RugbyRebels

FKAS wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:That win predictor is a really shit thing.

Yep really dislike that.

I think they're trying to copy the test cricket, where they have it as a fun little stat to show the balance of power across the 5 days, but it's just pointless in an 80 minute match. Plus their stats engine needs throwing out - 18 minutes into a game, 3-3 on the scoreboard, and it's saying 74% home win? Where the hell are they getting that from? Then over 10 minutes to go and Leicester leading by just 3 points and it's 86% away win?! Utter nonsense.

Puja

Puja wrote:Terrible decision by the ref to give the penalty against Liebenberg - he was retreating and actively avoided tackling Maunder until he was well back onside - but can't complain that we lost that because we were utterly rubbish. Lineout let us down at key points, we had no ambition or fluency, and the backline looked like they'd met in the carpark before the game. Plenty of players missing, but the only one who's a recent loss is Watson - this set of players is who have been there for all of preseason and the missing internationals are no excuse for such a disjointed performance.

We'll get better, but what a terrible start to the season, both in terms of performance and of boring the shit out of any casual viewer.

Puja

I mean the final decision was one amongst a litany of officiating errors. The knock on the backfield, the obstruction of Youngs there some absolute howlers.

Good news for England is how much of a difference did Schickerling make for Chiefs. He and Ewers have them the ball carrying threat that was so absent in the first half. Those two really turned the game back Chiefs way.

Of that backline I think Youngs and Potter will start any key games. Even then it's not a certainty. I'd expect a Kelly/Porter midfield as soon as both are available for starters. I'm not sure what they've been working on during pre season but it's not been the attack. Defence was very good though lacked a jackling threat once Reffell went off and Steward/Hegarty left a worrying void at the back.

The defence was good at times and especially in our 22 but we conceded very heavy yards a lot in one on one situations.

That said Martin continues to hit like a train! That first hit on Kirsten! Shit the bed that was a contact!

George Martin was right up there for man of the match for me. You're right about him hitting like a train, his technique is what really makes it. He accelerates into contact hits into the midriff, hard for the tackler to do anything about 18 plus stone cutting you in half. His recovery tackle on Cordero was good as well.

Dan Cole continues the de-aging process as well. Try saving tackle after a chargedown and then offload for the Liebenburg try. He was cracking.

In general the Tigers forwards were very good, all three Chiefs tries came from poor decision making or execution in the backs.

George Martin with 27 tackles, Wells 22 and Clare 20. Tigers work rate incredible but they can't be leaning on that every week.

It was a weird game but I think exe showed lots of character to keep at it vs tigers huge defense. This was the first time I saw the new guys playing and they all seemed to add something.

Was a pretty dull stodgefest until the last 30 minutes when it came to life a bit.

Exe deserved winners. They played with greater enterprise and looked much sharper with the ball. Hepburn was brilliant and the subs certainly added to the overall performance.

fivepointer wrote:Was a pretty dull stodgefest until the last 30 minutes when it came to life a bit.

Exe deserved winners. They played with greater enterprise and looked much sharper with the ball. Hepburn was brilliant and the subs certainly added to the overall performance.

Partly agreed, Tigers had plenty of possession and territory but did very little with it and more often than not went for little high risk kicks as opposed to just working through the phases. Games like that are where Ford's absence is a glaring hole in the side. If Ford's at 10 then Tigers win that at a canter.

Gopperth got nothing going in the backs during the second half and a speculative crossfield in his own half got charged down for the first try. The loss of Burns at half time negatively effected Tigers ability to dominate (the visually dull) kicking battle. Burns himself displayed all the lack of patience in attack that was a deciding factor in him playing second fiddle to Ford last season. He did kick well from hand until tiring before halftime and then kicking woefully to give Woodburn the time and space to chip and chase.

Chiefs created very little of worth, although, they did actually try and run moves. To be fair to Chiefs had they had a more mobile centre than Whitten at 13 they may have managed to cause more chaos from those moves against a Scott who seemed MIA for most of the game.. The Tigers packs physicality and defence negated waves of extended pressure before the introduction of the fresh Schickerling and Ewers made notable impacts. They really turned the tide in the second half and gave Chiefs go forward from which they won the game.

FKAS wrote:
Dan Cole continues the de-aging process as well.

How old is he now? Do you think he's been on the cape town cocktails over the summer?

twitchy wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Dan Cole continues the de-aging process as well.

How old is he now? Do you think he's been on the cape town cocktails over the summer?

He's 35 and looks fitter than a lot of the seasons he was in his peak. Certainly looked fitter than the other starting props on display most of whom were a lot younger. When you've got a tighthead leading a kick chase and then forcing a charge down but still dominating the set piece it's a good days work.

Not sure the Cape Town Cocktails would help, he's never lacked muscle mass, maybe some of the French Fancies that a certain American favoured to up his VO2 max.

FKAS wrote:

twitchy wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Dan Cole continues the de-aging process as well.

How old is he now? Do you think he's been on the cape town cocktails over the summer?

