RugbyRebels

Just to add I enjoyed the minute by minute, much appreciated.

If there's one thing which I took from this writeup, it's that our lineouts are not fit for purpose, either in attack or defence. We had three locks, plus Curry and Underhill who are solid jumpers, but 95% of our lineouts went to Itoje or Lawes. I genuinely don't think Hill was ever used and we never threw to the back. Our movement was terrible and Etzebeth was reading us like a book at the end, jumping alongside our jumper on our last 4 lineouts.

Defence wasn't much better - we didn't even look like taking one against the head and our maul defence was shoddy and disorganised.

Either Itoje shouldn't be calling them or we need a consultant to come in and work specifically on our calls, cause we nearly lost that game by failing to throw to where Etzebeth wasn't. Probably both, actually.

Puja

Bring back Borthwick

Puja wrote:If there's one thing which I took from this writeup, it's that our lineouts are not fit for purpose, either in attack or defence. We had three locks, plus Curry and Underhill who are solid jumpers, but 95% of our lineouts went to Itoje or Lawes. I genuinely don't think Hill was ever used and we never threw to the back. Our movement was terrible and Etzebeth was reading us like a book at the end, jumping alongside our jumper on our last 4 lineouts.

Defence wasn't much better - we didn't even look like taking one against the head and our maul defence was shoddy and disorganised.

Either Itoje shouldn't be calling them or we need a consultant to come in and work specifically on our calls, cause we nearly lost that game by failing to throw to where Etzebeth wasn't. Probably both, actually.

Puja

Agreed on all points. Kruis coming back would definitely help to solve the calling element, but that’s a little way off and I wouldn’t want to rely on one player having that much of an impact. Is Isiekwe the main-caller for Saracens now? He definitely seems to be the primary target.

Also - thanks again for doing the minute by minute. Insightful, enjoyable and an all round sterling effort.

I'll also add my thanks, I'd actually figured I'd be able to do this one and was still very pleased to find I was surplus to requirements.

The lineouts were poor, but the scrums weren't wonderful either, and our restarts weren't executed without fault. And the kicking game was more than a little all over the shop. So really lots of work needed on securing and clearing ball.

Pleased with Quirke coming on. Really all the new(er) players did some positive things even if it was part of a mix, and maybe the most pleasing thing has been Hill starting, and only starting, to look the business.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:Interesting to see how many mentions Itoje gets; I staggered by some of the commentary on how he isn't playing that well tbh...

I noticed that while doing this - he's not doing the flashy turnover work and made no impact on the SA lineout, but he was always in the right position in the loose, whether than be to make a covering tackle or to dive on a loose ball. Unseen work.

Hill did impress me and certainly made a case for keeping the 5 shirt (not least because he didn't give away a single stupid penalty), but he didn't have even half the number of positive interventions that Itoje did.

Puja

I did wonder whether he's figured out that he needs to play a little less aggressively and stop the penalties. He's a brilliant player, and the work is only unseen by those who don't look- for example his restart work with and without the ball is nonpareil.

Puja wrote:If there's one thing which I took from this writeup, it's that our lineouts are not fit for purpose, either in attack or defence. We had three locks, plus Curry and Underhill who are solid jumpers, but 95% of our lineouts went to Itoje or Lawes. I genuinely don't think Hill was ever used and we never threw to the back. Our movement was terrible and Etzebeth was reading us like a book at the end, jumping alongside our jumper on our last 4 lineouts.

Defence wasn't much better - we didn't even look like taking one against the head and our maul defence was shoddy and disorganised.

Either Itoje shouldn't be calling them or we need a consultant to come in and work specifically on our calls, cause we nearly lost that game by failing to throw to where Etzebeth wasn't. Probably both, actually.

Puja

Pretty sure I saw Hill take one in the second half, may even have been for the try.

I think our options looked convoluted.....but they were also trying to protect the hookers I think.

Puja wrote:

Danno wrote:I caved and read through this so far with a rewatch, and Brace is really poor. Both sides can feel hard done by for entirely the wrong reasons.

The SA cheerleader on the sideline was weird, more than once she got in the way of the line judge while shrieking. I've never noticed that before, is it a thing? There wasn't an England equivalent

May did well as you said, Puja, but those cock ups were proper lowlight reel stuff.

