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
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
Is Lancaster ever right?
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="Peat" data-source="post: 715293" data-attributes="member: 42330"><p>"Not having a lock on the bench is a bad idea"</p><p></p><p>Please point out how this was proven.</p><p></p><p>There's actually tons on that list I disagree with, and tons of positives, but I cbf, so I'm just going for some low-hanging fruit.</p><p></p><p>We spent 3 games without a specialist sub-lock when we 4 guys out injured in the position. Yes, there was another talented player available, but as Lancaster had no intention of playing him in a WC game, he decided to play a guy with reasonable experience in the position who he was thinking of taking to the WC instead. That's a reasonable decision. </p><p></p><p>And at no point that I recall did the scrum suddenly disintegrate, or the maul go to crap, or the lineout go to crap, when we removed our specialist lock for our makeshift. </p><p></p><p>So. A reasonable decision that didn't backfire. How is it a bad idea then?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And yes, I am flip-flopping a little. I would have rather had a lock on the bench "just in case". But as "just in case" never arose...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Peat, post: 715293, member: 42330"] "Not having a lock on the bench is a bad idea" Please point out how this was proven. There's actually tons on that list I disagree with, and tons of positives, but I cbf, so I'm just going for some low-hanging fruit. We spent 3 games without a specialist sub-lock when we 4 guys out injured in the position. Yes, there was another talented player available, but as Lancaster had no intention of playing him in a WC game, he decided to play a guy with reasonable experience in the position who he was thinking of taking to the WC instead. That's a reasonable decision. And at no point that I recall did the scrum suddenly disintegrate, or the maul go to crap, or the lineout go to crap, when we removed our specialist lock for our makeshift. So. A reasonable decision that didn't backfire. How is it a bad idea then? And yes, I am flip-flopping a little. I would have rather had a lock on the bench "just in case". But as "just in case" never arose... [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
Is Lancaster ever right?
Top