General Rugby Discussion II

aloooof

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Both were quite limited players ,but of their time..

TH's back then weren't really doing a whole lot round the park - They scrummaged , they lifted at the lineout and they hit the 1st and 2nd breakdowns, that was about it..

Ross was by far the better scrummager , Hayes much better at the lineout ,his height and power making a big impact (all those bales of hay horsed into the back of the trailer were great training!!)

Neither did a whole lot around the park , but then neither did any other tight-heads either..

A lot more is expected of all forwards these days TH's included and as such all the current crop do far more round the park than before..

Furlong is a far better all-round player...

I think the bolded bit is bang on, way more is now expected of TH's and we see that with Furlong.

I remember after the loss to Argentina in 2015, a non-rugby following friend of mine was bemoaning why we didn't play offloading rugby like New Zealand, and I suggested to him it was down to the skill level difference, but he just wasn't having it.

The best example I could think of was Mike Ross vs Owen Franks. During the tournament Franks made a brilliant offload vs France (I think) to setup a try, while Mike Ross was still doing that thing you used to see of TH's ducking down off the side of a ruck so the SH can get the pass out the back.

(In case anyone takes me up the wrong way, I don't mean any of this as a sleight against Ross. He was a brilliant servant for us, just using it as an example of how TH's have evolved).

Buer

Just to provoke people, OTB asked Quinlan to give his XV in response to Neil Tracy's team.

Healy
Wood
Furlong
POC
DOC
Ferris
Wallace
Heaslip
Murray
ROG
Earls
D'Arcy
BOD
Bowe
Kearney

Bench: Best, Horan, Ross, MOK, SOB, Sexton, Hickie, Horgan (no scrum half, apparently)

Interesting team. Can't argue with too much. The only one in the starting team I'd question on logic is ROG ahead of Sexton but I find that there's no rational thought left in that argument anymore. The only case for reasonably selecting ROG involves sticking one's fingers in their ears and ignoring a hell of a lot of evidence whilst citing wobbly clichés.

The other one I'm baffled by is Horan (who Tracy also had on his bench). Good player, solid operator but in Clohessy and McGrath were/are both better players. Horan was consistent in a 6.5/10 way but never really reached the same levels (although I thought he peaked in the Grand Slam campaign and was very good in that tournament). He was still behind a 34 year old Reggie Corrigan in 2005 and then, once Cian Healy arrived, found himself behind his test career forcibly ended in 2009. Clohessy was a nasty f*cker but a very good prop and had a very good shot of being a test Lion in 1997 before injury forced his withdrawal. Similarly, Jack McGrath was a strong shout for best loosehead in Europe in 2015-2017.

Clegg

Very relevant to everyone's interests here.

https://twitter.com/Murray_Kinsella/status/1256287184698650626?s=19

Buer

I can see an interpro series taking place at that point with limited attendance. Also in the same section of the document, it notes that crowds may attend but social distancing and restrictions must apply:

Permit sports spectatorship which involve mass gatherings only in accordance with both indoor and outdoor numbers restrictions and where social distancing can be complied with.

Hopefully things are lifted by September than with the end of phase 5 and we can have something resembling (the new) normality thereafter.

CatFromHue

Buer wrote: »

involves sticking one's fingers in their ears and ignoring a hell of a lot of evidence whilst citing wobbly clichés.

I see you're familiar with Quinlan so.

He has Earls ahead of Hickie too. I very much like Earls but Hickie had a bigger impact in the games he played and was a better finisher too.

stephen_n

Buer wrote: »

Just to provoke people, OTB asked Quinlan to give his XV in response to Neil Tracy's team.

Healy
Wood
Furlong
POC
DOC
Ferris
Wallace
Heaslip
Murray
ROG
Earls
D'Arcy
BOD
Bowe
Kearney

Bench: Best, Horan, Ross, MOK, SOB, Sexton, Hickie, Horgan (no scrum half, apparently)

Interesting team. Can't argue with too much. The only one in the starting team I'd question on logic is ROG ahead of Sexton but I find that there's no rational thought left in that argument anymore. The only case for reasonably selecting ROG involves sticking one's fingers in their ears and ignoring a hell of a lot of evidence whilst citing wobbly clichés.