I think she was one of the doctors, so allowed to be there although probably bending the rules to be supporting quite so loudly. South Africa have form for this kind of thing - quite apart from the Erasmus waterboy thing, Nienaber was in the deadball area in the RWC final shouting instructions to the South Africans when we were camped on their line because, quite apart from being the defensive coach, he also is qualified as a physio.

Puja

She is one of their physios and has been for a long time. I thought her shrieking was quite entertaining and certainly more entertaining than certain periods of the match and all of the match vs Oz. She has quite a following/fan club as a beauty amongst beasts (aside from Slade, obvs), and a few of my friends enjoyed her short shorts. I, of course, would never objectify a woman like that and only looked out for her so I could admire her physioing.

As for people getting in the way on the sideline, the award for moron of the weekend goes to the cameraman in Paris who got so close to the hooker at lineout time that ball hit the camera during the throw in. Le plank.

Apols for helping to derail an informative thread.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:If there's one thing which I took from this writeup, it's that our lineouts are not fit for purpose, either in attack or defence. We had three locks, plus Curry and Underhill who are solid jumpers, but 95% of our lineouts went to Itoje or Lawes. I genuinely don't think Hill was ever used and we never threw to the back. Our movement was terrible and Etzebeth was reading us like a book at the end, jumping alongside our jumper on our last 4 lineouts.

Defence wasn't much better - we didn't even look like taking one against the head and our maul defence was shoddy and disorganised.

Either Itoje shouldn't be calling them or we need a consultant to come in and work specifically on our calls, cause we nearly lost that game by failing to throw to where Etzebeth wasn't. Probably both, actually.

Puja

Pretty sure I saw Hill take one in the second half, may even have been for the try.

I think our options looked convoluted.....but they were also trying to protect the hookers I think.

Oh no - I'd've taken convoluted! Our problem was that we weren't doing anywhere near enough to move South Africa around, but instead just running very simple moves that were easily read.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Danno wrote:I caved and read through this so far with a rewatch, and Brace is really poor. Both sides can feel hard done by for entirely the wrong reasons.

The SA cheerleader on the sideline was weird, more than once she got in the way of the line judge while shrieking. I've never noticed that before, is it a thing? There wasn't an England equivalent

May did well as you said, Puja, but those cock ups were proper lowlight reel stuff.

I think she was one of the doctors, so allowed to be there although probably bending the rules to be supporting quite so loudly. South Africa have form for this kind of thing - quite apart from the Erasmus waterboy thing, Nienaber was in the deadball area in the RWC final shouting instructions to the South Africans when we were camped on their line because, quite apart from being the defensive coach, he also is qualified as a physio.

Puja

She is one of their physios and has been for a long time. I thought her shrieking was quite entertaining and certainly more entertaining than certain periods of the match and all of the match vs Oz. She has quite a following/fan club as a beauty amongst beasts (aside from Slade, obvs), and a few of my friends enjoyed her short shorts. I, of course, would never objectify a woman like that and only looked out for her so I could admire her physioing.

As for people getting in the way on the sideline, the award for moron of the weekend goes to the cameraman in Paris who got so close to the hooker at lineout time that ball hit the camera during the throw in. Le plank.

Apols for helping to derail an informative thread.

Oh yeah, that was appalling. I don't know quite what that cameraman was hoping to accomplish, but he was very, very quick to retreat out of range as soon as he realised what he'd done.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:If there's one thing which I took from this writeup, it's that our lineouts are not fit for purpose, either in attack or defence. We had three locks, plus Curry and Underhill who are solid jumpers, but 95% of our lineouts went to Itoje or Lawes. I genuinely don't think Hill was ever used and we never threw to the back. Our movement was terrible and Etzebeth was reading us like a book at the end, jumping alongside our jumper on our last 4 lineouts.

Defence wasn't much better - we didn't even look like taking one against the head and our maul defence was shoddy and disorganised.

Either Itoje shouldn't be calling them or we need a consultant to come in and work specifically on our calls, cause we nearly lost that game by failing to throw to where Etzebeth wasn't. Probably both, actually.

Puja

Pretty sure I saw Hill take one in the second half, may even have been for the try.

I think our options looked convoluted.....but they were also trying to protect the hookers I think.

Oh no - I'd've taken convoluted! Our problem was that we weren't doing anywhere near enough to move South Africa around, but instead just running very simple moves that were easily read.

