Sunday Times Player Ratings

NU8

I just saw this article in the Sunday Times, just wondering if people agree. O'Driscoll got a six despite being man of the match. Theres a few other strange calls but considering the article is written by Stephen Jones I'm not really surprised.

Stev_o

I never like player ratings, mostly dew to the authors getting it all horribly wrong. Independent was just as bad in some degree's giving Ferris a 6

themont85

Brian O'Driscoll got a six

WTF

Stephen Jones, any semblance of credibility left is quashed with that rating.

Serenity Now!

NU8 wrote: »

I just saw this article in the Sunday Times, just wondering if people agree. O'Driscoll got a six despite being man of the match. Theres a few other strange calls but considering the article is written by Stephen Jones I'm not really surprised.

Its Stephen Jones so don't worry. Its there for the type of reaction you're posting about. He's the Northern Hemisphere equivalent of Spiro Zavos.

outwest

paul got a nine. wallace got a 8 and o leary got a 8. our pack were poor no fast ball to work with. even paulie had a off day at ruck time.

man is a joke. he says tindell outpalyed his oppostie number.


i think any mention of his reports should be ignored.

NU8

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Its Stephen Jones so don't worry. Its there for the type of reaction you're posting about. He's the Northern Hemisphere equivalent of Spiro Zavos.

I've read some of his articles before so I know what he's like but I thought this was a bit far, even for him.

Climate Expert

All the English 'experts' seem to be under the impression that it was a close game and that the cards were the difference betweent the teams.
Ireland dominated and the scoreline was very flattering to England.

conf101

His player ratings were way off, didn't think much of his article on the game either and I'm fairly certain he got some stats wrong in it, like the amount of kicks ROG missed.

merlynthewizard

BOD and Ferris were brilliant but we are weak at 9-12 and Kearney needs to improve his tackling.

Should squeeze a win in Scotland though but unless we improve will not take Wales.

Kidney has more work to do before we a polished team.

themont85

merlynthewizard wrote: »

BOD and Ferris were brilliant but we are weak at 9-12 and Kearney needs to improve his tackling.

Should squeeze a win in Scotland though but unless we improve will not take Wales.

Kidney has more work to do before we a polished team.

Thought his tackling was very good.

old boy

all he requires is people discussing his article, you guy are falling for it, articles like that are best ignored not discussed.

thomond2006

old boy wrote: »

all he requires is people discussing his article, you guy are falling for it, articles like that are best ignored not discussed.

Dead Right.

Stev_o

themont85 wrote: »

Thought his tackling was very good.

All he needs to work on his is up and unders as he doesn't get alot of height on them and thus can't get up to make a contest for them. It's a shame because if he had a boot like Murphy does for garryowens it would be a lethal weapon to use.

bamboozle

the whole game sackey was coming up flat, rather than garryowen's we should have been drilling the ball into the corner behind sackey.

hate the ELV's and the arial ping-pong that now seems to be dominating games.

POC was immense but he needs to realise there's a time to pass....

Serenity Now!

bamboozle wrote: »

hate the ELV's and the arial ping-pong that now seems to be dominating games

The reason that teams kick back out of their third of the pitch is because they do not want to give ball away in a ruck that is no longer a sealed-done-deal (no, the passback-into-22 variation would only account for a fraction of the kicking).
Now, unless you can spot the actual variation of the ruck laws that dictates the type of play in question (I'll save you some time: there aren't any).
The antidote to all this kicking is simple: grow a pair and run the bloody ball or utilise the kick better.
This is why the IRB have dictated that from this season onwards rucks be reffed properly and not as every season until last where the team not in possession would find it nigh-on impossible to win a ball in a counter-ruck situation. Rucks are now much more contestable (thanks to no sealing/stricter reffing of going in through side or off-feet).

