RugbyRebels

Sorry, rather than atrocious, I mean Italian.

Ref thought he saw something, checks with tmo and changes his mind. Absolutely exactly what should happen, otherwise what's the point of having a tmo?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

switchskier wrote:Only four points ahead. Why not take 3 and gauruntee not losing the game?

Because week in and week out Hogg has been conditioned on kicking to corners and it working.

He and Townsend have obviously spoken about it and are showing confidence. I like it. 14 points instead of 6.

I’m not mentioning it because of that decision (that he needed to be corrected on). Rather, I just get the impression that he has been decidedly generous to Italy.

I don’t normally go on about the ref, but this one has appeared unreasonably biased towards Italy to me. Pretty ludicrous, really, but that’s what I reckon.

General Zod wrote:Sorry, rather than atrocious, I mean Italian.

Italy have lost the penalty count in the 2nd half

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Good win, def turned it around 2nd half. Still plenty to work on but it's moving in the right direction.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

General Zod wrote:I’m not mentioning it because of that decision (that he needed to be corrected on). Rather, I just get the impression that he has been decidedly generous to Italy.

I don’t normally go on about the ref, but this one has appeared unreasonably biased towards Italy to me. Pretty ludicrous, really, but that’s what I reckon.

I'm not sure about that but we definitely didn't play him well. I also found the constant shouting about staying onside after kicks quite irritating.

Can someone who knows more about scrums explain Pearce's obsession with height to me? I thought that part of the aim was to get under your man and drive them up (may be influenced by starting to watch rugby in 1997)

I’ll quit going on about the ref. Who was shit.

Overall, a decent performance once we switched on. Or a decent second half performance, more accurately. We still look quite disjointed in offence.

However, Fagerson’s try was the highlight of the season for me.

switchskier wrote:

General Zod wrote:I’m not mentioning it because of that decision (that he needed to be corrected on). Rather, I just get the impression that he has been decidedly generous to Italy.

I don’t normally go on about the ref, but this one has appeared unreasonably biased towards Italy to me. Pretty ludicrous, really, but that’s what I reckon.

I'm not sure about that but we definitely didn't play him well. I also found the constant shouting about staying onside after kicks quite irritating.

Can someone who knows more about scrums explain Pearce's obsession with height to me? I thought that part of the aim was to get under your man and drive them up (may be influenced by starting to watch rugby in 1997)

I don't mind that re kicks and offside. Too many get away with off side.

Part of the height thing might be to do with players shoulder height dropping below their hip height leading to hinging/collapsing. Didnt notice him mention it too often though so can't say what he was referring to.

Big D wrote:

switchskier wrote:Only four points ahead. Why not take 3 and gauruntee not losing the game?

Because week in and week out Hogg has been conditioned on kicking to corners and it working.

He and Townsend have obviously spoken about it and are showing confidence. I like it. 14 points instead of 6.

Yeah, three of our tries came from turning down lockable penalties. Not going to work every time but, if you keep doing it (depending on the circumstances), you shoudl come out better than evens.

On that final one, I think it is the right call if you are just thinking about winning the game (ignoring the bonus point too). 5 mins to go I would rather spend it down in their 5 metres than kick a penalty then be back in our half.

Cameo wrote:

Big D wrote:

switchskier wrote:Only four points ahead. Why not take 3 and gauruntee not losing the game?

Because week in and week out Hogg has been conditioned on kicking to corners and it working.

He and Townsend have obviously spoken about it and are showing confidence. I like it. 14 points instead of 6.

Yeah, three of our tries came from turning down lockable penalties. Not going to work every time but, if you keep doing it (depending on the circumstances), you shoudl come out better than evens.

On that final one, I think it is the right call if you are just thinking about winning the game (ignoring the bonus point too). 5 mins to go I would rather spend it down in their 5 metres than kick a penalty then be back in our half.

Especially with how dreadful our re-starts have been over the past several years.

Overall thought it was an impressive comeback in the second half but we still look a bit toothless in the backs in phase play. Also, Harris didn't have a bad game but when was the last time he caught a pass that wasn't absolutely perfect for him. I'd be confident that he's dropping the Price pass that DVDM took for his try.

Pack really struggled in the first half too but did well to cut out the penalties second half. It was one of those games we have every now and again where we really struggle to get turnovers so get a bit desperate but this time we recovered. Found Pearce annoying but more his general view of what's allowed and what's a turnover rather than massive inconsistency.

Don't think that performance is frightening anyone but showed a bit of character and four in a row is nice!

For me a combination of Pearce and Italy really targeted the breakdown combined in the first half to our lack of possession and turn overs.

We also knew our defence was better so we quite happily gave them the ball.

In the second half Italy tired and we started holding on to the ball and that led to the tries.

Every game can’t be a perfect performance, wales won lots of games by scraping past other teams. I think next week against France is a real indicator for us.

