RugbyRebels

Raggs wrote:Charlie Morgan just released this image, I was actually just thinking about something like this but with Umaga and Smith. It backs up a little what I've thought about Simmonds when I watch him play, in that he doesn't seem to get his hands on the ball as much as the others. Would be better to see a larger dataset though.

Those stats are likely to be skewed by Exeter's game on the 5m line though. They might have 20+ phases picking and going round the corner before rumbling over and all of those are going to be rucks where Simmonds doesn't get the ball.

I was talking against Simmonds not very many pages of this thread ago, but I have to say I was impressed with him at the weekend. Interested to see what Eddie made of it.

Puja

Scrumhead wrote:Yes, but we’ve said several times in the thread already that Exeter play to a very specific gameplan.

Simmonds executes that perfectly but it impacts his individual stats (I’m talking generally rather than just this weekend).

I get the impression Umaga has much more creative license. Smith kind of does too, but recently we’ve seen Quins playing a much more rigid (and ugly) style.

Normally, I’d say stats don’t lie, but I think Simmonds is more talented than his numbers suggest. For example, this weekend was a good example of his running threat. It’s there, he just rarely uses it, although when he does, he picks the right times to do it.

Think those numbers are pretty meaningless. Exeter exit through 9 box kicks, and play through the forwards phases an awful lot. I'd think one key stat would be a win %age for a 10

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:Charlie Morgan just released this image, I was actually just thinking about something like this but with Umaga and Smith. It backs up a little what I've thought about Simmonds when I watch him play, in that he doesn't seem to get his hands on the ball as much as the others. Would be better to see a larger dataset though.

Those stats are likely to be skewed by Exeter's game on the 5m line though. They might have 20+ phases picking and going round the corner before rumbling over and all of those are going to be rucks where Simmonds doesn't get the ball.

I was talking against Simmonds not very many pages of this thread ago, but I have to say I was impressed with him at the weekend. Interested to see what Eddie made of it.

Puja

Not sure what you weren't seeing in Simmonds before tbh.

Although I said the stats were meaningless in terms of a 10's value, be interesting to see Farrell's, as Sarries play so much through 9 and the pack, too. they seem more indicative of a teams style than of 10 value.

I'd like to see %age of phases that go through the 10s hands, that lead to crossing the gainline. That would suggest to me they're picking good passes/options.

Raggs wrote:I'd like to see %age of phases that go through the 10s hands, that lead to crossing the gainline. That would suggest to me they're picking good passes/options.

I'd say winning a fair few games is a decent proxy measure

Raggs wrote:I'd like to see %age of phases that go through the 10s hands, that lead to crossing the gainline. That would suggest to me they're picking good passes/options.

Agreed. A little while ago I did some analysis on how many England tries Farrell was directly involved with in last years 6 Nations. It wasn’t a lot.

That’s not to say he wasn’t getting the team on the front foot, but he certainly wasn’t the creative fulcrum of our try scoring efforts.

Scrumhead wrote:

Raggs wrote:I'd like to see %age of phases that go through the 10s hands, that lead to crossing the gainline. That would suggest to me they're picking good passes/options.

Agreed. A little while ago I did some analysis on how many England tries Farrell was directly involved with in last years 6 Nations. It wasn’t a lot.

That’s not to say he wasn’t getting the team on the front foot, but he certainly wasn’t the creative fulcrum of our try scoring efforts.

I'm no fan of Farrell, but why should he be?

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:I'd like to see %age of phases that go through the 10s hands, that lead to crossing the gainline. That would suggest to me they're picking good passes/options.

I'd say winning a fair few games is a decent proxy measure

I wouldn't. Saracens could have won most their titles with Andy Goode after he'd retired at 10.

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Raggs wrote:I'd like to see %age of phases that go through the 10s hands, that lead to crossing the gainline. That would suggest to me they're picking good passes/options.

Agreed. A little while ago I did some analysis on how many England tries Farrell was directly involved with in last years 6 Nations. It wasn’t a lot.

That’s not to say he wasn’t getting the team on the front foot, but he certainly wasn’t the creative fulcrum of our try scoring efforts.

I'm no fan of Farrell, but why should he be?

I guess it depends on what you think ‘game management’ should encompass. To me, seeing where opportunities are and having the ability to exploit space etc. are creative assets I would expect my 10 to have.

