England Rugby 2018/19 Thread

[MarkyH]

All these injuries and Manu is the one who's looking fit!

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

All these injuries and Manu is the one who's looking fit!

Don't jinx it

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

If only he learns to pass he might make a good rugby player one day.

 

[Fuzzy du Plessis]

Manu's injury record in 2018 is surprisingly good for a player whose game is built around heavy collisions. So far he's missed 2 HC matches, 5 League games and 5 AWC/PC. The 2 HC matches came when Tigers were already out of the competition so rested/rotated as much as they could get away with and 2 of the league matches were last month whilst he was with the England squad. Every other game he started and was rarely replaced.

Unless he picks up an injury over the next couple of weeks he will have gone a full calendar year missing only 3 or 4 games through injury that Tigers would've picked him in. It just feels worse because he missed the 6 Nations, SA tour and Autumn Internationals but he was definitely fit for the first 2 and the muscle strain that kept him out of the AI was so minor he apparently would've played had it been the WC.

Obviously it's Manu so this can all change in a second, but after years of saying it would be stupid for Eddie to even consider having Manu at 13 I'm slowly starting to change my mind. Had he shown better form towards the end of 2017 we could easily be in a position now where he'd played every England match this year.

 

[Nudger]

Am I the only one that doesn't want gatland after the world cup

 

[Which Tyler]

No

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Am I the only one that doesn't want gatland after the world cup

Would rather **** in my hands and clap.

Genuinely would struggle to support the side as much with him in charge.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Haven't the RFU stayed the next coach would be enlgish?

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Haven't the RFU stayed the next coach would be enlgish?

In these mad times they're probably not allowed to say that! I think that was a preference, but no doubt that they'll be seduced by an anitopdean accent and revert to "best man for the job" mode.

 

[higgik]

Back to the team selection, Kyran Bracken has said in TRP, that the 9 is the problem for England, as it is stopping the back line playing with speed.

He wanted Robson and Spencer to have been blooded so they were ready.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

He's not wrong,

Spencer is looking better and better, I thought he'd made a mistake staying at Sarries as I thought he should be first choice somewhere but rotating with wigglesworth has really rounded his game out - his box kicking is really really good these days, and he's essentially looking like a faster version of Wigglesworth

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Back to the team selection, Kyran Bracken has said in TRP, that the 9 is the problem for England, as it is stopping the back line playing with speed.

He wanted Robson and Spencer to have been blooded so they were ready.

Can't disagree with that.

Robson and Spencer are both 26. Not exactly past it, but would both be latecomers to the international game.

 

[Scotty]

He's not wrong,

Spencer is looking better and better, I thought he'd made a mistake staying at Sarries as I thought he should be first choice somewhere but rotating with wigglesworth has really rounded his game out - his box kicking is really really good these days, and he's essentially looking like a faster version of Wigglesworth

And if we are looking at faz as first choice 10 then theres that relationship already there with spencer. Which does count for alot.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

And if we are looking at faz as first choice 10 then theres that relationship already there with spencer. Which does count for alot.

By extension, a lot of people would say that the spine of a team is 2 - 8 - 9 - 10 -15.

2 George
8 Binny
9 Spencer
10 Faz
15. Do Sarries have any English full backs? Perhaps an out and out specialist, maybe already with a few caps? No, I can't think of one either

 

[Scotty]

By extension, a lot of people would say that the spine of a team is 2 - 8 - 9 - 10 -15.

2 George
8 Binny
9 Spencer
10 Faz
15. Do Sarries have any English full backs? Perhaps an out and out specialist, maybe already with a few caps? No, I can't think of one either

Naa no 15s come to mind at sarries...liam williams? Wait...no he's welsh.

I get your point on that but it makes more of a difference in that 9 10 positions than any others as they control the game.

 

[Every Time Ref]

By extension, a lot of people would say that the spine of a team is 2 - 8 - 9 - 10 -15.

