Summer Rugby Union Internationals
Discussion
a311 said:
Still don't know what our best centre partnership is, Eastmond was targeted today and looks a bit too small for a modern game centre against top opposition, wasn't all his fault as the gaps left in midfield during the first half you could have fit a bus through. MT is worth having on, but one thing I noticed was how the new boy Fekitoa looked in comparison. Big lad but also explosive from a standstill almost, MT needs at least 5 or 10 m to build up a head of steam, otherwise any player worth their salt can bring him down. For me for the time being drop the s
te about being creative etc and bring Brad Barrit back
I remember watching this http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cYfhrBdmruY and thinking Eastmond was the new Jason Robinson. Maybe he still could be. I don't know. te about being creative etc and bring Brad Barrit back Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 21st June 14:27
I think we do need a playmaker at 12. On R5Live the post match chat between Ian Robertson and Murray Mxted was interesting: Cipriani at 10 and Farrell at 12. It might be worth an experiment, if only because there's no self-selecting midfield at the moment.
As for Manu, never really been a fan. I will give him praise, somewhat grudgingly, when it is due, but for me he is a very blunt instrument. Ad I hate him for wearing those crappy mid shin length socks!
England didnt lose because they failed to score enough tries or their attacking play...they lost because of their defence. They leaked too many tries and got opened apart far too easily in the first 15mins.
An England backline is there to defend first and foremost. Attacking should only ever be even considered after job 1 is done.
They aren't there to entertain. They are there to win.
An England backline is there to defend first and foremost. Attacking should only ever be even considered after job 1 is done.
They aren't there to entertain. They are there to win.
Agreed, but conversely, no point having great defence if you can't score at the other end. It's not about entertaining, it's about having sufficient weapons in your arsenal to put enough points on the board to win the game. You are rarely going to bully a SA/NZ pack for a whole 80 minutes so you need other weapons.
Every change the IRB makes to the laws or interpretations these days is aimed at giving the advantage to the attacking side.
They have also spent 20 years slowly but surely depowering the contact areas with their rulings on scrummaging/rucking/mauling.
Lifting and moving before throw-in in the lineout has made it less of at physical contest.
That makes it important to have players who can create the half break to unpick the RL style full width defensive line.
It's easier too to improve a player's defensive performance than it is to improve their handling skills or decision making skills.
For example, Cipriani has worked hard on his tackling and is now a dedcent, if not Wilkinson/Farrell level. Farrell will never see, never mind create the opportunities that DC does if you coach him until he's 50 years old.
Every change the IRB makes to the laws or interpretations these days is aimed at giving the advantage to the attacking side.
They have also spent 20 years slowly but surely depowering the contact areas with their rulings on scrummaging/rucking/mauling.
Lifting and moving before throw-in in the lineout has made it less of at physical contest.
That makes it important to have players who can create the half break to unpick the RL style full width defensive line.
It's easier too to improve a player's defensive performance than it is to improve their handling skills or decision making skills.
For example, Cipriani has worked hard on his tackling and is now a dedcent, if not Wilkinson/Farrell level. Farrell will never see, never mind create the opportunities that DC does if you coach him until he's 50 years old.
Edited by DocJock on Sunday 22 June 09:24
DJRC said:
England didnt lose because they failed to score enough tries or their attacking play...they lost because of their defence. They leaked too many tries and got opened apart far too easily in the first 15mins.
An England backline is there to defend first and foremost. Attacking should only ever be even considered after job 1 is done.
They aren't there to entertain. They are there to win.
Exactly. Eastmond was horribly exposed defensively in the first half, as was Burns. They weren't great beyond that either but when your 10 and 12 are overwhelmed it's hard to judge them.An England backline is there to defend first and foremost. Attacking should only ever be even considered after job 1 is done.
They aren't there to entertain. They are there to win.
Defensively exposed, yes. However you need to give credit to NZ because their players know how to expose the weaknesses in the first place.
Their players are intelligent enough to keep asking different questions of England's defence rather than just keep labouring away with the same old predetermined patterns that England used with ball in hand (or more often, on boot).
Their players are intelligent enough to keep asking different questions of England's defence rather than just keep labouring away with the same old predetermined patterns that England used with ball in hand (or more often, on boot).
DJRC said:
Defence + They aren't there to entertain. They are there to win.
Couldn't agree more. We've also go to remember we're missing our first choice loose and tight head props. I think with having two 6.5's in Robshaw and Wood we really miss having Dan Cole too. He does allot of work at the break down.I'd never have Farrell in the centres. Short term i.e. build up and including the WC suggest the tactics are FORWARDS, FORWARDS, FORWARDS and pick a defensive back line or drill the existing lot on how to defend and tackle. Defence isn't just about making one up tackles but about organisation a job that Brad Barritt does very well. MT is a wrecking ball but his defence at times is shocking, unless someone is running straight at him he seems to fall off a lot of tackles given his size. MT & BB would look a lot better if we had a creative #10 but I just can't see Farrell being dropped as the starting 10 unless injured regardless of how the others play, Burns may improve at Leicester this season. There aren't allot of games now to decide on a #2 ten for the WC.
