I just like to say being a Rugby League fan I do on the odd occasion watch the Union Internationals and was looking forward to Saturdays Calcutta Cup game but it put me to sleep. I think the problem being there are too many players on the pitch. It's not very often breaks are made and it just turns into a wrestling match at times. I remember my Dad saying a few years back a match between France and England the ball was in play for just 20 or so minutes, how can it be exciting for the fans to watch no wonder more people are turning to league. On average we only get about 4000 fans turning up to watch Edinburgh at Murrayfield and you see why. I just feel for people who attended yesterdays game at Murrayfield and payed £75 plus for a ticket, fans must be thinking they've just been robbed. I do have blood on both sides of the border so in retrospect I am a neutral and maybe the second round matches will come to life but I feel it all comes down to having 15 players on the field rather than 13, if this was to change in the future, Union would be on par with League and be more exciting to watch and there would be more points scored and the fans would be more interested and flock back through the turnstyles,otherwise there is no hope for Union in my opinion.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
[2016 RBS Six Nations] Round 1: Scotland vs. England (06/02/2016)
- Thread starter TRF_heineken
- Start date
You really registered just to say union should be more like league?
Thanks for the concern. I have emailed the Queen of England and the president of World Rugby detailing your plans on how to make union more like league ie a better sport. We at World Rugby take any allegations that union is not enough like league VERY SERIOUSLY. In the meantime, I would implore you to watch more rugby league and tell us more about why it's a better sport.
Yeah too many mistakes for a top fullback. Brilliant runner though.
There's a difference between some argy bargy like that and actually pushing a player.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Messages
- 8,538
- Club or Nation
Stuff off......the reason Union is boring now is because of the defensive systems and other influenced brought in from bloody league!!
The Jones Boy
First XV
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2013
- Messages
- 2,748
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
He's still young and impetuous, he will calm down in time.
RL? Player gets tackled gets up rolls the ball back, repeat 4 more times and kick the ball to the opposition who do the same thing. Repeat for 80 minutes zzzzzzzzzzz
g6mcg
Bench Player
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
- Messages
- 742
- Country Flag
I do wonder if it's partly because of the pressure on him to create breaks.
Saw this on the Warriors forum, anyone else pick up on this?
In the first half of the game after Laidlaw's missed penalty the English drop-out carried all the way to the Scotland in-goal and was grounded by Finn Russell.
Per law 13.15 (b) option offered should have been scrum at the centre of the English 22 or drop-out to be retaken. Instead we had a Scottish drop-out.
It's got to be a rare turn of events so not surprised our players didn't pick up on it, but what's Lacey's excuse?
In the first half of the game after Laidlaw's missed penalty the English drop-out carried all the way to the Scotland in-goal and was grounded by Finn Russell.
Per law 13.15 (b) option offered should have been scrum at the centre of the English 22 or drop-out to be retaken. Instead we had a Scottish drop-out.
It's got to be a rare turn of events so not surprised our players didn't pick up on it, but what's Lacey's excuse?
Last edited:
Stats on the 6N site say Haskell made 18 tackles, Robshaw 7 tackles. I cede on Faletau (19 tackles) & Roberts (20 tackles).
What I read was that Scotland & Wales both went with two specialist opensides this weekend, for a combined 2 turnovers at the breakdown over two tests, both to Tipuric.
I'm not sure this specialist openside notion is all it is cracked up to be.
Guys, can we have a step back and think about what being a specialist openside is all about before you drive me postal?
It's not all about the turnovers. If we're measuring the success of a specialist openside solely by turnovers, something has gone horribly awry. I know they're really prominent and a lot of specialist opensides are really good at them, but it's really not the only reason they're on the pitch. There's very few players in recent years who've made their way onto the pitch solely because they're good at turning over ball at the ruck and those guys have been exceptional.
The point of a specialist openside is he is the forward constantly working to be in support of the ball. And yes, if he's doing that correctly, frequently he will be the first person at the breakdown and that should give him a lot of chances to turnover ball at the ruck. But an openside can have a good game without ever turning over the ball there if he's effectively rucking out his own ball, preventing players from getting isolated, offering a linking option, diving on loose balls, slowing opposition ball, and so on.
Just because Haskell didn't get a turnover didn't mean he was a failure as an openside, just as Robshaw having the second most turnovers in the last 6N didn't mean he was a success as an openside. Success and failure in the role of openside depends on how they fulfilled the above paragraph.
And both men have been to date, imo, failures. There were simply too many problems in securing our own ball swiftly for the openside and too little sign of opposition ball being slowed to be deemed a success. Haskell deserves more than one game before being deemed an overall failure (and needs to play in more open games to boot) but his general history does not make for confidence on the score. Nor does the sight of Joe Launchbury once again looking more like England's openside than any of the back row - and, on reflection on the opinions of others, I'm really not sure Launchbury was properly fit that game.
Fair enough if you disagree with me on that. But please make it about how they played as an openside, and not about the turnovers, or I'm billing this place for any ensuing mental health problems.
It's not all about the turnovers. If we're measuring the success of a specialist openside solely by turnovers, something has gone horribly awry. I know they're really prominent and a lot of specialist opensides are really good at them, but it's really not the only reason they're on the pitch. There's very few players in recent years who've made their way onto the pitch solely because they're good at turning over ball at the ruck and those guys have been exceptional.