2 George
8 Binny
9 Spencer
10 Faz
15. Do Sarries have any English full backs? Perhaps an out and out specialist, maybe already with a few caps? No, I can't think of one either

I've heard this "spine of the team" idea before and to be honest I don't really get the significance.

Aside from all nominally being "in the middle" (which is basically irrelevant in the ebb and flow of a rugby game) what is it that actually tangibly connects these positions? In what specific ways a) are they more important than other positions; and b) do they benefit from familiarity? What connects (for example) the hooker and fullback (or even the hooker and no. 8) more closely than other positions? I just don't get it.

I don't mean to disparage your point OH, which is broadly a good one, it's just this "spine of the team" concept which I don't get - and you happened to be the one to bring it up on a slow December work day when I had time to formulate a response!

 

[Mr Ruggleby]

I've heard this "spine of the team" idea before and to be honest I don't really get the significance.

Aside from all nominally being "in the middle" (which is basically irrelevant in the ebb and flow of a rugby game) what is it that actually tangibly connects these positions? In what specific ways a) are they more important than other positions; and b) do they benefit from familiarity? What connects (for example) the hooker and fullback (or even the hooker and no. 8) more closely than other positions? I just don't get it.

I don't mean to disparage your point OH, which is broadly a good one, it's just this "spine of the team" concept which I don't get - and you happened to be the one to bring it up on a slow December work day when I had time to formulate a response!

Not a personal favourite of mine either, but I'll have a crack at the explanation. If you look at each of those positions, they would usually cover some of the more traditionally crucial technical aspects of rugby: throwing-in, hooking, controlling the ball at the base of a scrum, passing away from rucks, box-kicking, kicking from hand, goal-kicking, covering kicks/bombs, last line of defence tackles. Aside from calling a line-out, you could argue that these are the main skills that a non-specialist to that position would struggle with, which is perhaps why they are seen as core positions. I also think that the Number 8 has traditionally been seen as a talismanic player for a lot of teams and as being responsible for go-forward and momentum.

In terms of Chemistry, I think having a "spine" that are familiar with each other will help with certain aspects of the game. 9 feeds 2 in the scrum, 2 hooks to 8. 9 passes to 10. 15 is often second playmaker and even if not will often coordinate a lot of the defence structure and sweep along with 9. Your point about literally being in the middle is also a fair one. The more central players are, the more influence they can have on a gameplan. I think it's fairly obvious with 9 & 10 just because of how much more they touch the ball than anyone else, but I think it applies to the others too.

Ultimately, I think it's a less relevant reference in modern rugby where players have much more rounded skill sets and play less typecasted roles than in previous eras. I do think if your best players are in those positions, they will have more of an influence on the game than if they were a winger for example. But, if I was starting a new premiership team tomorrow my shopping list would start with a tighthead followed by more quality tight five, so I can't say I agree with the spine from a pure team building perspective.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Not a personal favourite of mine either, but I'll have a crack at the explanation. If you look at each of those positions, they would usually cover some of the more traditionally crucial technical aspects of rugby: throwing-in, hooking, controlling the ball at the base of a scrum, passing away from rucks, box-kicking, kicking from hand, goal-kicking, covering kicks/bombs, last line of defence tackles. Aside from calling a line-out, you could argue that these are the main skills that a non-specialist to that position would struggle with, which is perhaps why they are seen as core positions. I also think that the Number 8 has traditionally been seen as a talismanic player for a lot of teams and as being responsible for go-forward and momentum.

In terms of Chemistry, I think having a "spine" that are familiar with each other will help with certain aspects of the game. 9 feeds 2 in the scrum, 2 hooks to 8. 9 passes to 10. 15 is often second playmaker and even if not will often coordinate a lot of the defence structure and sweep along with 9. Your point about literally being in the middle is also a fair one. The more central players are, the more influence they can have on a gameplan. I think it's fairly obvious with 9 & 10 just because of how much more they touch the ball than anyone else, but I think it applies to the others too.

Appreciate you having a go! But it's clear from your last sentence you're playing devil's advocate, is that fair to say?