Finally I watch a bit of RL. I reckon Sam Burgess could come good enough to at least warrant a game or two in the England set up prior to the WC. The major difference between RL and union in the centres is in RL you can afford to get isolated if you go on a run and make a couple of breaks. At worst he can do what MT does but can also tackle and pass, best case he could be an English Sonny Bill Williams IMO.
DocJock said:
Defensively exposed, yes. However you need to give credit to NZ because their players know how to expose the weaknesses in the first place.
Their players are intelligent enough to keep asking different questions of England's defence rather than just keep labouring away with the same old predetermined patterns that England used with ball in hand (or more often, on boot).
You probably don't mean it this way but that sounds defeatist, as though we should be just admiring the ABs as opposed to fixing the weaknesses. I doubt you mean that but the reality is, I think, that Kyle Eastmond isn't there yet, nor is Freddie Burns and I have doubts whether Eastmond ever will be because he's simply too small.Their players are intelligent enough to keep asking different questions of England's defence rather than just keep labouring away with the same old predetermined patterns that England used with ball in hand (or more often, on boot).
DocJock said:
Agreed, but conversely, no point having great defence if you can't score at the other end. It's not about entertaining, it's about having sufficient weapons in your arsenal to put enough points on the board to win the game. You are rarely going to bully a SA/NZ pack for a whole 80 minutes so you need other weapons.
Every change the IRB makes to the laws or interpretations these days is aimed at giving the advantage to the attacking side.
They have also spent 20 years slowly but surely depowering the contact areas with their rulings on scrummaging/rucking/mauling.
Lifting and moving before throw-in in the lineout has made it less of at physical contest.
That makes it important to have players who can create the half break to unpick the RL style full width defensive line.
It's easier too to improve a player's defensive performance than it is to improve their handling skills or decision making skills.
For example, Cipriani has worked hard on his tackling and is now a dedcent, if not Wilkinson/Farrell level. Farrell will never see, never mind create the opportunities that DC does if you coach him until he's 50 years old.
Agree with this. Every change the IRB makes to the laws or interpretations these days is aimed at giving the advantage to the attacking side.
They have also spent 20 years slowly but surely depowering the contact areas with their rulings on scrummaging/rucking/mauling.
Lifting and moving before throw-in in the lineout has made it less of at physical contest.
That makes it important to have players who can create the half break to unpick the RL style full width defensive line.
It's easier too to improve a player's defensive performance than it is to improve their handling skills or decision making skills.
For example, Cipriani has worked hard on his tackling and is now a dedcent, if not Wilkinson/Farrell level. Farrell will never see, never mind create the opportunities that DC does if you coach him until he's 50 years old.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 22 June 09:24
Defensive strength in a back line is very important, but it is a tool for the times when you don't have possession. Drill the forwards and you should expect to have possession.
Good sides avoid conceding points with a strong defence, but no one puts points on the board purely with a good defence.
England score points quite well. Where is this notion coming from? We score penalties, we score tries. Currently it is defence which lets us down and its the backline defence not the Pack. The first two NZ tries werent multi phase or counter attacking genius...they were almost first phase play and the ball just went wide around a narrow England defence.
LOL, we are arguing about something we agree on.
Yes, defensive performance is always the bedrock you build on. Stop them scoring and then score at the other end.
Problem is, at the moment we have players who are good at one or the other, but not both.
BTW I am not advocating a backline full of fancy dans, but you need someone who has vision. For me that would be Cipriani.
Having played half back at a decent level I know that someone with his talent can create space for guys who would never see the gap just by his weight of pass drawing them on to the correct running line.
I'd have him at 10 and Brad Barritt at 12. He'll never let you down in defence, he's a proper bear in the tackle, but he doesn't get the credit he deserves for his great hands in attack.
God knows who I'd have at 13, Burrell probably until someone teaches Manu how to tackle and how to align in defence.
I'd have Marland on one wing for sure. He can be drilled on defence. Dunno about the other. Splash was left exposed too often to blame him for Savea's try-fest IMO, didn't see enough 1v1 situations to judge if his defensive coaching has worked.
Brown is our stand out 15 by a mile.
Yes, defensive performance is always the bedrock you build on. Stop them scoring and then score at the other end.
Problem is, at the moment we have players who are good at one or the other, but not both.
BTW I am not advocating a backline full of fancy dans, but you need someone who has vision. For me that would be Cipriani.
Having played half back at a decent level I know that someone with his talent can create space for guys who would never see the gap just by his weight of pass drawing them on to the correct running line.
I'd have him at 10 and Brad Barritt at 12. He'll never let you down in defence, he's a proper bear in the tackle, but he doesn't get the credit he deserves for his great hands in attack.
God knows who I'd have at 13, Burrell probably until someone teaches Manu how to tackle and how to align in defence.
I'd have Marland on one wing for sure. He can be drilled on defence. Dunno about the other. Splash was left exposed too often to blame him for Savea's try-fest IMO, didn't see enough 1v1 situations to judge if his defensive coaching has worked.
