RugbyRebels

Raggs wrote:All those players are regular England players though. And how often have we actually sent out a power option in the backline with Eddie? Manu when he's fit, but who wouldn't. Coka got a few appearances, but I'd never have classed him as a regular (and again, he's a very classy winger when fit).

Ford, Farrell, Slade, Joseph, Daly, May, Watson Are all absolute mainstays of Eddie's backlines, and none of them are power options. The suggestion that he's obsessed with power just seems a daft one. There is absolutely a minimum physical requirement, especially in the forwards, that it's important to meet, but to suggest that Eddie is only focusing on giants is daft.

I think he'd like to have a power option though, its just he hasn't had one. Whenever Manu has been fit, he's straight in. Obsessed with power is OTT, recognising that power is an increasingly important part of the mix and possibly over compensating up from is likely fairer. Territory and power (and intensity)will win you a lot of games, and even two of those three was good enough to beat Ireland.

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:I think he looks nervous, I wonder if he's been told his place is not as secure as it seems.

That made me spit my coffee. Its not happening.

Haha, I aim to please!

Hearing what Hartley has said about how he was dropped, I think EJ will happily ditch Farrell if something that fits his plans/thinking about the game. I don't think anyone is actually indispensable. The problem is many of us on here (myself included) struggle to see what it is that Farrell brings over some other options other than the fact that he seems to be rarely injured. Not a bad attribute to have if so much of test rugby depends on cohesion and familiarity.

Fair. But Hartley only went because he was demonstrably broken tho.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:All those players are regular England players though. And how often have we actually sent out a power option in the backline with Eddie? Manu when he's fit, but who wouldn't. Coka got a few appearances, but I'd never have classed him as a regular (and again, he's a very classy winger when fit).

Ford, Farrell, Slade, Joseph, Daly, May, Watson Are all absolute mainstays of Eddie's backlines, and none of them are power options. The suggestion that he's obsessed with power just seems a daft one. There is absolutely a minimum physical requirement, especially in the forwards, that it's important to meet, but to suggest that Eddie is only focusing on giants is daft.

I think he'd like to have a power option though, its just he hasn't had one. Whenever Manu has been fit, he's straight in. Obsessed with power is OTT, recognising that power is an increasingly important part of the mix and possibly over compensating up from is likely fairer. Territory and power (and intensity)will win you a lot of games, and even two of those three was good enough to beat Ireland.

No argument there, a power runner in the backs is very nice, even 2. However, the suggestion he's obsessed with it is definitely over the top.

I think Sam Warburton said it best, when he simply said that if you think they shouldn't be kicking it as much, you've not played test rugby.

I sure as hell wouldn't see the point in running a few phases against France, Ireland, Wales etc within my own half. You're just as likely to get turned over as create anything, and most "creations" would only take you another 20m forward max.

Mellsblue wrote:As Banquo alludes to, Eddie selected that backline as that’s who were fit. If Tuilagi, Lawrence, Nowell and Coka we’re fit and in form then it would’ve been different.

Cockansiga was fit enough to play for Bath. I don't think Watson has played much for Bath but was selected. Cockansiga would have given us a different backline option, someone that could carry hard and straighten the line. Ford looked dangerous but the Welsh defence wasn't really taxed, all to easy for them to drift across the pitch and make the tackles out wide.

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:All those players are regular England players though. And how often have we actually sent out a power option in the backline with Eddie? Manu when he's fit, but who wouldn't. Coka got a few appearances, but I'd never have classed him as a regular (and again, he's a very classy winger when fit).

Ford, Farrell, Slade, Joseph, Daly, May, Watson Are all absolute mainstays of Eddie's backlines, and none of them are power options. The suggestion that he's obsessed with power just seems a daft one. There is absolutely a minimum physical requirement, especially in the forwards, that it's important to meet, but to suggest that Eddie is only focusing on giants is daft.

