RugbyRebels

Timbo wrote:

Puja wrote:
I has forgotten about the charge-down being him. Plus his disguised pass, to sucker Saracens into looking open while Wiese went blind, was very tasty. Fair enough - he did other good things apart from box kicking, but he did still make an awful lot of mistakes.

Puja

The Weise try looked like a set move to me, although only seen it live and one brief replay.

Something the analysts noted about how Sarries defend the blindside certainly. It looked like two targeted carries, first to tie in the blindside forwards and second to take advantage of the two back three players up against Weise and support.

I’m late to the party, but I’d just like to say how pleased I am for Freddie Burns. I remember watching him in ? Australia and thinking this guy has got it. And then it all seemed to go meh. What a great moment for him today.

badback wrote:I’m late to the party, but I’d just like to say how pleased I am for Freddie Burns. I remember watching him in ? Australia and thinking this guy has got it. And then it all seemed to go meh. What a great moment for him today.

New Zealand, but yes

Banquo wrote:

badback wrote:I’m late to the party, but I’d just like to say how pleased I am for Freddie Burns. I remember watching him in ? Australia and thinking this guy has got it. And then it all seemed to go meh. What a great moment for him today.

New Zealand, but yes

The weird thing was that that New Zealand tour wasn't even before the meh; it was right smack in the middle. He was leaving Glaws for Leicester (IIRC), it'd been an open secret for 8 months and his form had gone to shit as Glaws (understandably) had been planning for life without him and pushing him to second fiddle. That first NZ game was only a week after the Prem final, so none of the players were going to play. Farrell was out, but it was okay cause we had Ford, only he then got himself injured and we were left having to play Freddie Burns, who was in no kind of form, nowhere near international quality, against the all-conquering New Zealand.

And then he pulled out the performance he did, out of absolutely nowhere. Deserved the win.

Funny old career - capable of being the best player in the world when in the right mood, but just couldn't make it happen often enough. Probably shouldn't've left Gloucester, tbh - got stitched up/lost form when it became known he was leaving and then was at a Leicester side that didn't especially suit him, only to get the Spanish archer as soon as Ford wanted to come back to us, then got mixed up in the Bath mess.

Very glad he's got the reward his talent deserves today.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

badback wrote:I’m late to the party, but I’d just like to say how pleased I am for Freddie Burns. I remember watching him in ? Australia and thinking this guy has got it. And then it all seemed to go meh. What a great moment for him today.

New Zealand, but yes

The weird thing was that that New Zealand tour wasn't even before the meh; it was right smack in the middle. He was leaving Glaws for Leicester (IIRC), it'd been an open secret for 8 months and his form had gone to shit as Glaws (understandably) had been planning for life without him and pushing him to second fiddle. That first NZ game was only a week after the Prem final, so none of the players were going to play. Farrell was out, but it was okay cause we had Ford, only he then got himself injured and we were left having to play Freddie Burns, who was in no kind of form, nowhere near international quality, against the all-conquering New Zealand.

And then he pulled out the performance he did, out of absolutely nowhere. Deserved the win.

Funny old career - capable of being the best player in the world when in the right mood, but just couldn't make it happen often enough. Probably shouldn't've left Gloucester, tbh - got stitched up/lost form when it became known he was leaving and then was at a Leicester side that didn't especially suit him, only to get the Spanish archer as soon as Ford wanted to come back to us, then got mixed up in the Bath mess.

Very glad he's got the reward his talent deserves today.

Puja

A fragile talent, but a lot of it. Some bad choices in hindsight, a bit unfulfilled but a lot of highs. Good to watch on song.

Banquo wrote:

badback wrote:I’m late to the party, but I’d just like to say how pleased I am for Freddie Burns. I remember watching him in ? Australia and thinking this guy has got it. And then it all seemed to go meh. What a great moment for him today.

New Zealand, but yes

Ah! Thanks

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

badback wrote:I’m late to the party, but I’d just like to say how pleased I am for Freddie Burns. I remember watching him in ? Australia and thinking this guy has got it. And then it all seemed to go meh. What a great moment for him today.

New Zealand, but yes

The weird thing was that that New Zealand tour wasn't even before the meh; it was right smack in the middle. He was leaving Glaws for Leicester (IIRC), it'd been an open secret for 8 months and his form had gone to shit as Glaws (understandably) had been planning for life without him and pushing him to second fiddle. That first NZ game was only a week after the Prem final, so none of the players were going to play. Farrell was out, but it was okay cause we had Ford, only he then got himself injured and we were left having to play Freddie Burns, who was in no kind of form, nowhere near international quality, against the all-conquering New Zealand.

And then he pulled out the performance he did, out of absolutely nowhere. Deserved the win.

Funny old career - capable of being the best player in the world when in the right mood, but just couldn't make it happen often enough. Probably shouldn't've left Gloucester, tbh - got stitched up/lost form when it became known he was leaving and then was at a Leicester side that didn't especially suit him, only to get the Spanish archer as soon as Ford wanted to come back to us, then got mixed up in the Bath mess.

Very glad he's got the reward his talent deserves today.

Puja

I didn’t know all that. Fascinating.

I was ambivalent about the result but the front cover of the times sport section has a picture of the Youngs family lifting the trophy together and I’m suddenly incredibly glad Leicester won.

If a neutral observer with no knowledge of the players watched that game, might he suggest (purely on this game) that Leicester lost a FH to injury and replaced him with a better one?

Oakboy wrote:If a neutral observer with no knowledge of the players watched that game, might he suggest (purely on this game) that Leicester lost a FH to injury and replaced him with a better one?

And if that were the case it would mean what?

Hopefully, they would observe that a sample size of 20mins and 60mis isn’t big enough to make an informed decision.