So to summarise: Hate the ELVs all you like. They're not the reason for all the kicking you post about.

bamboozle

Serenity Now! wrote: »

The reason that teams kick back out of their third of the pitch is because they do not want to give ball away in a ruck that is no longer a sealed-done-deal (no, the passback-into-22 variation would only account for a fraction of the kicking).
Now, unless you can spot the actual variation of the ruck laws that dictates the type of play in question (I'll save you some time: there aren't any).
The antidote to all this kicking is simple: grow a pair and run the bloody ball or utilise the kick better.
This is why the IRB have dictated that from this season onwards rucks be reffed properly and not as every season until last where the team not in possession would find it nigh-on impossible to win a ball in a counter-ruck situation. Rucks are now much more contestable (thanks to no sealing/stricter reffing of going in through side or off-feet).

So to summarise: Hate the ELVs all you like. They're not the reason for all the kicking you post about.

sorry, cant say i agree with you, the amount of kicking this season has increased big time, not just due to passing the ball back into the '22 but also because the ELV's are making it easier for teams to defend rucks & mauls which sees a lot more kicking,
Declan Kidney gave interview today giving out stink that the ELV's are ruining the game as a spectacle with all the kicking.

Serenity Now!

bamboozle wrote: »

sorry, cant say i agree with you, the amount of kicking this season has increased big time, not just due to passing the ball back into the '22 but also because the ELV's are making it easier for teams to defend rucks & mauls which sees a lot more kicking

There are no ELVs involving rucks.
Being able to defend a maul doesn't encourage kicking. How would it?

bamboozle wrote: »

Declan Kidney gave interview today giving out stink that the ELV's are ruining the game as a spectacle with all the kicking.

Feel free to quote him.. What did he say?

Tim Robbins

NU8 wrote: »

I just saw this article in the Sunday Times, just wondering if people agree. O'Driscoll got a six despite being man of the match. Theres a few other strange calls but considering the article is written by Stephen Jones I'm not really surprised.

I bought it, mainly for the Rugby analysis. But I am not sure I'd bother again. I like analysis where someone who knows the game better than me, explains something I'd miss. I find Emmet Byrne is very good for this. I'm a bit shocked Jones is even a journalist. His ratings come out as if they were written and sent to his editor before the game.

BOD was the difference between the teams. O'Leary, who I think got an 8, is struggling at international level.

I'd have given BOD 9 and O'Leary 4.

bamboozle

Serenity Now! wrote: »

There are no ELVs involving rucks.
Being able to defend a maul doesn't encourage kicking. How would it?


Feel free to quote him.. What did he say?

HIS interview is on the rte website, his point being and which is a common enough issue with the ELV's is that defending teams dont need to commit as many players to rucks & mauls, which sees more forwards defending further out, this leaves less space for line breaks for backs hence players are kicking a lot more waiting for the other team to make a mistake.

thehighground

Serenity Now! wrote: »

There are no ELVs involving rucks.
Being able to defend a maul doesn't encourage kicking. How would it?


Feel free to quote him.. What did he say?

http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/rugby/2009/0302/1224242104554.html

Kidney urges ELV changes

RUGBY : Ireland coach Declan Kidney has urged lawmakers to reconsider changes to the Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) because he claims they are damaging rugby as a spectacle. ELVs were introduced to encourage attacking play but Kidney believes in some instances they have had the opposite effect.

Kidney cites the prolonged aerial ping-pong in Saturday’s attritional 14-13 RBS Six Nations victory over England at Croke Park as an example of why teams are struggling to break down defences.

“The changes in the ELVs where you can’t maul means there’s less space,” he said. “A large percentage of the game is now in the favour of the defence. That’s why you’re getting so much kicking.

“Hopefully the lawmakers will look at why there isn’t space on the pitch and the lack of the maul is one of them.

“At the ruck situation you have to commit four players to secure the ball, the opposition maybe one or two, so there’s never space with players dropping back.”

Serenity Now!

bamboozle wrote: »

HIS interview is on the rte website, his point being and which is a common enough issue with the ELV's is that defending teams dont need to commit as many players to rucks & mauls, which sees more forwards defending further out, this leaves less space for line breaks for backs hence players are kicking a lot more waiting for the other team to make a mistake.

Hmmm...this is strange. Great a coach as Declan Kidney is, I don't see where the ELVs have affected this. When a player gets the ball deep and hoofs it, it is because the opposition dont need to commit as many to the tackle?? He's hardly going to say because his players were told to play it safe and get out of their own first 35m anyway possible with creating a contest for ball there, now is he?

Exactly which law variation has made a ruck less-contestable than when sealing was permitted and less stringent officiation prevalent of players having to stay on their feet and enter through the 'gate' ie. pre-2008/9 season?

The IRB directive on ruckplay was brought in to promote contestability because of...? Yep. Rucks being foregone conclusions.
And it is NOT an ELV.

bamboozle

i think Kidney is referring to the ELV which allows mauls to be collapsed which means less defenders are commited to the maul, thereby leaving more fowards covering further out which results in less space to attack into- at this point we're seeing a lot more kicking.

the other ELV which i was touching on was that when the ball is passed back into the 22.

Either way, you dont seem to think the ELV's are responsible for the increased kicking game we have been seeing in games this season, you're entitled to your opinion, i beg to differ.

Serenity Now!

bamboozle wrote: »

Either way, you dont seem to think the ELV's are responsible for the increased kicking game we have been seeing in games this season, you're entitled to your opinion, i beg to differ.

Nowhere near as much as some make out. The biggest influence on the kicking aspect is the reiteration of refereeing at rucks, as I have already said.

Having said that, no rule or law set promoting running rugby seems to be able to jolt a team into utilising running rugby.

People who previously preferred to see the ball disappear into row F or not at all in games where backs are surplus to any requirement other than defence seem a little confused, methinks.

subfreq

I also think that the increase in kicking is another Rugby League influence. A high kick and chase has been a recent (last 4 years) Aussie rugby league tactic. Early on in possession you hoist up the ball and apply major pressure to try and force the spill or error. It's a very easy way to try and gain big yards and if you are in possession in your own half you don't risk giving away a peno. You also don't expend energy needlessly from your forwards for little gain. Defenses are too flat and well drilled now. It doesn't make sense to just charge into them.

The current rules don't give enough security to hold the ball in close when you are in your own half and you can't play the touch line from the 22 on a pass back.

I think DK is right that the maul was one secure platform to keep the ball on the deck and draw enough defensive players in to allow your runners to at least have a go. I always thought it was a poor rule change allowing collapsing the maul. It's only one step away from uncontested scrums. Rolling mauls have always been one of the great sites in International rugby for me.

thehighground

Serenity Now! wrote: »

People who previously preferred to see the ball disappear into row F or not at all in games where backs are surplus to any requirement other than defence seem a little confused, methinks.

But isn't backs just defending what is happening now? (Leinster - by reputation with some of the best backs in NH (including world class players like Contempomi & BOD) has the best defence in the Heineken Cup. Most of their games have been tryless and won by the forwards/boot in the last 2 years.

Fitness/stamina to run non-stop is also an issue I think.

All in all, I just hate this ping pong thing.

pucan

Serenity Now! wrote: »

He's the Northern Hemisphere equivalent of Spiro Zavos.

Ha ha, QFT

NickNolte

The Sunday Times is just a British take on Irish news and it's increasingly becoming more and more of a rag as time goes on. So don't be surprised when you see the sports journalists (if that's what you want to call that moron, Jones) substitute credible opinion for retarded controversy just to cause a stir.

Don't buy The Sunday Times anymore is the lesson to be learned.

Serenity Now!

subfreq wrote: »

I also think that the increase in kicking is another Rugby League influence. A high kick and chase has been a recent (last 4 years) Aussie rugby league tactic. Early on in possession you hoist up the ball and apply major pressure to try and force the spill or error

When have you ever seen a rugby league side kicking away "early on in possession"??
Have you ever heard of a 'Garryowen'? Its certainly more than four years old :rolleyes:

subfreq wrote: »

It's a very easy way to try and gain big yards and if you are in possession in your own half you don't risk giving away a peno. You also don't expend energy needlessly from your forwards for little gain. Defenses are too flat and well drilled now. It doesn't make sense to just charge into them

You're basically agreeing with me. Don't want to give away a penalty in your own 22. When? During the ruck. Ergo, not an ELV.

subfreq wrote: »

The current rules don't give enough security to hold the ball in close when you are in your own half and you can't play the touch line from the 22 on a pass back

These (ruck) rules have been in place for decades. They just haven't been enforced stringently.

subfreq wrote: »

I think DK is right that the maul was one secure platform to keep the ball on the deck and draw enough defensive players in to allow your runners to at least have a go. I always thought it was a poor rule change allowing collapsing the maul. It's only one step away from uncontested scrums. Rolling mauls have always been one of the great sites in International rugby for me.