I’m not saying Farrell doesn’t have creative skills at all. They’re just not very well developed in comparisons to other 10s.

IMO, he’s good at managing a game plan, but doesn’t generally play ‘heads-up’ rugby. I feel like he has a pre-conceived idea of what to do depending upon where he is on the pitch and will follow that 9 times out of 10 regardless of what’s evolving around him.

Note, I’m talking about Farrell as a 10 not a 12.

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:I'd like to see %age of phases that go through the 10s hands, that lead to crossing the gainline. That would suggest to me they're picking good passes/options.

I'd say winning a fair few games is a decent proxy measure

I wouldn't. Saracens could have won most their titles with Andy Goode after he'd retired at 10.

Mebbe. But it’s certainly a better measure than the earlier stats trotted out.

I’d also note that Andy Goode was a very effective 10 for a fair few teams, even if not many’s cup of tea, including mine.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote: I'd say winning a fair few games is a decent proxy measure

I wouldn't. Saracens could have won most their titles with Andy Goode after he'd retired at 10.

Mebbe. But it’s certainly a better measure than the earlier stats trotted out.

I’d also note that Andy Goode was a very effective 10 for a fair few teams, even if not many’s cup of tea, including mine.

Same for Wasps, but I'm just trying to point out that just because a team is winning game after game, doesn't mean their 10 is in the top 3 for the league.

Were we arguing for Steenson a few seasons ago, when Chiefs were still top of the pile basically, but before Simmonds broke out?

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:
I wouldn't. Saracens could have won most their titles with Andy Goode after he'd retired at 10.

Mebbe. But it’s certainly a better measure than the earlier stats trotted out.

I’d also note that Andy Goode was a very effective 10 for a fair few teams, even if not many’s cup of tea, including mine.

Same for Wasps, but I'm just trying to point out that just because a team is winning game after game, doesn't mean their 10 is in the top 3 for the league.

Were we arguing for Steenson a few seasons ago, when Chiefs were still top of the pile basically, but before Simmonds broke out?

Some were, and that isn’t in any case the sole reason to advocate selection- it’s not a wholly unreasonable start point though, and certainly better than the league table you posted. People were dismissing Simmonds without really considering how valuable he was in the top team, is another way of looking at it.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote: Mebbe. But it’s certainly a better measure than the earlier stats trotted out.

I’d also note that Andy Goode was a very effective 10 for a fair few teams, even if not many’s cup of tea, including mine.

Same for Wasps, but I'm just trying to point out that just because a team is winning game after game, doesn't mean their 10 is in the top 3 for the league.

Were we arguing for Steenson a few seasons ago, when Chiefs were still top of the pile basically, but before Simmonds broke out?

Some were, and that isn’t in any case the sole reason to advocate selection- it’s not a wholly unreasonable start point though, and certainly better than the league table you posted. People were dismissing Simmonds without really considering how valuable he was in the top team, is another way of looking at it.

Also worth considering that, in a team openly stating they want to win the Champions Cup, despite bringing some big ticket players in at 9, 15 etc they’ve stuck with Simmonds and made him capt.

Scrumhead wrote: IMO, he’s good at managing a game plan, but doesn’t generally play ‘heads-up’ rugby. I feel like he has a pre-conceived idea of what to do depending upon where he is on the pitch and will follow that 9 times out of 10 regardless of what’s evolving around him.

Note, I’m talking about Farrell as a 10 not a 12.

I agree 100%. Totally right.

He has a very good rugby brain, and will likely make a good coach. But in terms of instinctive creativity, you could call it flair I suppose, he's pretty low.

TheNomad wrote:

Scrumhead wrote: IMO, he’s good at managing a game plan, but doesn’t generally play ‘heads-up’ rugby. I feel like he has a pre-conceived idea of what to do depending upon where he is on the pitch and will follow that 9 times out of 10 regardless of what’s evolving around him.

Note, I’m talking about Farrell as a 10 not a 12.

I agree 100%. Totally right.

He has a very good rugby brain, and will likely make a good coach. But in terms of instinctive creativity, you could call it flair I suppose, he's pretty low.

He hasn’t much rugby brain without the ball tbf

Scrumhead wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
Agreed. A little while ago I did some analysis on how many England tries Farrell was directly involved with in last years 6 Nations. It wasn’t a lot.

