6N 2022

[Foxholer]

I didn't suggest eliminating scrums, rather that the scrum in its present form is no longer a suitable method of restarting play. It needs to be faster, more reliable and fit for purpose.

So you've criticised it, but not proposed a solution! Great! In other words, stop being a 'whingeing pom' and propose an alternative!
FWIW, it seems to me that it's 'reliable', given its purpose. And, therefore, definitely 'fit for purpose'. I'd be happy to see it faster though.

 

[greenone]

The problem is that the referees don't apply the laws of the game at scrum time. Apply the laws properly and the issues go away.

 

[SocketRocket]

So you've criticised it, but not proposed a solution! Great! In other words, stop being a 'whingeing pom' and propose an alternative!
FWIW, it seems to me that it's 'reliable', given its purpose. And, therefore, definitely 'fit for purpose'. I'd be happy to see it faster though.

Oh dear, here we go again with your anti British insults.

If you bothered to actually read my posts I've suggested some ways of improving scrums but I guess your lazy insulting attitude will have ignored them. ?.

Read #355 but there are others.

 

[Foxholer]

Oh dear, here we go again with your anti British insults.

If you bothered to actually read my posts I've suggested some ways of improving scrums but I guess your lazy insulting attitude will have ignored them. ?.

Read #355 but there are others.

Utter twaddle!

 

[SocketRocket]

Utter twaddle!

Typical! Personal insults rather than a grown up discussion ?

 

[Foxholer]

Typical! Personal insults rather than a grown up discussion ?

See/Ref post 386!
The only need to fiddle with the scrum is to make it safer - as has been done recently. If that requires resets, then so be it.
If you want to eliminate risk, head over to Rugby League, where the rules, at least from my understanding, were made/changed to eliminate the prospect of the, primarily miners, being forced to lose pay because of injury playing 'Rugby'.

 

[SocketRocket]

See/Ref post 386!
The only need to fiddle with the scrum is to make it safer - as has been done recently. If that requires resets, then so be it.

So why the insulting posts. It's only a discussion about Rugby, can't you disagree with someone without being rude.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

So why the insulting posts. It's only a discussion about Rugby, can't you disagree with someone without being rude.

Does it all the time. Annoying troll looking for reactions. Fortunately is now on ignore. Shame as so many threads getting fractured because of it

 

[Vikingman]

See/Ref post 386!
The only need to fiddle with the scrum is to make it safer - as has been done recently. If that requires resets, then so be it.
If you want to eliminate risk, head over to Rugby League, where the rules, at least from my understanding, were made/changed to eliminate the prospect of the, primarily miners, being forced to lose pay because of injury playing 'Rugby'.

The clubs decided to pay the players because the players were loosing shifts at work to play rugby. The rules evolved over time to make the game more entertaining for the spectators. Interesting reading your posts mentioning you don't enjoy what you consider "leaguish" play. You probably better get used to it seeing how you keep nicking league rules. What next, reduce to thirteen and get shut of line outs?

 

[DCB]

Let's play nicely with one another please.

You have been warned

 

[Foxholer]

The clubs decided to pay the players because the players were loosing shifts at work to play rugby. The rules evolved over time to make the game more entertaining for the spectators. Interesting reading your posts mentioning you don't enjoy what you consider "leaguish" play. You probably better get used to it seeing how you keep nicking league rules. What next, reduce to thirteen and get shut of line outs?

My understanding (from quite a long time ago) is that that's an 'also' reason - and more associated with why 'the League' separated from 'the Union'. So both apply - with the intention that the participants didn't lose income.

FWIW, I'm aware - even as I write them - that my comments might seem as 'criticism' of League. They are not meant to be. I enjoy watching both. I'm not (trying to be)/being critical of League, but prefer the flowing game that Rugby is/should be.

I'm certain, Union will (sensibly) continue to look at what League has done to make it safer for participants, but lineouts will always be part of Union imo. A fundamental 'good thing', if not, perhaps, a goal of Union is that there's a position in a Union team for every (fit) body shape and Lineouts provide tall (gangly?) players with oportunities they might not be best qualified for elsewhere.

League, understandably given its origins, is rather more 'single dimensioned' about participants physical attributes - strength and stamina being 'higher rated' than speed (except 'off the mark') for example. Likewise, scrums will/should continue to be something that removes forwards from immediate subsequent play - as it's the swamping of the ball in mauls/rucks that prevents the general flow of the game. Rugby's authorities will continue to struggle with the conflicting aims of strength and safety with scrums though.

Uncontested scrums would be a retrograde move imo. On the other hand, I don't like watching games where one set of forwards dominate the other in scrums - even though it's 'part of the game'.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

On other matters, Scotland have dropped Finn Russell for the game against Ireland. Big decision by Townsend. How do Scottish fans feel about that?

 

[Foxholer]

On other matters, Scotland have dropped Finn Russell for the game against Ireland. Big decision by Townsend. How do Scottish fans feel about that?

