RugbyRebels

Mr Mwenda wrote:Slade over Greenwood!!!!!!!?

This isn't my "best English backline"; but "the sort of player I want in each position"
Greenwood was great, and a really silky runner - but no relieving boot, and not the greatest playmaker (good, but not the greatest).
I want my IC to be comfortable stepping into the FH's shoes for a few minutes when necessary. From 2003, that's definitely Catt, not Greenwood.

Obviously, you don't always have the players you want, and have to "make do" with what you have; or someone that doesn't fit my ideal is still head and shoulders better than the alternative.
If your best playmaking FB is Alex Goode, then Watson or Brown are better options. If you've got a Greenwood hanging about, then that's better than playing Barkley at IC. Barkley might be closer to what I want, but Greenwood is simply better at playing rugby.

Not the greatest distributor? Is that a joke?

Not sure if this was edited or I just misread it. I guess the meaning of playmaker is up for debate. But I’d have said Greenwood was pretty fantastic at it.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:Slade over Greenwood!!!!!!!?

This isn't my "best English backline"; but "the sort of player I want in each position"
Greenwood was great, and a really silky runner - but no relieving boot, and not the greatest playmaker (good, but not the greatest).
I want my IC to be comfortable stepping into the FH's shoes for a few minutes when necessary. From 2003, that's definitely Catt, not Greenwood.

Obviously, you don't always have the players you want, and have to "make do" with what you have; or someone that doesn't fit my ideal is still head and shoulders better than the alternative.
If your best playmaking FB is Alex Goode, then Watson or Brown are better options. If you've got a Greenwood hanging about, then that's better than playing Barkley at IC. Barkley might be closer to what I want, but Greenwood is simply better at playing rugby.

Phew!

Which Tyler wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:Slade over Greenwood!!!!!!!?

This isn't my "best English backline"; but "the sort of player I want in each position"
Greenwood was great, and a really silky runner - but no relieving boot, and not the greatest playmaker (good, but not the greatest).
I want my IC to be comfortable stepping into the FH's shoes for a few minutes when necessary. From 2003, that's definitely Catt, not Greenwood.

Obviously, you don't always have the players you want, and have to "make do" with what you have; or someone that doesn't fit my ideal is still head and shoulders better than the alternative.
If your best playmaking FB is Alex Goode, then Watson or Brown are better options. If you've got a Greenwood hanging about, then that's better than playing Barkley at IC. Barkley might be closer to what I want, but Greenwood is simply better at playing rugby.

Greenwood was an excellent passer, great at choosing the right play, had a sufficiently good boot to play 1st class rugby at 10 and 15 as a starter, and was nonpareil as a support runner and thus try scorer. Maybe the only thing that kept him short of the very top tier was pace. But his all round skill set is exactly what I’d want every centre to have.

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:Slade over Greenwood!!!!!!!?

This isn't my "best English backline"; but "the sort of player I want in each position"
Greenwood was great, and a really silky runner - but no relieving boot, and not the greatest playmaker (good, but not the greatest).
I want my IC to be comfortable stepping into the FH's shoes for a few minutes when necessary. From 2003, that's definitely Catt, not Greenwood.

Obviously, you don't always have the players you want, and have to "make do" with what you have; or someone that doesn't fit my ideal is still head and shoulders better than the alternative.
If your best playmaking FB is Alex Goode, then Watson or Brown are better options. If you've got a Greenwood hanging about, then that's better than playing Barkley at IC. Barkley might be closer to what I want, but Greenwood is simply better at playing rugby.

Greenwood was an excellent passer, great at choosing the right play, had a sufficiently good boot to play 1st class rugby at 10 and 15 as a starter, and was nonpareil as a support runner and thus try scorer. Maybe the only thing that kept him short of the very top tier was pace. But his all round skill set is exactly what I’d want every centre to have.

I can't remember where it was I recently heard BOD talking about the 2001 Lions tour and saying Greenwood was nailed on to start until his injury. I hadn't realised he was ever recognised as being quite at that level, as much as he was class for England. He had the same thing as Larkham where he could just glide around, as if in slow motion, and pick out the perfect pass.

Anyway, I'm still expecting 12. Lawrence 13. Slade for Italy and I think that could be exciting.

Someone mentioned these comments earlier I think about Willis being a classic jumping and carrying blindside, which is so unbelievably Eddie. Along with his usual posturing nonsense about being above all the drama and emotion surrounding the Barbarians controversy.



Judging by a 2 second clip in there I'm worried Tom Curry may not only be too big to play 7 now but too big to play 8 as well. He might have to follow Billy V in to the front row.

The bit in that interview with Eddie that had me wondering is around him clocking up those miles scouting players, and I wondered if our coaches are driving to games or being driven. Actually watching players is a very intensive thing to do, and especially if you're not hanging around afterwards to wind down you'd want the driver, but equally the same reason you might not want to hang around after is the same reason you might not want a driver.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: This isn't my "best English backline"; but "the sort of player I want in each position"
Greenwood was great, and a really silky runner - but no relieving boot, and not the greatest playmaker (good, but not the greatest).
I want my IC to be comfortable stepping into the FH's shoes for a few minutes when necessary. From 2003, that's definitely Catt, not Greenwood.