I think he'd like to have a power option though, its just he hasn't had one. Whenever Manu has been fit, he's straight in. Obsessed with power is OTT, recognising that power is an increasingly important part of the mix and possibly over compensating up from is likely fairer. Territory and power (and intensity)will win you a lot of games, and even two of those three was good enough to beat Ireland.

No argument there, a power runner in the backs is very nice, even 2. However, the suggestion he's obsessed with it is definitely over the top.

I think Sam Warburton said it best, when he simply said that if you think they shouldn't be kicking it as much, you've not played test rugby.

I sure as hell wouldn't see the point in running a few phases against France, Ireland, Wales etc within my own half. You're just as likely to get turned over as create anything, and most "creations" would only take you another 20m forward max.

Jones wants to “beat up” France this weekend after failing to be “utterly brutal” in the 6N. He often repeats that he wants England to go back to their routes as an old fashioned, hard as nails pack. Don’t forget Itoje used to too nice. He might not be obsessed with power but it’s top of the tree.

Sam Warburton the flanker, disciple of Gatland and a man who calls Farrell world class. He talks a lot of sense but his word isn’t gospel on all things.

You seem to think everyone complaining about England’s tactics think we should become rugby’s answer to the Harlem globetrotters. I think it’s more that we’d like kicking to be used less and not be plan a and b, and for the players to play what is in front of them. Just as they did when passing and running with the ball from their own half against Ireland for May’s try.

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:As Banquo alludes to, Eddie selected that backline as that’s who were fit. If Tuilagi, Lawrence, Nowell and Coka we’re fit and in form then it would’ve been different.

Cockansiga was fit enough to play for Bath. I don't think Watson has played much for Bath but was selected. Cockansiga would have given us a different backline option, someone that could carry hard and straighten the line. Ford looked dangerous but the Welsh defence wasn't really taxed, all to easy for them to drift across the pitch and make the tackles out wide.

Did you watch him play for Bath? He’s completely out of form. Not that he shouldn’t be given he’d been out since the group stages of the World Cup and has only played a handful of games since returning.
Tbh, Coka’s selection is hope over expectation. Great going forward, with a few brain farts, but poor in d. If he weren’t liable to create something out of nothing (and he weren’t massive) I doubt he’d be as high up the pecking order.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:As Banquo alludes to, Eddie selected that backline as that’s who were fit. If Tuilagi, Lawrence, Nowell and Coka we’re fit and in form then it would’ve been different.

Don't bring Jack 'no gas I'm a 7' Nowell into it.

You might not but Jones will - you know, that wonderful guy who knows everything about the game.

well he certainly knows more than you or I.

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:As Banquo alludes to, Eddie selected that backline as that’s who were fit. If Tuilagi, Lawrence, Nowell and Coka we’re fit and in form then it would’ve been different.

Cockansiga was fit enough to play for Bath. I don't think Watson has played much for Bath but was selected. Cockansiga would have given us a different backline option, someone that could carry hard and straighten the line. Ford looked dangerous but the Welsh defence wasn't really taxed, all to easy for them to drift across the pitch and make the tackles out wide.

But Coka played like a drain the weekend before- Mells said in form, and that's fair.

as I said before, needed some better plays to fox even a new defence like Wales's with that backline; its why JJ was selected as a third centre, but they hadn't done enough work to make that work even- it did V Georgia, but their defence was poor.

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote: I think he'd like to have a power option though, its just he hasn't had one. Whenever Manu has been fit, he's straight in. Obsessed with power is OTT, recognising that power is an increasingly important part of the mix and possibly over compensating up from is likely fairer. Territory and power (and intensity)will win you a lot of games, and even two of those three was good enough to beat Ireland.

No argument there, a power runner in the backs is very nice, even 2. However, the suggestion he's obsessed with it is definitely over the top.

I think Sam Warburton said it best, when he simply said that if you think they shouldn't be kicking it as much, you've not played test rugby.