The other one I'm baffled by is Horan (who Tracy also had on his bench). Good player, solid operator but in Clohessy and McGrath were/are both better players. Horan was consistent in a 6.5/10 way but never really reached the same levels (although I thought he peaked in the Grand Slam campaign and was very good in that tournament). He was still behind a 34 year old Reggie Corrigan in 2005 and then, once Cian Healy arrived, found himself behind his test career forcibly ended in 2009. Clohessy was a nasty f*cker but a very good prop and had a very good shot of being a test Lion in 1997 before injury forced his withdrawal. Similarly, Jack McGrath was a strong shout for best loosehead in Europe in 2015-2017.

Maybe slightly biased but I’d have Nick Popplewell ahead of the Claw as a loosehead. The prototype for a modern loosehead, powerful scrummager and extremely fast in the loose. A ball playing prop, before anyone knew front rows could do that.

Buer

stephen_n wrote: »

Maybe slightly biased but I’d have Nick Popplewell ahead of the Claw as a loosehead. The prototype for a modern loosehead, powerful scrummager and extremely fast in the loose. A ball playing prop, before anyone knew front rows could do that.

Great player but literally played during pro era in green for only 1-2 seasons which is what the team is based on.

stephen_n

Buer wrote: »

Great player but literally played during pro era in green for only 1-2 seasons which is what the team is based on.

I actually forgot the claw went on till 2002, till I looked it up there. I thought he finished up a couple of years after Poppy. Didn’t think there was a 4 year gap.

Podge_irl

Buer wrote: »

Interesting team. Can't argue with too much. The only one in the starting team I'd question on logic is ROG ahead of Sexton but I find that there's no rational thought left in that argument anymore. The only case for reasonably selecting ROG involves sticking one's fingers in their ears and ignoring a hell of a lot of evidence whilst citing wobbly clichés.

The other one I'm baffled by is Horan (who Tracy also had on his bench). Good player, solid operator but in Clohessy and McGrath were/are both better players. Horan was consistent in a 6.5/10 way but never really reached the same levels (although I thought he peaked in the Grand Slam campaign and was very good in that tournament). He was still behind a 34 year old Reggie Corrigan in 2005 and then, once Cian Healy arrived, found himself behind his test career forcibly ended in 2009. Clohessy was a nasty f*cker but a very good prop and had a very good shot of being a test Lion in 1997 before injury forced his withdrawal. Similarly, Jack McGrath was a strong shout for best loosehead in Europe in 2015-2017.

I think Quinlan's team in general is better. DOC and MOK is much of a muchness, wouldn't quibble either way. Furlong (and Ross on the bench :pac: ) make more sense than Hayes. Falling into the same problem in the backrow - though he at least puts SOB on the bench ahead of POM which was a stupid call by Tracey. Feel SOB struggles with people not knowing whether to put him at 6 or 7. For me he was a 7 and a great one and should probably be in ahead of Wally but I can see why you would struggle to do that given the player he is.

Will mostly ignore the ROG thing cause its just silly. Mind you I find it mildly amusing that anyone brings up Lions selections while making these calls and manages to ignore that one flyhalf forced Owen Farrell to 12 while he started at 10 in series wins against Aus and NZ, and the other never started a test cause Stephen Jones was ahead of him...

Otherwise I like the look of his team. On the Horan front, I think he gets it because he was actually properly first choice which is something McGrath never really had. This is obviously a function of Healy being so good but nonetheless I can understand the reasoning. We've had Healy at LH for an insanely long time at this point when you think about it.

sydthebeat

The announcement for World rugby chairman is being brought forward from May 12th to 3pm today.

Its seems to have been a very tight race, but the overseers PWC have said there is a winner so no need for a second round.

I've a feeling pichot may have snuck in ahead

stephen_n

sydthebeat wrote: »

The announcement for World rugby chairman is being brought forward from May 12th to 3pm today.

Its seems to have been a very tight race, but the overseers PWC have said there is a winner so no need for a second round.

I've a feeling pichot may have snuck in ahead

Saw Germany are giving out that there was no consultation process in Rugby Europe. Before they gave their vote to BB. I would read it more that their is no real contest and BB gets a second term.

