RugbyRebels

Thinking about trying to do a proper write up, and tout myself around the rugby sites again, so not much text on this, apart from the comments at some time points.

I've also introduced going up for a lineout as a positive interaction, including going up on opposition ball, not giving credit to lifters though.

Difference between Isiekwe's mark and Shields' mark might explain why Jones made that move.

Definitely, Isiekwe just wasn't effective in clearing out. Throw in the fact that Shields seems to be good in the lineout, and it seems a decent enough call. Hopefully Launch will be back next week, and Isiekwe can come on from the bench, a bit less pressure and less need to pace himself.

I said that! Isiekwe's work at ruck time wasn't a highlight, for sure.

There's three lines in there beside Tom Curry's name that really do stand out, though: First in: 5, Ineffective: 0, Unnecessary: 0.

Stom wrote: There's three lines in there beside Tom Curry's name that really do stand out, though: First in: 5, Ineffective: 0, Unnecessary: 0.

Cheers, Raggs. The stats themselves made my phone have a mental breakdown - I’ll take a look on the laptop at some point.

Yep. Great stuff from Curry. It’s why I’ve always said that just having a high number of rucks hit can be misleading.

Disappointed that the numbers show Jones was correct to take off Isiekwe. Mostly, because I can no longer claim it was a poor decision!

Raggs wrote:Definitely, Isiekwe just wasn't effective in clearing out. Throw in the fact that Shields seems to be good in the lineout, and it seems a decent enough call. Hopefully Launch will be back next week, and Isiekwe can come on from the bench, a bit less pressure and less need to pace himself.

Isiekwe gets up and in for the next passage quickly...

Raggs wrote:Isiekwe gets up and in for the next passage quickly...

Yep. If anything Itoje looks biggest culprit in that passage of play.

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:Isiekwe gets up and in for the next passage quickly...

Yep. If anything Itoje looks biggest culprit in that passage of play.

Yep. Plus not great from Robshaw, who's the defensive leader...Should have been screaming at them to get across the park. Not enough intensity.

Raggs wrote:Isiekwe gets up and in for the next passage quickly...

Up and in and then rolls over the top of a ruck in the wrong direction?

That really was an awful bit of play from both of them.

I was reading in the Times this morning that in general when playing at altitude players will hit a wall at about 20mins. Raggs, I don’t suppose your marking system would lend itself to breaking down the first and second 20min periods?

Time of each ruck is marked, so you probably could.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Raggs wrote:Isiekwe gets up and in for the next passage quickly...

Up and in and then rolls over the top of a ruck in the wrong direction?

I thought that initially, but the flop and role did prevent a possible offload as the tackler had only wrapped legs. Where he then gets up will depend on momentum and where he sees an initial gap. There is no way he would’ve known which way SA were going to move the ball.

Raggs wrote:Time of each ruck is marked, so you probably could.

Cheers. I’ll have a look when I get the chance.

You'd also have to take into account the flow of the game however, since we kept the ball for a lot of the first 20, and let them have it for next.

Isiekwe involvements are well down on what you would expect from a lock. Based on the stats, you can see why he was pulled.
Our starting front row werent up to much either.
Williams put in a good shift when he came on.

I know it’ll be crude but I think if you look at % drop for each player, assuming there is any, you might pick out some/an outliers. Alternatively, there may be nothing of note and I’ll have wasted half and hour; but, as my boss will tell you, it’s a common occurrence.

Aye. Like the look of Williams.

Replacements often look hugely better than the players the replaced, doubly so the front row, Williams looked handy for sure, but I was quite please with Sinckler.

Granted, I just like the dynamic of the super solid Williams (and it would be worth seeing if he really is that solid) starting and Sinkler adding a bit of hussle later on.

The balance/impact of the bench is another thing that (like with Lancaster) has really faded away after being a big strength initially. Obviously it's hard to have a good bench if your starting team is crap, but there are certain qualities you'd want and it has seemed unbalanced.

Mikey Brown wrote:Granted, I just like the dynamic of the super solid Williams (and it would be worth seeing if he really is that solid) starting and Sinkler adding a bit of hussle later on.

I agree, especially if the replacement loosehead is Marler. Regardless, I thought Sinckler looked slow and underpowered but he certainly wasn’t alone in that.

If Sinckler isnt running and handling you have to ask what exactly does he offer? His stats in defence and ruck engagements are not great. He scrummaged OK, though.
Looking again at the 1st half it becomes apparent just why Isiekwe was taken off. He does look off the pace and physically a bit lacking.
Losing Launchbury was a bigger hit than we imagined before kick off.

I've been banging on about Williams for ages now. He's not flash but he is properly solid, and as good a scrummager as Eng are able to select. Sinckler is suited to the bench because of how he plays. Too often he doesn't seem to get involved in much when starting at AP level so assuming he's gonna have a huge impact at int'l level when starting seems a bit daft. He would give us impact in the last 25-30 though.

Of course, if Williams starts this wkd he'll prob find the going tough at altitude too but we may just have a proper scrum platform to base things on and a solid defender.

We had a solid scrum with Sinckler, up until the boks made their changes, and it was no more solid with Williams.

Raggs wrote:You'd also have to take into account the flow of the game however, since we kept the ball for a lot of the first 20, and let them have it for next.

exactly my thought