RugbyRebels

jngf wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:
I would argue generating quick ruck ball is more about ball winning than attacking in space with ball in hand which is what I think a test 7 should offer and why I’m so keen for advocating Sam Simmonds for this job

I genuinely want to understand where your viewpoint comes from. Can you give an example of a test 7 who is playing like this? When I look across the Tier 1 nations you might argue Tipuric and Hooper probably do this a bit more regularly, but we’re talking about sometimes, not as a primary attacking role.

I also think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what a 7 is actually there to do.

When Raggs is referring to ‘generating quick ruck ball’, he’s not talking about ‘winning’ the ball. He’s talking about keeping it. As someone who has played most of their rugby at 7, I’d say the job description of an openside is primarily focused on continuity. Often that means being first to the ruck before the opposition and making sure there is a next phase of the attack. In test rugby, where competition for the ball is as tough as you’re going to see, it’s no surprise that a big priority is getting to that first ruck and securing the ball so the move doesn’t die on the first phase.

Simmonds has the pace and power to do that job quite well, but I’ve never seen him do it so I’m not sure? Pick Curry at 7 and we know he can, pick Simmonds and it’s a bit more of a lottery.

A 7 should definitely run good support lines and be an option in attack, but that’s only if their main job has been done.

I’m suggesting that the 6 can take more responsibility for the continuity work you describe above and free up the 7 to be more prominent ball in hand - aspiring to play like Tipuric and Hooper seems something to be lauded imo. Continuing with the stodge 7 approach rather less so (imo).

FKAS wrote:With the injury concerns over Dupont and Jalibert for France I'm not inking them in as champions just yet.

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I’m with Which on this. A grand slam would be great, but isn’t an accurate assessment of where we are and TBH is disrespectful to other very good teams to regard anything less as a ‘failure’. Oakboy’s outright hatred of Eddie Jones is skewing his logic I think.

It is a bit of a cliche, but with the exception of Italy, every one of our opponents wants to beat us more than anyone else and raises their game in a way we don’t really see for other rivalries. That has to come in to the equation.

Our preparations haven’t been ideal for this weekend and these days, Scotland at Murrayfield is a very tough opener. If we come out it with a win of any sort, I’ll be happy.

With Ireland and Wales at home, our chances of winning those increase but they’re still very tough games.

Finishing with Le Crunch in Paris is a hard ending - even more so if it’s a slam decider.

If anyone looks at those fixtures and thinks ‘only a slam is good enough’ they need their head (and arrogance) checked IMO.

I'm not sure about wanting to beat us more than anyone else- Ireland, for example set their sights much higher these days

Spiffy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:I’m with Which on this. A grand slam would be great, but isn’t an accurate assessment of where we are and TBH is disrespectful to other very good teams to regard anything less as a ‘failure’. Oakboy’s outright hatred of Eddie Jones is skewing his logic I think.

It is a bit of a cliche, but with the exception of Italy, every one of our opponents wants to beat us more than anyone else and raises their game in a way we don’t really see for other rivalries. That has to come in to the equation.

Our preparations haven’t been ideal for this weekend and these days, Scotland at Murrayfield is a very tough opener. If we come out it with a win of any sort, I’ll be happy.

With Ireland and Wales at home, our chances of winning those increase but they’re still very tough games.

Finishing with Le Crunch in Paris is a hard ending - even more so if it’s a slam decider.

If anyone looks at those fixtures and thinks ‘only a slam is good enough’ they need their head (and arrogance) checked IMO.

