Where are the Vunipola apologists now?

First topic message reminder :

Absolutely useless. No other comment required

Beshocked - not sure many people are actually saying that

They are peeeeved that Grant was not brought on when Vino was hardly able to stand at the end

It is Gatland that has shown to the world he is a one trick pony and not a very good trick at that

Lions were poor all over the field (and coaching too). Not sure you can really pick any individual out for special criticism.

Aus are the only side playing rugby and the series should already be over in their favour.

All we can do is kick

I can understand people having a pop at MV, but you have to give the Aussies some credit here.

I had a terrific view in the ground, high up and near halfway - a view you probably didn't have at home. Realising that Tom Youngs is short, they barrelled across the front row on their own scrum. This put pressure through Youngs and blew MV out the side causing him to lose his bind or collapse through the lack of a bind. The Aussies were taking Jones out of the equation and were not penalised.

As a unit the front row should have worked it out earlier and/or asked Warbs to have a word with Joubert.

The Aussies have never been known for a power scrum but they will exploit a weakness. If we play Youngs at 2 we need a bloody good scrummaging lh. If MV is at lh then we need Hibbard or Best at 2.

Gats got the front row balance wrong.

Gats got the front row balance wrong. I agree with that and would say that also reads the same for the 2nd row.

We need players to be proficient at their PRIMARY role first and we have a front 5 capable of dominating up front and providing us with a much needed platform

Spot on as ever Hound. Dean Ryan also talks about what the Aussies did here...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jun/29/lions-tactics-board-gatland-vunipola

 Good morning Hound - Hope you're enjoying the rugby! Looking forward to next weeks winner takes all

I know it’s easy to say with hindsight but I really couldn’t understand before the game why we chose such an underpowered and lack of scrimmaging ability front 5. That should be the one thing that the Lions have utter dominance over and in the modern game a dominant scrum could earn you at least 6 – 9 points a game. Instead we gave away scrum penalties, losing territory, momentum and points.

And let’s face it – if the front 5 was chosen for lineout ability then they failed miserably there!

I really think he’s got to massively pump up the front 5 – bring in Corbs if fit or Grant if not (unlikely to happen granted), Hibbard and Gray or Evans in the 2nd row.

Dominate the scrum and stop the farce happening again.

 RDW - You are bang on - And with that ref on Saturday we missed a trick there as dominance would have yielded a lot of penaltys and maybe even cards - We all now about that ref; unfortunately you will be only too aware of him. An opportunity lost. The team seemed a half way house. You either go one way or the other but not half way. For me Mako and Parling did not enhance the pack and we were left floundering. Many of us thought this before the game. More beef in those positions might have allowed Croft to be inserted for guaranteed front line ball in the lineouts. I think we will learn and will have a far clearer game plan this weekend and take it to them in a pwoerful but controlled manner.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Spot on as ever Hound.  Dean Ryan also talks about what the Aussies did here...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jun/29/lions-tactics-board-gatland-vunipola

Personally I would rather listen to frontrowers who actually know what they are talking about but that's just me.

Paul Wallace,David Flatman and Brian Moore have all supported Mako.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/david-flatman-mako-vunipolas-heavy-burden-8680067.html



http://www.express.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/411498/Phil-Vickery-Make-history-in-their-backyard

Yet another frontrower supports Mako.

Most of the criticism for Mako has come from those who don't have a bloody clue about scrummaging.

beshocked wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:Spot on as ever Hound.  Dean Ryan also talks about what the Aussies did here...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jun/29/lions-tactics-board-gatland-vunipola

Personally I would rather listen to frontrowers who actually know what they are talking about but that's just me.

Paul Wallace,David Flatman and Brian Moore have all supported Mako.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/david-flatman-mako-vunipolas-heavy-burden-8680067.html



http://www.express.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/411498/Phil-Vickery-Make-history-in-their-backyard

Yet another frontrower supports Mako.

Most of the criticism for Mako has come from those who don't have a bloody clue about scrummaging.

Fair enough, but I would also highlight that the Ozzie team realised they had an advantage in the last 10 mins

How may teams are that confident to take a scrum from a penalty in front of the posts when they are 6 down with 7.5 mins left (Plenty of time)

The fact the ozzies did that shows they felt it was a weakness of ours

Front Row Pundits standing up for Front Row Forwards - Stunning Revelation!

Vickery supports Mako yes. He doesn't say that he was brilliant, just that he did well to overcome his difficulties...

One thing which did please me was the way Mako Vunipola came back from his initial difficulties.

Being penalised twice early on for dropping the scrum put him on the back foot, but he found a way to come through it.

He may have been guilty of boring in to Australia’s tight-head Ben Alexander, but show me a 100 per cent legal scrummager and I will show you a beaten man.

