Well put
Ruck Involvements - Force v Reds
FYI.
Haven't much time for analysis or comment.
Remember:
1. Early means 1st or 2nd of player’s team AFTER the ball carrier has been tackled and brought to ground.
2. Impact means active engagement: strong physical contact, changed shape of ruck, clean-out, protecting ball etc. (more than hand on someone’s bum or arriving after the hard work has been done). Yes it’s subjective - but as I collect all data at least it’s consistent.
3. Impact DOES NOT equate to Effectiveness. I’ve concluded that coming up with an effectiveness measure is just too hard in the time that I have available – but open to suggestions.
Ruck Involvements over Time
Good level of involvement by Force Front Row.
An improvement over the Tahs game.
Very impressive by Hardwick - 18 rucks in 46 minutes; puts even Koteka & Smith to shame
Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon
Any stats gurus know whether that was our quickest try? Think it was about 1 minute 20
Laugh and the world laughs with you.......
......cry and you'll weaken your beer
The FoxSports commentators advised that it was.Originally Posted by eleypinkbit
The previous best was by Ryan Cross.
SMH Team of the week
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/un...04-guqwgo.html
8 players made the side, but interestingly no hooker (despite both of our front row units towelling up the Reds all-wallaby offering) No locks (Despite destroying the Reds' all-wallaby unit) At least (rightly) Latu was the only Tah represented, and he did do well around the field, but why are they picking a Hooker who plays like a good flanker? Is it because they need an openside at the Tahs to cover for playing a 7 who plays at centre?
The article also starts with cut one aussie team, so based upon the team of the week, surely that team should be the Tahs, shouldn't it?
This week has proven how short sighted the cut one team argument is, I'm sure they'll be calling for the Force to be cut, but (hopefully) after next week, we'll have confirmed our spot at the top of the conference and start to work on limiting the damage of playing some stronger teams.
If they continue to peddle the "cut one team" line, they are ignoring the obvious issues with the "rugby heartland" which is making the same media magnet primadonnas into weak rugby players.
Who can name more than one or two players from either the Force or the Rebels who would walk into a start in the remaining four sides?
(based upon current selection practices I mean)
C'mon the
Not sure I quite understand your question Gigs....
Adam Coleman
Dane Haylett-Petty
Ben McCalman
Jono Lance
Luke Morahan
Three of the new Force recruits are showing real potential.
Several others have megatons of growth yet to come eg...
Toward the end of next year Michael Ruru could be a challenger for the Wallabies.
He question wasnt about naming who SHOULD be starting for the "rugby heartland" but who would actually run out. Case in point Ben McCalman was the most effective number 8 in Australia for several years before his Wallaby call up. He spent yeas stuck behind media darling and we'll known blancmange wycliff palu. Based upon current practice, I would expect him to gain a contract with the tahs and wear a suit for the rest of his career. Jono lance couldn't get a game at NSW or qld with 5 aussie teams, do you think that'll change with 4? Luke Morahan sat behind some woeful wingers at qld, but all he needed was some minutes on the park to become one of the most dangerous broken field runners in Australia. While I'm responding To your naming of the heart of our team who would likely never take the field again. The two who probably would get game time at the tahs or qld would never have seen minutes, or possibly not even a contract without 5 teams to fill. Cutting a team is not about a strong wallabies, because that earning doesn't make sense. Only the deluded and those who aren't looking closely would think it's about a strong super rugby too. It's Al about making a strong Shute shield.
Given Bieber is playing tonight, Monday, why did we need to play Thursday? Surely a day or two is enough to get stadium ready?
Laugh and the world laughs with you.......
......cry and you'll weaken your beer
But we wouldn't have seen the wonderful sunset at the stadium!
"12 Years a
The stage started being put in on the Friday and pictures I saw just on that day made it look like a monster and they were testing the sound system yesterday, so I assume no.
Rewatching the game and there were times when the tackling was lacklustre and half arsed. They'll need to pick up in defence to beat the nags.
Out of stander/koteka/hardwick I think stander should definitely be the one to make way for hodgo
Koteka seemed to take a few lineouts on Thursday night so I think we could potentially play 4.Phillip. 5. RHP. 6. Hodgo. 7. Koteka. 8. Hardwick with nasarini on the bench and another lock (Arnold?).
Hardback jumped a few times as well, so we could afford to have hodgo not jumping.
Im not sure they think Arnold is ready for super rugby yet, because he seemed to b on the outer even in the trials.
I'd Probably go with the back row as you've n WA med them and an extra tall flanker on the bench (but we're pretty deep into the stocks by then and I can't think who else there is)
C'mon the
I just had a quick squizz at player profiles.
IMHO it has to be nasairani and Stander on the bench.
C'mon the
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote