Barbarians game my view!

Firstly I want to congratulate the Barbs, they were competitive, but despite the first 20 where they had parity up front they were totally dominated by a Lions pack that seemed to click in an instance!!!

The points I'd like to make are where most disagree with me, I'll start with the positives...

POC and Grey looked like they complimented each other from the off, and one worked hard and the other carried wider really well.

Tipuric once again showed he is the best 7 in europe by a mile!

Roberts not only did the job he did for Wales but added some guile into his game with him trotting out steps, popping balls inside and out, and running hard on shoulders to receive offloads.

Set peice looked cracking from a tour POV, it will only get stronger from here on in!

Negatives...

Hibbard and Jones workrates were poor, and both looked pretty spent from the off (James was very unlucky at scrum time)

Vunipola took 2 talking too's at scrum time for his positioning, similarly V Wales, and Aus will have seen this.

POC didn't last too long, and before he went off was clearly spent, hopefully just the conditions and coming back from injury.

The team adapted to the conditions well, half back pairing who came on reduced distance between them and looked far slicker.

Lydiate was anonymous first half, partly due to lack of Barbs ball, partly because of his lack of rugby, but he at least got through it and actually looked a bit better late on (I suspect Warbs will be similar his first game)

Despite the scores and praise I thought the back 3 were pretty average, Cuthbert will always finish, but all 3 looked a little disheveled defencively at times, I noticed Cuthbert and Hogg having a debate about position at one point, and Maitland got a shouting at too by Hogg at times, but they aren't known to each other so I can forgive that..

Points I find neither negative or positive...

Hibbards and Jones replacements, Stevens did nothing but flop around lazily onto rucks already won or lost, and Youngs I didn't realise he was on the pitch until he missed the lineout throw. Stevens was a far weak option but Youngs probably matched Hibbards performance.

Norths entry was, well odd. Came on and trucked up the 12 channell, but seemed lost in open play and defence, he kept drifting between 12 and 13 without Davies knowledge.

Maul was totally hit and miss too, totally destroyed a time or two, yet looked good for the try.


All in all a decent start, game 1 over and done with and no injuries so can't complain, my MOTM though wouldve gone to Roberts and Tipuric ahead of Phillips, but one thing you can't doubt is Phillips lions attitude and his post match interview was very classy, and everything you'd want from a lions player!

Had to leave at 57 mins to go to work but from what I saw we could really have done with a genuine ball player in midfield. Roberts and Davies did well making some hard bursts in midfield but the offloads went to ground most of the time. (Hopefully just the conditions, must be some slippery hands!!)

I think Casey Lualua deserves a lot of credit too for stopping the Lions backs on the gain line a good few times.

Lydiate didn't have a disaster but just think he was really struggling to keep with the pace and got caught between pods a few times because of that. (Not knowing when to get round the corner as a carrier or to hit the ruck, can easily happen when the game is a bit unstructured with loads of errors.) He will hopefully play a lot better against a structured side carrying hard for him to chop them down.

Scrum became a bit of a mess but who knows what goes on in there these days!!

Hogg stood up to a few big hits and dealt well with pressure a la Halfpenny so that should be an interesting battle!

Tipuric ran some great lines and linked really well,but is he physical enough? Micheal Hooper and Liam Gill play well in the loose but are also big strong ball carriers and tacklers, more like Warburton physique wise.

Really looking forward to seeing Croft O'Brien and Heaslip start a game, the athletic line out man, the big ball carrier and the all round player.

Faletau must have some good stats after that game,huge work rate on the carry,even if they aren't all huge carries he still makes himself available every time and doesn't go backwards much!!

Difficult game for the halfbacks, Phillips and Farrell will play a blinder next game out,was tough out there today with conditions and lack of structure. Phillips took the game by the scruff either side of half time which took the heart out of the babas. Farrell struggled really badly but it will be the making of him I think.

Really looking forward to seeing Croft O'Brien and Heaslip start a game, the athletic line out man, the big ball carrier and the all round player.

Agree with a lot but this is baffling, Who is the big ball carrir and who is the complet allrounder of those 2? Neither offer much on the floor, and disaster aside I can't see SOB anywhere near the 7 shirt.