Buer

Podge_irl wrote: »

Otherwise I like the look of his team. On the Horan front, I think he gets it because he was actually properly first choice which is something McGrath never really had. This is obviously a function of Healy being so good but nonetheless I can understand the reasoning. We've had Healy at LH for an insanely long time at this point when you think about it.

McGrath was first choice for 3 years, Horan for 4. The big difference is that McGrath had Healy, Kilcoyne etc. fighting for the jersey the whole time. Horan had Bryan Young and then Tom Court who had just arrived into the country.

I think Clohessy has a very good shout for it too though.

stephen_n

stephen_n wrote: »

Maybe slightly biased but I’d have Nick Popplewell ahead of the Claw as a loosehead. The prototype for a modern loosehead, powerful scrummager and extremely fast in the loose. A ball playing prop, before anyone knew front rows could do that.

And maybe the funniest rugby player to have ever played the game.

His appearances on Off The Ball Roadshows etc are absolutely gold every time.

https://youtu.be/XsvhB_W_im0?t=1597

sydthebeat

stephen_n wrote: »

Saw Germany are giving out that there was no consultation process in Rugby Europe. Before they gave their vote to BB. I would read it more that their is no real contest and BB gets a second term.

It was 23-24 in favour of BB before the four votes from Japan and rugby Africa were to be counted.

Its going to be extremely close

aloooof

Buer wrote: »

McGrath was first choice for 3 years, Horan for 4. The big difference is that McGrath had Healy, Kilcoyne etc. fighting for the jersey the whole time. Horan had Bryan Young and then Tom Court who had just arrived into the country.

I think Clohessy has a very good shout for it too though.

People seem to forget about Jack McGrath following Healy's return to form. Pre-2017 Lions, the bookies had both McGrath and Mako Vunipola as 11/10 for starter in the first test. His best period of form coincided with Healy's dip / injury troubles, but he was really good during that spell.

Former Former

Horan wouldn't even be ahead of Kilcoyne IMO.

bilston

pickarooney wrote: »

So is it actually Liverpool's year?

Liverpool's year with a gigantic big asterix beside it...

Look I understand the rationale behind awarding the likes of PSG and Liverpool their respective titles in football.

The Pro 14 is a completely different beast given the conference and play off system.

If we are able to get next season started then I don't see why a week before it starts you couldn't have a final between Leinster and Edinburgh to decide this season's title.

Either that, or just scrap the entire season.

The Lost Sheep

Beaumont wins vote 28-23

bilston

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Beaumont wins vote 28-23

Good thing? Bad thing? Or indifferent?

Pichot seemed to have some radical ideas.

But that doesn't mean they were good ideas.

Things probably had to change in rugby three months ago, now there is no choice, there needs to be change.

stephen_n

Deleted User wrote: »

And maybe the funniest rugby player to have ever played the game.

His appearances on Off The Ball Roadshows etc are absolutely gold every time.

https://youtu.be/XsvhB_W_im0?t=1597

One of the nicest blokes you’d ever meet too. Played against him in a vets game about two years ago, only half the man he was in his playing days, great craic though.

sydthebeat

bilston wrote: »

Good thing? Bad thing? Or indifferent?

Pichot seemed to have some radical ideas.

But that doesn't mean they were good ideas.

Things probably had to change in rugby three months ago, now there is no choice, there needs to be change.

Good thing in my option. Pichot will get his chance next time and between then and now can work on fleshing out his ideas.

He's not going to be able to force through relegation from the 6ns though.

Podge_irl

Buer wrote: »

McGrath was first choice for 3 years, Horan for 4. The big difference is that McGrath had Healy, Kilcoyne etc. fighting for the jersey the whole time. Horan had Bryan Young and then Tom Court who had just arrived into the country.

I think Clohessy has a very good shout for it too though.

Man, my memory is awful. I'm just going to stop commenting.

I knew McGrath had a period of being first choice (and indeed is a test lion) but hadn't quite realised it was that long and if you had asked me I would have guessed Horan was first choice for longer than 4 years. Perception is a funny thing - probably the fact McGrath was competing with much better players leads to thinking he wasn't first choice for as long.

Podge_irl

sydthebeat wrote: »

Good thing in my option. Pichot will get his chance next time and between then and now can work on fleshing out his ideas.

