RugbyRebels

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 11:10 pm

p/d wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 9:03 pm

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 5:06 pm

Didn't he come on with the clock at 79'52?

Ridiculous timing. That said he put in 4 tackles, each of which prevented Scotland sneaking a late drop goal attempt.

Class

In fairness, while I was very loud and exercised live about the stupidity of him being brought on for a theoretical 8 seconds, Scotland then kept the ball for 3-4 minutes and having him able to be bouncing around, fresh as a daisy, instead of a knackered Chessum, was useful when they were trying to attack from deep.

Puja

Yep. Like you uttered choice words at the timing before embracing the decision

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 11:10 pm

p/d wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 9:03 pm

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 5:06 pm

Didn't he come on with the clock at 79'52?

Ridiculous timing. That said he put in 4 tackles, each of which prevented Scotland sneaking a late drop goal attempt.

Class

In fairness, while I was very loud and exercised live about the stupidity of him being brought on for a theoretical 8 seconds, Scotland then kept the ball for 3-4 minutes and having him able to be bouncing around, fresh as a daisy, instead of a knackered Chessum, was useful when they were trying to attack from deep.

Puja

I think England used him on the kick chase from the restart as well. Fresh legs to chase down the kick so we could kick long and force Scotland to try and run it back from their own 22. He may have slipped off a couple of tackles but you can't say he didn't put himself about in the handful of minutes he got on the pitch.

Before being given a decent chance, Hill is heading down the same route as CCS - categorisation as 'not an 80 minute option'. It's an unfortunate spin-off of 6:2. For the last two 6N matches, I'd like to see back rows picked to do 80 with one player on the bench only to be used to cover injury or disastrous form. There is a danger of players not being tuned for whole games, leading to cameo appearances of mis-leading value. That applies to the mental and physical side of the game.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2025 8:26 am Before being given a decent chance, Hill is heading down the same route as CCS - categorisation as 'not an 80 minute option'. It's an unfortunate spin-off of 6:2. For the last two 6N matches, I'd like to see back rows picked to do 80 with one player on the bench only to be used to cover injury or disastrous form. There is a danger of players not being tuned for whole games, leading to cameo appearances of mis-leading value. That applies to the mental and physical side of the game.

I’m more relaxed about the impact player role - some players are natural match long grafters eg T Curry and Itoje ( and Robshaw going back a little) whilst others (often the most athletic) add value in shorter bursts eg CCS, Dan and going back a bit Tom Croft)

Oakboy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2025 8:26 am Before being given a decent chance, Hill is heading down the same route as CCS - categorisation as 'not an 80 minute option'. It's an unfortunate spin-off of 6:2. For the last two 6N matches, I'd like to see back rows picked to do 80 with one player on the bench only to be used to cover injury or disastrous form. There is a danger of players not being tuned for whole games, leading to cameo appearances of mis-leading value. That applies to the mental and physical side of the game.

That's pretty much the opposite of what Borthwick does when he picks a side he picks what he thinks will be the best possible side over the 80 mins with players doing what's believed to be their optimal time in specific roles. Things change depending how the game is going but otherwise he's said before that the intention is to pick a 23 for the game and not a 15.

FKAS wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2025 9:19 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2025 8:26 am Before being given a decent chance, Hill is heading down the same route as CCS - categorisation as 'not an 80 minute option'. It's an unfortunate spin-off of 6:2. For the last two 6N matches, I'd like to see back rows picked to do 80 with one player on the bench only to be used to cover injury or disastrous form. There is a danger of players not being tuned for whole games, leading to cameo appearances of mis-leading value. That applies to the mental and physical side of the game.

That's pretty much the opposite of what Borthwick does when he picks a side he picks what he thinks will be the best possible side over the 80 mins with players doing what's believed to be their optimal time in specific roles. Things change depending how the game is going but otherwise he's said before that the intention is to pick a 23 for the game and not a 15.

He's also said that the players are not fit enough which is a conflict, IMO. All 23 players should be fit for 80 minutes. They are not if all preparation surrounds a 20 minute burst or whatever. I'm perfectly happy with a style based on using 23 but NOT on physical effort apportioned to short roles.

Then I wish you luck finding such a team in international rugby.

It's like saying that all runners should be able to run a half-marathon, and be just as effective, at full speed, even if they're specialists at 5km - or more to the point, that we should ask the 5km guys to lose what they're good at, in order to go 21.1km - and still be better than someone who's good at 21.1km - even though, you can ask the 21.1km guy to go hell for leather up to 15-16km, and then tag in the 5km specialist (no rugby players are bench specialists, but I'm trying to make a point here - anyone can go harder if they don't have to go as long)

Of course everyone should be infinitely good and infinitely fit etc but it’s just not realistic. If you want a 20 stone guy to be explosive and physical and run constantly for 80 minutes, without ever having lapses in concentration, you’re going to face some compromises.

Tom Curry was a good example of the rare player who can do that and he’s ground his bones to dust at 26 years old.

There was an interesting Leicester pod chat with Chessum recently where he talked about his back and forth battle with Martin for the 5 shirt, their respective strengths and weaknesses and the different challenges in coming off the bench vs starting.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2025 8:26 am Before being given a decent chance, Hill is heading down the same route as CCS - categorisation as 'not an 80 minute option'. It's an unfortunate spin-off of 6:2. For the last two 6N matches, I'd like to see back rows picked to do 80 with one player on the bench only to be used to cover injury or disastrous form. There is a danger of players not being tuned for whole games, leading to cameo appearances of mis-leading value. That applies to the mental and physical side of the game.

This does seem to be something of a leap of logic - Hill's 8 second/4 minute cameo made perfect sense considering he was the emergency lock option after three squad locks got injured and, given the tightness of the game, wasn't really ideal to be bringing him on there (and Earl was still going strong in the backrow) until a point at which we could guarantee that there would be no further scrums. I wouldn't say this was exactly a typical situation.

Puja

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2025 11:38 am Of course everyone should be infinitely good and infinitely fit etc but it’s just not realistic. If you want a 20 stone guy to be explosive and physical and run constantly for 80 minutes, without ever having lapses in concentration, you’re going to face some compromises.

Tom Curry was a good example of the rare player who can do that and he’s ground his bones to dust at 26 years old.

There was an interesting Leicester pod chat with Chessum recently where he talked about his back and forth battle with Martin for the 5 shirt, their respective strengths and weaknesses and the different challenges in coming off the bench vs starting.

Also been playing test rugby for 8 years now so is more than due another break and may be advised to sit out the Lions in order to prolong overall test career, even if selected

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 4:04 pm Is anyone aside from Squidge actually using the term 'hammer' defence? Is it an England/El-Abd thing? I'm watching the recap for this game and he's said it about 400 times already.

As usual some good points are made, but also some entirely routine scenarios (any kind of linespeed at all) are described as if they've never been seen before.

On balance I'm glad to have someone enthusiastic about good play rather than just dismissing it as dull but I know what you mean.

LongForgotten wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:04 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 4:04 pm Is anyone aside from Squidge actually using the term 'hammer' defence? Is it an England/El-Abd thing? I'm watching the recap for this game and he's said it about 400 times already.

As usual some good points are made, but also some entirely routine scenarios (any kind of linespeed at all) are described as if they've never been seen before.

On balance I'm glad to have someone enthusiastic about good play rather than just dismissing it as dull but I know what you mean.

Absolutely. It’s just funny how often he labels random interactions as fiercely researched and executed strategy, when a lot of the time this game truly is just people running in to each-other.

There are some interesting quirks to this defence that are interesting to see broken down, but at the same time it’s not anything new or revolutionary to try and cut down the opponent’s passing options.

I recall back at u12’s our coach told us to run at the opposition screaming and waving our arms manically in the air. Still to this day I’m doubting how effective it was as he was also my Latin teacher.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2025 4:41 pm

LongForgotten wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2025 3:04 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2025 4:04 pm Is anyone aside from Squidge actually using the term 'hammer' defence? Is it an England/El-Abd thing? I'm watching the recap for this game and he's said it about 400 times already.

As usual some good points are made, but also some entirely routine scenarios (any kind of linespeed at all) are described as if they've never been seen before.

On balance I'm glad to have someone enthusiastic about good play rather than just dismissing it as dull but I know what you mean.

Absolutely. It’s just funny how often he labels random interactions as fiercely researched and executed strategy, when a lot of the time this game truly is just people running in to each-other.

There are some interesting quirks to this defence that are interesting to see broken down, but at the same time it’s not anything new or revolutionary to try and cut down the opponent’s passing options.

His observation about how England changed emphasis in defence was a good one though. Instead of the outside backs drifting they switched to flying up instead after the second Scottish try for those that haven't seen the episode.