I sure as hell wouldn't see the point in running a few phases against France, Ireland, Wales etc within my own half. You're just as likely to get turned over as create anything, and most "creations" would only take you another 20m forward max.

Jones wants to “beat up” France this weekend after failing to be “utterly brutal” in the 6N. He often repeats that he wants England to go back to their routes as an old fashioned, hard as nails pack. Don’t forget Itoje used to too nice. He might not be obsessed with power but it’s top of the tree.

Sam Warburton the flanker, disciple of Gatland and a man who calls Farrell world class. He talks a lot of sense but his word isn’t gospel on all things.

You seem to think everyone complaining about England’s tactics think we should become rugby’s answer to the Harlem globetrotters. I think it’s more that we’d like kicking to be used less and not be plan a and b, and for the players to play what is in front of them. Just as they did when passing and running with the ball from their own half against Ireland for May’s try.

it would be a start to actually kick well!

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:
No argument there, a power runner in the backs is very nice, even 2. However, the suggestion he's obsessed with it is definitely over the top.

I think Sam Warburton said it best, when he simply said that if you think they shouldn't be kicking it as much, you've not played test rugby.

I sure as hell wouldn't see the point in running a few phases against France, Ireland, Wales etc within my own half. You're just as likely to get turned over as create anything, and most "creations" would only take you another 20m forward max.

Jones wants to “beat up” France this weekend after failing to be “utterly brutal” in the 6N. He often repeats that he wants England to go back to their routes as an old fashioned, hard as nails pack. Don’t forget Itoje used to too nice. He might not be obsessed with power but it’s top of the tree.

Sam Warburton the flanker, disciple of Gatland and a man who calls Farrell world class. He talks a lot of sense but his word isn’t gospel on all things.

You seem to think everyone complaining about England’s tactics think we should become rugby’s answer to the Harlem globetrotters. I think it’s more that we’d like kicking to be used less and not be plan a and b, and for the players to play what is in front of them. Just as they did when passing and running with the ball from their own half against Ireland for May’s try.

it would be a start to actually kick well!

Ha! True.
Christ. Just realised I put routes instead of roots. I thought I was a descent speller.

FKAS wrote:Cockansiga was fit enough to play for Bath. I don't think Watson has played much for Bath but was selected. Cockansiga would have given us a different backline option, someone that could carry hard and straighten the line. Ford looked dangerous but the Welsh defence wasn't really taxed, all to easy for them to drift across the pitch and make the tackles out wide.

Watson played 483 minutes, with 7 starts for Bath, after a 5 month lay off - and played very well
Cokanasiga played 100 minutes, with 2 benches and 1 start for Bath, after a 12 month lay off - and played terribly

These things are not the same

Didn’t notice Te’o’s name in the conversation either regarding powerful runners in the backs. EJ seemed pretty intent on fitting him in despite only showing 10 minute bursts of quality. Am I going mad or did he have Sam Hill in one of the very early training squads too?

I don’t have any stats to hand, but the volume and the quality of kicking at the moment seems quite different to a lot of what we’ve seen in test rugby over the last few years. Do those performances not count as test rugby to Warburton? He always comes across as a pompous know-it-all to me.

I don’t think all these pundits telling everyone they’re thick for not understanding/enjoying this relentless kicking is going to help in keeping people watching or attracting new ones.

The quality/effectiveness of the kicks never actually seems to get a mention.

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:As Banquo alludes to, Eddie selected that backline as that’s who were fit. If Tuilagi, Lawrence, Nowell and Coka we’re fit and in form then it would’ve been different.

Cockansiga was fit enough to play for Bath. I don't think Watson has played much for Bath but was selected. Cockansiga would have given us a different backline option, someone that could carry hard and straighten the line. Ford looked dangerous but the Welsh defence wasn't really taxed, all to easy for them to drift across the pitch and make the tackles out wide.

