2019 under 20's
-
@Stargazer said in 2019 under 20's:
Our scrum is sh&t.
Can you confirm that Mr. Philpott is coaching the scrum please?
-
@Stargazer from what I understand,Whitcombe is back in NZ having a back operation,so has quite linked up with the 20s at this stage,on saying that there’s some work to be done.
-
-
@Stargazer said in 2019 under 20's:
Japan can't field a new hooker. Uncontested scrums from now on. That's a pity. Just now that we have a new frontrow on the field.
Can't they find one amongst their 27 guys on the bench?
-
Overall found it very similar to first game. They started really poor but came into it. Once the defence clicked we played off that a lot.
Still really concerned with a few areas.
1- skills. Like first game we did not look fluid on attack, dropped heaps of ball. Against NH teams and even Aussies will need huge improvement.
2- still lack of forward impact around park. Against France, England we will need ball carriers and fetchers and just have not seen it.
3- half back. Was unimpressed with Fuinaki. Lacks game sense, a lot of passes to short runners heavy and longer passes lacked accuracy. In years we have done well we have had dominant 9s at this level like TTT 2015 and Enari 2017. -
Very difficult to draw conclusions from a match against such a weak opponent, but I'll try it anyway.
- Although you can't solely blame the frontrow for a weak scrum, I think it's fair to say that Friday's starting frontrow was better than today's.
- Locks: haven't seen anything noteworthy; there were not many line-outs. I'd probably go for Grace and Vaa'i for the game against Oz.
- Loosies: Parker played reasonably well at no. 8, but Flanders is clearly better. If Parker can play 6, I'd move him there. Herbert scored a few easy tries, but I didn't notice him much during the game apart from that. Boshier probably better than Finau, but as I said, I'd probably move Parker to 6 if he can play there.
- Halfback: still some sloppy passing; Funaki is better than Carter, but that's about all I can say about it.
- First five-eighth: still a messy game, disorganised, so game management still a lot to improve. Good kicking. I'd pick Reihana over Burke, lacking a better pivot.
- Midfield: McLeod was better today than last Friday, but that was easy against Japan. I'd really like to see Gregory at 12 with Lalomilo at 13, but I'm afraid McLeod will get that 12 jersey again, with Gregory being kept on the left wing, at least, until the Super Rugby boys are released. Lalomilo is someone to keep at centre. Can Tupaea play on the wing? Forbes was invisible for most of the game; didn't impress at fullback.
NZ best forward: hard to say; nobody really stood out, maybe Parker
NZ best back: Gregory and Lalomilo
Weakest link in the forwards: can't really single out one player.
Weakest link in the backs: same; right wing and fullback were very quiet.Worst part of our game: see previous game (no real improvement in ball handling and game management). Worse than previous game: the scrum.
-
Bit late to the party on this one but I really like the trial reserve rules. Opens up way more tactics for substitutions. Trying to close out a close one? Bring on the better defensive players. Need to play catch up? Put out an aggressive attacking backline.
Coaches basically programme in their subs as part of game planning now, this would open things up and reward the better tactical coaches.
-
@Cyclops said in 2019 under 20's:
Bit late to the party on this one but I really like the trial reserve rules. Opens up way more tactics for substitutions. Trying to close out a close one? Bring on the better defensive players. Need to play catch up? Put out an aggressive attacking backline.
Coaches basically programme in their subs as part of game planning now, this would open things up and reward the better tactical coaches.
Yet, we still got uncontested scrums in just the third match this was trialled ......
I don't see the point of this other than an arms race to exclude rugby upsets ever happening again.
T2 nations with weak benches? Go fuck yourselves you pathetic pieces of shits, I want more pawns to move on my coaches chessboard. Actually, tbh I just want to second guess my coach's chess moves from the couch.
Club teams scratching to get 15 players each week let alone 23 and now possibly 28 if you want to match the Ponsonby's of the world and not get blown away in the last quarter every fucking weekend. Just fold the club and close your doors, maybe by merging with a Ponsonby.
