Puja wrote:
I saw bits and pieces of last night, but I was working so I wasn't really in a position to do good analysis work. Were we turned over lots? I know that we got a half-decent number of turnovers with Simmonds and Curry in the back row and stopped SA from getting quick ball, so I'd call that half-decent. I don't remember Underhill and Curry being smashed about in the RWC final as a major issue (although I have repressed that game quite well) and I would counter that good technique and timing trumps physicality every time at the ruck - no point going smash if you've been beaten there and they're in a great position (although I doubt that'll stop Jasper Wiese from getting a yellow card for something).
If you called out Watson/Curry for lack of impact in carrying or defending against big close carriers, I'd be on board, but picking them out for their strongest area because the other side are less adept, but more physical, seems like an odd choice.
He's noting that Watson is only a very small weight lighter than other players who are seen as good, physical options and that him being 5kg "underweight" seems to make a ridiculous amount of difference in the minds of a lot of people. A quick google says Watson is 8kg lighter than Faletau or Curry, players that no-one says you need ballast to play alongside. He's also same weight as Simmonds and only 3kg off Navidi.
Puja
we were hammered at the breakdown in the first half, muscled off the ball , counter rucked and turned over- shouldnt have been a surprise how SA (and this was a test quality pack) played, as it was what they did last time out in the RWC final. .....When we were hammered at the breakdown- and whilst SA approach the breakdown differently wtth mad physicality and bulk, that doesnt mean they lack technique, decision making or tactical nous. So if you want to play two 7's, even if one is at 8, you`ll need to compensate else you'll be really struggling as happened yesterday, with a pretty handy tight 5 at the breakdown, but relatively small back row. And now you mention the carrying either side of the ball......and I cant see hw we would compensate tbh. You have to match em physically, or you get steamrollered.
On another note, I'd expect the scrum to come under pressure a fair bit, and would worry re Curry's experience and control at the base plus carrying from the base under pressure.
PS also note that you supported a Beirne, Curry, Faletau backrow earlier? and 8kg is quite a lot of weight....and most conventional 7 s need some ballast with then, its not a slight and esp so v SA (though sheer commitment helps!). I rate Watson, hence having him as a cert.
Oh yeah, I'm not in favour of Beirne/Watson/Curry - there's so many risks with it in carrying and scrummaging (the control at the base is a big one) and it's not where I'd go. I just found it odd that you were ruling it out, upon the only grounds on which I'd consider ruling it in!
Puja
We obviously don't see the breakdown issues from the same perspective, and I saw that as the immediate problem with playing those two, given how many breakdowns there are. As you say, there are other issues too. Interestingly, Ronan O'Gara's selection had Curry at 8- but he was also starting Farrell and Mako. edit....and now Warburton agrees with starting Curry and Watson (at 6 and 7), so I'm clearly wrong (he's also got LCD and Mako starting, with Daly at 13 if Henshaw isn't fit)
Last edited by Banquo on Fri Jul 16, 2021 5:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.
The second one’s a cheap shot, which I hate almost as much as ruffling an oppos hair when they make a mistake, but something of nothing and I’ve no idea what the issue is with Itoje’s handbags, but the first one could be a red....... again.
The second one’s a cheap shot, which I hate almost as much as ruffling an oppos hair when they make a mistake, but something of nothing and I’ve no idea what the issue is with Itoje’s handbags, but the first one could be a red....... again.
I think the implication for the handbags is that there's a still frame where Itoje's forearm is in De Klerk's throat and the implication is that he's elbowed him, despite there being absolutely nothing in that.
The other two though - Jesus fuck. Straight red and probable yellow for the ice man if the TMO's paying attention. Utter bloody liability.
I can only assume for Itoje it's putting his forearm/elbow into Faf's face. But really he's having a pushing contest himself which Faf walks into and Faf's only at the height of Maro's arm
The 2nd one looking at the ref Faf is accidentally running up the pitch with other side's ball intentionally slowing play, which is also a dick move (and of course one Farrell would employ himself). That being the case I don't much care about the 2nd
The 1st, that's just a lined up high shot, looks pretty cut and dry
The second one’s a cheap shot, which I hate almost as much as ruffling an oppos hair when they make a mistake, but something of nothing and I’ve no idea what the issue is with Itoje’s handbags, but the first one could be a red....... again.
Bit rich a saffer complaining about cheap shots. Slo mo any ruck and they'd lose a player.
Banquo wrote:
Bit rich a saffer complaining about cheap shots. Slo mo any ruck and they'd lose a player.
The staffers are cheap shot merchants but considering they have been on the wrong side of laws not applying to Farrel they have a right to question it.
Is there another player in the world where this law doesn’t apply ?
How many incidents does Farrell have and consistently gets away with it.
Banquo wrote:
Bit rich a saffer complaining about cheap shots. Slo mo any ruck and they'd lose a player.
The staffers are cheap shot merchants but considering they have been on the wrong side of laws not applying to Farrel they have a right to question it.
Is there another player in the world where this law doesn’t apply ?
How many incidents does Farrell have and consistently gets away with it.
Oh I don't disagree. But two wrongs etc etc.They have been consistently the side that errs the illegal side of physical and frankly all the fuss about high shots would be better applied to the ruck clearouts (obviously they should be equally fusssed over!).
I'd prefer Farrell to be nowhere near the Lions or England teams to be clear; average attacking skills, and always been a bit of a liability in defence.
The second one’s a cheap shot, which I hate almost as much as ruffling an oppos hair when they make a mistake, but something of nothing and I’ve no idea what the issue is with Itoje’s handbags, but the first one could be a red....... again.
Bit rich a saffer complaining about cheap shots. Slo mo any ruck and they'd lose a player.
It’s very strange we’re at a point where the head coach/DOR will go on Twitter and post stuff like this but I’m sure it’s served it’s purpose, I don’t imagine the TMO will be keen to miss anything like this again from Farrell in the tests.
Agree with the general assessment of the incidents as a) high shot - red b) petty cheap shot - pen/yellow if anything c) Faf charging in to an elbow.
Mikey Brown wrote:It’s very strange we’re at a point where the head coach/DOR will go on Twitter and post stuff like this but I’m sure it’s served it’s purpose, I don’t imagine the TMO will be keen to miss anything like this again from Farrell in the tests.
Agree with the general assessment of the incidents as a) high shot - red b) petty cheap shot - pen/yellow if anything c) Faf charging in to an elbow.
One of Farrell’s tackles was used as an example as bad/card worthy technique when the laws over tackle heights changed and yet.....
Banquo wrote:
Bit rich a saffer complaining about cheap shots. Slo mo any ruck and they'd lose a player.
The staffers are cheap shot merchants but considering they have been on the wrong side of laws not applying to Farrel they have a right to question it.
Is there another player in the world where this law doesn’t apply ?
How many incidents does Farrell have and consistently gets away with it.
Oh I don't disagree. But two wrongs etc etc.They have been consistently the side that errs the illegal side of physical and frankly all the fuss about high shots would be better applied to the ruck clearouts (obviously they should be equally fusssed over!).
I'd prefer Farrell to be nowhere near the Lions or England teams to be clear; average attacking skills, and always been a bit of a liability in defence.
Its all mind games from the saffers tho.
I believe it was Gatland who started things off by complaining about the high shot on Liam Williams and saying it should've been a red, so I think this is more the return volley.
whatisthejava wrote:
The staffers are cheap shot merchants but considering they have been on the wrong side of laws not applying to Farrel they have a right to question it.
Is there another player in the world where this law doesn’t apply ?
How many incidents does Farrell have and consistently gets away with it.
Oh I don't disagree. But two wrongs etc etc.They have been consistently the side that errs the illegal side of physical and frankly all the fuss about high shots would be better applied to the ruck clearouts (obviously they should be equally fusssed over!).
I'd prefer Farrell to be nowhere near the Lions or England teams to be clear; average attacking skills, and always been a bit of a liability in defence.
Its all mind games from the saffers tho.
I believe it was Gatland who started things off by complaining about the high shot on Liam Williams and saying it should've been a red, so I think this is more the return volley.
Puja
Ok though they’ve been beefing on Faz since we beat them at twickers a few years back and it seems a more concerted and coordinated effort.
Re. the viprow streaming site discussed above. Have not been able to make it work without having to sign up and provide i.d., which I'm not comfortable in doing. Any tips?
Banquo wrote:[Interestingly, Ronan O'Gara's selection had Curry at 8- but he was also starting Farrell and Mako.
Mako at 10 in attack?
Funnily enough, sort of. Both he and warburton picked him because of his handling at the tackle line and loose play.
Well you wouldn’t pick him because of his scrummaging. If it were NZ or, particularly, Oz I’d probably start him, too, but it ain’t so I wouldn’t.
Loving the juxtaposition of picking a prop because of his handling and 10 because of his tackling/ice manliness/test animalness/some global conspiracy.
Funnily enough, sort of. Both he and warburton picked him because of his handling at the tackle line and loose play.
Well you wouldn’t pick him because of his scrummaging. If it were NZ or, particularly, Oz I’d probably start him, too, but it ain’t so I wouldn’t.
Loving the juxtaposition of picking a prop because of his handling and 10 because of his tackling/ice manliness/test animalness/some global conspiracy.
Neither picked Faz to be fair. They both had slightly odd selections for blokes who talk sense ie not Guscott, Dawson or Greenwood.
Banquo wrote:
Funnily enough, sort of. Both he and warburton picked him because of his handling at the tackle line and loose play.
Well you wouldn’t pick him because of his scrummaging. If it were NZ or, particularly, Oz I’d probably start him, too, but it ain’t so I wouldn’t.
Loving the juxtaposition of picking a prop because of his handling and 10 because of his tackling/ice manliness/test animalness/some global conspiracy.
Neither picked Faz to be fair. They both had slightly odd selections for blokes who talk sense ie not Guscott, Dawson or Greenwood.
Ah, right. ROG said on ‘The Verdict’ after Farrell’s first match that you have to pick him and Warburton has long been a fan in tv punditry and in print.
Watching Greenwood play - possibly my favourite ever - you’d think he’d make a great pundit.....
Mellsblue wrote:
Well you wouldn’t pick him because of his scrummaging. If it were NZ or, particularly, Oz I’d probably start him, too, but it ain’t so I wouldn’t.
Loving the juxtaposition of picking a prop because of his handling and 10 because of his tackling/ice manliness/test animalness/some global conspiracy.
Neither picked Faz to be fair. They both had slightly odd selections for blokes who talk sense ie not Guscott, Dawson or Greenwood.
Ah, right. ROG said on ‘The Verdict’ after Farrell’s first match that you have to pick him and Warburton has long been a fan in tv punditry and in print.
Watching Greenwood play - possibly my favourite ever - you’d think he’d make a great pundit.....
(he's also got LCD and Mako starting, with Daly at 13 if Henshaw isn't fit)
