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: 1116471" data-attributes="member: 84693"><p>It's clearly not simple to explain, though, is it, otherwise you'd be able to do it? Once again, you've not responded to my point. If you read my argument carefully and tried to answer what I've asked, that would be a lot more helpful. To clarify: I don't think being 6'7 as opposed to 6'3 is a good reason to select a blindside flanker. If the best 6 in the country is also 6'7, great. Tell me why you disagree (you haven't)</p><p></p><p>In your example your lanky-lock-at-6 is being lifted by a prop, so the 6 isn't being helpfully used as a back lifter, as per your previous post. You could argue that your 5 can get higher because he's being lifted by a lanky 6, but he still has to outjump the opposition, <em>who have set up exactly the same way. Nothing in your example demonstrates a huge benefit in having a 6'7 flanker, as opposed to a 6'3 flanker with a good vertical jump, who is also best in the country at flanker things.</em></p><p></p><p>You're really making my point for me. Any one of three options can be thrown the ball. Having a particularly tall third option is a very minor factor. Opposition still have to mark the 6'3 flanker. Doesn't matter if they use their 6'7 flanker, he still can't mark 5, 6 and 7. I can even cite examples. Quins/Dombrandt, LI/BJvR, neither are 6'8, yet both have won lineout ball.</p><p></p><p>Positions have evolved for a reason and it's not clever to change that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crash Hamster, post: 1116471, member: 84693"] It's clearly not simple to explain, though, is it, otherwise you'd be able to do it? Once again, you've not responded to my point. If you read my argument carefully and tried to answer what I've asked, that would be a lot more helpful. To clarify: I don't think being 6'7 as opposed to 6'3 is a good reason to select a blindside flanker. If the best 6 in the country is also 6'7, great. Tell me why you disagree (you haven't) In your example your lanky-lock-at-6 is being lifted by a prop, so the 6 isn't being helpfully used as a back lifter, as per your previous post. You could argue that your 5 can get higher because he's being lifted by a lanky 6, but he still has to outjump the opposition, [I]who have set up exactly the same way. Nothing in your example demonstrates a huge benefit in having a 6'7 flanker, as opposed to a 6'3 flanker with a good vertical jump, who is also best in the country at flanker things.[/I] You're really making my point for me. Any one of three options can be thrown the ball. Having a particularly tall third option is a very minor factor. Opposition still have to mark the 6'3 flanker. Doesn't matter if they use their 6'7 flanker, he still can't mark 5, 6 and 7. I can even cite examples. Quins/Dombrandt, LI/BJvR, neither are 6'8, yet both have won lineout ball. Positions have evolved for a reason and it's not clever to change that. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Featured
2024 Guinness Six Nations
[2023 Six Nations] England Squad
Top