Did you watch him play for Bath? He’s completely out of form. Not that he shouldn’t be given he’d been out since the group stages of the World Cup and has only played a handful of games since returning.
Tbh, Coka’s selection is hope over expectation. Great going forward, with a few brain farts, but poor in d. If he weren’t liable to create something out of nothing (and he weren’t massive) I doubt he’d be as high up the pecking order.

Yeah true. We want him entirely because the rest of the backline outside of Ford offer him nothing in terms of direct running. The English centre we could have really used was wearing 12 for Wales. I'd swap him for Farrell in a heartbeat.

Which Tyler wrote:

FKAS wrote:Cockansiga was fit enough to play for Bath. I don't think Watson has played much for Bath but was selected. Cockansiga would have given us a different backline option, someone that could carry hard and straighten the line. Ford looked dangerous but the Welsh defence wasn't really taxed, all to easy for them to drift across the pitch and make the tackles out wide.

Watson played 483 minutes, with 7 starts for Bath, after a 5 month lay off - and played very well
Cokanasiga played 100 minutes, with 2 benches and 1 start for Bath, after a 12 month lay off - and played terribly

These things are not the same

Plus Watson was fit to be involved in the pre-AIs camp and played against Italy, so he's hardly coming back from nowhere.

Mikey Brown wrote:Didn’t notice Te’o’s name in the conversation either regarding powerful runners in the backs. EJ seemed pretty intent on fitting him in despite only showing 10 minute bursts of quality. Am I going mad or did he have Sam Hill in one of the very early training squads too?

I don’t have any stats to hand, but the volume and the quality of kicking at the moment seems quite different to a lot of what we’ve seen in test rugby over the last few years. Do those performances not count as test rugby to Warburton? He always comes across as a pompous know-it-all to me.

I don’t think all these pundits telling everyone they’re thick for not understanding/enjoying this relentless kicking is going to help in keeping people watching or attracting new ones.

This. The whole, "If you don't like it, go watch rugby league" from Underhill was cringeworthy as well - they might, you dumbarse, and that's your wages going with them! Hells, *I* might at this rate - the reason I don't like league is because it's close enough to the sport I love that it frustrates me that it's missing so many key elements. Frankly, that description could also cover almost every bit of NH rugby I've seen after the pandemic - it's close to the sport I love, but there's no passing or running at space, no use of the wingers in anything but kick-chase, no continuous play where speed of ball is paramount.

The IRB need to sort this out or it'll be the death of the game in the northern hemisphere. We either need a thorough d*cking from a NZ team willing to run back every bit of ball that we kick them (which I'm not sure they have in them at the moment, even if they could/would come here) or some sort of change in the rules. Bring in the 40:22 rule, move back the offside line by a metre, and ban kicking from the base of a ruck or maul to my mind - make defenders drop back to cover touchlines and weaken defensive lines, knock back the rush defence to reduce its effectiveness as a tactic, and rule out our entire attacking strategy respectively.

Puja

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:All those players are regular England players though. And how often have we actually sent out a power option in the backline with Eddie? Manu when he's fit, but who wouldn't. Coka got a few appearances, but I'd never have classed him as a regular (and again, he's a very classy winger when fit).

Ford, Farrell, Slade, Joseph, Daly, May, Watson Are all absolute mainstays of Eddie's backlines, and none of them are power options. The suggestion that he's obsessed with power just seems a daft one. There is absolutely a minimum physical requirement, especially in the forwards, that it's important to meet, but to suggest that Eddie is only focusing on giants is daft.

I think he'd like to have a power option though, its just he hasn't had one. Whenever Manu has been fit, he's straight in. Obsessed with power is OTT, recognising that power is an increasingly important part of the mix and possibly over compensating up from is likely fairer. Territory and power (and intensity)will win you a lot of games, and even two of those three was good enough to beat Ireland.

No argument there, a power runner in the backs is very nice, even 2. However, the suggestion he's obsessed with it is definitely over the top.

I think Sam Warburton said it best, when he simply said that if you think they shouldn't be kicking it as much, you've not played test rugby.

