Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
[2014 EOYT] England v Samoa
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Every Time Ref" data-source="post: 690888" data-attributes="member: 71826"><p>I've raised this a couple of times without success, possibly because (as I suspect) there isn't really an answer - but what, precisely, is it that qualifies Owen Farrell to play at inside centre? I can't see in him any of the qualities a coach would want from a twelve except good defence.</p><p></p><p>To move away from Farrell (sorry, I know we were all enjoying it...) I am actually pleased to see that back row. I think for the first time in a while, we're seeing a back row which actually encompasses a good balance of all the things you want your back row to do. There's one real work horse, two big ball carriers, all three good on defence, there's even a decent over-the-ball style seven in there (haskell). Plus, you could argue there's a link mantype flanker, although Robshaw hasn't been doing that particularly effectively recently. All in all, I really like the balance. I'd like to find a way to incorporate a breakdown specialist long-term, but given the options of known international class we have available I think that's actually the best combination in the country.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Can't they both be true? I don't think poor quality ball from the pack makes the backs entirely redundant, it may be easier to work with better ball but I would argue that the selection of someone like Barritt compounds the problems in attack because he <em>needs</em> good quality ball to offer anything significant. A true attacking thirteen, Tuilagi or JJ, might be a lot more frightening with good quality go forward ball but both, in their different ways, are still capable of offering something and keeping defences interested when the ball is rubbish. Australia have showed in the last year or so that even without a dominant pack it is possible for good backs to cause problems.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Every Time Ref, post: 690888, member: 71826"] I've raised this a couple of times without success, possibly because (as I suspect) there isn't really an answer - but what, precisely, is it that qualifies Owen Farrell to play at inside centre? I can't see in him any of the qualities a coach would want from a twelve except good defence. To move away from Farrell (sorry, I know we were all enjoying it...) I am actually pleased to see that back row. I think for the first time in a while, we're seeing a back row which actually encompasses a good balance of all the things you want your back row to do. There's one real work horse, two big ball carriers, all three good on defence, there's even a decent over-the-ball style seven in there (haskell). Plus, you could argue there's a link mantype flanker, although Robshaw hasn't been doing that particularly effectively recently. All in all, I really like the balance. I'd like to find a way to incorporate a breakdown specialist long-term, but given the options of known international class we have available I think that's actually the best combination in the country. Can't they both be true? I don't think poor quality ball from the pack makes the backs entirely redundant, it may be easier to work with better ball but I would argue that the selection of someone like Barritt compounds the problems in attack because he [I]needs[/I] good quality ball to offer anything significant. A true attacking thirteen, Tuilagi or JJ, might be a lot more frightening with good quality go forward ball but both, in their different ways, are still capable of offering something and keeping defences interested when the ball is rubbish. Australia have showed in the last year or so that even without a dominant pack it is possible for good backs to cause problems. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
[2014 EOYT] England v Samoa
Top