I'm not specifically a Scotland fan, but can certainly understand Townsend's reasoning. His replacement has certainly shown (deserving?) good form compared to Russell's efforts, so maybe not that much of a 'big' decision.
Speaking of #10s...I'm a little disppointed that Marcus Smith hasn't shown a bit more flair than he has (and/though there has certainly been some). I may be being a bit unfair either/both to him and his opposite numbers, but to me he just seems to be on the edge of brilliance but holds, or is held, back from making the telling breaks and apparent opportunities are lost.

 

[GB72]

I'm not specifically a Scotland fan, but can certainly understand Townsend's reasoning. His replacement has certainly shown (deserving?) good form compared to Russell's efforts, so maybe not that much of a 'big' decision.
Speaking of #10s...I'm a little disppointed that Marcus Smith hasn't shown a bit more flair than he has (and/though there has certainly been some). I may be being a bit unfair either/both to him and his opposite numbers, but to me he just seems to be on the edge of brilliance but holds, or is held, back from making the telling breaks and apparent opportunities are lost.

Lack if really quality in the centres and a bigger runner in the centres to draw focus away from the fly half have been issues with England (as well as the problem of simply having Elliot Daly anywhere near the pitch). I can see Dan Kelly from Tigers appearing in the next squad if form stays as it is.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Lack if really quality in the centres and a bigger runner in the centres to draw focus away from the fly half have been issues with England (as well as the problem of simply having Elliot Daly anywhere near the pitch). I can see Dan Kelly from Tigers appearing in the next squad if form stays as it is.

Who do you think are the other IC options for England?

- Dingwall at Saints is either very good or poor, no middle ground
- Ojomoh at Bath is improving/learning quickly
- Devoto at Exeter is a decent player (I think he had a run with England)
- Atkinson at Glous is probably too late into the fold
- Northmore at Quins is really an OC
- Lozowski at Sarries, more O/H or OC

Not really many current alternatives

 

[Foxholer]

Who do you think are the other IC options for England?

- Dingwall at Saints is either very good or poor, no middle ground
- Ojomoh at Bath is improving/learning quickly
- Devoto at Exeter is a decent player (I think he had a run with England)
- Atkinson at Glous is probably too late into the fold
- Northmore at Quins is really an OC
- Lozowski at Sarries, more O/H or OC

Not really many current alternatives

What's all this inside/outside malarkey? halfback, 1st 5/8th, 2nd 5/8th left and right wing (3/4)s and Fullback. Only compromise to inside/outside is for Centres (3/4)!

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I'm not specifically a Scotland fan, but can certainly understand Townsend's reasoning. His replacement has certainly shown (deserving?) good form compared to Russell's efforts, so maybe not that much of a 'big' decision.
Speaking of #10s...I'm a little disppointed that Marcus Smith hasn't shown a bit more flair than he has (and/though there has certainly been some). I may be being a bit unfair either/both to him and his opposite numbers, but to me he just seems to be on the edge of brilliance but holds, or is held, back from making the telling breaks and apparent opportunities are lost.

I don't really follow rugby outside of the international's, very much a fair weather follower, but I had seen a lot pre tournament about Russell being world class, club form being excellent, a maverick etc. For him to be dropped against a team such as Ireland, top class side, suggests the tournament has not gone to plan for him. I have not seen every Scotland game, which is why I was interested to hear if others agreed with Townsend.

 

[GB72]

Who do you think are the other IC options for England?

- Dingwall at Saints is either very good or poor, no middle ground
- Ojomoh at Bath is improving/learning quickly
- Devoto at Exeter is a decent player (I think he had a run with England)
- Atkinson at Glous is probably too late into the fold
- Northmore at Quins is really an OC
- Lozowski at Sarries, more O/H or OC

Not really many current alternatives

Think you are looking at Dingwall or Ojomoh. Atkinson a bit old, Devoto has had a shot, Lozowski may be off to play for Italy. Think you may be looking at needing an OC anyway as suspect Farrrell will have the 12 shirt when fit irrespective of form. Trouble is there is noboday that does the job that Manu does but as a Tigers fan, I know that there is simply no point in waiting for his long term return as it never happens.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Think you are looking at Dingwall or Ojomoh. Atkinson a bit old, Devoto has had a shot, Lozowski may be off to play for Italy. Think you may be looking at needing an OC anyway as suspect Farrrell will have the 12 shirt when fit irrespective of form. Trouble is there is noboday that does the job that Manu does but as a Tigers fan, I know that there is simply no point in waiting for his long term return as it never happens.

Closest I can think of to Manu could possibly be Odogwu at Wasps. Can & does play OC sometimes, is fast as anything, and built like a S'brickhouse.

 

[HeftyHacker]

Closest I can think of to Manu could possibly be Odogwu at Wasps. Can & does play OC sometimes, is fast as anything, and built like a S'brickhouse.

Odogwu is only about 3'6" though, he wouldn't offer what Manu does - no one does. The man is a freak of nature, which is why he walks into the team on the rare occasions he is fit.

James Haskell was talking on his podcast about when the England squad went to Denver in 2015 before the world Cup. They had a bloke in helping them with S&C who had worked with a lot of the top basketball and American Football players. He was astounded by Manu and said he was the most explosive athlete he had ever encountered, apparently his numbers (relative to his size) for vertical jumps etc were off the charts.

Unfortunately, its probably the same reason as to why he's injured constantly.