Is this the rugby equivalent of "even Heskey scored"Margin__Walker wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 7:35 pm That Ludlum call is genuinely batshit.
Eddie's just in it for the lols these days.

Is this the rugby equivalent of "even Heskey scored"Margin__Walker wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 7:35 pm That Ludlum call is genuinely batshit.
Eddie's just in it for the lols these days.
The creative vaccuum continues, kick and chase the order of the day, i quite fancy the Irish to win this.sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:09 am Team's up.
Pretty much as expected, though I had hoped Ford would come straight back in at 10.
I fear we'll have enough in the forwards to grind it out and validate the anti-rugby approach.ASMO wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:11 amThe creative vaccuum continues, kick and chase the order of the day, i quite fancy the Irish to win this.sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:09 am Team's up.
Pretty much as expected, though I had hoped Ford would come straight back in at 10.
Bench looks quite impressiveASMO wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:11 amThe creative vaccuum continues, kick and chase the order of the day, i quite fancy the Irish to win this.sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:09 am Team's up.
Pretty much as expected, though I had hoped Ford would come straight back in at 10.
My favoured second-row pairing at least. Would like to have seen Willis given another chance on the bench. Hope it's just a knock/injury rest, though we have a good load of options across the backrow.sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:09 am Team's up.
Pretty much as expected, though I had hoped Ford would come straight back in at 10. Kind of interesting that Malins retains the bench spot even with Ford around, suggests he is primarily seen as a fullback internationally and will continue to mimick Alex Goode in being a 10 who became a 15.
It could be confirmation bias on my part, but it does feel like when coaches praise him they focus very much on his leadership, his will to win, general competitiveness and how he drives standards in training rather than his playing qualities. I do wonder if that's the tacit acknowledgement of what you've said, but demonstrates how coaches think differently to punters/fans; i.e. ability isn't everything.Woddy wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:48 pmMy favoured second-row pairing at least. Would like to have seen Willis given another chance on the bench. Hope it's just a knock/injury rest, though we have a good load of options across the backrow.sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:09 am Team's up.
Pretty much as expected, though I had hoped Ford would come straight back in at 10. Kind of interesting that Malins retains the bench spot even with Ford around, suggests he is primarily seen as a fullback internationally and will continue to mimick Alex Goode in being a 10 who became a 15.
Just don't like Farrell at 10 over Ford (or indeed potentially others); if he has to play at all, it should be at 12. I know most of you agree so it's old hat, but I really don't know what he brings that puts him head & shoulders above everyone else and makes him indispensible. At 10/12, going down his attributes: kicking (out of hand & place), there are others as good; passing - ditto; defensive marshalling - ditto; running - most others are better; play-making - ditto; tackling - ditto. Given his earnest attitude, I can see that he might be a coach's dream as a leader / totemic figure, especially in training. But there are others who could take that role on the field if given the chance.
Thing is, you know what you're going to get from Farrell. However, (a) it's not all good (tackling can be a liability and he makes the attach stodgy) and (b) so does the opposition.
I genuinely think it would do the England camp a favour if Farrell had a season out so they can work on a system that does not depend on him.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... al-packageRugby Union will receive £135m in total, with £59m of that going to Premiership clubs. Rugby league, in contrast, will be given £12m. Horse racing is also to receive substantial support, totalling £40m. By contrast, netball will receive £4m and tennis £5m.
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:58 pm Farrell at 10 worked well against Oz in the World Cup and it would be nice if that's how it went more often :(
There was an element of that with Hartley, who could get Jones's message across to the troops well and gird their loins on the pitch. But we did not have to sacrifice major advantages that rivals for his jersey might have brought. The issue for Farrell is that he does (I would argue).sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:59 pmIt could be confirmation bias on my part, but it does feel like when coaches praise him they focus very much on his leadership, his will to win, general competitiveness and how he drives standards in training rather than his playing qualities. I do wonder if that's the tacit acknowledgement of what you've said, but demonstrates how coaches think differently to punters/fans; i.e. ability isn't everything.Woddy wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 12:48 pmMy favoured second-row pairing at least. Would like to have seen Willis given another chance on the bench. Hope it's just a knock/injury rest, though we have a good load of options across the backrow.sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:09 am Team's up.
Pretty much as expected, though I had hoped Ford would come straight back in at 10. Kind of interesting that Malins retains the bench spot even with Ford around, suggests he is primarily seen as a fullback internationally and will continue to mimick Alex Goode in being a 10 who became a 15.
Just don't like Farrell at 10 over Ford (or indeed potentially others); if he has to play at all, it should be at 12. I know most of you agree so it's old hat, but I really don't know what he brings that puts him head & shoulders above everyone else and makes him indispensible. At 10/12, going down his attributes: kicking (out of hand & place), there are others as good; passing - ditto; defensive marshalling - ditto; running - most others are better; play-making - ditto; tackling - ditto. Given his earnest attitude, I can see that he might be a coach's dream as a leader / totemic figure, especially in training. But there are others who could take that role on the field if given the chance.
Thing is, you know what you're going to get from Farrell. However, (a) it's not all good (tackling can be a liability and he makes the attach stodgy) and (b) so does the opposition.
I genuinely think it would do the England camp a favour if Farrell had a season out so they can work on a system that does not depend on him.
Apparently Willis had a dead leg earlier in the week that restricted his opportunities to train.
He's a great player but has suffered from the same thing Simon Shaw did for a good part of his career, in that there were a ton of locks in their prime around at the same time as him.tc27 wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:52 pm Good to see Lunchberyy back in the starting squad.
He seems to have just being really good for ages - if he was Welsh he would over 100 caps and Squidge rugby would be red raw over him.