The point of a specialist openside is he is the forward constantly working to be in support of the ball. And yes, if he's doing that correctly, frequently he will be the first person at the breakdown and that should give him a lot of chances to turnover ball at the ruck. But an openside can have a good game without ever turning over the ball there if he's effectively rucking out his own ball, preventing players from getting isolated, offering a linking option, diving on loose balls, slowing opposition ball, and so on.
Just because Haskell didn't get a turnover didn't mean he was a failure as an openside, just as Robshaw having the second most turnovers in the last 6N didn't mean he was a success as an openside. Success and failure in the role of openside depends on how they fulfilled the above paragraph.
And both men have been to date, imo, failures. There were simply too many problems in securing our own ball swiftly for the openside and too little sign of opposition ball being slowed to be deemed a success. Haskell deserves more than one game before being deemed an overall failure (and needs to play in more open games to boot) but his general history does not make for confidence on the score. Nor does the sight of Joe Launchbury once again looking more like England's openside than any of the back row - and, on reflection on the opinions of others, I'm really not sure Launchbury was properly fit that game.
Fair enough if you disagree with me on that. But please make it about how they played as an openside, and not about the turnovers, or I'm billing this place for any ensuing mental health problems.
My eyesight was bad last night (appears I didn't line thing up right) Kruis I meant not Robshaw.
All of which I struggle to think how Columbia can describe Haskell as being exceptional. Robshaw use to make like a bajillion tackles but we found out in the end we needed a proper openside and we just traded one guy for another that does the exact same thing.
As an aside I noted I didn't remember player getting isolated then I looked at out backline attacking stats....6 defenders beaten and 3 clean breaks all match (5 of which came from Nowell).
Here's where I think the issue is George Ford makes 20 passes, Care and Youngs make 64 (of which Youngs make 29 so not sure what the hell Care was doing for 60 minutes) so we're clearly giving it to the forwards possibly a bit too much. The problem comes further midfield Farell 4 passes he's not a Tualangi type he should be passing the ball on more Joseph has similar stats of 3 and Brown also has 4.
TBF Farrell has similar stats to Burrell last year in the corresponding fixture last but with similar passing stats from the scrum half you see the backline getting it way more and shipping it amongst ourselves.
I know there are conditions and what not but we do seam to regressed in backline potency a fair bit from last year (it was also evident in the world cup) and we do need to address it a little.
Care was probably not having the ball ^_^
But yeah, no one was getting isolated as pretty much no one was going wide. I don't know if I posted the G&G analysis of Japan's attack under Jones at the World Cup, and I don't know if you saw it if I did, but the scrum-half running the show with the action in the centre of the park is how they did it then and it appeared to be our plan here. Deliberate, not a mistake, and I don't think we should be expecting to see a 2015 style 6N back line any time soon.
Also, arguably, you don't need an openside too much for that.
I think Fazlet kicked it more than he either passed or ran. Welcome back to 2012/13, just maybe with better execution.
spartan32
Bench Player
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2015
- Messages
- 526
In the Ireland v Wales match I would submit the reason that Roberts, for example, got so many tackles in is because the Irish ran straight at him, and conversely the Welsh ran straight at the Irish neither seemingly making any attempt to avoid the contact. Making tacking the player with the ball child's play. This should be taken into account when looking at tackles made stats. On the other hand Haskell went hunting for a least a good few of those hits and I think played pretty well all being said.
j'nuh
First XV
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 4,209
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Peat, I see that being the role of the second row and blindside primarily. They have the powerful frames to be able to drive over the ball effectively. I also don't see it being a particularly specialist role, everyone in the pack should be working in support of the ball carrier. In attack, I see the 7 playing the link between forwards and backs, which is why you often see the 7 making the most passes of any forward, but also rucking when numbers are low.
Breakdown skills are what I see as the most important part of an openside because they are so specialist. Whilst a lot of forwards can be situationally competent in the breakdown, the 7 is the only player on the field that is actively looking for ways of disrupting the breakdown. I agree that the success of an openside shouldn't be measured on turnovers though. I think that more often than turning the ball over, they are slowing down opposition ball and this is a crucial role. There's no useful metric to really tell how often they are slowing opposition ball down relative to other players, but my instincts say that if you're the kind of player that turns the ball over often, then you're the kind of player that is slowing down opposition breakdown too.
I think the point is that Kvesic is seen to lack in a skill that Jones deems as important for all forwards to have.
Breakdown skills are what I see as the most important part of an openside because they are so specialist. Whilst a lot of forwards can be situationally competent in the breakdown, the 7 is the only player on the field that is actively looking for ways of disrupting the breakdown. I agree that the success of an openside shouldn't be measured on turnovers though. I think that more often than turning the ball over, they are slowing down opposition ball and this is a crucial role. There's no useful metric to really tell how often they are slowing opposition ball down relative to other players, but my instincts say that if you're the kind of player that turns the ball over often, then you're the kind of player that is slowing down opposition breakdown too.
I think the point is that Kvesic is seen to lack in a skill that Jones deems as important for all forwards to have.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Messages
- 10,642
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
I thought he was supposed to ice-cool, not a petulant oik? I'm sure I saw that somewhere in the press.
No, it couldn't. He doesn't have to change his line to accommodate Farrell's idiocy. If he'd leaned bck into Farrell, you have an argument, but that didn't happen. The ball was over the line and he simply threw the dummy out of the pram. Penalty in any ref's book.
Similar threads