Obviously, you don't always have the players you want, and have to "make do" with what you have; or someone that doesn't fit my ideal is still head and shoulders better than the alternative.
If your best playmaking FB is Alex Goode, then Watson or Brown are better options. If you've got a Greenwood hanging about, then that's better than playing Barkley at IC. Barkley might be closer to what I want, but Greenwood is simply better at playing rugby.

Greenwood was an excellent passer, great at choosing the right play, had a sufficiently good boot to play 1st class rugby at 10 and 15 as a starter, and was nonpareil as a support runner and thus try scorer. Maybe the only thing that kept him short of the very top tier was pace. But his all round skill set is exactly what I’d want every centre to have.

I can't remember where it was I recently heard BOD talking about the 2001 Lions tour and saying Greenwood was nailed on to start until his injury. I hadn't realised he was ever recognised as being quite at that level, as much as he was class for England. He had the same thing as Larkham where he could just glide around, as if in slow motion, and pick out the perfect pass.

Anyway, I'm still expecting 12. Lawrence 13. Slade for Italy and I think that could be exciting.

It wasn't "as if in slow motion", it was actual pretty slow motion, though he could raise a gallop on occasion. But with Greenwood that was not of prime importance. His rugby intelligence overcame his lack of real gas (like Conrad Smith). He did score an amazing 31 tries in 55 tests, as well as contributing to umpteen others. One of England's best ever midfielders.

One factor with Greenwood was his outstanding on-the-hoof defensive organisation. It was not just in attack that he had such superb rugby nous in terms of being always in the right place at the right time. JW's big hits often only happened when the team was under pressure and as a result of Greenwood's directions and alignment. If I was picking an all-time team I'd have both of them or neither.

Spiffy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote: Greenwood was an excellent passer, great at choosing the right play, had a sufficiently good boot to play 1st class rugby at 10 and 15 as a starter, and was nonpareil as a support runner and thus try scorer. Maybe the only thing that kept him short of the very top tier was pace. But his all round skill set is exactly what I’d want every centre to have.

I can't remember where it was I recently heard BOD talking about the 2001 Lions tour and saying Greenwood was nailed on to start until his injury. I hadn't realised he was ever recognised as being quite at that level, as much as he was class for England. He had the same thing as Larkham where he could just glide around, as if in slow motion, and pick out the perfect pass.

Anyway, I'm still expecting 12. Lawrence 13. Slade for Italy and I think that could be exciting.

It wasn't "as if in slow motion", it was actual pretty slow motion, though he could raise a gallop on occasion. But with Greenwood that was not of prime importance. His rugby intelligence overcame his lack of real gas (like Conrad Smith). He did score an amazing 31 tries in 55 tests, as well as contributing to umpteen others. One of England's best ever midfielders.

Conrad Smith was pretty nippy back in the day, he did have a horror knee injury and then slowed with age but that slowing with age was more similar to O'Driscoll, Greenwood couldn't run to begin with, and actually on Greenwood given some other comments he was for a reasonably long time a pretty bad defender who had some coping mechanisms

Why was he a pretty poor defender and what were these coping mechanisms?

Spiffy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote: Greenwood was an excellent passer, great at choosing the right play, had a sufficiently good boot to play 1st class rugby at 10 and 15 as a starter, and was nonpareil as a support runner and thus try scorer. Maybe the only thing that kept him short of the very top tier was pace. But his all round skill set is exactly what I’d want every centre to have.

I can't remember where it was I recently heard BOD talking about the 2001 Lions tour and saying Greenwood was nailed on to start until his injury. I hadn't realised he was ever recognised as being quite at that level, as much as he was class for England. He had the same thing as Larkham where he could just glide around, as if in slow motion, and pick out the perfect pass.

Anyway, I'm still expecting 12. Lawrence 13. Slade for Italy and I think that could be exciting.

It wasn't "as if in slow motion", it was actual pretty slow motion, though he could raise a gallop on occasion. But with Greenwood that was not of prime importance. His rugby intelligence overcame his lack of real gas (like Conrad Smith). He did score an amazing 31 tries in 55 tests, as well as contributing to umpteen others. One of England's best ever midfielders.

Not sure if you’re just being difficult for the sake of it but I was talking about the mythical “time on the ball”, not the speed that he actually moved. I feel like we’ve all agreed he wasn’t super quick.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Spiffy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
I can't remember where it was I recently heard BOD talking about the 2001 Lions tour and saying Greenwood was nailed on to start until his injury. I hadn't realised he was ever recognised as being quite at that level, as much as he was class for England. He had the same thing as Larkham where he could just glide around, as if in slow motion, and pick out the perfect pass.

Anyway, I'm still expecting 12. Lawrence 13. Slade for Italy and I think that could be exciting.

It wasn't "as if in slow motion", it was actual pretty slow motion, though he could raise a gallop on occasion. But with Greenwood that was not of prime importance. His rugby intelligence overcame his lack of real gas (like Conrad Smith). He did score an amazing 31 tries in 55 tests, as well as contributing to umpteen others. One of England's best ever midfielders.