SOB will probably play 7 on Wednesday because Warburton is ruled out of that game by the sounds of things.

I thought SOB was a good ball carrier but obviously not in your view.

Heaslip is the all rounder

SOB is a very good ball carrier if used correctly. Internationally he hasn't been used properly for a long time.

Maybe with the Lions he will get that chance.

SOB is a great ball carrier, but I wasn't sure if you were elluding to him being the allrounder, I agree he isn't being utilised on the int stage, but will very soon and probably at 8. POM and SOB are the future of IRish backrow but they are still lacking a groundman.

Heaslip is far from an allrounder, he can't play in the wider channells like Falatau, doesn't have great hands and offers little on the floor.

My ideal back row would be...

Croft
Tipuric
SOB

A beautifull mixture of dynamism, muscle and floorwork, not to mention 3 lovely sets of hands, abiultiy to support and offload, although SOB will have to make up for the tight work!

thebluesmancometh wrote:SOB is a great ball carrier, but I wasn't sure if you were elluding to him being the allrounder, I agree he isn't being utilised on the int stage, but will very soon and probably at 8. POM and SOB are the future of IRish backrow but they are still lacking a groundman.

Heaslip is far from an allrounder, he can't play in the wider channells like Falatau, doesn't have great hands and offers little on the floor.

My ideal back row would be...

Croft
Tipuric
SOB

A beautifull mixture of dynamism, muscle and floorwork, not to mention 3 lovely sets of hands, abiultiy to support and offload, although SOB will have to make up for the tight work!

Bluesman I have to say I sometimes do not understand what you are seeing in certain players. Those are the exact attributes that Heaslip is known for possessing. He has great hands/ball skills, is an incredibly dynamic runner and his breakdown work is fantastic, in fact he is one of the best 8s around on the deck. His problem in recent years has been a lack of power and physicality in contact.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:SOB is a great ball carrier, but I wasn't sure if you were elluding to him being the allrounder, I agree he isn't being utilised on the int stage, but will very soon and probably at 8. POM and SOB are the future of IRish backrow but they are still lacking a groundman.

Heaslip is far from an allrounder, he can't play in the wider channells like Falatau, doesn't have great hands and offers little on the floor.

My ideal back row would be...

Croft
Tipuric
SOB

A beautifull mixture of dynamism, muscle and floorwork, not to mention 3 lovely sets of hands, abiultiy to support and offload, although SOB will have to make up for the tight work!

Bluesman I have to say I sometimes do not understand what you are seeing in certain players. Those are the exact attributes that Heaslip is known for possessing. He has great hands/ball skills, is an incredibly dynamic runner and his breakdown work is fantastic, in fact he is one of the best 8s around on the deck. His problem in recent years has been a lack of power and physicality in contact.

??? Every break he's ever made, every try ive seen him score is directly near the centre of the park, or put in by others out wide. If his floorwork was good enough he'd be at 7 and SOB would go to 8. He is decent going forward but offers little defencive effort at the breakdown, similar to Lydiate and Croft. Ireland didn't start the chokehold through choice, it was necesity as they were being nullified by having no real 7 or good defencive groundsman!

I'm not saying Heaslip is a bad player, he's very good and I'd have no problem seeing him in the test side, but complete? No chance!

I don't know. Watching the Rabo Final last week I thought Heaslip was a nuisance on the floor, and was unlucky not to get MOTM, Jennings shaded it because of his try.

Remember screaming at the TV to the ulster boys to get Heaslip out of there!!!(which we failed to do obviously!)

I like the idea of your speed merchants in the backrow Blues but I just don't know whether we would have the carrying ability there. Maybe we will see that back row on tour at some point.

Would also be interesting to see the 3 8's in a backrow for sheer power and carrying,but admittadly they would struggle at line out time and getting round the park!

6. Heaslip
7.SOB
8. Faletau

I agree he isn't the "complete" package but what I am saying is your criticisms of his play are just wrong. Breakdown, handling, abilities in open play. All of these things are strengths in Heaslip's game. His weaknesses lie elsewhere. Mostly his strength in the contact area. For an 8 he doesn't make enough ground.