I'm not sure about wanting to beat us more than anyone else- Ireland, for example set their sights much higher these days

Yes - but you'll do to be going on with, until we have another crack at the ABs

Mellsblue wrote:18 months from the World Cup and we should be aiming for a grand slam and winning it should be the minimum. It was Jones himself who, after the last World Cup, said something along the lines of building the best test rugby team ever seen…… though, his syntax was obvs not as beautifully staccato as that.
At the very least we should be favourites to win it. I’d have us as third favourites with a very real worry we’ll lose to Scotland. That’s not a good place to be.
Considering Jones is lauded for being able to see where the game is headed, he’s started his rebuild too late (again), shunned the opportunity to blood players in autumn 2020 and was late on the bandwagon of more expansive rugby dominating the test scene.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:18 months from the World Cup and we should be aiming for a grand slam and winning it should be the minimum. It was Jones himself who, after the last World Cup, said something along the lines of building the best test rugby team ever seen…… though, his syntax was obvs not as beautifully staccato as that.
At the very least we should be favourites to win it. I’d have us as third favourites with a very real worry we’ll lose to Scotland. That’s not a good place to be.
Considering Jones is lauded for being able to see where the game is headed, he’s started his rebuild too late (again), shunned the opportunity to blood players in autumn 2020 and was late on the bandwagon of more expansive rugby dominating the test scene.

Winning a GS requires us to win 5 games of rugby against good teams (4 if I want to be arrogant!!). Winning a RWC requires something similar. I simply don't understand why a GS is not an acceptable ambition at this stage. By definition, losing any of those 5 games is not success (so it must be failure??).

Mikey Brown wrote:Why should we be such clear favourites? Beating SA? Other teams have done that. France and Ireland beat NZ.

I think we have a very good team and absolutely should have the belief a slam/title is within our reach, but why should several other teams not also feel that way?

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:18 months from the World Cup and we should be aiming for a grand slam and winning it should be the minimum. It was Jones himself who, after the last World Cup, said something along the lines of building the best test rugby team ever seen…… though, his syntax was obvs not as beautifully staccato as that.
At the very least we should be favourites to win it. I’d have us as third favourites with a very real worry we’ll lose to Scotland. That’s not a good place to be.
Considering Jones is lauded for being able to see where the game is headed, he’s started his rebuild too late (again), shunned the opportunity to blood players in autumn 2020 and was late on the bandwagon of more expansive rugby dominating the test scene.

Winning a GS requires us to win 5 games of rugby against good teams (4 if I want to be arrogant!!). Winning a RWC requires something similar. I simply don't understand why a GS is not an acceptable ambition at this stage. By definition, losing any of those 5 games is not success (so it must be failure??).

I think you are conflating ambition with expectation.

Mikey Brown wrote:Why should we be such clear favourites? Beating SA? Other teams have done that. France and Ireland beat NZ.

I think we have a very good team and absolutely should have the belief a slam/title is within our reach, but why should several other teams not also feel that way?

Timbo wrote:If we are to win a championship, much less a grand slam, our tight 5 needs to step up significantly. We got dusted up front for most of last years 6 nations and the Autumn was only a slight improvement. Raw materials are there, but the likes of Genge, LCD, Hill, Stuart, Sinckler need to (re)establish themselves as top internationals.

That’s where 6 Nations titles are won and lost. We were the best Northern Hemisphere team between 2016-2020 based off that consistency and dominance up front. Last 18 months we’ve slipped back to the pack.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Winning a GS requires us to win 5 games of rugby against good teams (4 if I want to be arrogant!!). Winning a RWC requires something similar. I simply don't understand why a GS is not an acceptable ambition at this stage. By definition, losing any of those 5 games is not success (so it must be failure??).

I think you are conflating ambition with expectation.

So, I have ambition for Jones to succeed but I should have an expectation of failure??

Raggs wrote:

jngf wrote:I’m suggesting that the 6 can take more responsibility for the continuity work you describe above and free up the 7 to be more prominent ball in hand - aspiring to play like Tipuric and Hooper seems something to be lauded imo. Continuing with the stodge 7 approach rather less so (imo).

OK, which brings me full circle to my usual question. Seeing as the only thing that a 7 does that a 6 cannot, is being on the openside of the scrum, how the hell do you expect the 6 to be responsible for continuity in the vast majority of moves off a scrum, seeing as he's got to run all the way around the scrum to get to the breakdown?

jngf wrote:

Raggs wrote:

jngf wrote:I’m suggesting that the 6 can take more responsibility for the continuity work you describe above and free up the 7 to be more prominent ball in hand - aspiring to play like Tipuric and Hooper seems something to be lauded imo. Continuing with the stodge 7 approach rather less so (imo).

OK, which brings me full circle to my usual question. Seeing as the only thing that a 7 does that a 6 cannot, is being on the openside of the scrum, how the hell do you expect the 6 to be responsible for continuity in the vast majority of moves off a scrum, seeing as he's got to run all the way around the scrum to get to the breakdown?

I would argue J Willis , T Curry and L Ludlum have all done this continuity role well from the 6 berth. ....and further Courtney Lawes (though getting better at 6 ) isn’t so well equipped to do this

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:If we are to win a championship, much less a grand slam, our tight 5 needs to step up significantly. We got dusted up front for most of last years 6 nations and the Autumn was only a slight improvement. Raw materials are there, but the likes of Genge, LCD, Hill, Stuart, Sinckler need to (re)establish themselves as top internationals.

That’s where 6 Nations titles are won and lost. We were the best Northern Hemisphere team between 2016-2020 based off that consistency and dominance up front. Last 18 months we’ve slipped back to the pack.

Frankly...again...every unit of the team needs at least an injection of quality- as you say, some is about regaining form, but I'm struggling to see where to get it in some areas.

jngf wrote:

Raggs wrote:

jngf wrote:I’m suggesting that the 6 can take more responsibility for the continuity work you describe above and free up the 7 to be more prominent ball in hand - aspiring to play like Tipuric and Hooper seems something to be lauded imo. Continuing with the stodge 7 approach rather less so (imo).

OK, which brings me full circle to my usual question. Seeing as the only thing that a 7 does that a 6 cannot, is being on the openside of the scrum, how the hell do you expect the 6 to be responsible for continuity in the vast majority of moves off a scrum, seeing as he's got to run all the way around the scrum to get to the breakdown?

I would argue J Willis , T Curry and L Ludlum have all done this continuity well from the 6 berth

Raggs wrote:

jngf wrote:

Raggs wrote:
OK, which brings me full circle to my usual question. Seeing as the only thing that a 7 does that a 6 cannot, is being on the openside of the scrum, how the hell do you expect the 6 to be responsible for continuity in the vast majority of moves off a scrum, seeing as he's got to run all the way around the scrum to get to the breakdown?

I would argue J Willis , T Curry and L Ludlum have all done this continuity role well from the 6 berth. ....and further Courtney Lawes (though getting better at 6 ) isn’t so well equipped to do this

Which bits of the game, can you only do, when you have the number 6 on your back, vs the number 7? The only part of the game where there's anything close to enforced, is the scrum, where you want your openside flanker getting to the breakdown first to secure quick ball.

Outside of that, the number on their back makes no difference whatsoever.

jngf wrote:

Raggs wrote:

jngf wrote:I’m suggesting that the 6 can take more responsibility for the continuity work you describe above and free up the 7 to be more prominent ball in hand - aspiring to play like Tipuric and Hooper seems something to be lauded imo. Continuing with the stodge 7 approach rather less so (imo).

OK, which brings me full circle to my usual question. Seeing as the only thing that a 7 does that a 6 cannot, is being on the openside of the scrum, how the hell do you expect the 6 to be responsible for continuity in the vast majority of moves off a scrum, seeing as he's got to run all the way around the scrum to get to the breakdown?

I would argue J Willis , T Curry and L Ludlum have all done this continuity role well from the 6 berth. ....and further Courtney Lawes (though getting better at 6 ) isn’t so well equipped to do this

Mikey Brown wrote:Are we really doing this again?