It is the outcome that matters, not whether it is achieved with a halo over your head.

Mako showed he was streetwise enough to adapt under colossal pressure. That will have done wonders for his confi dence ahead of what will be the biggest game of his career.


Not sure where he disagrees with anything that Hound or Dean Ryan have said. Liekwise David Flatman criticises Joubert and states that Alexander was cheating, but he at no point says that Mako did well.

All front rows cheat, and it's up to the players to work this out and counter it. Mako struggled early on but came back well in the end. He is a young prop who will learn a lot from this game, but the fact remains that we will be far stronger in the scrum if Corbs is fit this week.

And beshocked, please don't assume that you know how much others do or don't know about scrummaging, as I can assure you my knowledge of it is in fact very good, it is my favourite part of the game.

Rubyguby you could interpret it that way or you could interpret it as people who actually know what they are talking about support a player.

Brian Moore is someone who speaks his mind. I doubt he would stand up for Vunipola just because he's a fellow frontrower.

Look at this way - I would expect a frontrower to be more clued up on scrummaging. Backs to be more clued up on back play. 2nd rows on lineouts etc.

Riskysports hardly a weakness in the 2nd half. Taking a scrum makes sense when they need 7 points. A try was what the Aussies needed and it was a try they got.

beshocked wrote:No your fall in grace is because you don't seem to be any more rational than your Scottish colleagues when it comes to Grant. He seems to have produced a strong following. I believe a temple in Glasgow has been built in his honour. His followers are fanatics who never fail to shout his name from the rooftops.

Of course I don't agree with the bile being thrown around no. Especially when mako hasn't actually done badly. Mako does way he does.

I will agree that grant should have come on with perhaps 20 mins to go but I don't believe all the rubbish about grant winning the 2nd test for the lions.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

You are getting pathetic now............ tell the forum where any Scottish (or any other) posters have stated that Grant would have won the second test.

I just wish that we could make a prop out of the best points of MV and Adam Jones...

Adam Jones is the best tight Prop in the scrum in the world but does little else...

MV is not very good come scrum time but great around the Park..
I thought his game in the loose yesterday was fantastic and he was also top tackler....

no scottish representation

Post by alive555 on Sat 29 Jun 2013, 21:28
ive been biting my lip for while now

so u guys know

its a Frak disgrace

ryan grant is arguably the top lh forward in the the uk

the guy hasent had any opportunity to impress

and u are playing vuniploa who cost us the match

wake up


alive555

Posts: 221
Join date: 2011-10-01
Location: Bangkok

View user profile Send private message

Back to top

Thats only one quote but it does imply that Grant playing would have made a difference

I agree with RDW totally. I always thought we would lose this test due to the selections in the forwards. Losing POC was huge but to compound it by starting MV was awful and also to have Tom Youngs alongside him was a mistake. Don't get me wrong I think Youngs is playing well but he needs a decent loosehead alongside. That had to be Grant on Sat and I was screaming at the telly to sub him after the first 2 scrums. Gats and Rowntree have a lot of explaining to do there.

I also thought we would suffer from selecting Parling who is not physical enough for me even if he is a terrific worker. Surely we had to have Grey on the bench and not two back row forwards. I always thought it would be like Eng getting beaten up by Wales. You need to win the gainline battles and some offensive, aggressive tackling and hits are required for that. If you saw Sheridan flatten Sivivatu in the Heineken cup final you will know what I mean.

On a positive note we surely won't make the same mistakes again. Corbs or Grant have to start. I would even start Hibbard and pray that he throws well and bring Youngs on after 55 mins. Plus we need some go forward in the backs and I cannot believe that Gats did not select Manu at least on the bench. This time either Manu or Roberts must start depending who looks best in training this week. Jon Davies onto the bench where he will make a cameo appearence and score the winning try.

 Nice post HAHO

hugehandoff wrote:I agree with RDW totally. I always thought we would lose this test due to the selections in the forwards. Losing POC was huge but to compound it by starting MV was awful and also to have Tom Youngs alongside him was a mistake. Don't get me wrong I think Youngs is playing well but he needs a decent loosehead alongside. That had to be Grant on Sat and I was screaming at the telly to sub him after the first 2 scrums. Gats and Rowntree have a lot of explaining to do there.

I also thought we would suffer from selecting Parling who is not physical enough for me even if he is a terrific worker. Surely we had to have Grey on the bench and not two back row forwards. I always thought it would be like Eng getting beaten up by Wales. You need to win the gainline battles and some offensive, aggressive tackling and hits are required for that. If you saw Sheridan flatten Sivivatu in the Heineken cup final you will know what I mean.