Overall though he is good in many areas of the game, but for an 8 you primarily need to be able to make good metres going forward (in my opinion).

thebluesmancometh wrote:Firstly I want to congratulate the Barbs, they were competitive, but despite the first 20 where they had parity up front they were totally dominated by a Lions pack that seemed to click in an instance!!!

The points I'd like to make are where most disagree with me, I'll start with the positives...

POC and Grey looked like they complimented each other from the off, and one worked hard and the other carried wider really well.

Tipuric once again showed he is the best 7 in europe by a mile!

Roberts not only did the job he did for Wales but added some guile into his game with him trotting out steps, popping balls inside and out, and running hard on shoulders to receive offloads.

Set peice looked cracking from a tour POV, it will only get stronger from here on in!

Negatives...

Hibbard and Jones workrates were poor, and both looked pretty spent from the off (James was very unlucky at scrum time)

Vunipola took 2 talking too's at scrum time for his positioning, similarly V Wales, and Aus will have seen this.

POC didn't last too long, and before he went off was clearly spent, hopefully just the conditions and coming back from injury.

The team adapted to the conditions well, half back pairing who came on reduced distance between them and looked far slicker.

Lydiate was anonymous first half, partly due to lack of Barbs ball, partly because of his lack of rugby, but he at least got through it and actually looked a bit better late on (I suspect Warbs will be similar his first game)

Despite the scores and praise I thought the back 3 were pretty average, Cuthbert will always finish, but all 3 looked a little disheveled defencively at times, I noticed Cuthbert and Hogg having a debate about position at one point, and Maitland got a shouting at too by Hogg at times, but they aren't known to each other so I can forgive that..

Points I find neither negative or positive...

Hibbards and Jones replacements, Stevens did nothing but flop around lazily onto rucks already won or lost, and Youngs I didn't realise he was on the pitch until he missed the lineout throw. Stevens was a far weak option but Youngs probably matched Hibbards performance.

Norths entry was, well odd. Came on and trucked up the 12 channell, but seemed lost in open play and defence, he kept drifting between 12 and 13 without Davies knowledge.

Maul was totally hit and miss too, totally destroyed a time or two, yet looked good for the try.


All in all a decent start, game 1 over and done with and no injuries so can't complain, my MOTM though wouldve gone to Roberts and Tipuric ahead of Phillips, but one thing you can't doubt is Phillips lions attitude and his post match interview was very classy, and everything you'd want from a lions player!

Bluesman I think I generally agree with all of this. The only thing I'm slightly worried about, bizarrely, is the Roberts/Davies midfield. I thought they both did well, I'm just completely unconvinced the style Gatland has adopted with them will result in us beating the Aussies. Im not sure who it would come from, but I'd like a bit more guile in the midfield. The outside-to-in run Roberts does will be shut down by Oz who'll then flood the breakdown extremely quickly. This is also why I think Phillips needs to quicken his passing. Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic. They both looked very good, I just worry Gatland needs to find a plan b for them to outfox Oz, they're both good footballers.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I agree he isn't the "complete" package but what I am saying is your criticisms of his play are just wrong. Breakdown, handling, abilities in open play. All of these things are strengths in Heaslip's game. His weaknesses lie elsewhere. Mostly his strength in the contact area. For an 8 he doesn't make enough ground.

Overall though he is good in many areas of the game, but for an 8 you primarily need to be able to make good metres going forward (in my opinion).

Then I think we are just asking different things of our 8, for dynamism and carrying SOB, Croft and Falatau are better, but none carry in the tight like Heaslip where he trumps all 3, he doesn't make a massive amount of ground, but he does take pressure of the tight 5 responsibility in the loose.

Take today for an example, with Tips,Lydiate and Grey in the pack Falatau found himself having to cover tight carrying more than he'd like, he hasn't the physicality to do so and was knocked back a few times, and struggled for yardage, as the game broke up his footwork gave him the a better chance of breaking the first tackle. Falatau was shown shaking his head when he came off and didn't think he did that well (can't fault his work rate but his effectiveness wasn't great)

Ulster I quite like the look of that back row, very SA esque, but can I add Roberts and Tuilagi in the centres, Cuthbert and North on the wing, and Phillips and Tipuric at half back?

