• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Oh poo (rugby thread)

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Oh poo (rugby thread)

    Corbs is out. That's tulip; now England have lost two top props (Vunipola too). This is not good, as the scrum was one place where they had a chance of overpowering NZ.

    BBC Sport - England v New Zealand: Alex Corbisiero out injured
    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

    #2
    Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
    Corbs is out. That's tulip; now England have lost two top props (Vunipola too). This is not good, as the scrum was one place where they had a chance of overpowering NZ.

    BBC Sport - England v New Zealand: Alex Corbisiero out injured
    WHS
    Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
      WHS
      It's a shame; NZ's scrum is good but not unbeatable. Damn sight better than Aus, but then Old Wibblywobblies Extra 4th's have a better scrum than Aus.

      There is one more weakness in NZ that England exploited last year, albeit in unusual circumstances where the NZ players had been ill (although it says a lot McCaw and co. that they refused to use that as an excuse) and it's a weakness directly related to their greatest asset; perfect timing. France, or rather, Harinordoquy, Dusautoir and Bonnaire, also exploited it in the World Cup final, which France actually would won if the others had played half as well as Harinordoquy and co. It's wonderful for an old flanker to watch when teams exploit this weakness.

      It's the precision timing with which NZ play the second phase. They've got the timing of the ball leaving the ruck and being passed to the next attacker so precise that the ball always goes to a man at running at high speed at precisely the right angle to cut between two defenders; he doesn't have to change direction or slow down and knows precisely when and where he'll get the ball to the point they could nearly execute it wearing blindfolds. But that's the problem; any disturbance to that timing and their attackers overrun or have to slow down or change tack and then don't bash through the first line of second phase defence; this gives turnover opportunities and gets them frustrated.

      What France and England both did well was to disrupt the timing of the second phase without actually doing anything illegal or trying to win the ball; entering correctly from the back of the ruck and then shoving diagonally to knock the NZ'ers very slightly off balance, or sticking a toe on the ball to change its position, or a hand on the rucker's leg to change his timing, all this gets in the way of the clockwork timing; the ball gets to the scrum half marginally early or late, then marginally early or late to the next attacker; if it's early then they don't break the gain line, if it's late then they lose a little speed before the tackle. You don't need to compete for the ball or try to ruin the 2nd phase, you just have to throw a tiny spanner in the works.

      I wonder whether NZ have solved this; if they have, then they'll be even better than usual, but if they still rely on clockwork timing then a good back row can spoil their day for them.
      And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

      Comment


        #4
        NZ do rely on good timing and discipline in all areas but they are also all of a sufficiently high standard to react effectively if "the process" breaks down. That's what makes the difference, speed of thought not speed of play. That's something England in particular have failed at for many years; set pieces are poetry in motion, Ashton isolated in attack is a liability (well he is in any event, but you get the point).

        Also watch the SH teams carefully; every runner always has someone behind him on both sides.

        And one other thought: losing Corbs and Manu is not a problem if you aren't relying on brute force to break the gain line...
        Blog? What blog...?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by malvolio View Post
          NZ do rely on good timing and discipline in all areas but they are also all of a sufficiently high standard to react effectively if "the process" breaks down. That's what makes the difference, speed of thought not speed of play. That's something England in particular have failed at for many years; set pieces are poetry in motion, Ashton isolated in attack is a liability (well he is in any event, but you get the point).

          Also watch the SH teams carefully; every runner always has someone behind him on both sides.

          And one other thought: losing Corbs and Manu is not a problem if you aren't relying on brute force to break the gain line...
          Agreed, they're good at thinking on their feet, but this timing thing is something I've now seen two teams exploit succesfully; I can't actually see other weaknesses, so maybe I'm missing something. I was never much of an attacking type though; more a spoiler or support runner and perhaps that's why I see where teams manage to disrupt NZ.

          Ashton's not been on form for a while now, and perhaps wouldn't (and shouldn't) be in at the moment if not for injuries to Wade and Yarde. Losing Corbs is a big disappointment though in terms of the set pieces where NZ can be equalled or beaten. Not sure about Manu as I know a little bit less than nothing about backs play.

          I agree on the two support runners and I've never understood why some people find it so difficult to do the same.
          Last edited by Mich the Tester; 13 November 2013, 12:43.
          And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
            Corbs is out. That's tulip; now England have lost two top props (Vunipola too). This is not good, as the scrum was one place where they had a chance of overpowering NZ.

            BBC Sport - England v New Zealand: Alex Corbisiero out injured
            Is the third loose-head, Mahler, actually fit? He came off with concussion last Saturday and I thought by the rules that's two weeks (as was the case with Parling recently). If he's not fit, that's all three experienced loose-heads gone and we'll have to play a greenhorn.

            Unless they switch Miller or Cole, what are they like at loose-head?

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
              Is the third loose-head, Mahler, actually fit? He came off with concussion last Saturday and I thought by the rules that's two weeks (as was the case with Parling recently). If he's not fit, that's all three experienced loose-heads gone and we'll have to play a greenhorn.

              Unless they switch Miller or Cole, what are they like at loose-head?
              Marler.

              They've drafted in some Mullan chap as fourth choice in case he doesn't make it.

              I'm not too impressed with the idea of a guy playing after being concussed a week earlier. There's more to life than rugby.
              Last edited by Mich the Tester; 13 November 2013, 14:22.
              And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
                Marler.
                Sorry, I meant Mozart.

                Comment

                Working...
                X