That’s not to say he wasn’t getting the team on the front foot, but he certainly wasn’t the creative fulcrum of our try scoring efforts.

I'm no fan of Farrell, but why should he be?

I guess it depends on what you think ‘game management’ should encompass. To me, seeing where opportunities are and having the ability to exploit space etc. are creative assets I would expect my 10 to have.

I’m not saying Farrell doesn’t have creative skills at all. They’re just not very well developed in comparisons to other 10s.

IMO, he’s good at managing a game plan, but doesn’t generally play ‘heads-up’ rugby. I feel like he has a pre-conceived idea of what to do depending upon where he is on the pitch and will follow that 9 times out of 10 regardless of what’s evolving around him.

Note, I’m talking about Farrell as a 10 not a 12.

This seems to stem from the kind of retro view that everything revolves around the 10. In many teams, it doesn’t. Game management and creative hub aren’t necessarily bracketed together.

Banquo wrote:Some were, and that isn’t in any case the sole reason to advocate selection- it’s not a wholly unreasonable start point though, and certainly better than the league table you posted. People were dismissing Simmonds without really considering how valuable he was in the top team, is another way of looking at it.

Were they?
I'm the first to admit that my memory is pretty terrible, but I don't recall anyone dismissing Simmonds, regardless of whether or not they'd considered his value to Exeter.

Equally, I don't recall anyone ever hailing Steenson amongst the best FHs in the Prem.

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:Some were, and that isn’t in any case the sole reason to advocate selection- it’s not a wholly unreasonable start point though, and certainly better than the league table you posted. People were dismissing Simmonds without really considering how valuable he was in the top team, is another way of looking at it.

Were they?
I'm the first to admit that my memory is pretty terrible, but I don't recall anyone dismissing Simmonds, regardless of whether or not they'd considered his value to Exeter.

Equally, I don't recall anyone ever hailing Steenson amongst the best FHs in the Prem.

Some were saying he was well down the queue behind Smith and Umaga even, (See Puja above fessing up to talking against Simmonds) and Steenson was indeed mentioned in intl terms for both England and Ireland, even when Exeter weren’t top two. For a while he probably was amongst the most effective in the prem in fairness.

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Banquo wrote: I'm no fan of Farrell, but why should he be?

I guess it depends on what you think ‘game management’ should encompass. To me, seeing where opportunities are and having the ability to exploit space etc. are creative assets I would expect my 10 to have.

I’m not saying Farrell doesn’t have creative skills at all. They’re just not very well developed in comparisons to other 10s.

IMO, he’s good at managing a game plan, but doesn’t generally play ‘heads-up’ rugby. I feel like he has a pre-conceived idea of what to do depending upon where he is on the pitch and will follow that 9 times out of 10 regardless of what’s evolving around him.

Note, I’m talking about Farrell as a 10 not a 12.

This seems to stem from the kind of retro view that everything revolves around the 10. In many teams, it doesn’t. Game management and creative hub aren’t necessarily bracketed together.

Is it really a ‘retro view’ that a 10 should have a decent level of creative ability?

In Farrell’s case, we’re talking about a guy who’s feted as ‘World Class’.

Anyway, if you’re not playing off 10, you’re probably playing off 9 which is usually less creative.

Banquo wrote:Some were saying he was well down the queue behind Smith and Umaga even, (See Puja above fessing up to talking against Simmonds) and Steenson was indeed mentioned in intl terms for both England and Ireland, even when Exeter weren’t top two. For a while he probably was amongst the most effective in the prem in fairness.

I saw Puja fessing up to it - but I haven't found him actually doing it. ETA: I've searched this thread going back 2 years, and the EMB going back to pre-lockdown. Closest thing I've found to anyone "dismissing" Simmonds is Puja and Stom saying things like "He looks like a very high level Prem fly-half to me, but not (English) international class." "He deserves a look in IMO, but Eddie seems to prefer others" "Smith and Umaga both seem to have much higher ceilings"

NB, rating Smith and Umaga is not the same as "dismissing" Simmonds - any more than rating May, Watson and Daly is "dismissing" Nowell.

I'm no rugby purist. My depth of knowledge of the game is way behind others on this board. However, it seems to me that some find is easy to dismiss Exeter's individuals without fully acknowledging the quality of their units. Thus, Williams and Hepburn are not top-level individually, it would seem, yet they are an integral part of the league's best front row. Only now, is Hill starting to get credit, yet I think he's been part of the league's best second row for several seasons. Exeter's back row lacks a jackler so it must be sub-par?? Maybe, just maybe, Baxter has a point with his set-up? How can Exeter be so lethal within five metres if the three units of forwards are not dominant? Which team or set of units has surpassed them?

The 'unfashionables' persist in the back line. Are Whitten or O'Flaherty in many 'teams of the week'?

I think Exeter are a SH away from being unbeatable. Somebody needs to explain to me how that can be if their players are so far down the pecking order.

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:Some were, and that isn’t in any case the sole reason to advocate selection- it’s not a wholly unreasonable start point though, and certainly better than the league table you posted. People were dismissing Simmonds without really considering how valuable he was in the top team, is another way of looking at it.

Were they?
I'm the first to admit that my memory is pretty terrible, but I don't recall anyone dismissing Simmonds, regardless of whether or not they'd considered his value to Exeter.

Equally, I don't recall anyone ever hailing Steenson amongst the best FHs in the Prem.

Some were saying he was well down the queue behind Smith and Umaga even, (See Puja above fessing up to talking against Simmonds) and Steenson was indeed mentioned in intl terms for both England and Ireland, even when Exeter weren’t top two. For a while he probably was amongst the most effective in the prem in fairness.

I don’t mind saying that I thought Simmonds was behind Smith. I don’t think I ever said he was behind Umaga, unless I said he was behind Umaga in Eddie Jones’ affections (which the evidence suggests was/possibly still is true).

I must admit, I never saw Simmonds as being that personally influential. I saw him more as a very competent performer rather than the conductor and I certainly never saw him as captain material. I’m happy to say that he’s proved that he’s for more influential as a 10 and as a leader than I gave him credit for.

Right now, I would have no hesitation in picking him for England. I still think Smith will be hot on his heels though.

Oakboy wrote:I'm no rugby purist. My depth of knowledge of the game is way behind others on this board. However, it seems to me that some find is easy to dismiss Exeter's individuals without fully acknowledging the quality of their units. Thus, Williams and Hepburn are not top-level individually, it would seem, yet they are an integral part of the league's best front row. Only now, is Hill starting to get credit, yet I think he's been part of the league's best second row for several seasons. Exeter's back row lacks a jackler so it must be sub-par?? Maybe, just maybe, Baxter has a point with his set-up? How can Exeter be so lethal within five metres if the three units of forwards are not dominant? Which team or set of units has surpassed them?

The 'unfashionables' persist in the back line. Are Whitten or O'Flaherty in many 'teams of the week'?

I think Exeter are a SH away from being unbeatable. Somebody needs to explain to me how that can be if their players are so far down the pecking order.

I already attempted to do that several posts back ...

To break it down:

Cowan-Dickie - great player, but not better than George

Hepburn/Moon - good players, but not better than Mako, Marler or Genge

Williams - not better than Sinckler and really fluffed his auditions to be his understudy

Hill - 100% deserves to be involved. No argument there.

Ewers - good player, but not as good as a lot of better back row options.

S. Simmonds - great player, but unfortunate to be competing with some exceptional talent

Maunder - can barely nail down a starting spot. No.

J. Simmonds - 100% deserves a shot. Competing with the captain and Ford (often vice captain)

Devoto - probably would be in the squad if he could stay fit for 5mins. Eddie typically picks him when he’s available.

Slade - fixture in the squad. No case to answer.

Nowell - fixture in the squad. No case to answer.

O’Flaherty - a wild card, but not better than May, Watson, Daly, Cokanasiga, Nowell or McConnochie

The Simmonds brothers and Hill can feel hard done by on past selections, but I wouldn’t bet against Hill and Joe getting called up. Sam could be, but I doubt he will be.

That do for you?

Scrumhead wrote: The Simmonds brothers and Hill can feel hard done by on past selections, but I wouldn’t bet against Hill and Joe getting called up. Sam could be, but I doubt he will be.

That do for you?

Yup - this is exactly where I'm landing. All is well

T'aint a bad attempt!! Thanks.