That would be one monster team, would be a pretty effective 13 man line out!!

Ulster12 wrote:That would be one monster team, would be a pretty effective 13 man line out!!

Seriously though there is part of me that wants to see the most powerfull and destructive team possible...

Healy
Hibbard
Cole
Evans
POC
Heaslip
SOB
Falatau
Phillips
Sexton
North
Roberts
Tuilagi
Cuthbert
Kearney

I think that XV would be pretty hard to live with if Sexton could pull the strings well enough!! Wouldn't like to be a defender waiting on wave after wave coming round the corner!

Any half decent team would love to play against such a one dimensional group of individuals. They might pull off a win through sheer strength every now and again, but I think it would be the rugby equivalent of watching paint dry anyway.

I would much rather see the Lions field a team of rugby players.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Any half decent team would love to play against such a one dimensional group of individuals. They might pull off a win through sheer strength every now and again, but I think it would be the rugby equivalent of watching paint dry anyway.

I would much rather see the Lions field a team of rugby players.

Couldn't disagree more, that team has plenty about it, or are you saying all players are one dimensional, and unable to work in the unit they are in?

Wait, you really think that team would be a good one?

Heaslip, O'Brien and Faletau as a back row?

A centre combination of Roberts and Tuilagi?

Oh dear.

There is a LOT more to rugby than being big and strong, you know.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:There is a LOT more to rugby than being big and strong, you know.

Name me one player who hasn't spent his career getting bigger and stronger?

What on earth.

What has that question got to do with anything? Size/strength is important to a degree depending on your position, but like I said there is a LOT more to rugby than how big and strong you are. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:What on earth.

What has that question got to do with anything? Size/strength is important to a degree depending on your position, but like I said there is a LOT more to rugby than how big and strong you are. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

OK lets change the question, which rugby player would be weaker if he held all the attributes here but was also bigger and stronger?

Well for this little hypothetical question, I will use two real life examples then. One a world class centre, probably the best in the world, and one is international class at best.

Conrad Smith. He is exceptionally gifted. Very skilful player, fantastic support player. Not the biggest of guys around. Do you really think he is going to need any extra bulk to make him a better player? I highly doubt it. He is already the best in his position.

Matheiu Basteraud. Probably far too big for his position. He will win the contact areas, but many more skilful players will run circles round him routinely. He could probably do with losing a bit of size. There isn't much benefit for him being that size. He is 10kgs heavier than Tuilagi, who is huge. He doesn't have the skills or distribution or awareness that Smith/O'Driscoll have, and he never will.

Yet again I am baffled if you think that size and strength is the most important aspect of rugby. If it was, NZ wouldn't be the top team in the world. They are generally more mobile, more talented and more skilful than the opposition. Not bigger or stronger.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Well for this little hypothetical question, I will use two real life examples then. One a world class centre, probably the best in the world, and one is international class at best.

Conrad Smith. He is exceptionally gifted. Very skilful player, fantastic support player. Not the biggest of guys around. Do you really think he is going to need any extra bulk to make him a better player? I highly doubt it. He is already the best in his position.

Matheiu Basteraud. Probably far too big for his position. He will win the contact areas, but many more skilful players will run circles round him routinely. He could probably do with losing a bit of size. There isn't much benefit for him being that size. He is 10kgs heavier than Tuilagi, who is huge. He doesn't have the skills or distribution or awareness that Smith/O'Driscoll have, and he never will.

Yet again I am baffled if you think that size and strength is the most important aspect of rugby. If it was, NZ wouldn't be the top team in the world. They are generally more mobile, more talented and more skilful than the opposition. Not bigger or stronger.

I like those examples Although let me ask if you put Smiths skillset in Basterauds size he would be one of the best players the world has ever seen!!!

Ive been a bit childish with my last 2 questions but I was trying to make a point, although size and strength aren't the be all and end all why sacrifice it just to prove a point.

If Basteraud dropped 10kgs it wouldn't make him any better a rugby player, maybe small speed and stamina increases but his skillset remains the same.