We are at home our defence is good but we really need to be much more aggressive in defence

The positives are that we won the game, didn't panic when they were all over us and pretty much kept our defensive line intact. The wingers were both in off their wings looking for work and the set piece was generally solid, if not dominant.

However we conversed at least 14 turnovers (stat was around the 70th minute) as the Italians bossed the breakdown. We really missed Ritchie and Brown for their ability to slow ball and generate the odd turnover. Haining just isn't an international level player, and certainly not a blindsided. Our back row stocks are generally pretty thin.

We were also pretty unimaginative in attack. I'd like to see us mix it up a bit more. When was the last time that Price had a little snipe around the fringes to keep the defence honest?

England got on the outside multiple times but we could only seem to do so with Hogg stepping in, removing one of the threats. We seemed to struggle to find any space, though that goes back to the breakdown woes too.

Finally the second half substitutes made an impact with their ball carrying, especially Turner. It really brought home that we do need that player that can generate a bit more go forward when it all bogs down.

switchskier wrote:
Can someone who knows more about scrums explain Pearce's obsession with height to me? I thought that part of the aim was to get under your man and drive them up (may be influenced by starting to watch rugby in 1997)

every ref has an "obsession" about height. Refs have loads of stuff to watch for at a scrum, and few if any have ever played in one never mind front row. They have a check list which included height of player on set, bind up, and angle of engage. They seldom get them all right and its a tough task for one official, hence the sensible ones use the nearest TJ to do one side while they do the other.

Height - as Big D says. Props shoulder must be above the height of his waist. He must then push straight - ie not drive inwards or upwards. Of course every prop tries force his opponent up and this is where refs get it wrong so often. If you drive someone up, its a pen against you, not the guy who gets driven up. Or it should be. Then again a player can pop up under pressure, rather than take the pressure and retreat - ref has to judge which it is.

Some props are really obvious at driving in and up. France had a wee prop a few years back who got away with it time and again, similarly Buckley at Connacht gets praise for being a top scrummager while not a huge guy - he invariably drives in and up.

Kebble has been done for Glasgow too often for driving up. Sometimes fairly other time sits just that he gets his opponent on toast and is a massive unit. But once the ref gets it in his head you are driving up, you're doomed and will be blamed every time the other guy pops up; and guess what the other team's prop will try on

Tomorrow Edin play Leinster, Schoeman starts. He is another with a reputation as a terrific scrummager. He is a beast. He also engages too low, sometimes with the angle from his head through his head pointing down at 45 degrees; he then uses his undoubted strength to lift his opponent up. some games he emerges a hero, but if the ref clocks him early, well there are reasons he was the most penalised player in the league, and this is one of them. So when he is told off or warned about his height tomorrow, you'll know what to look for

General Zod wrote:I’ll quit going on about the ref. Who was shit.

Overall, a decent performance once we switched on. Or a decent second half performance, more accurately. We still look quite disjointed in offence.

However, Fagerson’s try was the highlight of the season for me.

yes, I loved how he kidded everyone into thinking the game had been stopped. Who said props are dumb?

Cameo wrote:
Pack really struggled in the first half too but did well to cut out the penalties second half.

fk against Fagerson for early engage. Maybe. Pen against Sutherland, Italians drove straight across leaving Sutherland with nowhere to scrum against. Also wonder if that was where he did his ankle, which then gave way at the next scrum when we were driven off easily.
After that we were fine I thought. The pitch cut up ridiculously badly (soccer pitch) under each scrum, so getting any traction very difficult. I think mainly because of that Ref decided that if the ball was playable then play on even though it looked pretty obvious their prop went to ground as we put the pressure on at least twice. It was then pointless exerting energy at the scrum as we would get no reward

Scattered thoughts having not watched it back, and been fairly distracted on my initial viewing.

Hope Sutherland and Ritchie are okay, those two going down are about the worst two injuries we could have after the 2 fly-halves. Our two best players for the last 12 months I’d say. Kebble in and who at 17? Skinner or Fagerson (if fit) in to the backrow.

Haining doesn’t cut it for me. He looks like he’s hungover every time he plays. I’m sure he might be a great player to have in the trenches on a wet day but I’m not sure this is his level.

Weir is just about okay as third choice. Johnson is a good all rounder but slow. Harris did some good stuff but is pretty clumsy as mentioned above. The combination of all 3 is a midfield that generally lacks a cutting edge, though they did almost string it together for a nice try.

Turner is a real bundle of energy. We knew this already, just not sure if his set piece game makes him a real contender to the other 2 or not. But we need to see more players refusing to be put down so easily. Cummings, Watson, Graham isn’t enough. Matt Fagerson could bring a bit of this, but really want to see him be more explosive.

We need to find a way to get our back 3 on the ball more and Huw Jones has to make the 23 somewhere, surely?