I sure as hell wouldn't see the point in running a few phases against France, Ireland, Wales etc within my own half. You're just as likely to get turned over as create anything, and most "creations" would only take you another 20m forward max.

Sam Warburton was of course a player blessed with a work ethic more than any actual skill. How much it's a self fulfilling prophecy that test rugby needs to feature so many grafters over and above those who'd try to play with so much justification coming for that from low skilled players like a Haskell, like a Tindall, like in this instance Warburton I don't know.

Clearly it's not easy to play in the face of huge pressure and defences are only getting better, much, much better. But I'm not sold yet you couldn't win in test rugby with players like Cipriani featuring over players like Farrell, or players like Armitage featuring over a Robshaw or Haskell.

When you look at how we play and train there's so much emphasis put on power and closing down space, and really very little time is actually given over to skills, manipulating space, how to support outside specific planned events. Players are often told they need to work on their skills, but then all their training time gets booked out by coaches (often the same coaches who've identified work ons such as handling) to run blitzes or head to the gym.

For me the whole construct is set up to advance the agenda of kicking, of winning contact, and whilst I happily accept those are very important the construct ignores some more entertaining philosophies

So Sam can say people criticising haven't played test rugby but you'd get a different answer from some players who had skill I suspect

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Cockansiga was fit enough to play for Bath. I don't think Watson has played much for Bath but was selected. Cockansiga would have given us a different backline option, someone that could carry hard and straighten the line. Ford looked dangerous but the Welsh defence wasn't really taxed, all to easy for them to drift across the pitch and make the tackles out wide.

Did you watch him play for Bath? He’s completely out of form. Not that he shouldn’t be given he’d been out since the group stages of the World Cup and has only played a handful of games since returning.
Tbh, Coka’s selection is hope over expectation. Great going forward, with a few brain farts, but poor in d. If he weren’t liable to create something out of nothing (and he weren’t massive) I doubt he’d be as high up the pecking order.

Yeah true. We want him entirely because the rest of the backline outside of Ford offer him nothing in terms of direct running. The English centre we could have really used was wearing 12 for Wales. I'd swap him for Farrell in a heartbeat.

Yep and yep. I think we’ll come to see losing Williams as a big mistake.

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote: I think he'd like to have a power option though, its just he hasn't had one. Whenever Manu has been fit, he's straight in. Obsessed with power is OTT, recognising that power is an increasingly important part of the mix and possibly over compensating up from is likely fairer. Territory and power (and intensity)will win you a lot of games, and even two of those three was good enough to beat Ireland.

No argument there, a power runner in the backs is very nice, even 2. However, the suggestion he's obsessed with it is definitely over the top.

I think Sam Warburton said it best, when he simply said that if you think they shouldn't be kicking it as much, you've not played test rugby.

I sure as hell wouldn't see the point in running a few phases against France, Ireland, Wales etc within my own half. You're just as likely to get turned over as create anything, and most "creations" would only take you another 20m forward max.

Sam Warburton was of course a player blessed with a work ethic more than any actual skill. How much it's a self fulfilling prophecy that test rugby needs to feature so many grafters over and above those who'd try to play with so much justification coming for that from low skilled players like a Haskell, like a Tindall, like in this instance Warburton I don't know.

Clearly it's not easy to play in the face of huge pressure and defences are only getting better, much, much better. But I'm not sold yet you couldn't win in test rugby with players like Cipriani featuring over players like Farrell, or players like Armitage featuring over a Robshaw or Haskell.

When you look at how we play and train there's so much emphasis put on power and closing down space, and really very little time is actually given over to skills, manipulating space, how to support outside specific planned events. Players are often told they need to work on their skills, but then all their training time gets booked out by coaches (often the same coaches who've identified work ons such as handling) to run blitzes or head to the gym.

