Brumbies v Crusaders
-
@Chris-B although if your props can't contribute much round the park it ties up and works your locks alot more, plus your loosies and hooker carry the extra load too.
@taniwharugby said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@Chris-B although if your props can't contribute much round the park it ties up and works your locks alot more, plus your loosies and hooker carry the extra load too.
Newell carries well and at 21 that will improve I would think.His core work is very good for his age,Scrumaging,Clean outs and lifting in the lineouts,I noticed how high Barrett was getting in the line outs and kick off's thanks to his props.
He dominated Slipper and had the better of Sio in the brumbies game. -
Work rate around the park is more important than scrummaging ability, as often there aren't that many scrums. Obviously, you would prefer props who excel at both but the balance should be in favour of what you do outside of scrums.
-
AB tighthead prop is kind of a congested position - Ofa, Nepo, Tyrel and Angus in the queue - but it will be interesting to see how Newell finishes the Super season.
If he continues to do well, you'd think he'll make a squad, sooner or later, before the end of the year.
He's clearly someone who is going to go places.
@Chris-B said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
AB tighthead prop is kind of a congested position - Ofa,
Nepo, Tyrel andAngusin the queue - but it will be interesting to see how Newell finishes the Super season.Nepo's mobility is pathetic.
Angus can't scrum to save himself.
Tyrel's scrummaging at test level probably has a question mark over it. -
Work rate around the park is more important than scrummaging ability, as often there aren't that many scrums. Obviously, you would prefer props who excel at both but the balance should be in favour of what you do outside of scrums.
@Bovidae said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
Work rate around the park is more important than scrummaging ability, as often there aren't that many scrums. Obviously, you would prefer props who excel at both but the balance should be in favour of what you do outside of scrums.
Like any position vital you execute your main role really well first - not much point having a prop that's good around the field, but is poor at scrummaging... scrums are an attacking weapon, if you're going backwards there you're going to be under a lot of pressure throughout matches... anyway most props in NZ are very mobile & have good running/passing skills etc.
-
Just watched the highlights, glad the Crusaders beat the boring Brumbies... stunned that they awarded that try to the Brumbies when the player obviously dropped it cold on the goal line, they also got an intercept try, Crusaders could've easily won by 20 odd points.
-
@Chris-B said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
AB tighthead prop is kind of a congested position - Ofa,
Nepo, Tyrel andAngusin the queue - but it will be interesting to see how Newell finishes the Super season.Nepo's mobility is pathetic.
Angus can't scrum to save himself.
Tyrel's scrummaging at test level probably has a question mark over it.@Frank said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@Chris-B said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
AB tighthead prop is kind of a congested position - Ofa,
Nepo, Tyrel andAngusin the queue - but it will be interesting to see how Newell finishes the Super season.Nepo's mobility is pathetic.
Angus can't scrum to save himself.
Tyrel's scrummaging at test level probably has a question mark over it.A bit of exaggeration to make the point - but, I don't disagree with the general direction Frank.
But, there's the problem for Ireland - and to an extent Newell.
We can shed one guy (Angus, IMO), but not both, because you've got to have some known quantities - and you're also wanting to develop Lomax. I think Newell will get his chance later down the line - unless (and probably when) injuries force Fozzie's hand.
-
Work rate around the park is more important than scrummaging ability, as often there aren't that many scrums. Obviously, you would prefer props who excel at both but the balance should be in favour of what you do outside of scrums.
@Bovidae said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
Work rate around the park is more important than scrummaging ability, as often there aren't that many scrums. Obviously, you would prefer props who excel at both but the balance should be in favour of what you do outside of scrums.
Can't really agree on this.
You can survive without ball-running props, but if you've got a weak scrum that can be heavily exploited with endless penalties and cards.
-
@Bovidae said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
Work rate around the park is more important than scrummaging ability, as often there aren't that many scrums. Obviously, you would prefer props who excel at both but the balance should be in favour of what you do outside of scrums.
Can't really agree on this.
You can survive without ball-running props, but if you've got a weak scrum that can be heavily exploited with endless penalties and cards.
@Chris-B said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@Bovidae said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
Work rate around the park is more important than scrummaging ability, as often there aren't that many scrums. Obviously, you would prefer props who excel at both but the balance should be in favour of what you do outside of scrums.
Can't really agree on this.
You can survive without ball-running props, but if you've got a weak scrum that can be heavily exploited with endless penalties and cards.
There's a gap thuogh - between penalty conceding weak, and able to hold your own, and dominant. Dominant is nice, but not every ref whistles that appropriately (see RWC 2003 final).