I rate BOD as one of the greatest centres to have played the game, and very Smith esque in the way they both play, however I will admit he has lost attributes that helped him get to the top, and those attributes are what make Fofana excell above most, Fofana can't play people in like BOD can, yet BOD can't beat international centres from a standstill like Fofana can.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Yet again I am baffled if you think that size and strength is the most important aspect of rugby. If it was, NZ wouldn't be the top team in the world. They are generally more mobile, more talented and more skilful than the opposition. Not bigger or stronger.

Eh??? NZ had a certain Jonah Lomu who changed the rugby framework showing the massive advantage of bigger stronger players. The ABs have been auditioning players like Nonu and Sonny Bill ever since to find someone with the same impact. Skill is no longer enough, it has to be accompanied by physique.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Yet again I am baffled if you think that size and strength is the most important aspect of rugby. If it was, NZ wouldn't be the top team in the world. They are generally more mobile, more talented and more skilful than the opposition. Not bigger or stronger.

Eh??? NZ had a certain Jonah Lomu who changed the rugby framework showing the massive advantage of bigger stronger players. The ABs have been auditioning players like Nonu and Sonny Bill ever since to find someone with the same impact. Skill is no longer enough, it has to be accompanied by physique.

Size and strength are not the most important aspects of rugby. They are important factors, but not the most important. Every team needs big ball carrying options to give them some momentum (they are very important in any balanced side) but they must be accompanied with playmakers and speed. Some great players like Nonu are a good mix of these attributes, but these players are rather rare.

"Physique" is not enough, it has to be accompanied by even greater skills. I genuinely weep if people think size is more important. Pretty much every player is big nowadays, not every player has the brain to go with it. One is much easier to develop than the other.

yes agree we have carter, cruden, A, B and C Smith, Corey Jane, Israel Dagg across the full backline spectrum- none who would be described big or strong first and foremost. Speed, skill, instinct, intuition and timing would describe these players ahead of strength or size.

Most of those guys would be the best in their respective positions in world rugby too.

Taylorman wrote:yes agree we have carter, cruden, A, B and C Smith, Corey Jane, Israel Dagg across the full backline spectrum- none who would be described big or strong first and foremost. Speed, skill, instinct, intuition and timing would describe these players ahead of strength or size.

If you think those guys aren't big and strong I dare you to get to a gym and challenge them!!!

The issue is in pro rugby the level has become so high (and rising) that they aren't big and strong in comparison to players who have built a career of being bigger and stronger than most. Roberts for example cannot compete with Conrad Smith ball in hand without his size and strength advantage, and there is no other centre in Wales who can do what Smith does, therefore Roberts is not Wales big strong option, he is Wales best option, size and strneght is what he bases his game on (very succesfully)

As someone said Lomu changed the face of the game because of his size and strength advantage over everyone else. Again using NZ as the model who are their most succesfull backs? and what are their favourable types of 12's?

Not one attribute will ever be enough, and there will always be players who excell in one attribute and become succesfull, but claiming size and strength aren't a pre requisite for pro rugby

Gatland may consider Tipuric at 10 instead of Farrell.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Taylorman wrote:yes agree we have carter, cruden, A, B and C Smith, Corey Jane, Israel Dagg across the full backline spectrum- none who would be described big or strong first and foremost. Speed, skill, instinct, intuition and timing would describe these players ahead of strength or size.

If you think those guys aren't big and strong I dare you to get to a gym and challenge them!!!

The issue is in pro rugby the level has become so high (and rising) that they aren't big and strong in comparison to players who have built a career of being bigger and stronger than most. Roberts for example cannot compete with Conrad Smith ball in hand without his size and strength advantage, and there is no other centre in Wales who can do what Smith does, therefore Roberts is not Wales big strong option, he is Wales best option, size and strneght is what he bases his game on (very succesfully)

As someone said Lomu changed the face of the game because of his size and strength advantage over everyone else. Again using NZ as the model who are their most succesfull backs? and what are their favourable types of 12's?