He's not going to be able to force through relegation from the 6ns though.

I think Pichot has injected some good ideas and energy which can only be a good thing. Would not have been super thrilled to have him in charge though - though this is likely as I'm an old curmudgeon who doesn't want to see things like the 6N changing.

thebaz

bilston wrote: »

Good thing? Bad thing? Or indifferent?

bad thing, same old Conservative decision, rugby needs a good kicking , has become very staid, as per last world cup - Game needs to spread its wings worldwide - not more of the same.

irishbucsfan

Podge_irl wrote: »

I think Pichot has injected some good ideas and energy which can only be a good thing. Would not have been super thrilled to have him in charge though - though this is likely as I'm an old curmudgeon who doesn't want to see things like the 6N changing.

Pichot would never have been able to change the 6N anyway.

I think anyone who is sad Pichot wasn’t elected because they wanted to see sweeping changes is massively overestimating how much power the chairman has. The power to make any structural changes lies in the hands of the unions not the chairman. Pichot has far far less chance of convincing the unions to change than Beaumont does.

Pichot would have not been able to make a rugby computer game magically appear either! I found that a particularly funny promise of his. He has no idea whatsoever how to even start rendering for the development process of one, let alone bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. I’d love to know what he thinks he knows about software development that the others who’ve tried don’t.

I don’t think he would have achieved much. And I’ve no idea if rumours about him having close links to private equity firms is true but if he does and this was some way for them to get their foot in the door then that may be a dodged bullet.

The Lost Sheep

bilston wrote: »

Good thing? Bad thing? Or indifferent?

Pichot seemed to have some radical ideas.

But that doesn't mean they were good ideas.

Things probably had to change in rugby three months ago, now there is no choice, there needs to be change.

good but only if some of what pichot proposed is looked at and more is done to spread game. Get Georgians playing more against 6nations sides and in Georgia as well. Same with sanzaar and Pacific islands etc

thebaz wrote: »

bad thing, same old Conservative decision, rugby needs a good kicking , has become very staid, as per last world cup - Game needs to spread its wings worldwide - not more of the same.

it really isnt and by good kicking tou mean what exactly? How you propose rugby to spread itself more.

thebaz

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

it really isnt and by good kicking tou mean what exactly? How you propose rugby to spread itself more.

To help spread the game more outside the traditional countrys - Think Pichot would help countrys like Georgia, Spain and Fiji more than Beaumont, who is part of the conservative old guard.

sydthebeat

thebaz wrote: »

To help spread the game more outside the traditional countrys - Think Pichot would help countrys like Georgia, Spain and Fiji more than Beaumont, who is part of the conservative old guard.

Rugby Europe, under which Georgia and Spain play, voted for Beaumont.

And Fiji actually seconded the nomination of im BB if in not mistaken.

Theres a difference between allowing an organic growth of the game, which would be Beaumonts policy (women's, minis, especially girls minis) and pichot which appears to be big on the bluster but scanty on the detail.

Podge_irl

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Pichot would have not been able to make a rugby computer game magically appear either! I found that a particularly funny promise of his. He has no idea whatsoever how to even start rendering for the development process of one, let alone bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. I’d love to know what he thinks he knows about software development that the others who’ve tried don’t.

Ah elections the world over are contested by people who promise things not remotely in their power. I thought it was an interesting aside of at least acknowledging trying to get into casual zeitgeist (at the risk of sounding like Thornley there).

I realise he couldn't have personally changed the 6N, and likely its far too powerful to be influenced to any real degree either, but I don't think he would have been a productive force at the top. As you say, he would have just clashed with the real powers rather than encouraging them in any direction.

thebaz

sydthebeat wrote: »

Theres a difference between allowing an organic growth of the game, which would be Beaumonts policy (women's, minis, especially girls minis) and pichot which appears to be big on the bluster but scanty on the detail.

Well, I suppose rugby has been allowed grow organically past 20 years, in that time apart from Argentina no other country has really emerged - thats why I would like a radical change to help it grow internationally , the last world cup was so predicatble and given the uncertain times, and the uncertain times for professional rugby thats why I would have liked a bit of a radical re-think.