For me the whole construct is set up to advance the agenda of kicking, of winning contact, and whilst I happily accept those are very important the construct ignores some more entertaining philosophies

So Sam can say people criticising haven't played test rugby but you'd get a different answer from some players who had skill I suspect

So the fact all International teams kick the ball all the time means that none of the current international players have skill?

Numbers wrote:

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:
No argument there, a power runner in the backs is very nice, even 2. However, the suggestion he's obsessed with it is definitely over the top.

I think Sam Warburton said it best, when he simply said that if you think they shouldn't be kicking it as much, you've not played test rugby.

I sure as hell wouldn't see the point in running a few phases against France, Ireland, Wales etc within my own half. You're just as likely to get turned over as create anything, and most "creations" would only take you another 20m forward max.

Sam Warburton was of course a player blessed with a work ethic more than any actual skill. How much it's a self fulfilling prophecy that test rugby needs to feature so many grafters over and above those who'd try to play with so much justification coming for that from low skilled players like a Haskell, like a Tindall, like in this instance Warburton I don't know.

Clearly it's not easy to play in the face of huge pressure and defences are only getting better, much, much better. But I'm not sold yet you couldn't win in test rugby with players like Cipriani featuring over players like Farrell, or players like Armitage featuring over a Robshaw or Haskell.

When you look at how we play and train there's so much emphasis put on power and closing down space, and really very little time is actually given over to skills, manipulating space, how to support outside specific planned events. Players are often told they need to work on their skills, but then all their training time gets booked out by coaches (often the same coaches who've identified work ons such as handling) to run blitzes or head to the gym.

For me the whole construct is set up to advance the agenda of kicking, of winning contact, and whilst I happily accept those are very important the construct ignores some more entertaining philosophies

So Sam can say people criticising haven't played test rugby but you'd get a different answer from some players who had skill I suspect

So the fact all International teams kick the ball all the time means that none of the current international players have skill?

More the emphasis on what the non or low skill approach offers can dominate proceedings, and Warbs offered much more of the low skill approach even allowing for Gatball was a very poor watch.

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote: I think he'd like to have a power option though, its just he hasn't had one. Whenever Manu has been fit, he's straight in. Obsessed with power is OTT, recognising that power is an increasingly important part of the mix and possibly over compensating up from is likely fairer. Territory and power (and intensity)will win you a lot of games, and even two of those three was good enough to beat Ireland.

No argument there, a power runner in the backs is very nice, even 2. However, the suggestion he's obsessed with it is definitely over the top.

I think Sam Warburton said it best, when he simply said that if you think they shouldn't be kicking it as much, you've not played test rugby.

I sure as hell wouldn't see the point in running a few phases against France, Ireland, Wales etc within my own half. You're just as likely to get turned over as create anything, and most "creations" would only take you another 20m forward max.

Sam Warburton was of course a player blessed with a work ethic more than any actual skill. How much it's a self fulfilling prophecy that test rugby needs to feature so many grafters over and above those who'd try to play with so much justification coming for that from low skilled players like a Haskell, like a Tindall, like in this instance Warburton I don't know.

Clearly it's not easy to play in the face of huge pressure and defences are only getting better, much, much better. But I'm not sold yet you couldn't win in test rugby with players like Cipriani featuring over players like Farrell, or players like Armitage featuring over a Robshaw or Haskell.

When you look at how we play and train there's so much emphasis put on power and closing down space, and really very little time is actually given over to skills, manipulating space, how to support outside specific planned events. Players are often told they need to work on their skills, but then all their training time gets booked out by coaches (often the same coaches who've identified work ons such as handling) to run blitzes or head to the gym.

For me the whole construct is set up to advance the agenda of kicking, of winning contact, and whilst I happily accept those are very important the construct ignores some more entertaining philosophies

So Sam can say people criticising haven't played test rugby but you'd get a different answer from some players who had skill I suspect

I always thought Sam pretty skilled at the breakdown, a good decision maker- bar once, and a capable handler, so think your characterisation a tad unfair. I'd also be wary of citing Cipriani as an example of a skilled player over-looked- he created most of the rods for his own back over a sustained period, and by the time he'd woken up, his skills were somewhat diminished. Armitage is a more challenging example, its true.