Mikey Brown wrote:Scattered thoughts having not watched it back, and been fairly distracted on my initial viewing.

Johnson is a good all rounder but slow.

very distracted and not just yesterday it seems

Johnson is anything but slow.

Mikey Brown wrote:
Weir is just about okay as third choice. Johnson is a good all rounder but slow. Harris did some good stuff but is pretty clumsy as mentioned above. The combination of all 3 is a midfield that generally lacks a cutting edge, though they did almost string it together for a nice try.

bold bit is spot on. Weir isn't Russell or Hastings. Those 2 play so flat to the gain line they create space and doubt in the defence. Weir mainly stood deeper, so his pass is easier read and the receiver tackled - as is he is he attempts a break. When he moved forward even a little we looked better. TBH I thought we looked more threatening and fluid previous match when Hogg moved to 10, just because Hogg's speed of the mark is much better even if his passing and management is still well below Russell/Hastings.
Johnson gets no space to use his step, strength and speed. Harris is a problem in attack, 2nd game in a row his hands let him down. He doesn't beat a man by skill, and isn't big enough or fast enough to bulldoze them or skin them, isn't really a natural passer. He is a cracking defender and has a terrific work ethos but in attack he is simply not good enough at this level and that sadly is not going to change, the basics just are not there. We might get away with it with a first choice 10, or a more play making 12. We don't have the first and not going to see the 2nd

When Kinghorn came on I hoped it was Harris going off, not wishing him injured of course, but I would like to see Kinghorn at13. In attack he has the right attributes. Runs good lines, big enough to knock a player over, quick enough to stand them up and skin them, and although he does make bad decisions he can draw a man and pass or offload from a tackle.

Defensively he would likely be a nightmare initially, and it won't happen unless he gets some games there for Edinburgh but I'd like to see it

I had totally missed that Schoeman will qualify in Q3 next year. He comes with his own issues but will be a decent option.

septic 9 wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Scattered thoughts having not watched it back, and been fairly distracted on my initial viewing.

Johnson is a good all rounder but slow.

very distracted and not just yesterday it seems

Johnson is anything but slow.

I disagree.

Not saying he's too slow to play at this level at all, but in a fairly pedestrian midfield I think it shows up. That beautiful ball over the top from Hogg was a moment I think most backs would have hoped to make more of, for instance. Though maybe Hogg thought it was Graham out there on the right wing.

I also have the same nagging feeling that Kinghorn might be quite effective in the centres, but it could be pretty embarrassing if it goes wrong.

I think before trying to move Kinghorn to the centres (it's not like we are overburdened with quality wingers), we would try Hutchison or Jones (both of whom have the attack you are looking for from Kinghorn and whose defensive issues (which I think are overblown anyway) would pale into insignificance next to Kinghorn's at 13).

You (MB) had called Johnson one paced before the weekend and I wasn't sure (based mainly on his try Vs England) so I kept a look out. He certainly didn't look rapid.

Cameo wrote:I think before trying to move Kinghorn to the centres (it's not like we are overburdened with quality wingers), we would try Hutchison or Jones (both of whom have the attack you are looking for from Kinghorn and whose defensive issues (which I think are overblown anyway) would pale into insignificance next to Kinghorn's at 13).

You (MB) had called Johnson one paced before the weekend and I wasn't sure (based mainly on his try Vs England) so I kept a look out. He certainly didn't look rapid.

Johnson had little chance to show any pace. That was his 3rd game back from injury and he felt the pace for sure, but I can only assume you guys only watch Scotland games. Johnson is easily the quickest of our centre after Jones, and I don't think there is much between them

Kinghorn's defensive issues have lessened, but they have been well recognised not least by his coaches at club and national level. He has an occasional tendency (more than most) to fall off straightforward tackles, not the one on one last man type where the defender is always on a hiding to nothing; but his positional play has always been the biggest issue - lack of concentration. Its less exposed on the wing than full back. His attack is also muted there.
13 is always said to be the hardest position to defend, and why I would be worried if he played there. The need to make good decisions is paramount. But him attacking that channel would be a sight indeed.

Its not going to happen because we have other options (although neither Jones nor Hutchison have been playing 13), and the moment he is called Harris. And it won't happen because it would need to be proved at Edinburgh first - they definitely need a big improvement at centre. Bennett seems to be way off what he could have been and the others pedestrian to be kind. Graham would be an excellent full back. But Cockerill is coach.

I find the argument over SJ's pace a curious one.

I rewatched the highlights of the England game from 2019 again as it is a good example of players running in space to see whether I was imagining things and he was lead footed. I think SJ is as quick as Finn and not as quick as Jones but he doesn't look slow.

I think if he is put in a gap he is quick enough to finish, but don't think he is going to make an outside break and burn an opposition 3/4 line. But we don't really need a 12 to burn people on the outside because the 12 will not be in that position very often.