RugbyRebels

Don't think Wasps looked back to their best for large parts of that game. Then they'd do something with a quick burst of yesteryear. We looked more solid and capable towards the end once Gaskell, Symons and Willis came on in the pack. Not sure how loyal Dai can stay to the Hask when Willis is showing him up every week.

Puja wrote:It may just be that I've got two small children, but I don't like it when Ratuniyarawa plays because the commentators always pronounce his name with exactly the same cadence as the beginning of Hakuna Matata. So whenever they say his name, my brain fills in, "What a wonderful phrase!" after it.

Puja

So it is literally just me who this happens to? That's disconcerting.

Puja

I just go to "If you're Api and you know it".

But do you feel like a room without a roof?

Puja wrote:

Puja wrote:It may just be that I've got two small children, but I don't like it when Ratuniyarawa plays because the commentators always pronounce his name with exactly the same cadence as the beginning of Hakuna Matata. So whenever they say his name, my brain fills in, "What a wonderful phrase!" after it.

Puja

So it is literally just me who this happens to? That's disconcerting.

Puja

No, Mells and Rowan both like to quote themselves too (I'm ignoring for the moment I've done that)

Mellsblue wrote:Great hands from Johnson and Launch in the build up to that.

Launch looked good in the highlights. He had a hand in 3 of the tries.

kk67 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Great hands from Johnson and Launch in the build up to that.

Launch looked good in the highlights. He had a hand in 3 of the tries.

He looked pretty damned good from watching the whole game. Controlled the lineouts well as well. Absolutely no idea who our top two is from Lawes, Launch and Itoje, but it's a wonderful problem to have.

Puja

My feeling is that Launch/Lawes and Itoje/Kruis are currently the best combos. I haven’t seen much from Kruis though and I think that demoting Itoje to the bench might just draw a beastly performance from him when you bring him on.

Mikey Brown wrote:My feeling is that Launch/Lawes and Itoje/Kruis are currently the best combos. I haven’t seen much from Kruis though and I think that demoting Itoje to the bench might just draw a beastly performance from him when you bring him on.

or you could have his usual beastly lock performance by simply starting him there, with a properly constituted back row.

What part of that made you think I’d change the backrow???

For me it depends on the balance. Robshaw, Hughes and Curry offer only a small amount of very physical carrying, and so I'd look seriously at Lawes and Launch. Robshaw, Hughes and Simmonds is different, then I'd be looking more at Launch and Itoje. Not that it's likely to happen, but something like Hughes, Underhill, Vunipola, then I'd perhaps look at Kruis and Itoje. Trying to get a balance between carriers and breakdown work where possible.

Not much mention of link play, Raggs.

Mikey Brown wrote:What part of that made you think I’d change the backrow???

None.i was deriding the idea of dropping Itoje, but also pointing out that his less than stellar effort in the last 6N was as a consequence of a compromise with him and Lawes, so I'd suggest you would need to change the back 5 he was in, including the back row.....hence, properly constituted.

More ???? needed btw

kk67 wrote:Not much mention of link play, Raggs.

alas, rarely mentioned in terms of the importance of a '7' on here.

Banquo wrote:

kk67 wrote:Not much mention of link play, Raggs.

alas, rarely mentioned in terms of the importance of a '7' on here.

And something that Simmonds seems to do well.

Banquo wrote:

kk67 wrote:Not much mention of link play, Raggs.

alas, rarely mentioned in terms of the importance of a '7' on here.

Breakdown is first and foremost in my mind with regards to a 7, followed by defence. Good breakdown work has to include good support lines. Linking play is nice, but I don't see it as a key quality needed by a 7, rather than just something that can be spread throughout the pack (like the carrying, except for perhaps the 8).

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

kk67 wrote:Not much mention of link play, Raggs.

alas, rarely mentioned in terms of the importance of a '7' on here.

Breakdown is first and foremost in my mind with regards to a 7, followed by defence. Good breakdown work has to include good support lines. Linking play is nice, but I don't see it as a key quality needed by a 7, rather than just something that can be spread throughout the pack (like the carrying, except for perhaps the 8).

its not an 'or' for me, its an 'and' , and linking play generally is an area where we are behind the kiwis. I agree that ALL players need to have that capability, but it something I especially want to see in a 7 alongside the obvious you seek.

Quick question, what are you excluding the 8 from?

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:What part of that made you think I’d change the backrow???

None.i was deriding the idea of dropping Itoje, but also pointing out that his less than stellar effort in the last 6N was as a consequence of a compromise with him and Lawes, so I'd suggest you would need to change the back 5 he was in, including the back row.....hence, properly constituted.

More ???? needed btw

Oh.

I was under the impression the decision of who to play at lock was quite difficult.

I think Launchbury is good and I also think Lawes is good.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:What part of that made you think I’d change the backrow???

None.i was deriding the idea of dropping Itoje, but also pointing out that his less than stellar effort in the last 6N was as a consequence of a compromise with him and Lawes, so I'd suggest you would need to change the back 5 he was in, including the back row.....hence, properly constituted.

More ???? needed btw

Oh.

I was under the impression the decision of who to play at lock was quite difficult.

I think Launchbury is good and I also think Lawes is good.

...and I was suggesting your solution of not starting Itoje was one I dis-agreed with- and in fact, not even sure where its coming from. But that's only because I think Itoje is the one certain lock starter.

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote:None.i was deriding the idea of dropping Itoje, but also pointing out that his less than stellar effort in the last 6N was as a consequence of a compromise with him and Lawes, so I'd suggest you would need to change the back 5 he was in, including the back row.....hence, properly constituted.

More ???? needed btw

Oh.

I was under the impression the decision of who to play at lock was quite difficult.

I think Launchbury is good and I also think Lawes is good.

...and I was suggesting your solution of not starting Itoje was one I dis-agreed with- and in fact, not even sure where its coming from. But that's only because I think Itoje is the one certain lock starter.

I have one good reason not to start Itoje.

He is 23. He's played a hell of a lot of rugby. Most of the time he starts and finishes matches. So give him a little rest, but still have his talent on the bench to come on and give a boost if needed.

I have another.

What happens if he's injured? Have Launch and Kruis played together? Perhaps they should be tried. I mean, leave no stone unturned, and all.

But I agree on the backrow. I wouldn't want to move one of the locks to 6 personally. Robshaw is our short term 6, Underhill is looking like he may be the long term 6. Great. Keep it that way.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
Oh.

I was under the impression the decision of who to play at lock was quite difficult.

I think Launchbury is good and I also think Lawes is good.

...and I was suggesting your solution of not starting Itoje was one I dis-agreed with- and in fact, not even sure where its coming from. But that's only because I think Itoje is the one certain lock starter.

I have one good reason not to start Itoje.

He is 23. He's played a hell of a lot of rugby. Most of the time he starts and finishes matches. So give him a little rest, but still have his talent on the bench to come on and give a boost if needed.

I have another.

What happens if he's injured? Have Launch and Kruis played together? Perhaps they should be tried. I mean, leave no stone unturned, and all.

But I agree on the backrow. I wouldn't want to move one of the locks to 6 personally. Robshaw is our short term 6, Underhill is looking like he may be the long term 6. Great. Keep it that way.

If he is rested, that means properly rested, and I agree that's a good reason; but that wasn't Mikey's reason.

Backrow needs sorting and I still think Lawtoje is a fudge.

Also- and apologies if I have the context wrong, typical leap in by me- I'd assumed we were discussing our 1st choice options rather than (just) what the autumn looks like. So I'm just saying Itoje is my number one lock, and that we need an authentic back row configuration.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote: ...and I was suggesting your solution of not starting Itoje was one I dis-agreed with- and in fact, not even sure where its coming from. But that's only because I think Itoje is the one certain lock starter.

I have one good reason not to start Itoje.

He is 23. He's played a hell of a lot of rugby. Most of the time he starts and finishes matches. So give him a little rest, but still have his talent on the bench to come on and give a boost if needed.

I have another.

What happens if he's injured? Have Launch and Kruis played together? Perhaps they should be tried. I mean, leave no stone unturned, and all.

But I agree on the backrow. I wouldn't want to move one of the locks to 6 personally. Robshaw is our short term 6, Underhill is looking like he may be the long term 6. Great. Keep it that way.

If he is rested, that means properly rested, and I agree that's a good reason; but that wasn't Mikey's reason.

Backrow needs sorting and I still think Lawtoje is a fudge.

Also- and apologies if I have the context wrong, typical leap in by me- I'd assumed we were discussing our 1st choice options rather than (just) what the autumn looks like.

Meh, I wasn't here from the beginning

I agree Lawtoje is a fudge. I want a proper backrow.

So we all think our locks are pretty good and we need to play backrowers in the backrow. Christ this place feels like hard work sometimes.

Mikey Brown wrote:So we all think our locks are pretty good and we need to play backrowers in the backrow. Christ this place feels like hard work sometimes.

More ????????? needed

I thought we agreed a while ago that Itoje should definitely play at 8.