RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote: Just getting into JJs hands doesn’t quite answer the question...the question being, are they asking enough questions as a pairing, and the answer is no. No fluidity from an absent 9, and no questions and stutters from 10.

I'm into the early part of the 2nd half now.

I agree they don't interest enough defenders, though I also think they' do better with Tapuai or Banahan at 12 over Clark, unless Clark really improves his handling.

That said what's really hurt Bath in the early part of the 2nd half is refusing to play their own scrum ball and then getting pinged on the reset.

Difficult to say Bath threw this away when Glaws too did so much to not take the win. But I was reasonably happy with Fotuali'i in this game, other than his kicking, his kicking was a mix of the wrong decision and poorly executed. Kahn wasn't alone in kicking away decent ball mind, Priestland and Jospeh both kicked away good ball too.

The penalties Bath gave away at the scrum, and their missed lineouts were massive in such a close game.

The handling isn't good enough in Bath's team given they're looking to move the ball, and way, way off allowing them to attack in a 2-4-2, they just give away the ball before they ever get to such point, the could really use Auterac and especially Thomas back, and they need a 12 who isn't Clark as he's either got bad hands or no confidence to use them (I've not seen much of him, but with the poor handling game I can see why Gats wanted him). Mercer I really like but he's still finding his feet, does one good thing, and then makes one mistake in doing something which worked for him at junior level but just gets you sat down in the seniors. Burns coming back and taking ownership of the 10 shirt would likely move the team forward a little quicker, he's both more of a running threat and more likely to take the ball to the line, Priestland looks okay, but it's just a bit deep and in not taking the ball up he's offering nothing himself nor bringing inside runners into the game, and it's a bad call not to use runners like Garvey, Faletau and Banahan as inside runners, it's even a job you could give Clark if you started with Banahan at 12 in some plays and would hide Clark's handling more.

Digby wrote:Difficult to say Bath threw this away when Glaws too did so much to not take the win. But I was reasonably happy with Fotuali'i in this game, other than his kicking, his kicking was a mix of the wrong decision and poorly executed. Kahn wasn't alone in kicking away decent ball mind, Priestland and Jospeh both kicked away good ball too.

The penalties Bath gave away at the scrum, and their missed lineouts were massive in such a close game.

The handling isn't good enough in Bath's team given they're looking to move the ball, and way, way off allowing them to attack in a 2-4-2, they just give away the ball before they ever get to such point, the could really use Auterac and especially Thomas back, and they need a 12 who isn't Clark as he's either got bad hands or no confidence to use them (I've not seen much of him, but with the poor handling game I can see why Gats wanted him). Mercer I really like but he's still finding his feet, does one good thing, and then makes one mistake in doing something which worked for him at junior level but just gets you sat down in the seniors. Burns coming back and taking ownership of the 10 shirt would likely move the team forward a little quicker, he's both more of a running threat and more likely to take the ball to the line, Priestland looks okay, but it's just a bit deep and in not taking the ball up he's offering nothing himself nor bringing inside runners into the game, and it's a bad call not to use runners like Garvey, Faletau and Banahan as inside runners, it's even a job you could give Clark if you started with Banahan at 12 in some plays and would hide Clark's handling more.

So apart from 9's poor kicking, and his slowness to the breakdown- which I maintain was there- and Priestland standing too deep and acting as a variable pivot, the half backs were 'ok'? Seems a low bar to me.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Difficult to say Bath threw this away when Glaws too did so much to not take the win. But I was reasonably happy with Fotuali'i in this game, other than his kicking, his kicking was a mix of the wrong decision and poorly executed. Kahn wasn't alone in kicking away decent ball mind, Priestland and Jospeh both kicked away good ball too.

The penalties Bath gave away at the scrum, and their missed lineouts were massive in such a close game.

The handling isn't good enough in Bath's team given they're looking to move the ball, and way, way off allowing them to attack in a 2-4-2, they just give away the ball before they ever get to such point, the could really use Auterac and especially Thomas back, and they need a 12 who isn't Clark as he's either got bad hands or no confidence to use them (I've not seen much of him, but with the poor handling game I can see why Gats wanted him). Mercer I really like but he's still finding his feet, does one good thing, and then makes one mistake in doing something which worked for him at junior level but just gets you sat down in the seniors. Burns coming back and taking ownership of the 10 shirt would likely move the team forward a little quicker, he's both more of a running threat and more likely to take the ball to the line, Priestland looks okay, but it's just a bit deep and in not taking the ball up he's offering nothing himself nor bringing inside runners into the game, and it's a bad call not to use runners like Garvey, Faletau and Banahan as inside runners, it's even a job you could give Clark if you started with Banahan at 12 in some plays and would hide Clark's handling more.

