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
Featured
2024 Guinness Six Nations
[2023 Six Nations] England Squad
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="Crash Hamster" data-source="post: 1116468" data-attributes="member: 84693"><p>We're more or less on the same page here, but you're arguing against my having said that there's no value to a third jumper. If there's movement in the lineout, maybe you need a more agile 6'3 flanker as your defensive third jumper, rather than a lock who turns like the QE2? Your lock may get slightly more height, but not be quick enough into place.</p><p></p><p>I'm not clear whom your 6'8-lock-at-flanker-as-back-lifter is actually lifting, sorry. The first two jumpers are in front of him, so is he then lifting a 6'3 back rower? Are you using him to lift one of the two locks, in which case you've not got a third jumper at all?</p><p></p><p>I think my point summarises as:</p><p>with 11 or 12 own ball lineouts per game, taking away the throws to 2 and 4, the short ones to a prop at 1, the over-the-top defensive 5m lineouts, the shortened lineouts with only 2 jumpers, the uncontested lineouts 5m out, the ones won by a 6'3 flanker at third jumper, you're left with very, very few balls won by a 6'8 third lock. (I reckon maybe one at most). Against this, there's the sacrifice of missing a turnover, a tackle, an incisive carry... and I just don't think it's worth it. 6 for the blindsides, lock scum out. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crash Hamster, post: 1116468, member: 84693"] We're more or less on the same page here, but you're arguing against my having said that there's no value to a third jumper. If there's movement in the lineout, maybe you need a more agile 6'3 flanker as your defensive third jumper, rather than a lock who turns like the QE2? Your lock may get slightly more height, but not be quick enough into place. I'm not clear whom your 6'8-lock-at-flanker-as-back-lifter is actually lifting, sorry. The first two jumpers are in front of him, so is he then lifting a 6'3 back rower? Are you using him to lift one of the two locks, in which case you've not got a third jumper at all? I think my point summarises as: with 11 or 12 own ball lineouts per game, taking away the throws to 2 and 4, the short ones to a prop at 1, the over-the-top defensive 5m lineouts, the shortened lineouts with only 2 jumpers, the uncontested lineouts 5m out, the ones won by a 6'3 flanker at third jumper, you're left with very, very few balls won by a 6'8 third lock. (I reckon maybe one at most). Against this, there's the sacrifice of missing a turnover, a tackle, an incisive carry... and I just don't think it's worth it. 6 for the blindsides, lock scum out. :) [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Featured
2024 Guinness Six Nations
[2023 Six Nations] England Squad
Top