RugbyRebels

Epaminondas Pules wrote:I actually think we’ve potentially got good options, but beyond four players it is largely unknown and in those four it’s one world class and then a fluctuation of shite to good with the odd class performance largely.

I wouldn’t say Curry is world class. Subjective innit.

Being the first choice Lions 7 kind of says he is.

But obviously if Curry isn’t, that means our depth is actually lower. So erm….yeah.

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:What about the time Danny Care got the ball and some big f**ker out the back?

No idea, I said when it went from Farrell to Smith. Farrell doesn't pull it out the back without a call in those circumstances.

For someone who seems so sure about how Eng manage each situation between Smith and Farrell I’m surprised you’re not in the know about this.

It's not about having inside information, it's just how pull back balls like that work. The guy in the back position calls the play to himself if the wants it, the guy in front doesn't make that call. I know England are trying to vary attack but it's still the basic diamond in those situations.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Being the first choice Lions 7 kind of says he is.

So all first choice Lions are world class?

Epaminondas Pules wrote:But obviously if Curry isn’t, that means our depth is actually lower. So erm….yeah.

That’s not how depth works.

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:
No idea, I said when it went from Farrell to Smith. Farrell doesn't pull it out the back without a call in those circumstances.

For someone who seems so sure about how Eng manage each situation between Smith and Farrell I’m surprised you’re not in the know about this.

It's not about having inside information, it's just how pull back balls like that work. The guy in the back position calls the play to himself if the wants it, the guy in front doesn't make that call. I know England are trying to vary attack but it's still the basic diamond in those situations.

I disagree. The ball player has autonomy, at least according to anyone I’ve ever spoken to and when I’ve played, plus it doesn’t accord with your previous post:
‘Farrell isn't making all the decisions though. Any time it goes out the back from Farrell to Smith, that's Smith calling it. Every time it went to Farrell could have been Smith or Farrell calling it.’

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:But obviously if Curry isn’t, that means our depth is actually lower. So erm….yeah.

That’s not how depth works.

Well yeah we can have lots of players but their competence means little. By that our backrow depth is serious deep. I’m a 6 and still playing so technically I’m in! Magic!!

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Being the first choice Lions 7 kind of says he is.

So all first choice Lions are world class?

Well it kind of means out of the top tier nations they’re up there.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Being the first choice Lions 7 kind of says he is.

So all first choice Lions are world class?

Well it kind of means out of the top tier nations they’re up there.

Which is different to being world class.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:But obviously if Curry isn’t, that means our depth is actually lower. So erm….yeah.

That’s not how depth works.

Well yeah we can have lots of players but their competence means little. By that our backrow depth is serious deep. I’m a 6 and still playing so technically I’m in! Magic!!

If all else fails, go for obfuscation.

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: That’s not how depth works.

Well yeah we can have lots of players but their competence means little. By that our backrow depth is serious deep. I’m a 6 and still playing so technically I’m in! Magic!!

If all else fails, go for obfuscation.

Well, which depth are you on about? Does it matter if they’re any good?

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: So all first choice Lions are world class?

Well it kind of means out of the top tier nations they’re up there.

Which is different to being world class.

Yeah cause a lion starter is rarely considered world class!

Fuck me. We’ve got backrow depth but no world class players? Well that depth is a bit shit then and hardly worth calling as depth eh!

Curry is class. World class.

Curry is definitely world class, but the role he has been asked to play of late is mocking and ignoring his strengths. He's not a No. 8 and he wouldn't play that way if given the choice to play how he is best, yet here we are, with him chundering into heavy traffic in 4 out of 5 carries.

To be fair he averaged almost 10 metres a carry today

Though to be fair our highest carries in terms of yards was Arundell off two carries in 7 minutes when the game was lost.

Only Nowell beat more defenders and nobody got more clean breaks! Says a lot really!!

Epaminondas Pules wrote:To be fair he averaged almost 10 metres a carry today

And at least he wasn't the only option!

Thought his carrying good today. Hands as well.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Though to be fair our highest carries in terms of yards was Arundell off two carries in 7 minutes when the game was lost.

Only Nowell beat more defenders and nobody got more clean breaks! Says a lot really!!

Yes - it does say much. Despite the stats Nowell again did not look that effective for an international level wing. He gives 100% but is lacking in real speed. He was well outplayed by his opposite number Koroibete. Similarly, Cokanasiga, who is big, powerful, quite fast (but certainly no flier) does not quite seem to cut it at the highest level. It all probably does not matter that much anyway, since the England midfield do not seem able to put the ball into a wing's hands with enough space to do anything with it. A wing with a roving commission is OK but not at the expense of traditional strike ability out wide. For comparison look at the two tries scored by LRZ for Wales against SA today.

Spiffy wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Though to be fair our highest carries in terms of yards was Arundell off two carries in 7 minutes when the game was lost.

Only Nowell beat more defenders and nobody got more clean breaks! Says a lot really!!

Yes - it does say much. Despite the stats Nowell again did not look that effective for an international level wing. He gives 100% but is lacking in real speed. He was well outplayed by his opposite number Koroibete. Similarly, Cokanasiga, who is big, powerful, quite fast (but certainly no flier) does not quite seem to cut it at the highest level. It all probably does not matter that much anyway, since the England midfield do not seem able to put the ball into a wing's hands with enough space to do anything with it. A wing with a roving commission is OK but not at the expense of traditional strike ability out wide. For comparison look at the two tries scored by LRZ for Wales against SA today.

neither should be playing wing really

Jones claims that referee Doleman "evened things up" by being soft on Australia after sending off Oz forward Swain. He says he sees this reffing behaviour in every game and describes it as "social reciprocity".

I do not remember Eddie using the same line of argument when a 14 man England were beaten by a full-strength Ireland team in the 6N.

Spiffy wrote:Jones claims that referee Doleman "evened things up" by being soft on Australia after sending off Oz forward Swain. He says he sees this reffing behaviour in every game and describes it as "social reciprocity".

I do not remember Eddie using the same line of argument when a 14 man England were beaten by a full-strength Ireland team in the 6N.

He’s clutching at straws

Just watched it. Pretty dire. SCW is saying the issue is lack of pace. Thoughts?

badback wrote:Just watched it. Pretty dire. SCW is saying the issue is lack of pace. Thoughts?

Lack of discipline and inability to clear the rucks would be bigger issues personally.

Sir Clive was a fantastic coach, 20 years ago...