I think the argument is to avoid 'weak' rather than have to be dominant. Frankly, our tight 5 is our weakness at the moment, and that's where we are going to get consistently found out by good teams. We are nowhere near where we were, and I think NH packs are ahead of us in quality on the ground and playing the ball.
-
@Chris-B said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@Bovidae said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
Work rate around the park is more important than scrummaging ability, as often there aren't that many scrums. Obviously, you would prefer props who excel at both but the balance should be in favour of what you do outside of scrums.
Can't really agree on this.
You can survive without ball-running props, but if you've got a weak scrum that can be heavily exploited with endless penalties and cards.
There's a gap thuogh - between penalty conceding weak, and able to hold your own, and dominant. Dominant is nice, but not every ref whistles that appropriately (see RWC 2003 final).
I think the argument is to avoid 'weak' rather than have to be dominant. Frankly, our tight 5 is our weakness at the moment, and that's where we are going to get consistently found out by good teams. We are nowhere near where we were, and I think NH packs are ahead of us in quality on the ground and playing the ball.
@nzzp Yeah I know. There's shades of grey in everything.
But, I'm going to e.g. pick Nepo over Angus, because I value his stronger scrummaging over Angus' greater mobility.
But, I'd favour someone fractionally weaker in the scrum if they bring significantly more mobility.
-
@nzzp Yeah I know. There's shades of grey in everything.
But, I'm going to e.g. pick Nepo over Angus, because I value his stronger scrummaging over Angus' greater mobility.
But, I'd favour someone fractionally weaker in the scrum if they bring significantly more mobility.
@Chris-B said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@nzzp Yeah I know. There's shades of grey in everything.
But, I'm going to e.g. pick Nepo over Angus, because I value his stronger scrummaging over Angus' greater mobility.
But, I'd favour someone fractionally weaker in the scrum if they bring significantly more mobility.
Like Hodgman?
-
@Chris-B said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@nzzp Yeah I know. There's shades of grey in everything.
But, I'm going to e.g. pick Nepo over Angus, because I value his stronger scrummaging over Angus' greater mobility.
But, I'd favour someone fractionally weaker in the scrum if they bring significantly more mobility.
Like Hodgman?
@chimoaus Compared to Moody - maybe, but not yet.
Hodgman is largely untested at test level, so ideally he's still eased into it - though whomever we use vs Ireland isn't going to be experienced. But perhaps Hodgman over Big Karl.
Ofa over Nepo, though - if we were only using one of them.
-
@Chris-B said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@Bovidae said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
Work rate around the park is more important than scrummaging ability, as often there aren't that many scrums. Obviously, you would prefer props who excel at both but the balance should be in favour of what you do outside of scrums.
Can't really agree on this.
You can survive without ball-running props, but if you've got a weak scrum that can be heavily exploited with endless penalties and cards.
There's a gap thuogh - between penalty conceding weak, and able to hold your own, and dominant. Dominant is nice, but not every ref whistles that appropriately (see RWC 2003 final).
I think the argument is to avoid 'weak' rather than have to be dominant. Frankly, our tight 5 is our weakness at the moment, and that's where we are going to get consistently found out by good teams. We are nowhere near where we were, and I think NH packs are ahead of us in quality on the ground and playing the ball.
@nzzp said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@Chris-B said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@Bovidae said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
Work rate around the park is more important than scrummaging ability, as often there aren't that many scrums. Obviously, you would prefer props who excel at both but the balance should be in favour of what you do outside of scrums.
Can't really agree on this.
You can survive without ball-running props, but if you've got a weak scrum that can be heavily exploited with endless penalties and cards.
There's a gap thuogh - between penalty conceding weak, and able to hold your own, and dominant. Dominant is nice, but not every ref whistles that appropriately (see RWC 2003 final).
I think the argument is to avoid 'weak' rather than have to be dominant. Frankly, our tight 5 is our weakness at the moment, and that's where we are going to get consistently found out by good teams. We are nowhere near where we were, and I think NH packs are ahead of us in quality on the ground and playing the ball.
NH sides are not doing anything special, just doing the basics well in the breakdown area, for some strange bloody reason we are not doing the work there enough ...as mentioned before the breakdown area is easily the most contested area in the game, so why are we not focusing a lot more in the breakdown stuff ???
-
@nzzp said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@Chris-B said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@Bovidae said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
Work rate around the park is more important than scrummaging ability, as often there aren't that many scrums. Obviously, you would prefer props who excel at both but the balance should be in favour of what you do outside of scrums.
Can't really agree on this.
You can survive without ball-running props, but if you've got a weak scrum that can be heavily exploited with endless penalties and cards.