-
@Rapido You're jumping to conclusions. It's only a trial, and we don't even know whether they intend to apply this to club rugby or "over 20s" rugby. Also, maybe it's only about allowing 28 players in their squad (13 players on the bench), maybe it's still allowed to have 23 players if teams can't name 28 (or anything in-between).
-
@Rapido said in 2019 under 20's:
@Cyclops said in 2019 under 20's:
Bit late to the party on this one but I really like the trial reserve rules. Opens up way more tactics for substitutions. Trying to close out a close one? Bring on the better defensive players. Need to play catch up? Put out an aggressive attacking backline.
Coaches basically programme in their subs as part of game planning now, this would open things up and reward the better tactical coaches.
Yet, we still got uncontested scrums in just the third match this was trialled ......
I don't see the point of this other than an arms race to exclude rugby upsets ever happening again.
T2 nations with weak benches? Go fuck yourselves you pathetic pieces of shits, I want more pawns to move on my coaches chessboard. Actually, tbh I just want to second guess my coach's chess moves from the couch.
Club teams scratching to get 15 players each week let alone 23 and now possibly 28 if you want to match the Ponsonby's of the world and not get blown away in the last quarter every fucking weekend. Just fold the club and close your doors, maybe by merging with a Ponsonby.
It's still the same number of actual changes though. So there's no difference in terms being able to replace players. It just means the coach has a range of options for who to bring on. Probably reduces the value of utilities massively.
I can see how below professional level where numbers aren't a given in gives an unfair advantage but bring in on for the pros. Make subs a real tactical decision and not just 'shifts'.
-
It's a shit idea, that I'm giving the appropriate level of scorn that it deserves. While it is still a trial, before it infects the rest of rugby.
At an amateur level we will have coaches hoarding 5 un-used subs each weekend. Which are 5 un-used subs that the rich will be hoarding at the expense of the poorer clubs. Or at the expense of the rich clubs 2nd XV.
If it is for be for pro rugby only, then that's also a shit idea worthy of my scorn. Whats the point of making the start up professional outfit like DC Old Glory or Rugby United New York needing a bench of 28 each weekend. Or making Saracens want to buy even more South Africans so that their coach has some richer un-used chess options than Wasps.
-
@Cyclops said in 2019 under 20's:
@Rapido said in 2019 under 20's:
@Cyclops said in 2019 under 20's:
Bit late to the party on this one but I really like the trial reserve rules. Opens up way more tactics for substitutions. Trying to close out a close one? Bring on the better defensive players. Need to play catch up? Put out an aggressive attacking backline.
Coaches basically programme in their subs as part of game planning now, this would open things up and reward the better tactical coaches.
Yet, we still got uncontested scrums in just the third match this was trialled ......
I don't see the point of this other than an arms race to exclude rugby upsets ever happening again.
T2 nations with weak benches? Go fuck yourselves you pathetic pieces of shits, I want more pawns to move on my coaches chessboard. Actually, tbh I just want to second guess my coach's chess moves from the couch.
Club teams scratching to get 15 players each week let alone 23 and now possibly 28 if you want to match the Ponsonby's of the world and not get blown away in the last quarter every fucking weekend. Just fold the club and close your doors, maybe by merging with a Ponsonby.
It's still the same number of actual changes though. So there's no difference in terms being able to replace players. It just means the coach has a range of options for who to bring on. Probably reduces the value of utilities massively.
I can see how below professional level where numbers aren't a given in gives an unfair advantage but bring in on for the pros. Make subs a real tactical decision and not just 'shifts'.
Go watch NFL ffs.
-
A world cup warm up match.
-
@Daffy-Jaffy And today the Boks bet Wales 34-31 after being down 24-7. The advantage of a team being together and playing for 4-5mnths as the NH teams do, look sharpe! Even though only clips compare that to the games we have played and they look more polished which is what you would expect. Fowards big with offloading skills worries me against our boys...big difference.