On a positive note we surely won't make the same mistakes again. Corbs or Grant have to start. I would even start Hibbard and pray that he throws well and bring Youngs on after 55 mins. Plus we need some go forward in the backs and I cannot believe that Gats did not select Manu at least on the bench. This time either Manu or Roberts must start depending who looks best in training this week. Jon Davies onto the bench where he will make a cameo appearence and score the winning try.  

So you would start hibbard ahead of youngs because of what? A percieved idea that he can't scrum dispite him already proving he can. Hibbard is slower to the rucks, doesnt carry as well and doesnt clear the rucks as well and is having issues throwing.

Some people on here are just being daft!

beshocked wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:Spot on as ever Hound.  Dean Ryan also talks about what the Aussies did here...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jun/29/lions-tactics-board-gatland-vunipola

Personally I would rather listen to frontrowers who actually know what they are talking about but that's just me.

Paul Wallace,David Flatman and Brian Moore have all supported Mako.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/david-flatman-mako-vunipolas-heavy-burden-8680067.html



http://www.express.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/411498/Phil-Vickery-Make-history-in-their-backyard

Yet another frontrower supports Mako.

Most of the criticism for Mako has come from those who don't have a bloody clue about scrummaging.

In fairness to Dean Ryan, he knows a thing or to about a scrum, so I wouldn't question his judgement over anyone else's. Nevertheless, I completely agree with Flatman's review that Alexander was basically just diving to the floor leaving Vunipola no chance of keeping the scrum up. The question is if it is that straightforward to win a penalty, why aren't games littered with THs diving to the floor? Joubert makes his mistakes, but he is a top class referee, but he clearly came to the conclusion that Vunipola was at fault. Scrummaging offences are largely committed by both sides, but the ref only picks up who he deems to be the weaker scrummager. Was Joubert influenced by the likes of Bob Dwyer beforehand?

I made no bones about Vunipola when discussing the Jeff LH of the year. For all the great work Vunipola does he is not yet a great scrummager and for me a more streetwise prop, but not necessarily a prop with a better technique, would have nullified the Aussie front row. Although full credit to him for the shift he put in and he did manage to get away with a few blatant penalties in later scrums, so he clearly learnt how to influence Joubert, just a shame he didn't earlier in the match.

On a separate note, has he been cited for his elbow on AAC?

flyhalffactory wrote:

beshocked wrote:No your fall in grace is because you don't seem to be any more rational than your Scottish colleagues when it comes to Grant. He seems to have produced a strong following. I believe a temple in Glasgow has been built in his honour. His followers are fanatics who never fail to shout his name from the rooftops.

Of course I don't agree with the bile being thrown around no. Especially when mako hasn't actually done badly. Mako does way he does.

I will agree that grant should have come on with perhaps 20 mins to go but I don't believe all the rubbish about grant winning the 2nd test for the lions.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

You are getting pathetic now............ tell the forum where any Scottish (or any other) posters have stated that Grant would have won the second test.

Thanks lostinwales. Here's another.

Wallabies have it now.. one word Lions fans... Grant!
by bsando on Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:21 pm

Okay, yes I am drunk. I found the only Aussie contingent in Cardiff today, at the Walkabout. But hey, it only took less than an hour after the game for us 7 Aussies to be out numbering you Lions fans. Did no one intend on staying out tonight? To be fair we had two die hard Lions fans hanging out with us and some good banter making Lions fans skull jugs of beer for several hours after the game, But boy did you boys scamper, living up to the pu**y cats name

Anyway, enough jokes. Should have played Grant, got owned in the scrum missing out on those crucial penalties. Refusal to play a Scot has cost the Lions.

Cya next week for the Wallabies win


Where are the Vunipola apologists now?
by InjuredYetAgain on Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:50 pm

Absolutely useless. No other comment required


Another flattering comment.

HKC Dean Ryan has no experience at the top level in the frontrow.

I agree that Joubert thought Vunipola was at fault I wonder why?

Gatland has not helped Vunipola by essentially saying he doesn't have faith in him in the scrum. Imagine how psychologically that plays on the mind on Mako,Joubert and the Aussies. If you show little faith in a player why set him up for sacrificial slaughter?

Mako was set up as the scapegoat before the match if the Lions lost. So it proved.

Alexander as a more experienced scrummager he was given the benefit of the doubt.

Conning the ref and supposed reputation can make a huge difference. For a bloke under as much pressure as Mako was he responded well.


hugehandoff you have made a huge assertion that Grant would do a better job. It's not as if Grant is a world renowned experienced scrummager. He has 10 caps for Scotland, that's not many. You can speculate that Grant would have done a better job but you cant be certain.