Puja

we did masses of hokey cokey v australia (and in the backs in fairness), when George was on the park. I believe we started with a low dump to Itoje at the front....which tells me they didn't trust the hooker/trying to protect the hooker's throw.....which would also explain no throws to the tail. Which is all a bit mad when you include Lawes at 6 in good part for his lineout. Hill is good at 4, as is Itoje with the right lifters.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
I think she was one of the doctors, so allowed to be there although probably bending the rules to be supporting quite so loudly. South Africa have form for this kind of thing - quite apart from the Erasmus waterboy thing, Nienaber was in the deadball area in the RWC final shouting instructions to the South Africans when we were camped on their line because, quite apart from being the defensive coach, he also is qualified as a physio.

Puja

She is one of their physios and has been for a long time. I thought her shrieking was quite entertaining and certainly more entertaining than certain periods of the match and all of the match vs Oz. She has quite a following/fan club as a beauty amongst beasts (aside from Slade, obvs), and a few of my friends enjoyed her short shorts. I, of course, would never objectify a woman like that and only looked out for her so I could admire her physioing.

As for people getting in the way on the sideline, the award for moron of the weekend goes to the cameraman in Paris who got so close to the hooker at lineout time that ball hit the camera during the throw in. Le plank.

Apols for helping to derail an informative thread.

Oh yeah, that was appalling. I don't know quite what that cameraman was hoping to accomplish, but he was very, very quick to retreat out of range as soon as he realised what he'd done.

Puja

I remember thinking at the time ‘surely he’s zooming in and not physically stood that close’ and then the ball smacked the lens, which left me thinking ‘why didn’t he just zoom in?’. Unbelievably stupid for a number of reasons.

Did anyone else get really annoyed by the minute at every restart where the overhead track camera did arty shots above the play before switching to cameras that actually showed the action? I know it was only a minute or so, but I quite like to see how they've taken the restart, if there's competition for the ball etc.

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:Did anyone else get really annoyed by the minute at every restart where the overhead track camera did arty shots above the play before switching to cameras that actually showed the action? I know it was only a minute or so, but I quite like to see how they've taken the restart, if there's competition for the ball etc.

yep, I yelled exactly that! woke the mother-in-law up.

Banquo wrote:

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:Did anyone else get really annoyed by the minute at every restart where the overhead track camera did arty shots above the play before switching to cameras that actually showed the action? I know it was only a minute or so, but I quite like to see how they've taken the restart, if there's competition for the ball etc.

yep, I yelled exactly that! woke the mother-in-law up.

Likewise (not the mother-in-law bit).
Absolutely bloody disgrace.

Dan. Dan. Dan. wrote:Did anyone else get really annoyed by the minute at every restart where the overhead track camera did arty shots above the play before switching to cameras that actually showed the action? I know it was only a minute or so, but I quite like to see how they've taken the restart, if there's competition for the ball etc.

Not sure I saw this particular thing but on a related note I quite like the aerial view you very occasionally get on scrums. I feel like you can see maybe 70% of the offences going on rather than the 30% you usually get from just one side.

Doesn’t seem to happen much though.

I hate all the super close up stuff to be honest, unless it’s for a right decision in a breakdown/grounding. So many replays of running/passing moments are just one player in shot and you can’t really get a sense of the shape on the rest of the field.

Aside from the occasional artsy shot from the kickoffs that Dan3 mentioned, I've actually been quite impressed with the Amazon rugby product. Thought the camera choices were generally pretty solid and it was much rarer that I shouted at the screen for a stupid angle than for BT or BBC.

Puja

My major beef was no timer on YCs. It's simple enough.

I enjoy their commentary teams for the most part too.

chris1850 wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Old news now but that just reminded me - did nobody else see the Aus winger Wright slap Smith in the face as he was tackled (and had his arms by his side) in the game last week? I’ve never seen Smith look that pissed. Farrell looked like he was ready to go full northern on him. I wish he’d had the chance.

He’s become a frequent target with Quins, understandably, and is generally very good at rising above it. Maybe I read the Wright incident wrong, but that’s what it looked like to me and I certainly don’t blame him for losing his cool a bit on that one.

Wright is a dirty t*** at the best of times. He was at it again against Wales

Just watching the highlights of the Wales/Aus game and seen the 'tackle' on Adams. What a prick.