'm sure he's mentioned it before.

Clearly we are at best 5th best choice for the big teams and that assumes they don't fancy a stop in Milan over Edinburgh.

Given the crowd numbers yesterday I would keep the 3rd game at MF or go Pittodrie next year.

Agree with that although I think it is worh keeping one game away from Murrayfield. In terms of benefit I think it is important to remember it is not all about us. Everyone wants to play glamorous sides that will test them but not everyone can have their way all the time (otherwise we wouldnt get many games against the top few teams!). I think it was a worthwhile game and good to watch too.

I do wish we had SA now though

Not all about us but we do need to mind the farm.

The fact that the Welsh play four home AIs boosting ticket revenues and have better exposure to the top teams in proper overseas tours - which must help sponsorship and broadcasting income - results in higher annual income for the WRU. International rugby funds the whole of our game. If we sit back meekly, we just fall further behind.

We did have 4 AI about 10 years ago but we were in such a bad state once we took away the exiles we were a shadow team \

Now we probably could do a 4th game outside the window, we would really only lose 5 - 6 player but we would lose Laidlaw

Glasgow especially desperately need their lads back. I can't see it being sanctioned.