Brown is our stand out 15 by a mile.
DocJock said:
SA - Scotland.
Men against boys. Too big, too strong, too good.
Pollard is going to be a big star.
Haven't caught the game yet as was away at the weekend. Bit of an odd game really given the travelling and then to try a 'development' side you knew they were in for a hiding. Cotter is a very good coach but I fear he doesn't have that much depth and talent to work with.Men against boys. Too big, too strong, too good.
Pollard is going to be a big star.
In other news Fiji qualified for the RWC and are in England, Wales, Australia's group. Potential banana skin for anyone on their day, last qualifier still to be decided.
DocJock said:
SA - Scotland.
Men against boys. Too big, too strong, too good.
Pollard is going to be a big star.
I was a big Johann Goosen fan, but he is brittle, his last outing for the boks, lasted a total of 4 minutes on the field before another injury. Pollard does look at ease, but lets see how he fares when he is not behind a pack, steam rolling the opposition at will.Men against boys. Too big, too strong, too good.
Pollard is going to be a big star.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
I was a big Johann Goosen fan, but he is brittle, his last outing for the boks, lasted a total of 4 minutes on the field before another injury. Pollard does look at ease, but lets see how he fares when he is not behind a pack, steam rolling the opposition at will.
He was in that position against England for the Junior RWC final a couple of weeks back. He was the stand out performer in an RSA team defeated by a single point.I still think it was out of order to present him with his junior player of the year award straight after losing the biggest game in his life to date when he was clearly utterly gutted about the result.
Kermit power said:
He was in that position against England for the Junior RWC final a couple of weeks back. He was the stand out performer in an RSA team defeated by a single point.
I still think it was out of order to present him with his junior player of the year award straight after losing the biggest game in his life to date when he was clearly utterly gutted about the result.
I watched that game a few times, hoping for a different ending each time I still think it was out of order to present him with his junior player of the year award straight after losing the biggest game in his life to date when he was clearly utterly gutted about the result.
He is certainly a talented player, who has the full set of fly half skills, game management, kicking, passing and actually running with the ball(not something Morne Steyn does often). If he does not get played into the ground, or too indoctrinated in the blue Bulls bash 'em and kick it rugby style, he has the skill set and temperament to be a top player. He did look more comfortable with Du Preez on his inside than Hougaard.
He already has a JWC winners medal, so not all bad on that.
Eastmond is more suited to league, I'm amazed you guys play him in the centres as he can't play there in league never mind RU where it's more power based in the middle. I'd suggest fb could be his position in both codes, certainly league.
Sam Burgess is another level. He's massive, strong, great engine, tough and has great footwork. He will be a massive step up for Eng RU midfield IF he get can to grips with the technicalities. He Never played union but he is a tremendous athlete, elite athletes like Burgess and SBW can make the switch between codes. Not sure Sam has enough time and may be used as impact for the World Cup which is a shame.
Either way, the NRL is widely regarded as the toughest competition of either code and burgess is a top 10-15 NRL player, an absolute superstar.
Sam Burgess is another level. He's massive, strong, great engine, tough and has great footwork. He will be a massive step up for Eng RU midfield IF he get can to grips with the technicalities. He Never played union but he is a tremendous athlete, elite athletes like Burgess and SBW can make the switch between codes. Not sure Sam has enough time and may be used as impact for the World Cup which is a shame.
Either way, the NRL is widely regarded as the toughest competition of either code and burgess is a top 10-15 NRL player, an absolute superstar.
NickNJ said:
Eastmond is more suited to league, I'm amazed you guys play him in the centres as he can't play there in league never mind RU where it's more power based in the middle. I'd suggest fb could be his position in both codes, certainly league.
Sam Burgess is another level. He's massive, strong, great engine, tough and has great footwork. He will be a massive step up for Eng RU midfield IF he get can to grips with the technicalities. He Never played union but he is a tremendous athlete, elite athletes like Burgess and SBW can make the switch between codes. Not sure Sam has enough time and may be used as impact for the World Cup which is a shame.
Either way, the NRL is widely regarded as the toughest competition of either code and burgess is a top 10-15 NRL player, an absolute superstar.
I think he will get to grips with it fairly quickly - going forward at least. Hitting the line flat, or cutting the angle/ playing off the shoulder is where the most recent league converts tend to shine.Sam Burgess is another level. He's massive, strong, great engine, tough and has great footwork. He will be a massive step up for Eng RU midfield IF he get can to grips with the technicalities. He Never played union but he is a tremendous athlete, elite athletes like Burgess and SBW can make the switch between codes. Not sure Sam has enough time and may be used as impact for the World Cup which is a shame.
Either way, the NRL is widely regarded as the toughest competition of either code and burgess is a top 10-15 NRL player, an absolute superstar.
He might take a while to get up to speed defensively, where it is more technical at the top level. Yes he can tackle and cover, but the things like side entry, hands in, rolling over etc might take him a year to get to international level.
Would love to be proved wrong however.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff