RugbyRebels

I suspect it won't be enough, but that was a gutsy effort.

I know there's no onus on an away side to entertain - but any side with as much firepower as Toulon, who play that narrow, and take 11 shots at goal, deserve to lose.

Great result. But I agree about Toulon. They always seem a bit underwhelming.

Good stuff, Scarlets!
So Toulon are more or less eliminated - Oh dear, what a shame, never mind!!!!

Well done, hanging in there till the end! They took it to Toulon - a deserved win.

From a Wales perspective, slightly worrying inaccuracy from 1/2p. I guess they were long-range efforts though, but definitely a bad day at the office, especially when you expect (from a Welsh perspective!) that he's the man with the nerves to clinch the match with a final kick.

Yes ISTR only one of the four misses was a"regulation" kick, and TWO of them were essentially long shots to win the match. Not as bad as 7/11 sounds.

Sourdust wrote:Yes ISTR only one of the four misses was a"regulation" kick, and TWO of them were essentially long shots to win the match. Not as bad as 7/11 sounds.

That does sound a bit better when put like that. It is baffling why a team with Toulon's quality is resorting to very long range hail Mary kicks when on paper, they should be doing a lot better.

Sandydragon wrote:

Sourdust wrote:Yes ISTR only one of the four misses was a"regulation" kick, and TWO of them were essentially long shots to win the match. Not as bad as 7/11 sounds.

That does sound a bit better when put like that. It is baffling why a team with Toulon's quality is resorting to very long range hail Mary kicks when on paper, they should be doing a lot better.

They aren't resorting to it, that's the whole point of having a long range kicker, if he had made the kicks they would have won, having the ability to take 3 points from the halfway line is one that no team is likely to turn down unless they are several scores behind.

But anyway, very pleased for the Scarlets, it's a shame a couple of the moves in the first half didn't end in tries but all in all a tremendous effort.

Patchell seems to be fitting in nicely at 10 now after a run of games, the fact the Scarlets pack were wrecking Toulon in the scrum in the first half bodes well for Wales as it was an all International front row.

As I said, there's no moral requirement for the away team to play champagne rugby. If you're having trouble with a fast, skillful game, then using your forwards to shut them down, bashing it up and kicking your goals is a perfectly acceptable strategy. If you win, you'll get the plaudits for having the cool pragmatism required to get the job done. But if you lose, you can expect no sympathy, particularly if your team has a clear on-paper supremacy over your opponent.

Scarlets would only have had themselves to blame if one of their late indiscretions cost them the match. But that didn't happen; so the criticism belongs to the team who had the firepower to match and overcome the running game of their opponents, chose otherwise, and failed.

I haven't seen Patchell play since September when he was still finding his feet.
Now I'm reading about him winning games with his boot......and frankly I'd hoped for a bit more than that.

kk67 wrote:I haven't seen Patchell play since September when he was still finding his feet.
Now I'm reading about him winning games with his boot......and frankly I'd hoped for a bit more than that.

If you are referring to Sourdusts post then he's talking about Toulon.

Numbers wrote:

kk67 wrote:I haven't seen Patchell play since September when he was still finding his feet.
Now I'm reading about him winning games with his boot......and frankly I'd hoped for a bit more than that.

If you are referring to Sourdusts post then he's talking about Toulon.

I wasn't. When I first started to rate Patchell it was on the basis of his distribution. I don't rank 10's by virtue of their boot, my primary concerns are that they distribute and make first up tackles. A decent boot is a bonus.

Were it not for the Jenkins/Andrew era I suspect that all 10's would be judged that way.

kk67 wrote:

Numbers wrote:

kk67 wrote:I haven't seen Patchell play since September when he was still finding his feet.
Now I'm reading about him winning games with his boot......and frankly I'd hoped for a bit more than that.

If you are referring to Sourdusts post then he's talking about Toulon.

I wasn't. When I first started to rate Patchell it was on the basis of his distribution. I don't rank 10's by virtue of their boot, my primary concerns are that they distribute and make first up tackles. A decent boot is a bonus.

Were it not for the Jenkins/Andrew era I suspect that all 10's would be judged that way.

By 'boot' I assume that you are referring to place kicking? Tactical kicking is a skill that any good fly half must have.

kk67 wrote:

Numbers wrote:

kk67 wrote:I haven't seen Patchell play since September when he was still finding his feet.
Now I'm reading about him winning games with his boot......and frankly I'd hoped for a bit more than that.

If you are referring to Sourdusts post then he's talking about Toulon.

I wasn't. When I first started to rate Patchell it was on the basis of his distribution. I don't rank 10's by virtue of their boot, my primary concerns are that they distribute and make first up tackles. A decent boot is a bonus.

Were it not for the Jenkins/Andrew era I suspect that all 10's would be judged that way.

I see, I'm not sure what articles you have been reading but probably best to form your own opinion after watching a game rather than reading articles and commenting. I'm not sure what you're talking about re: Andrew/Jenkins.

Regarding 10s, then if the 10 is the primary kicker then surely his ability to kick has some bearing on your rating, after all you can't run the ball all the time.