I think you can post-rationalise it by listing specialist skills if those positions, but I think if you did it the other way around and asked yourself "what are the 5 key positions and why?", you wouldn't necessarily come up with those 5. I think there would be a broad consensus on 9 and 10 but past that everyone would have a different opinion. If anything, I reckon openside flanker would be the next most popular answer after the half backs. For myself, I don't think I could give you more than 2 answers to that question.

The list of "traditionally crucial technical aspects" you give is incomplete in my opinion; -I think you could add at least one for any position (sidestepping, scrummaging, jackalling) and plenty you give are not position-specific (goal-kicking, cover tackling). The reality is that rugby skills are extremely diverse, and much more delineated by position than most other team sports, so if you pick a handful of positions at random you could make a case for each of them having a uniquely important role and required skillset.

For example, my preferred position has always been 13 (until recently when I've slowed down and loved to 12 that is ...) and I petsonally believe that 13 has the most difficult defensive role in any side, requiring particular skills and strategies that other positions don't. If you choose to prioritise that aspect then you can easily argue that 13 is one of the key positions. My point being, it's arbitrary - I don't really believe that, but I could argue it.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I always looked at the spine more as that they're the positions in which you need to have someone who's good and reliable at the position's core skills; otherwise you're screwed.

ie.
If your hooker can't throw lineouts, then the oppistion can keep drilling the ball into your 22 and winning the ball back off of lineouts.

If your 8 can't control the ball at the back of the scrum and can't give you front foot ball then you have no attacking platform.

If your 9 isn't good at passing then again, you have no attacking platform.

If your 10 isn't a good kicker or passer than you have no attacking platform.

If your 15 isn't good under the high ball then the opposition can keep sending him high balls and win scrums in your 22.

Alternatively, if a prop isn't particularly good at scrummaging then in the modern game it doesn't matter massively; scrums are much less of a contest and often the dominant prop will be penalised. If a lock isn't a great jumper, no worries, just send up a back rower. If a centre isn't very good at tackling, just have a back rower get in his channel on D.

Obviously that's a very basic overlook and isn't really one that I agree with, but that's what I always thought people meant when referring to the spine.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I always looked at the spine more as that they're the positions in which you need to have someone who's good and reliable at the position's core skills; otherwise you're screwed.

ie.
If your hooker can't throw lineouts, then the oppistion can keep drilling the ball into your 22 and winning the ball back off of lineouts.

If your 8 can't control the ball at the back of the scrum and can't give you front foot ball then you have no attacking platform.

If your 9 isn't good at passing then again, you have no attacking platform.

If your 10 isn't a good kicker or passer than you have no attacking platform.

If your 15 isn't good under the high ball then the opposition can keep sending him high balls and win scrums in your 22.

Alternatively, if a prop isn't particularly good at scrummaging then in the modern game it doesn't matter massively; scrums are much less of a contest and often the dominant prop will be penalised. If a lock isn't a great jumper, no worries, just send up a back rower. If a centre isn't very good at tackling, just have a back rower get in his channel on D.

Obviously that's a very basic overlook and isn't really one that I agree with, but that's what I always thought people meant when referring to the spine.

Taking those one by one:

Hooker:
Throwing is definitely key I'll give you that, but also a line out can go to pot for any number of reasons

No. 8:
In reality how often is ability to control the ball at the back a genuine game changer? I can't think of any match where that has been a key factor (unlike the lineout, or front row battle)

9 / 10:
I agree on these two, for me these are the actual key positions

Fullback:
Equally if one of the wingers can't catch you can just kick to him, it's not unique to FB, there are three players patrolling that backfield

(For what it's worth I think you underplay the significance of a dominant scrum in your counter example too.)

My mind remains unchanged I'm afraid! I think if you "reverse engineer" the question, ie start from the assumption that the "spine" is significant and work backwards, you can come up with justifications for the concept. However if you start with the question "which positions (if any) are categorically more important, across all leagues and teams, than the others?" then I don't believe you can build a compelling case for any except the half backs.