• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Guscott Lions XV

M

Meh

Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Mar 24 2009, 11:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Meh @ Mar 23 2009, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Mar 23 2009, 10:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
how many All Blacks do we need to name here?[/b]

Can you name someone who isn't an All Black?
[/b][/quote]

Caucau. Watch one of the compilations of his tries on youtube, he is the most exciting player I've ever seen. One of the quickest in a straight line, one of the most agile, powerful, expert at chipping, wonderful hands...

There's a rare player I've seen time and again obliterate top-level defences on their own in the professional game... Williams, Lomu and Robinson are the only others I can think of.
[/b][/quote]

Fair enough. Plus that last sentence was what I was getting at actually.
 
R

RC

Guest
I don't see how the selectors can justify picking Shane Williams to start a Lions test.
He'll probably get picked, but as far as i'm concerned he's got to use the warm up matches very efficiently indeed, because he was one of the shittest wingers in the 6N.

I think Henson and Flutey will be an interesting battle for the no.12 spot.
Both had a good 6N, but Flutey probably made a more glowing impression.
 
G

gingergenius

Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RC @ Mar 28 2009, 02:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I don't see how the selectors can justify picking Shane Williams to start a Lions test.
He'll probably get picked, but as far as i'm concerned he's got to use the warm up matches very efficiently indeed, because he was one of the shittest wingers in the 6N.

I think Henson and Flutey will be an interesting battle for the no.12 spot.
Both had a good 6N, but Flutey probably made a more glowing impression.[/b]

???

Williams wasn't at his peak, but I've said before he's one of 4 or 5 world class players the Lions have and they can't afford to leave them behind.

And Henson played averagely in 2 games. Flutey played well in 4. ...
 
B

Bumbadum

Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
And Henson played averagely in 2 games. Flutey played well in 4. ...[/b]

Gotta agree, if anything Henson did his Lions chances harm in the 6N, could be moot as pointed out above. Flutey played well but I still think he's too limited for a starting spot, as is Roberts, I think he's too easily neutralised, particularly by the immense Bok back row. I'd still take Darcy.
 
S

shazbooger

Guest
D-Arcy played well last night, and he's fresh as a daisy having sat on his arse all year.

I'd be surprised if he wasnt part of the squad.
 
A

An Tarbh

Guest
definitely a good performance from him, will do his chances no harm though if he backs it up in the next 2 matches.
 
G

GimleyUK

Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Mar 30 2009, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
definitely a good performance from him, will do his chances no harm though if he backs it up in the next 2 matches.[/b]

i have always liked D'Arcy...! a talented runner, quick feet in tight spaces, always holds the ball well a great quick pass.

his downfall is that he isn't a back up fly half type inside center as Henson is, D'Arcy is clever and compliments O'Driscol well, but he is not a decision maker as a more flyhalf-esq inside center is and that is a role i would rather see for the Lions with a direct runner like O'Driscol at 13.

it was a point brought up about the backline for the 2001 test side with Wilkinson at 10, Henderson at 12 and BOD at 13.

Wilkinson was a clever tactician, a player who can manipulate a defense to make space with his pinpoint range of kicks and accurate fast passing

henderson was an irish Scott Gibbs, a barging crashball inside center with surprising pace

BOD has the classic inside shoulder eye for a break that an outside center should have to create the space after committing a defense. The most important part in BODs game is that he always straightens the attack.

the point in 2001 about the back line selection being that maybe Neil Jenkins should have taken the 10 spot, his passing game was as superb as was his kicking, with Wilkinson as a creative Flyhalf-esq inside center, with BOD straightening play should the play need it.


I would prefer a kicking passing game creative inside center to a crash-baller, or a line breaker
 
D

danny

Guest
Neil Jenkins was no where near the 10 spot in 2001 because Wilkinson was the best 10 in world rugby and Henderson was on fire at 12.
 
G

GimleyUK

Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (danny @ Mar 31 2009, 01:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Neil Jenkins was no where near the 10 spot in 2001 because Wilkinson was the best 10 in world rugby and Henderson was on fire at 12.[/b]

i agree...! henderson was on form as was wilkinson o driscol and jenkins. hedersons early caps were on the wing, where the lions had limited options.

the end result was Daf James on the wing.

read again what i wrote.

and you will see the point hopefully...!
 
S

shazbooger

Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GimleyUK @ Mar 30 2009, 07:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
The point in 2001 about the back line selection being that maybe Neil Jenkins should have taken the 10 spot, his passing game was as superb as was his kicking, with Wilkinson as a creative Flyhalf-esq inside center, with BOD straightening play should the play need it.
I would prefer a kicking passing game creative inside center to a crash-baller, or a line breaker[/b]

Holy shite you have to be taking the ****. Did you see the 2005 tour?
 
A

An Tarbh

Guest
my thoughts exactly, he would have done a better job 4 years previous no doubt but it still would have been a woeful call given the other options available.
 
C

Count of Devonshire

Guest
I think if we go to outplay the Boks we'll be soundly beaten in every match. PicknMix squads tend to struggle to work with an expansive game immediately. I think as individuals our backline is as good and perhaps even more talented than the Boks but collectively we wont quite have it. It took Moores almost a year as England backs coach to achieve the results we've seen this winter-and finishing top try scorers in the 6N was a huge, huge achievement which seems to be underated by the general consensus on here I think. So on that basis I'd prefer a "crash and break-the-line" side, with a decent kicker to control territory and for us to keep compact. I'd rather lose 9-6 in a tight heave than be taken apart and lose 35-18 with a couple of consolation tries. The tight heaves can go either way, and then it's down to a piece of magic/fortune from an individual to win the game.

I'll try and work out a team/squad when I have a bit more time. It'll probably have unashamedly English bias, but then I think we're probably the nation best suited to that type of game-we've got the old chaps with the beef and the know-how, and are just lacking the spark needed to turn the Ireland/Wales type games into victories.
 
A

An Tarbh

Guest
hardly a huge achievement when so many were gifted to you.

You may well have old chaps but whether they've got the nohow I'm not so sure
 
F

feicarsinn

Guest
well when you say top try scores you do have to factor in the terribleness of france and italy in those games
 
M

monkeypigeon

Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Count of Devonshire @ Mar 31 2009, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
It took Moores almost a year as England backs coach to achieve the results we've seen this winter-and finishing top try scorers in the 6N was a huge, huge achievement which seems to be underated by the general consensus on here I think.[/b]


I think we've been through why people aren't exactly full of praise.. Bergomasco and the worst 40 minutes of French Rugby since God knows when.
 
C

Count of Devonshire

Guest
I think we did, in general. We lost all of one lineout all tournament, and we didn't concede a try with 15 on the field. Our scrum held up well without it's coke-sniffing best front rower. Some of our statistics we achieved were from the coaching manual's dream, we were simply let down by the 'spark', the 'luck' and the individual stupidity of some of our naive players. Note naive rather than young, Vickery was as culpable as the likes of Haskell and Ellis.

The likes of Worsley and Tindall were actually excellent, who'd have predicted that at the start? Remember Tindall was going to be 'steamrollered' by the french lad Bastereaud. It just didn't happen, and I don't believe it wouldn't happen if he was given a chance against the Boks either (and I'm not advocating Tindall himself play or even tour by the way, but if selected then he'd do his job just as he *always* has done). These are the sort of men I'd take, not the flash dans who might wilt under physicality or pressure. I'd look for those who can make yards through natural strength, pace and endeavour over the ones who will rely on training ground moves they won't have the time to properly learn. A quick side (might make amendments later) would be something like this:

Armitage; Cueto, O'Driscoll, D'Arcy, Monye, S Jones, Phillips; Jenkins, Rees, Murray, Shaw, O'Connell, Ferris, Worsley, Powell.
 
S

shazbooger

Guest
You were doing well there ................ well until you started typing. :)

Nahh your right about the character of the players. A very important factor, especially given the lack of leaders that are going to tour. I mentioned in another thread that there are always leaders on a Lions tour but I'm struggling to see who they are this time round.

Anyhoo, "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics". England are not a bad team, and finished off the year well, but both the Italy and France games make all those statistics completely pointless for analytical purposes.
 
A

An Tarbh

Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Count of Devonshire @ Mar 31 2009, 05:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I think we did, in general. We lost all of one lineout all tournament, and we didn't concede a try with 15 on the field. Our scrum held up well without it's coke-sniffing best front rower. Some of our statistics we achieved were from the coaching manual's dream, we were simply let down by the 'spark', the 'luck' and the individual stupidity of some of our naive players. Note naive rather than young, Vickery was as culpable as the likes of Haskell and Ellis.

The likes of Worsley and Tindall were actually excellent, who'd have predicted that at the start? Remember Tindall was going to be 'steamrollered' by the french lad Bastereaud. It just didn't happen, and I don't believe it wouldn't happen if he was given a chance against the Boks either (and I'm not advocating Tindall himself play or even tour by the way, but if selected then he'd do his job just as he *always* has done). These are the sort of men I'd take, not the flash dans who might wilt under physicality or pressure. I'd look for those who can make yards through natural strength, pace and endeavour over the ones who will rely on training ground moves they won't have the time to properly learn. A quick side (might make amendments later) would be something like this:

Armitage; Cueto, O'Driscoll, D'Arcy, Monye, S Jones, Phillips; Jenkins, Rees, Murray, Shaw, O'Connell, Ferris, Worsley, Powell.[/b]

well you conceded 2 tries to the French, you were at full complement as well when Italy scored their try and you certainly lost more than 1 lineout.

Worsley may have been excellent for England but that still doesn't put him ahead of Jones or Ferris at blindside or even Williams and Wallace at openside, as for Powell he's still living off his Autumn form and has flattered to deceive big time in the 6N.
 
G

gingergenius

Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Mar 31 2009, 05:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Count of Devonshire @ Mar 31 2009, 05:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think we did, in general. We lost all of one lineout all tournament, and we didn't concede a try with 15 on the field. Our scrum held up well without it's coke-sniffing best front rower. Some of our statistics we achieved were from the coaching manual's dream, we were simply let down by the 'spark', the 'luck' and the individual stupidity of some of our naive players. Note naive rather than young, Vickery was as culpable as the likes of Haskell and Ellis.

The likes of Worsley and Tindall were actually excellent, who'd have predicted that at the start? Remember Tindall was going to be 'steamrollered' by the french lad Bastereaud. It just didn't happen, and I don't believe it wouldn't happen if he was given a chance against the Boks either (and I'm not advocating Tindall himself play or even tour by the way, but if selected then he'd do his job just as he *always* has done). These are the sort of men I'd take, not the flash dans who might wilt under physicality or pressure. I'd look for those who can make yards through natural strength, pace and endeavour over the ones who will rely on training ground moves they won't have the time to properly learn. A quick side (might make amendments later) would be something like this:

Armitage; Cueto, O'Driscoll, D'Arcy, Monye, S Jones, Phillips; Jenkins, Rees, Murray, Shaw, O'Connell, Ferris, Worsley, Powell.[/b]

well you conceded 2 tries to the French, you were at full complement as well when Italy scored their try and you certainly lost more than 1 lineout.

Worsley may have been excellent for England but that still doesn't put him ahead of Jones or Ferris at blindside or even Williams and Wallace at openside, as for Powell he's still living off his Autumn form and has flattered to deceive big time in the 6N.
[/b][/quote]

Spot on with that. Worsley did a fantastic job for an England pack in need of some grizzle, because without him and Shaw England really lacked the ruthless bullying streak we're known for. However, he remains a one-dimensional player and is quite rightly behind Ferris, Heaslip, Wallace, Leamy, Taylor, Williams, and fellow Englanders Croft and Haskell for a place on the Tour.

BTW, those tries against the French were irrelevent. We'd won by half time... a truly good England team would have really rubbed it in (like the Boks did to us), but we just shut up shop after 50 mins and thought job done. Like Wales did against Scotland. And I don't see how you can say we were gifted tries; even if you ignore the Italy ones, we scored 2 good tries against Wales, a good try against Ireland, all the French ones we actually had to break down their defence to score, and Scotland again we scored a few more good tries. Hardly any of our tries came from forwards burrowing. Which is more than you can say for Ireland.

Let's face it, with Armitage and Flutey on form, the English backline for the first time in years had players capable of breaking down a defence. Then it's great to give it to the likes of Monye and Sackey to gun in and beat anyone in a footrace... our speed merchants finally started to look good once they were given opportunities and space. That's when you can properly take advantage of sprinter-cum-wingers.
 

Latest posts

Top