Not sure if you’re just being difficult for the sake of it but I was talking about the mythical “time on the ball”, not the speed that he actually moved. I feel like we’ve all agreed he wasn’t super quick.

When you look at that RWC winning side the midfield was decidedly 'slow' by modern standards. Wilkinson, Greenwood, Tindall, Catt, none of which had anything like top end pace. Greenwood, like Wilkinson, was able to read things to a level above many others.

twitchy wrote:

If he doesn't like it then that might explain why he doesn't pick so many Exeter forwards.

16th man wrote:

twitchy wrote:

If he doesn't like it then that might explain why he doesn't pick so many Exeter forwards.

He would have three in the current squad but for LCD injury; he has also had Hepburn, Moon, Simmonds and Armand in previous squads, and even Ewers briefly.

Banquo wrote:

16th man wrote:

twitchy wrote:

If he doesn't like it then that might explain why he doesn't pick so many Exeter forwards.

He would have three in the current squad but for LCD injury; he has also had Hepburn, Moon, Simmonds and Armand in previous squads, and even Ewers briefly.

And Kvesic when he was still a Chief.

BTW, as I watched the France Wales highlights, I just wanted to bring up a previous Jones quote about centres and passing... couldn't find where it was though so thought this was as good a place as any.

He said words to the effect of: there's only really 1 pass before a try, so we want runners in midfield.

France's 2nd try had 5 passes. Their 3rd had 4. Lovely tries and without the passing, they would never have got close. Good passing can really make the difference. Just look how good we look when doing wrap arounds simply because we have a 1, 3, 8 and 15 who can pass to a high standard.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

16th man wrote:
If he doesn't like it then that might explain why he doesn't pick so many Exeter forwards.

He would have three in the current squad but for LCD injury; he has also had Hepburn, Moon, Simmonds and Armand in previous squads, and even Ewers briefly.

And Kvesic when he was still a Chief.

Him too

Stom wrote:BTW, as I watched the France Wales highlights, I just wanted to bring up a previous Jones quote about centres and passing... couldn't find where it was though so thought this was as good a place as any.

He said words to the effect of: there's only really 1 pass before a try, so we want runners in midfield.

France's 2nd try had 5 passes. Their 3rd had 4. Lovely tries and without the passing, they would never have got close. Good passing can really make the difference. Just look how good we look when doing wrap arounds simply because we have a 1, 3, 8 and 15 who can pass to a high standard.

I think he talked about a 12 passing to a 13...

Yeah, even in Daly's try against Wales a few years back there were two, which covered virtually the width of the pitch.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:BTW, as I watched the France Wales highlights, I just wanted to bring up a previous Jones quote about centres and passing... couldn't find where it was though so thought this was as good a place as any.

He said words to the effect of: there's only really 1 pass before a try, so we want runners in midfield.

France's 2nd try had 5 passes. Their 3rd had 4. Lovely tries and without the passing, they would never have got close. Good passing can really make the difference. Just look how good we look when doing wrap arounds simply because we have a 1, 3, 8 and 15 who can pass to a high standard.

I think he talked about a 12 passing to a 13...

Ah, with you

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:BTW, as I watched the France Wales highlights, I just wanted to bring up a previous Jones quote about centres and passing... couldn't find where it was though so thought this was as good a place as any.

He said words to the effect of: there's only really 1 pass before a try, so we want runners in midfield.

France's 2nd try had 5 passes. Their 3rd had 4. Lovely tries and without the passing, they would never have got close. Good passing can really make the difference. Just look how good we look when doing wrap arounds simply because we have a 1, 3, 8 and 15 who can pass to a high standard.

I think he talked about a 12 passing to a 13...

Indeed. His context for it was about the effect that rush defence has on the ball being passed down the line, that a third pass would normally result in ball and defence arriving simultaneously.

I had the thought the other day about the offside line and how it's difficult to referee (or occasionally just opted out of) - instead of setting it as the back foot of the last player from your team involved in the ruck (tricky to see, never adhered to), would it be easier to set it as 2 metres back from the ball? That way the referee isn't expected to keep his eye on the ball, the ruck, and where the hindmost foot on the other side of the ruck is at the same time. Plus would eliminate the caterpillar, which wasn't something I'd considered until I started typing this, but would be a nice ancillary benefit.

Puja

Peej wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:BTW, as I watched the France Wales highlights, I just wanted to bring up a previous Jones quote about centres and passing... couldn't find where it was though so thought this was as good a place as any.

He said words to the effect of: there's only really 1 pass before a try, so we want runners in midfield.

France's 2nd try had 5 passes. Their 3rd had 4. Lovely tries and without the passing, they would never have got close. Good passing can really make the difference. Just look how good we look when doing wrap arounds simply because we have a 1, 3, 8 and 15 who can pass to a high standard.

I think he talked about a 12 passing to a 13...

Ah, with you

It is a surprisingly rare occurrence- then again, even in my day it would have been rare from 1st phase.

Heinz out injured, Mitchell called up