It does mystify me why there appears to be so little time spent on skills- a professional has a lot of time to fill.

Mellsblue wrote: Ha! True.
Christ. Just realised I put routes instead of roots. I thought I was a descent speller.

all roots lead to Roam

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:
No argument there, a power runner in the backs is very nice, even 2. However, the suggestion he's obsessed with it is definitely over the top.

I think Sam Warburton said it best, when he simply said that if you think they shouldn't be kicking it as much, you've not played test rugby.

I sure as hell wouldn't see the point in running a few phases against France, Ireland, Wales etc within my own half. You're just as likely to get turned over as create anything, and most "creations" would only take you another 20m forward max.

Sam Warburton was of course a player blessed with a work ethic more than any actual skill. How much it's a self fulfilling prophecy that test rugby needs to feature so many grafters over and above those who'd try to play with so much justification coming for that from low skilled players like a Haskell, like a Tindall, like in this instance Warburton I don't know.

Clearly it's not easy to play in the face of huge pressure and defences are only getting better, much, much better. But I'm not sold yet you couldn't win in test rugby with players like Cipriani featuring over players like Farrell, or players like Armitage featuring over a Robshaw or Haskell.

When you look at how we play and train there's so much emphasis put on power and closing down space, and really very little time is actually given over to skills, manipulating space, how to support outside specific planned events. Players are often told they need to work on their skills, but then all their training time gets booked out by coaches (often the same coaches who've identified work ons such as handling) to run blitzes or head to the gym.

For me the whole construct is set up to advance the agenda of kicking, of winning contact, and whilst I happily accept those are very important the construct ignores some more entertaining philosophies

So Sam can say people criticising haven't played test rugby but you'd get a different answer from some players who had skill I suspect

I always thought Sam pretty skilled at the breakdown, a good decision maker- bar once, and a capable handler, so think your characterisation a tad unfair. I'd also be wary of citing Cipriani as an example of a skilled player over-looked- he created most of the rods for his own back over a sustained period, and by the time he'd woken up, his skills were somewhat diminished. Armitage is a more challenging example, its true.

It does mystify me why there appears to be so little time spent on skills- a professional has a lot of time to fill.

I nearly added a remark that breakdown work and ruck support isn't without a reliance on skill, decision making and good execution. But I suspect people aren't going to be confused by the point about what's being sought in style and selection and the combination of the two.

And really they don't have that much time to fill as a pro, and if anything NZ are coming around more to our way of thinking by working on defence far more than we are of doing work on setups from 4 on 5 underlap through to 4 on 3 or 2 overlaps. The coaches are in charge for maybe 6-10 games if things go badly and defence is an easier and more immediate thing to work on.

Also in this I'm making no claim about Cips being overlooked. Merely he would be looking to offer more, and he'd think more has a place at the top level even if players like Warburton or for us Martin Johnson are much more likely to talk about the problems and tightness inherent to test match rugby.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:
No argument there, a power runner in the backs is very nice, even 2. However, the suggestion he's obsessed with it is definitely over the top.

I think Sam Warburton said it best, when he simply said that if you think they shouldn't be kicking it as much, you've not played test rugby.

I sure as hell wouldn't see the point in running a few phases against France, Ireland, Wales etc within my own half. You're just as likely to get turned over as create anything, and most "creations" would only take you another 20m forward max.

Sam Warburton was of course a player blessed with a work ethic more than any actual skill. How much it's a self fulfilling prophecy that test rugby needs to feature so many grafters over and above those who'd try to play with so much justification coming for that from low skilled players like a Haskell, like a Tindall, like in this instance Warburton I don't know.