Hal Jordan wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:22 pmHe's a great player but has suffered from the same thing Simon Shaw did for a good part of his career, in that there were a ton of locks in their prime around at the same time as him.tc27 wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:52 pm Good to see Lunchberyy back in the starting squad.
He seems to have just being really good for ages - if he was Welsh he would over 100 caps and Squidge rugby would be red raw over him.
Shaw's more specific problem was that he was seen to be in competition for Johnson's spot, rather than the more athletic lock who could play alongside him. Kay got around that issue by playing with Johnson at club level to show he could work it even as a big lump.Kawazaki wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:42 pmHal Jordan wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:22 pmHe's a great player but has suffered from the same thing Simon Shaw did for a good part of his career, in that there were a ton of locks in their prime around at the same time as him.tc27 wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 3:52 pm Good to see Lunchberyy back in the starting squad.
He seems to have just being really good for ages - if he was Welsh he would over 100 caps and Squidge rugby would be red raw over him.
All those good locks available and Knobwood picked Ben Kay.
Woddy wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:06 pmShaw's more specific problem was that he was seen to be in competition for Johnson's spot, rather than the more athletic lock who could play alongside him. Kay got around that issue by playing with Johnson at club level to show he could work it even as a big lump.Kawazaki wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:42 pmHal Jordan wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 4:22 pm
He's a great player but has suffered from the same thing Simon Shaw did for a good part of his career, in that there were a ton of locks in their prime around at the same time as him.
All those good locks available and Knobwood picked Ben Kay.
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:55 pm Lifting came in in 1999. Ben Kay played his first match for England in 2001.
He was an excellent athletic lock who also happened to be fairly beefy with it.
"Supporting" and "lifting" were essentially identical, just a matter of timing; players were still being propelled higher by the lifters. Just watch any of the matches from that period. For example, the 2003 final - "that" Lewis Moody take at the tail of the lineout...Kawazaki wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:04 pmJM2K6 wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:55 pm Lifting came in in 1999. Ben Kay played his first match for England in 2001.
He was an excellent athletic lock who also happened to be fairly beefy with it.
Wrong.
Lifting wasn't allowed until 2008. You could support before that but not lift.
Kay was average. Easily the worst player in the Woodward pack.
In practice the props lifted anyway. They certainly lifted me back in the 90s and early 00s. Either way, I agree that Shaw's bulk weighed against him for lineout work compared to others. The more athletic locks like Archer and Grewcock were large but more rangy and seen to complement a more 'solid' lock like Johnson and Shaw. Whether that was a correct perception was and is open to argument.Kawazaki wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:04 pmJM2K6 wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:55 pm Lifting came in in 1999. Ben Kay played his first match for England in 2001.
He was an excellent athletic lock who also happened to be fairly beefy with it.
Wrong.
Lifting wasn't allowed until 2008. You could support before that but not lift.
Kay was average. Easily the worst player in the Woodward pack.
Injuries too, some of them before international windows thus preventing England inclusion.JM2K6 wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:27 pm Launchbury's had a fair few dips in form over the years and his sometimes abysmal restart work, occasionally crap lineout, and baffling poor hands at times have dented his record quite a bit. He's a very talented player so those lapses have always been a surprise, no matter how often they happened.
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:12 pm"Supporting" and "lifting" were essentially identical, just a matter of timing; players were still being propelled higher by the lifters. Just watch any of the matches from that period. For example, the 2003 final - "that" Lewis Moody take at the tail of the lineout...Kawazaki wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:04 pmJM2K6 wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 6:55 pm Lifting came in in 1999. Ben Kay played his first match for England in 2001.
He was an excellent athletic lock who also happened to be fairly beefy with it.
Wrong.
Lifting wasn't allowed until 2008. You could support before that but not lift.
Kay was average. Easily the worst player in the Woodward pack.
Kay was an excellent lineout forward, read opposition lineouts brilliantly, called them brilliantly, and was very athletic. Shaw had many strings to his bow but he was a 2 for all money (and was a penalty magnet without peer, but that's another argument entirely).
Just watch the 2003 final highlights if you need a reminder.Kawazaki wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:41 pmJM2K6 wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:12 pm"Supporting" and "lifting" were essentially identical, just a matter of timing; players were still being propelled higher by the lifters. Just watch any of the matches from that period. For example, the 2003 final - "that" Lewis Moody take at the tail of the lineout...Kawazaki wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:04 pm
Wrong.
Lifting wasn't allowed until 2008. You could support before that but not lift.
Kay was average. Easily the worst player in the Woodward pack.
Kay was an excellent lineout forward, read opposition lineouts brilliantly, called them brilliantly, and was very athletic. Shaw had many strings to his bow but he was a 2 for all money (and was a penalty magnet without peer, but that's another argument entirely).
I was still playing level 5 league rugby up to 2004 and I remember players getting pinged for lifting in the lineout so in London 1 they certainly weren't considered the same.
It's much harder to find examples of lifting not occurring in that time period.Kawazaki wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:55 pm Maybe they let things go in finals if both teams are doing it.
It wasn't legal to lift, those were the laws. Citing one match or even one lineout in one match really doesn't prove otherwise.
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:17 pmIt's much harder to find examples of lifting not occurring in that time period.Kawazaki wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:55 pm Maybe they let things go in finals if both teams are doing it.
It wasn't legal to lift, those were the laws. Citing one match or even one lineout in one match really doesn't prove otherwise.
Actually Law 18, but yes, 1999. In 2000 they amended the law to allow pre-gripping of the players to be lifted to aid stability and safety
Margin__Walker wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:19 pm Source or it didn't happen Toga
Can't believe it was legalised as late as 08
Edit - I'm likely wrong tbf