So apart from 9's poor kicking, and his slowness to the breakdown- which I maintain was there- and Priestland standing too deep and acting as a variable pivot, the half backs were 'ok'? Seems a low bar to me.

I think they were okay when running the ball, not maybe overall as then I would include the kicking in the final analysis.

When running the ball I think Priestland is a little deep, but there are compounding problems with some iffy handling in the pack especially tight five and at 12 even if the 10 is a little deep and tends to simply go wide a touch early. I'd still swap in Burns, but then I simply think Burns a better attacking 10.

Some of the Bath play the ball was a little slow, but I don't know I'd put that all on Foutali'i, more Glaws pushed a little more a playing silly buggers than did Bath (at least that was my impression) and in that respect i'd want to look more at the clearout/presentation work of Bath. Maybe Foutali'i was a little slow, it wouldn't surprise me if you'd spotted a trend I hadn't, mostly they weren't able to string enough phases together to highlight that concern enough to me at least.

And even with their poor phase play and kicking the ball away I still think they'd have won with a better setpiece, though once you start playing IF there's always Glaws could have done less daft stuff. But just based on the game in question had Bath stretched themselves to winning lineouts and scrums, playing the ball from scrums they'd won instead of doing nothing, and not being flummoxed by the slow feet of Heinz they'd have won at a canter.

One thing which again struck me is how often the ball was spun down the line, and so often I wonder what's the point. There was a near beautiful spin put on one pass by Twelvetrees and it was only let down by being absurdly forward. Why the players can't simply fling the ball down the line as one sees more of in league I don't know, there's of course a time for a spin pass, just not maybe every pass.

Overall I was (based on one viewing) happy enough with Foutali'i, especially when the likely alternative of Cook doesn't suggest to me much increase in the speed of phase play, whereas on Priestland if he's to continue needs a better plan alongside Max Clark or the return of Tapuai and yes he could usefully look to challenge the line more. What they do about the tight five I don't know, other than pray the players like Auterac and Thomas can avoid injury.

The look on Rokos face at the end of the game was quality.

What was it? Judging by the polarizing consensus (that can’t possibly be a real thing but I’m going with it) on the board I’d guess either;

“I don’t give a shit because I only play for two minutes per game”

or

“How many fucking tries do I need to score every week for us to start winning consistently?”

I wouldn't accuse Roko of not giving a shit. I just think his interventions are limited outside of 1-3 big moments per match.

Puja

Get off the fence Puja.

The latter.
It was more like: 'I can't believe I'm eating this shit sandwich'.

Puja wrote:I wouldn't accuse Roko of not giving a shit. I just think his interventions are limited outside of 1-3 big moments per match.

Puja

You could say the same for all the Bath outside backs. Ford looked a bit ropey in his last 2 seasons there too. They don’t get the most out of that back line for whatever reason. Roko, like Jonny May at Tigers, would/could be brilliant in a different team imo.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Difficult to say Bath threw this away when Glaws too did so much to not take the win. But I was reasonably happy with Fotuali'i in this game, other than his kicking, his kicking was a mix of the wrong decision and poorly executed. Kahn wasn't alone in kicking away decent ball mind, Priestland and Jospeh both kicked away good ball too.

The penalties Bath gave away at the scrum, and their missed lineouts were massive in such a close game.

The handling isn't good enough in Bath's team given they're looking to move the ball, and way, way off allowing them to attack in a 2-4-2, they just give away the ball before they ever get to such point, the could really use Auterac and especially Thomas back, and they need a 12 who isn't Clark as he's either got bad hands or no confidence to use them (I've not seen much of him, but with the poor handling game I can see why Gats wanted him). Mercer I really like but he's still finding his feet, does one good thing, and then makes one mistake in doing something which worked for him at junior level but just gets you sat down in the seniors. Burns coming back and taking ownership of the 10 shirt would likely move the team forward a little quicker, he's both more of a running threat and more likely to take the ball to the line, Priestland looks okay, but it's just a bit deep and in not taking the ball up he's offering nothing himself nor bringing inside runners into the game, and it's a bad call not to use runners like Garvey, Faletau and Banahan as inside runners, it's even a job you could give Clark if you started with Banahan at 12 in some plays and would hide Clark's handling more.

So apart from 9's poor kicking, and his slowness to the breakdown- which I maintain was there- and Priestland standing too deep and acting as a variable pivot, the half backs were 'ok'? Seems a low bar to me.

I think they were okay when running the ball, not maybe overall as then I would include the kicking in the final analysis.

When running the ball I think Priestland is a little deep, but there are compounding problems with some iffy handling in the pack especially tight five and at 12 even if the 10 is a little deep and tends to simply go wide a touch early. I'd still swap in Burns, but then I simply think Burns a better attacking 10.

