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
June International Test: Australia vs. England [1st Test] (11/06/2016)
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: 801433" data-attributes="member: 42330"><p>I mostly agree with that but I don't think the second row should be considered as a unit. I think they should be considered in light of the pack as a whole.</p><p></p><p>Does that mean I change them? Probably not today, but given that our pack has a significant weakness in terms of support play and the breakdown, I still remain very much pro-Launchbury as he's the single biggest boost to that available outside of the starting 8.</p><p></p><p>Probably an argument to be re-examined after the series rather than now though.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm surprised and not in favour, but I can see the logic. The back line wasn't providing enough physicality; Yarde in changes that. Again, I don't think the back three can be considered a unit in isolation. Arguably it creates a defensive weakness but Nowell had some dodgy moments in the Six Nations anyway.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're arguing against something no one's said in this instance and where the player left out is one of the most error free and consistent we have.</p><p></p><p>In general though, I'd argue that unless a player makes few mistakes and has very few weaknesses, they're not a star. There's a few monster athletes who are an exception to that rule but for me, stars are players who never drop below a certain threshold and are capable of doing multiple things incredibly well.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Peat, post: 801433, member: 42330"] I mostly agree with that but I don't think the second row should be considered as a unit. I think they should be considered in light of the pack as a whole. Does that mean I change them? Probably not today, but given that our pack has a significant weakness in terms of support play and the breakdown, I still remain very much pro-Launchbury as he's the single biggest boost to that available outside of the starting 8. Probably an argument to be re-examined after the series rather than now though. I'm surprised and not in favour, but I can see the logic. The back line wasn't providing enough physicality; Yarde in changes that. Again, I don't think the back three can be considered a unit in isolation. Arguably it creates a defensive weakness but Nowell had some dodgy moments in the Six Nations anyway. You're arguing against something no one's said in this instance and where the player left out is one of the most error free and consistent we have. In general though, I'd argue that unless a player makes few mistakes and has very few weaknesses, they're not a star. There's a few monster athletes who are an exception to that rule but for me, stars are players who never drop below a certain threshold and are capable of doing multiple things incredibly well. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
June International Test: Australia vs. England [1st Test] (11/06/2016)
Top