Clearly it's not easy to play in the face of huge pressure and defences are only getting better, much, much better. But I'm not sold yet you couldn't win in test rugby with players like Cipriani featuring over players like Farrell, or players like Armitage featuring over a Robshaw or Haskell.

When you look at how we play and train there's so much emphasis put on power and closing down space, and really very little time is actually given over to skills, manipulating space, how to support outside specific planned events. Players are often told they need to work on their skills, but then all their training time gets booked out by coaches (often the same coaches who've identified work ons such as handling) to run blitzes or head to the gym.

For me the whole construct is set up to advance the agenda of kicking, of winning contact, and whilst I happily accept those are very important the construct ignores some more entertaining philosophies

So Sam can say people criticising haven't played test rugby but you'd get a different answer from some players who had skill I suspect

I always thought Sam pretty skilled at the breakdown, a good decision maker- bar once, and a capable handler, so think your characterisation a tad unfair. I'd also be wary of citing Cipriani as an example of a skilled player over-looked- he created most of the rods for his own back over a sustained period, and by the time he'd woken up, his skills were somewhat diminished. Armitage is a more challenging example, its true.

It does mystify me why there appears to be so little time spent on skills- a professional has a lot of time to fill.

I suppose it depends if acting like a turnstile is counted as a rugby skill.

Warburton was a very good footballer, his skills were high so I don't really know where that ascertion comes from but I really can't be bothered to argue about it.

I seem to recall that we'v twice had major blowouts in the Six Nations in the last few years, was it 2015 and 2017? When teams knew they needed lots of points/tries to challenge for the title, and low and behold armed with that knowledge they went out and played. Whereas normally what informs the thinking is the idea it's a massive test and they need to keep things tight in the face of such pressure.

So we know even this group of players can do much more to create a more watchable game. Even if we also know in the main they'll not venture to play like it.

I just want to know why Wales can’t produce their own centres and wings.......







too obvious?

Numbers wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Sam Warburton was of course a player blessed with a work ethic more than any actual skill. How much it's a self fulfilling prophecy that test rugby needs to feature so many grafters over and above those who'd try to play with so much justification coming for that from low skilled players like a Haskell, like a Tindall, like in this instance Warburton I don't know.

Clearly it's not easy to play in the face of huge pressure and defences are only getting better, much, much better. But I'm not sold yet you couldn't win in test rugby with players like Cipriani featuring over players like Farrell, or players like Armitage featuring over a Robshaw or Haskell.

When you look at how we play and train there's so much emphasis put on power and closing down space, and really very little time is actually given over to skills, manipulating space, how to support outside specific planned events. Players are often told they need to work on their skills, but then all their training time gets booked out by coaches (often the same coaches who've identified work ons such as handling) to run blitzes or head to the gym.

For me the whole construct is set up to advance the agenda of kicking, of winning contact, and whilst I happily accept those are very important the construct ignores some more entertaining philosophies

So Sam can say people criticising haven't played test rugby but you'd get a different answer from some players who had skill I suspect

I always thought Sam pretty skilled at the breakdown, a good decision maker- bar once, and a capable handler, so think your characterisation a tad unfair. I'd also be wary of citing Cipriani as an example of a skilled player over-looked- he created most of the rods for his own back over a sustained period, and by the time he'd woken up, his skills were somewhat diminished. Armitage is a more challenging example, its true.

It does mystify me why there appears to be so little time spent on skills- a professional has a lot of time to fill.

I suppose it depends if acting like a turnstile is counted as a rugby skill.

Warburton was a very good footballer, his skills were high so I don't really know where that ascertion comes from but I really can't be bothered to argue about it.

I'd happily accept the idea that Faletau and Tips could support a higher skilled more attacking game, never seen it from Warbs who was an excellent rugby player but much more about being reductive and destructive than broadening out a game in constructive fashion. There's of course room for all those players in the game, I'm just not taking the point Warbs is making about the problems of playing test rugby totally at face value when his more limited approach is part of the problem and helps add to the that self fulfilling situation where players actively try not to play