He's 35 and looks fitter than a lot of the seasons he was in his peak. Certainly looked fitter than the other starting props on display most of whom were a lot younger. When you've got a tighthead leading a kick chase and then forcing a charge down but still dominating the set piece it's a good days work.

Not sure the Cape Town Cocktails would help, he's never lacked muscle mass, maybe some of the French Fancies that a certain American favoured to up his VO2 max.

Cole is doing very well and is enjoying a fine end to his career, but there was no way he looked fitter than Hepburn who did a ton of work and had an outstanding game.

FKAS wrote:

twitchy wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Dan Cole continues the de-aging process as well.

How old is he now? Do you think he's been on the cape town cocktails over the summer?

He's 35 and looks fitter than a lot of the seasons he was in his peak. Certainly looked fitter than the other starting props on display most of whom were a lot younger. When you've got a tighthead leading a kick chase and then forcing a charge down but still dominating the set piece it's a good days work.

Not sure the Cape Town Cocktails would help, he's never lacked muscle mass, maybe some of the French Fancies that a certain American favoured to up his VO2 max.

It's almost as though hammering him into the ground in his 20s with England, BIL, and Leicester playing him 11 months a year for 80 minutes wasn't particularly good for him and now he's had a few seasons of full off-seasons and pre-seasons and getting regular rotation and subs, he's back to his best.

Puja

fivepointer wrote:

FKAS wrote:

twitchy wrote:
How old is he now? Do you think he's been on the cape town cocktails over the summer?

He's 35 and looks fitter than a lot of the seasons he was in his peak. Certainly looked fitter than the other starting props on display most of whom were a lot younger. When you've got a tighthead leading a kick chase and then forcing a charge down but still dominating the set piece it's a good days work.

Not sure the Cape Town Cocktails would help, he's never lacked muscle mass, maybe some of the French Fancies that a certain American favoured to up his VO2 max.

Cole is doing very well and is enjoying a fine end to his career, but there was no way he looked fitter than Hepburn who did a ton of work and had an outstanding game.

Can't say I really noticed Hepburn that much bar scrum time where he did fairly well but came up second best and his narrow red card escape. His carrying was capable but not barnstorming, the Chiefs replacement front row really made a huge difference in that regard. Hepburn is a very mobile prop though, I wouldn't be surprised if his stats were good. Had a quick look and his carries were 32m off 11 carries which is decent work for a prop and 9 tackles. Three penalties conceded, I think two of which were at scrum time.

Puja, you know that might just be it. That and Tigers finally investing in a top notch S&C team headed up by Walters a man who knows how to get big men firing.

twitchy wrote:

Borthwick is very much .. he who kicks most, laughs loudest or summat

Banquo wrote:

twitchy wrote:

Borthwick is very much .. he who kicks most, laughs loudest or summat

The thing is that we have played less stultifying tactics and played some pretty exciting stuff last season, so it is in there. I'd say Borthwick's more of a set game plan for set situation and opposition, and decided that a weak Leicester side away to Exeter wasn't good enough to play a single godsdamned minute of rugby and so we just opted out of the sport by putting the ball in the air and hopeing for mistakes. Depressing as fuck and I'm hoping we never do it again.

Puja

Banquo wrote:

twitchy wrote:

Borthwick is very much .. he who kicks most, laughs loudest or summat

A man who doesn't like risk. Keep the game in the opposition's half and try to force mistakes.

Must have been fuming with the first try.

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote:

twitchy wrote:

Borthwick is very much .. he who kicks most, laughs loudest or summat

A man who doesn't like risk. Keep the game in the opposition's half and try to force mistakes.

Must have been fuming with the first try.

I still maintain the first try happened because Gopperth was taken aback at actually being passed the ball, given that it hadn't happened in the previous 18 minutes.

Puja

Puja wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Banquo wrote: Borthwick is very much .. he who kicks most, laughs loudest or summat

A man who doesn't like risk. Keep the game in the opposition's half and try to force mistakes.

Must have been fuming with the first try.

I still maintain the first try happened because Gopperth was taken aback at actually being passed the ball, given that it hadn't happened in the previous 18 minutes.

Puja

"Always expect to get the ball!"

Every rugby coach I had from 6 to my thirties.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

twitchy wrote:

Borthwick is very much .. he who kicks most, laughs loudest or summat

The thing is that we have played less stultifying tactics and played some pretty exciting stuff last season, so it is in there. I'd say Borthwick's more of a set game plan for set situation and opposition, and decided that a weak Leicester side away to Exeter wasn't good enough to play a single godsdamned minute of rugby and so we just opted out of the sport by putting the ball in the air and hopeing for mistakes. Depressing as fuck and I'm hoping we never do it again.

Puja

It wasn’t really a joke or a pop. He’s studied the stats and the (reductive) view is kick most, win most. Bob Dwyer said that any fool can coach a team to win through kicking (and chasing well, my addition . He’s not wrong, tho again reductive. Just saying that part of v1 Borthwick at Tigers is based on lots of kicking because of the second sentence.
There’s an awful lot more obviously- solidifying set piece, defence, fitness. Great platform that anyone wants in fairness.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: Borthwick is very much .. he who kicks most, laughs loudest or summat

The thing is that we have played less stultifying tactics and played some pretty exciting stuff last season, so it is in there. I'd say Borthwick's more of a set game plan for set situation and opposition, and decided that a weak Leicester side away to Exeter wasn't good enough to play a single godsdamned minute of rugby and so we just opted out of the sport by putting the ball in the air and hopeing for mistakes. Depressing as fuck and I'm hoping we never do it again.