Burns seems to have developed more this season than he did in the first 75 odd games with us. He always was a mercurial talent but working with Ford and Borthwick he seems to have adding a great deal more control to his game but kept his attacking spark. Pollard isn't going to automatically step into the 10 shirt he's going to have to earn it next season. Burns is a great character and after years of no real luck in his career and being treated pretty badly at times by his various employers he deserved the chance to showcase his talent and win something.

I still think Ford is the better 10, he tends to play more as the game goes on so watching the opening 20 mins from him rarely shows his depth of talent. That little skip round the outside where he injured the ankle was the first hint at Tigers counter attacking plan, I suspect we'd have seen more had he stayed on because he's brilliant at that sort of thing, I'm thinking the try Vs Quins he and Youngs worked earlier in the season. Given they didn't even try strapping his ankle and that ankle looked quite bulky he's probably been carrying something and was strapped under his sock already.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Oakboy wrote:If a neutral observer with no knowledge of the players watched that game, might he suggest (purely on this game) that Leicester lost a FH to injury and replaced him with a better one?

And if that were the case it would mean what?

Nothing other than that Burns ain't bad, judging by this board's assessment of Ford.

Did George and Mako advance their cause with Jones, I wonder. Maybe, LCD's value crept up a notch.

I absolutely love watching Earl’s face drop alongside Ashton realising it’s gone over.

Ha ha poor steve going through the ringer. He deserves loads of credit. Eddie mentored him well.

One thing I noticed after the final whistle was when Tom Youngs came on the pitch and Alex Goode came straight over and the two embraced for what seemed like eons. In the heat of having lost a final Goode prioritised Tom Youngs. That's pure class.

Oakboy wrote:Did George and Mako advance their cause with Jones, I wonder. Maybe, LCD's value crept up a notch.

I thought Mako was good. Worked his socks off and was a nuisance in attack and defence and good in the set piece.

Billy I thought was excellent in the main.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Did George and Mako advance their cause with Jones, I wonder. Maybe, LCD's value crept up a notch.

I thought Mako was good. Worked his socks off and was a nuisance in attack and defence and good in the set piece.

Billy I thought was excellent in the main.

Same. I'm not sure Leicester got the fair end of the referee's decisions in the scrum, but Mako gets points for at least cheating well enough to get the ref on his side. I don't think we won a single scrum penalty and we conceded loads.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Did George and Mako advance their cause with Jones, I wonder. Maybe, LCD's value crept up a notch.

I thought Mako was good. Worked his socks off and was a nuisance in attack and defence and good in the set piece.

Billy I thought was excellent in the main.

Same. I'm not sure Leicester got the fair end of the referee's decisions in the scrum, but Mako gets points for at least cheating well enough to get the ref on his side. I don't think we won a single scrum penalty and we conceded loads.

Puja

Agreed. With my one eye I thought we were hard done by in the scrum, but can't fault Mako and Koch for winning penalties no matter how they come.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:One thing I noticed after the final whistle was when Tom Youngs came on the pitch and Alex Goode came straight over and the two embraced for what seemed like eons. In the heat of having lost a final Goode prioritised Tom Youngs. That's pure class.

I didn’t notice that but great spot. Well done Alex Goode.

Oakboy wrote:If a neutral observer with no knowledge of the players watched that game, might he suggest (purely on this game) that Leicester lost a FH to injury and replaced him with a better one?

In what way? TBH, Burns had almost nothing to do. He ran or passed the ball 9 times- I reckon he probably had 5 or so backfield kicks and had no tackles to make. He missed a couple of kicks....and nailed a drop goal. I don't know where this is coming from TBH. Ford is a world class 10, and Burns is a decent prem 10 who has prob underachieved- despite him being very talented. Ironic debate, as I know I thought that Burns was the better talent when they swapped clubs

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:If a neutral observer with no knowledge of the players watched that game, might he suggest (purely on this game) that Leicester lost a FH to injury and replaced him with a better one?

In what way? TBH, Burns had almost nothing to do. He ran or passed the ball 9 times- I reckon he probably had 5 or so backfield kicks and had no tackles to make. He missed a couple of kicks....and nailed a drop goal. I don't know where this is coming from TBH. Ford is a world class 10, and Burns is a decent prem 10 who has prob underachieved- despite him being very talented. Ironic debate, as I know I thought that Burns was the better talent when they swapped clubs

I did say 'purely on this game'. I simply thought Leicester looked marginally more comfortable after the change - within the context of 'they are doomed' as portrayed by the commentary team when Ford went off. Not for a second am I querying your definition of the two players. Maybe, it is more that Ford did little but kick badly before he went off and Burns had little to improve on.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:If a neutral observer with no knowledge of the players watched that game, might he suggest (purely on this game) that Leicester lost a FH to injury and replaced him with a better one?

In what way? TBH, Burns had almost nothing to do. He ran or passed the ball 9 times- I reckon he probably had 5 or so backfield kicks and had no tackles to make. He missed a couple of kicks....and nailed a drop goal. I don't know where this is coming from TBH. Ford is a world class 10, and Burns is a decent prem 10 who has prob underachieved- despite him being very talented. Ironic debate, as I know I thought that Burns was the better talent when they swapped clubs

I did say 'purely on this game'. I simply thought Leicester looked marginally more comfortable after the change - within the context of 'they are doomed' as portrayed by the commentary team when Ford went off. Not for a second am I querying your definition of the two players. Maybe, it is more that Ford did little but kick badly before he went off and Burns had little to improve on.

I mean, I have to question whether you watched the first 23 minutes if your takeaway was "all Ford did was kick badly." Everything we did that went well was going through him - there was a reason I was in the "we're doomed" camp when he went down.

Puja