There's a gap thuogh - between penalty conceding weak, and able to hold your own, and dominant. Dominant is nice, but not every ref whistles that appropriately (see RWC 2003 final).
I think the argument is to avoid 'weak' rather than have to be dominant. Frankly, our tight 5 is our weakness at the moment, and that's where we are going to get consistently found out by good teams. We are nowhere near where we were, and I think NH packs are ahead of us in quality on the ground and playing the ball.
NH sides are not doing anything special, just doing the basics well in the breakdown area, for some strange bloody reason we are not doing the work there enough ...as mentioned before the breakdown area is easily the most contested area in the game, so why are we not focusing a lot more in the breakdown stuff ???
-
@nzzp said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@NZbloke and passing and carrying the ball more, and defending more aggressively
True, but all starts with the tight-five.
-
@nzzp Yeah I know. There's shades of grey in everything.
But, I'm going to e.g. pick Nepo over Angus, because I value his stronger scrummaging over Angus' greater mobility.
But, I'd favour someone fractionally weaker in the scrum if they bring significantly more mobility.
@Chris-B said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
But, I'd favour someone fractionally weaker in the scrum if they bring significantly more mobility.
Which is the point I was making. If you have, for arguments sake, Fidow at one end of the spectrum and Laulala at the other end, I would lean towards Fidow's side of halfway.
-
@Chris-B said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
But, I'd favour someone fractionally weaker in the scrum if they bring significantly more mobility.
Which is the point I was making. If you have, for arguments sake, Fidow at one end of the spectrum and Laulala at the other end, I would lean towards Fidow's side of halfway.
@Bovidae Not me.
I'm going to pick from a tight cluster around the theoretical Nepo. So I'm prepared to pick a theoretical Ofa ahead of tNepo, who might be fractionally less good in the scrum, but I'm not countenancing anyone who's not a strong scrummager.
-
@nzzp said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@NZbloke and passing and carrying the ball more, and defending more aggressively
True, but all starts with the tight-five.
@NZbloke said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@nzzp said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@NZbloke and passing and carrying the ball more, and defending more aggressively
True, but all starts with the tight-five.
I'm talking about the tight five!
-
@NZbloke said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@nzzp said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@NZbloke and passing and carrying the ball more, and defending more aggressively
True, but all starts with the tight-five.
I'm talking about the tight five!
@nzzp said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@NZbloke said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@nzzp said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@NZbloke and passing and carrying the ball more, and defending more aggressively
True, but all starts with the tight-five.
I'm talking about the tight five!
Just saying in general it's your tight-five that start the work at the breakdown - yeah, we need to improve in all the other forward areas too, forwards need to take it through a lot more phases etc.
-
Concerning the TH spot, I'd go with Ofa T, Lomax and Newell. Ta'avao can't scrum while Laulala brings nothing in the loose (and is a penalty magnet as well).
With Moody injured, the choice for the LH is limited : De Groot and Bower are near certainties. Hodgman and Ross will battle for a third spot. Too early for Williams and Norris IMO. Karl T will have to start a few games for the Blues to get into contention. -
Finally catching this one up, my points:
Reece is the best 14 int he country, as much as I hate that as a wife beating shot by sniper play acting turd
Goodhue is not AB ready yet - he's not even shouting distance of Reiko
Hall likes yelling 'use it' which doesn't actually help his team
N White is Dr Robotnik
Jordan has to play, he's so fucking rapid! I'm so leaning to Jordie 12, Jordan 15
havili was nothing, a 12 must be able to hit it up in traffic, and he can't, not even at SR level
Mo'unga looks so good at SR level, wouldn't it be marvellous if he brought it to tough international matches? He still defneds like wet celery, tho
Ozzie front rowers are almost all too fat
Barrett is the best lock in the country, shame he such a boof head with cards
Tom Banks' time taken to take kicks to how good those kicks are ratio is the shittest I've ever seen - he is so bad when kicking to the line
Please let Codie, whitelock get back to form (and BBBR!)cos when they're firing they're great
Bridge is still donkey shit, his post contact metres must be the worst in the comp even when he is at full steam
Matera ain't bad at all, why the fuck is he playing in NZ?
What the fuck sorta name is 'Jahrome'?
There needs to be more consistency on what is advantage, man some just go on and on, even kncok on
I really enjoy listening to the Ozzie cmmentators, they are much wittier than what we get in NZ - how embarassing
Grace and Blackadder really aren't required in a ABs loose forward pick - they're ok but a lot of erros and not that dominant. Much better options elsewhere.
Crusaders scramble is exceptional,