Puja

It wasn’t really a joke or a pop. He’s studied the stats and the (reductive) view is kick most, win most. Bob Dwyer said that any fool can coach a team to win through kicking (and chasing well, my addition . He’s not wrong, tho again reductive. Just saying that part of v1 Borthwick at Tigers is based on lots of kicking because of the second sentence.
There’s an awful lot more obviously- solidifying set piece, defence, fitness. Great platform that anyone wants in fairness.

All very true, but it's still dull rugby. If I lived in England I would not be paying 50-70 pounds (or whatever it is now) per match to watch that kind of turgid stuff live. It won't be generating many converts to rugby compared with how Quins, LI and Bristol are playing the game.

Spiffy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
The thing is that we have played less stultifying tactics and played some pretty exciting stuff last season, so it is in there. I'd say Borthwick's more of a set game plan for set situation and opposition, and decided that a weak Leicester side away to Exeter wasn't good enough to play a single godsdamned minute of rugby and so we just opted out of the sport by putting the ball in the air and hopeing for mistakes. Depressing as fuck and I'm hoping we never do it again.

Puja

It wasn’t really a joke or a pop. He’s studied the stats and the (reductive) view is kick most, win most. Bob Dwyer said that any fool can coach a team to win through kicking (and chasing well, my addition . He’s not wrong, tho again reductive. Just saying that part of v1 Borthwick at Tigers is based on lots of kicking because of the second sentence.
There’s an awful lot more obviously- solidifying set piece, defence, fitness. Great platform that anyone wants in fairness.

All very true, but it's still dull rugby. If I lived in England I would not be paying 50-70 pounds (or whatever it is now) per match to watch that kind of turgid stuff live. It won't be generating many converts to rugby compared with how Quins, LI and Bristol are playing the game.

All in the eye of the beholder really. Nobody who supports Munster complained about the way they won games when O Gara was at the helm for example. Anyway, for Tigers, Borthwick has had to build from a very low base and has made great progress- whether he can develop their game more will be interesting, assuming he even wants to.
Also, ‘converts to the game’ has always seemed a bit of a vague pipe dream tbh. Get em playing young is a better aspiration imo

I think supporters generally don’t care how you play as long as you win. There are obviously a few exceptions. For me, England in the covid autumn internationals is one and I’d rather Bedford played expansive rugby and finished 8th than kick and chase and finished first because it makes no difference in terms of promotion or prize money. That said, if they were staring at relegation I would change my mind!
I suppose the biggest issue is catching the floating spectator. I read, and my memory is letting me down on the exact figures, that there are circa 8/9/10m casual rugby fans in England who will occasionally tune in to the RWC, 6N, Prem final etc but only 2m who would describe themselves as Prem rugby fans. Watching eg Leicester boot the leather off the ball won’t attract those punters and if we want financial stability for the Prem we need a decent chunk of those to become a regular viewers.

Mellsblue wrote:I think supporters generally don’t care how you play as long as you win. There are obviously a few exceptions. For me, England in the covid autumn internationals is one and I’d rather Bedford played expansive rugby and finished 8th than kick and chase and finished first because it makes no difference in terms of promotion or prize money. That said, if they were staring at relegation I would change my mind!
I suppose the biggest issue is catching the floating spectator. I read, and my memory is letting me down on the exact figures, that there are circa 8/9/10m casual rugby fans in England who will occasionally tune in to the RWC, 6N, Prem final etc but only 2m who would describe themselves as Prem rugby fans. Watching eg Leicester boot the leather off the ball won’t attract those punters and if we want financial stability for the Prem we need a decent chunk of those to become a regular viewers.

This reflects my situation really. I seldom can watch games so prioritise England, which lord knows is variable enough quality but I am sufficiently invested in to persist with. I get very frustrated at the unreliability of entertainment across the board. It makes it harder to get the energy to wrestle the telly from other family members!

Mellsblue wrote:I think supporters generally don’t care how you play as long as you win. There are obviously a few exceptions. For me, England in the covid autumn internationals is one and I’d rather Bedford played expansive rugby and finished 8th than kick and chase and finished first because it makes no difference in terms of promotion or prize money. That said, if they were staring at relegation I would change my mind!
I suppose the biggest issue is catching the floating spectator. I read, and my memory is letting me down on the exact figures, that there are circa 8/9/10m casual rugby fans in England who will occasionally tune in to the RWC, 6N, Prem final etc but only 2m who would describe themselves as Prem rugby fans. Watching eg Leicester boot the leather off the ball won’t attract those punters and if we want financial stability for the Prem we need a decent chunk of those to become a regular viewers.

That's exactly the crunch. How do you get more fans in, rather than just satisfy the ones you already have? But then if you go for expansive rugby and lose, then you shed fans too.