Not one attribute will ever be enough, and there will always be players who excell in one attribute and become succesfull, but claiming size and strength aren't a pre requisite for pro rugby

Again though, at the end of the day there is a point where getting bigger and stronger leads to very little gain in the sport of rugby. If you are already strong enough or big enough (think Tuilagi, Basteraud, Roberts) then getting bigger and stronger is a waste of time and generally bigger size will cause conditioning difficulties. It is much harder to move a 95kg frame than a 115kg frame. The players that Taylorman listed are not that big. They are pretty strong, but they don't need to focus much on getting any bigger or stronger.

Also, generally even the biggest and strongest rugby players are pretty weak compared to athletes involved in actual strength sports. My favourite sport alongside rugby is olympic weightlifting and they are much stronger. Obviously if you stick them on a rugby field though they will be pretty useless. No skills and no specific conditioning.

Also, I read an article on the London Wasps not long ago about their weight training. Apparently Varndell and someone else I can't recall are as strong as most of the forwards in terms of numbers lifted. Apparently Dallaglio wasn't that impressive in the gym, yet was one of the strongest guys on the field. Guess which player was the most successful in rugby. Another example is Pierre Spies, considered to put up huge numbers in the gym (for a rugby player).

Spies can reportedly power clean 135kg which is considered very impressive for a rugby player, at a bodyweight of around 107kg, yet the world record in the women's 58 kg class in the clean & jerk is 138kg. Yeah, rugby players are pretty weak compared.

I'll find the article later about the London Wasps. Technique and skill on the pitch is a LOT more important.

Sorry but its silly comparing rugby and weightlifting. One sport you are running around for 80 minutes and in the other everything is geared to what - 3 lifts each taking around 45 seconds with rest periods in between. Both sports are impressive but they are completely different.

American football has stronger players too - but again that sport is geared towards explosive power with, often, plenty of rest periods in between.

lostinwales wrote:Sorry but its silly comparing rugby and weightlifting. One sport you are running around for 80 minutes and in the other everything is geared to what - 3 lifts each taking around 45 seconds with rest periods in between. Both sports are impressive but they are completely different.

American football has stronger players too - but again that sport is geared towards explosive power with, often, plenty of rest periods in between.

Technically weightlifting has 2 lifts. Snatch and C & J. You mean powerlifting.

lostinwales wrote:Sorry but its silly comparing rugby and weightlifting. One sport you are running around for 80 minutes and in the other everything is geared to what - 3 lifts each taking around 45 seconds with rest periods in between. Both sports are impressive but they are completely different.

American football has stronger players too - but again that sport is geared towards explosive power with, often, plenty of rest periods in between.

Yes, that is exactly my point though (although you are talking about powerlifting, weightlifting is an entirely different sport). In rugby there must be a focus on sports specific conditioning, handling skills, awareness, tackling ability, set piece routines. All of these things are of vital importance. The weight training aspect is just one factor of rugby training.

In weightlifting, that is the sport. The snatch and the clean & jerk.

American football is also a very good example. They are often much bigger and stronger than rugby players, and as you say they have bigger rest periods with smaller periods in play. Therefore many of their players are not great at the typical endurance (long distance) outside of football.

Rory you are comparing apples and oranges though.

As stated weightlifting is specific to a very small number of lifts per competition, Rugby players need to use their strength gains for 80 minutes, therefore when I talk strength I am not only talking basal strength but strength endurance and the ability to use that strength to a maximum level for 80 minutes.

There are basic stamina requirements for rugby players, which is used as a tool to judge fitness, no matter what the skill level, strength level, speed level, if a player doesn't test to a certain level (currently the yo yo is industry standard but will soon be surpassed) then they are judged not to be good enough.

Therefore the ability of skill is similar to strength, no matter what the skill level unless your able to use it for 80 minutes to high enough degree your not good enough, and the exact goes for speed and stregth (endurance if you will).

To get bigger and stronger has to be compared to like for like, because all rugby players get bigger and stronger within context of using it for 80 minutes.

The core strength of players is hard to measure but very important.

You'll notice many backs have bigger arms than forwards. This is simply because the backs are trying to gain muscle mass while the forwards don't want to be carrying too much extra weight that they don't need.