Some of the Bath play the ball was a little slow, but I don't know I'd put that all on Foutali'i, more Glaws pushed a little more a playing silly buggers than did Bath (at least that was my impression) and in that respect i'd want to look more at the clearout/presentation work of Bath. Maybe Foutali'i was a little slow, it wouldn't surprise me if you'd spotted a trend I hadn't, mostly they weren't able to string enough phases together to highlight that concern enough to me at least.

And even with their poor phase play and kicking the ball away I still think they'd have won with a better setpiece, though once you start playing IF there's always Glaws could have done less daft stuff. But just based on the game in question had Bath stretched themselves to winning lineouts and scrums, playing the ball from scrums they'd won instead of doing nothing, and not being flummoxed by the slow feet of Heinz they'd have won at a canter.

One thing which again struck me is how often the ball was spun down the line, and so often I wonder what's the point. There was a near beautiful spin put on one pass by Twelvetrees and it was only let down by being absurdly forward. Why the players can't simply fling the ball down the line as one sees more of in league I don't know, there's of course a time for a spin pass, just not maybe every pass.

Overall I was (based on one viewing) happy enough with Foutali'i, especially when the likely alternative of Cook doesn't suggest to me much increase in the speed of phase play, whereas on Priestland if he's to continue needs a better plan alongside Max Clark or the return of Tapuai and yes he could usefully look to challenge the line more. What they do about the tight five I don't know, other than pray the players like Auterac and Thomas can avoid injury.

All I can say is that you are easily pleased at half back.....and I know that isn't true! Personally, I think Cook would increase the speed of phase play- he's always seemed a pass, run, kick kind of 9 (though possessing a great left boot)....and I think we agree on Burns, but disagree about Priestland's negative impact on the game we are discussing. I also thinking being happy with Khan merely because he's better than the alternative is a different argument to him doing a good job.

Banquo wrote: All I can say is that you are easily pleased at half back.....and I know that isn't true! Personally, I think Cook would increase the speed of phase play- he's always seemed a pass, run, kick kind of 9 (though possessing a great left boot)....and I think we agree on Burns, but disagree about Priestland's negative impact on the game we are discussing. I also thinking being happy with Khan merely because he's better than the alternative is a different argument to him doing a good job.

I'm always easily pleased. Maybe I'm biased on Kahn as I think he's a top player, and not just for his work in defence, but (and this may show how little I know) I really didn't pick up on him as a problem in this game, it wasn't a fast game but it was later October at the Rec

Kahn is a fine player.

kk67 wrote:Kahn is a fine player.

He WAS a very fine player, I agree with both you and Digby. But at 35 imo he is somewhat diminished in stamina and pace to threaten defences, which takes away a good deal of what made him very fine.

Banquo wrote:

kk67 wrote:Kahn is a fine player.

He WAS a very fine player, I agree with both you and Digby. But at 35 imo he is somewhat diminished in stamina and pace to threaten defences, which takes away a good deal of what made him very fine.

I didn't realise he was quite that old! Thought he was a good 3/4 years younger...

He still is a fine player IMO - he just can't play too many matches consecutively.

Which Tyler wrote:He still is a fine player IMO - he just can't play too many matches consecutively.

As said before, I thought he was poor in a number of aspects last time out- he's obviously not the player he was, when younger he was an outstanding player. Now he does nothing special, noting he remains a canny defender and still strong over the ball.

Timbo wrote:

Puja wrote:I wouldn't accuse Roko of not giving a shit. I just think his interventions are limited outside of 1-3 big moments per match.

Puja

You could say the same for all the Bath outside backs. Ford looked a bit ropey in his last 2 seasons there too. They don’t get the most out of that back line for whatever reason. Roko, like Jonny May at Tigers, would/could be brilliant in a different team imo.

quite. and even 1-3 big moments a game is a decent return for a wing. For some reason, Roko seems to have a higher bar to get over than some others.

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Puja wrote:I wouldn't accuse Roko of not giving a shit. I just think his interventions are limited outside of 1-3 big moments per match.

Puja

You could say the same for all the Bath outside backs. Ford looked a bit ropey in his last 2 seasons there too. They don’t get the most out of that back line for whatever reason. Roko, like Jonny May at Tigers, would/could be brilliant in a different team imo.

quite. and even 1-3 big moments a game is a decent return for a wing. For some reason, Roko seems to have a higher bar to get over than some others.

The issue is that those 1-3 big moments for Roko appears to be all you get out of him. Compared to people like Nowell or May who go looking for work - they might only get 1-3 big moments as well, but they make a lot of little impacts as well, which Roko just doesn't do.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:
You could say the same for all the Bath outside backs. Ford looked a bit ropey in his last 2 seasons there too. They don’t get the most out of that back line for whatever reason. Roko, like Jonny May at Tigers, would/could be brilliant in a different team imo.

quite. and even 1-3 big moments a game is a decent return for a wing. For some reason, Roko seems to have a higher bar to get over than some others.

The issue is that those 1-3 big moments for Roko appears to be all you get out of him. Compared to people like Nowell or May who go looking for work - they might only get 1-3 big moments as well, but they make a lot of little impacts as well, which Roko just doesn't do.

Puja

he does at the breakdown and in defence (admittedly sometime hit and miss)....all very different players, too. Just depends what you want. Out of interest, what's his try count compared to say Nowell?

My over-riding view on Roko is that he came to 1st class rugby relatively late, and would have benefitted from intensive work in and around the national squad, as his raw ability is terrific, and you are really pointing to untapped potential. This time has unfortunately passed. But I don't but that there is a 'vast gulf' between him and the chosen ones. And, once again, does he choose to 'not look for work', or is that coaching, and Banahan is the one with a licence to roam? (and depends what you mean on 'big moments'....if they are tries, then that's more significant than the trademark Nowell jinky run that may or may not lead to summat)

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:
You could say the same for all the Bath outside backs. Ford looked a bit ropey in his last 2 seasons there too. They don’t get the most out of that back line for whatever reason. Roko, like Jonny May at Tigers, would/could be brilliant in a different team imo.

quite. and even 1-3 big moments a game is a decent return for a wing. For some reason, Roko seems to have a higher bar to get over than some others.

Compared to people like Nowell or May who go looking for work

Puja

Mod loves a trier.






Sorry.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: quite. and even 1-3 big moments a game is a decent return for a wing. For some reason, Roko seems to have a higher bar to get over than some others.

Compared to people like Nowell or May who go looking for work

Puja

Mod loves a trier.






Sorry.

Winding Mikey up is too easy..

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: quite. and even 1-3 big moments a game is a decent return for a wing. For some reason, Roko seems to have a higher bar to get over than some others.

The issue is that those 1-3 big moments for Roko appears to be all you get out of him. Compared to people like Nowell or May who go looking for work - they might only get 1-3 big moments as well, but they make a lot of little impacts as well, which Roko just doesn't do.

Puja

he does at the breakdown and in defence (admittedly sometime hit and miss)....all very different players, too. Just depends what you want. Out of interest, what's his try count compared to say Nowell?

My over-riding view on Roko is that he came to 1st class rugby relatively late, and would have benefitted from intensive work in and around the national squad, as his raw ability is terrific, and you are really pointing to untapped potential. This time has unfortunately passed. But I don't but that there is a 'vast gulf' between him and the chosen ones. And, once again, does he choose to 'not look for work', or is that coaching, and Banahan is the one with a licence to roam? (and depends what you mean on 'big moments'....if they are tries, then that's more significant than the trademark Nowell jinky run that may or may not lead to summat)

I wouldn't say that he "chooses to not look for work" - I'd say it's an artefact of him having come to first class rugby late and not having the depth of experience and learning that the likes of May, Nowell, and Watson. He's not seeing the opportunities to make meaningful contributions that the others do.

Basically, it's like you said - he's got incredible raw ability, but lacks the polish and game knowledge that turns good into great.

Puja

Puja wrote:- he's got incredible raw ability, but lacks the polish and game knowledge that turns good into great.

How many wingers combine genuine raw ability with polished game knowledge? Straight off the top of my head I've got Joe Roff and Sivivatu, but there can't be many. I tend to lean towards thinking about selection in terms of what would I least like to defend, and never more so than with the wingers.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
The issue is that those 1-3 big moments for Roko appears to be all you get out of him. Compared to people like Nowell or May who go looking for work - they might only get 1-3 big moments as well, but they make a lot of little impacts as well, which Roko just doesn't do.

Puja

he does at the breakdown and in defence (admittedly sometime hit and miss)....all very different players, too. Just depends what you want. Out of interest, what's his try count compared to say Nowell?

My over-riding view on Roko is that he came to 1st class rugby relatively late, and would have benefitted from intensive work in and around the national squad, as his raw ability is terrific, and you are really pointing to untapped potential. This time has unfortunately passed. But I don't but that there is a 'vast gulf' between him and the chosen ones. And, once again, does he choose to 'not look for work', or is that coaching, and Banahan is the one with a licence to roam? (and depends what you mean on 'big moments'....if they are tries, then that's more significant than the trademark Nowell jinky run that may or may not lead to summat)

I wouldn't say that he "chooses to not look for work" - I'd say it's an artefact of him having come to first class rugby late and not having the depth of experience and learning that the likes of May, Nowell, and Watson. He's not seeing the opportunities to make meaningful contributions that the others do.

Basically, it's like you said - he's got incredible raw ability, but lacks the polish and game knowledge that turns good into great.

Puja

yet magically has as good a try scoring record as any of them.....and you entirely missed what I meant on looking for work. I wouldn't call May remotely polished either. I think his talent has not been utilised well- you can argue that's down to him, of course.