I agree that the pulling down of a maul should never be allowed. However this is a safety concern. Your comment on the 'one step away from uncontested scrums...' is bilge and has nothing to do with anything.

I'd like to know what people have against moves made to encourage more running of the ball. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Why do you think a crowd applauds a lineout penalty option over a 3 pointer? Why does the noise at a game augment when the ball gets moved?
Some people have very short memories indeed when it comes to how the game has been going.

I'd also like to know what kind of rugby league you've been watching. You don't seem to have grasped even the basics of the sport.

Serenity Now!

pucan wrote: »

Ha ha, QFT

Absolutely.

Jones is a Welshman living in England and ever-fawning over the England team while churning out endless and misinformed tosh and lies about the 'other' hemisphere and rugby league, come to think of it.

Zavos is a Kiwi living in Australia and ever-fawning over the Wallabies team while churning out endless and misinformed tosh and lies about the 'other' hemisphere and rugby league, come to think of it.

subfreq

Ha ha. Very entertaining reply.

Union changed dramatically in the last 10 years due to the influence of initially the Australian team working closlely with Rugby League defensive minds and that spread out to the rest of the nations and clubs.

This has nothing to do with the Garryowen. No matter how comically you try to write a throw away response.

Teams in the ARL have adopted using a kick and chase game early in the tackle count in recent years. That is just fact. It is a major departure from only kicking on the last.

If the collapsing maul rule change was for safety then you support my exaggerated claim of being one step away from uncontested scrums. All of rugby is dangerous. Are we going to say you can't tackle a player who takes a high ball because he can't defend himself? It's ridiculous.

I think Declan is right in saying that without being able to use a rolling maul within your own half because it can now be collapsed you feel less security in possession and are more inclined to kick away possession. You have to commit 4 player to secure possession at a ruck and the defending team only two giving an unbalanced numeric advantage. That makes basic sense to me.

That is coupled of course with the stricter way the breakdown is policed. You are absolutely correct that this is more strict enforcing of the rules rather than the introduction ELV's.

Less of the keyboard warrior and more in the way open discussion would be productive. I don't think people post here on the basis that they post the absolute truth rather just want to discuss rugby...

Serenity Now!

subfreq wrote: »

Ha ha. Very entertaining reply.

Union changed dramatically in the last 10 years due to the influence of initially the Australian team working closlely with Rugby League defensive minds and that spread out to the rest of the nations and clubs

Actually going pro had a more profound effect on the game than this alleged sudden realisation that defence was not only managable but necessary :rolleyes:

subfreq wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the Garryowen. No matter how comically you try to write a throw away response.

Teams in the ARL have adopted using a kick and chase game early in the tackle count in recent years. That is just fact. It is a major departure from only kicking on the last

Give an example of any five-eighth who does what you say. Give me an example of a coach who promotes this tactic of kicking possession away on an early part of a set-of-six. A kick-and-chase in RL on an early tackle is virtually unheard of. A kick-pass or a cross-field kick might be more prevalent but are hardly the same especially when you're discussing ping-pong kicking from 22 to 22.

subfreq wrote: »

If the collapsing maul rule change was for safety then you support my exaggerated claim of being one step away from uncontested scrums. All of rugby is dangerous. Are we going to say you can't tackle a player who takes a high ball because he can't defend himself? It's ridiculous

A maul collapse and a scrum collapse are both the same in my view and should be penalisable. I don't support your OTT and melodramatic assertion at all.
The maul law variation was not implemented on safety grounds. If it was you'd have a point. As it happens, it wasn't and you don't.

subfreq wrote: »

Less of the keyboard warrior and more in the way open discussion would be productive

Thank you but I'll post as I please within the T&Cs of the forum.
Cheers.