Ozzy ask yourself - do you really think you know as much about the scrum as Paul Wallace,Phil Vickery,David Flatman and Brian Moore?

Perhaps I don't beshocked, but it does not make my opinion any less valid. A million things go on a scrum, and many 'experts' have different views. You can cherry pick the ones that you want which support your assertion that Vunipola played well, but actually the links to newspaper reports that you posted said no such thing.

All of the bickering and criticism of players on here to me is overlooking the real reason for the loss and that is the gameplan. That team was good enough to win the game but when your primary plan of attack is to boot the ball up in the sky and chase it, against Australia then you are in for a long day.
Vunipola on an individual basis had an outstanding game. Tackled and carried like a demon and won several turnovers.
Unfortunately, as a 22 year old with one test start before hand and a coach who did not give him a ringing endorsement previously meant he was always going to be targetted by the opposition and scrutinised more closely by the ref.
Yes he was part of a scrum that won some and lost some but even the scrums which were won were very unstable. At on point Heaslip was on his hands and knees foraging for the ball in the middle of his own scrum. With the lineout misfiring we needed a solid platform from the scrum to release our backs when the time was right.
The quality of posession was very poor which meant Heaslip was always scrambling. When Youngs fed Sexton he had very little option but to kick or take it on himself, (which he did very well).
So as I said, I think Vunipola had a fantastic all round game and was probably worth the gamble. But this is where the coaching team have to earn their fee. There are big calls to be made all over the park. Remember we came within minutes of winning the series and having it nicely wrapped up in the second test.
Personally, I am delighted it's going down to a final test decider. The momentum is now with Australia and the Lions have lost key men in key positions but there is more than enough quality still there to win the series.
Mako will not be scapegoated for this loss. But Gatland will villified if he does not pick a team and more importantly a gameplan to attack and make best use of the fantastic group of talented players at his disposal.
 
1. Corbs/Grant if not 100%
2. Youngs (brilliant all tour, best chance of decent lineout ball)
3. Adam Jones ( did somebody criticise his contribution outside the scrum? WTF?)
4. Evans (Power, Lineout ability)
5. AWJ (Pack leader, excellent tour)
6. Sean O'Brien (Unleash the beast)
7. Tipuric (Warburtons performances have shown the need for a proper openside)
8. Heaslip(C) (Captain, Heavier pack should provide better platform to attack from scrum, Warburtonesque in securing ball in loose)
9. Philips/Murray if not 100%
10. Sexton
11. Norh (trailing centres, should be unlimited offloads)
12. Roberts (Doc smash)
13. Tuilagi (Unleash t'other beast)
14. Cuthbert (Harsh on Bowe but midfield will be congested, need raw pace on the outside)
15. Halfpenny
 
16. Grant/Vunipola 17. Hibbard 18. Cole 19. Grey 20. Falateu 21. Murray/Youngs 22. Farrell 23. Wade

Look, we all tend to defend 'our player' beshocked, and I have no problem with you doing so, but actually sometimes you do have to accept that your man came off second best. There is no shame to it, particularly for a 22 year old prop coming up against a 50 cap veteran. Yes the Aussies scrummed illegally at times and got away with it meaning that Mako got pinged, but that's life.

Nobody is saying that Mako didn't work his @rse off, and didn't come back after some early issues, but overall he did not do his primary job as a prop, which is to give us a platform in the scrum. He is not solely to blame for that of course, and actually I hold Gatland more accountable as he didn't give him the best chance of succeeding with the rest of the pack that he selected.

Submachine wrote:
 
16. Grant/Vunipola 17. Hibbard 18. Cole 19. Grey 20. Falateu 21. Murray/Youngs 22. Farrell 23. Wade

 

Ozzy3213 we will have to agree to disagree. I think some opinions are more valid than others.

Do you think that for example Injuredyetagain's first post is as valid as a scrummaging expert like Flatman,Moore or Wallace? I don't.

My opinion is nowhere near as important as theirs either.

submachine well said. Good post. You see the bigger picture. Something some other posters have failed to do.

Former prop myself, as an amateur I would have expected to be subbed after Mako's performance on Saturday, and If I was brave enough to ask why I have no doubt my coach would have dropped me for next week's game too.

Even if it wasn't Mako's fault and I don't think it was, his locks and the hooker most likely didn't help, it was him the ref was penalizing.

"it went wrong, and you were there" would be the comment I would expect as I would have trudged off the field dejectedly. It was on Mako to bind tighter to youngs or get his Flanker and Lock to adjust their positioning to stop him folding up like an accordian, he did neither.

Vunipola had a shocker, he cost us a number of scrum penalty points that personally contributed to our loss, he elbowed a guy in the face off the ball that could have resulted in a yellow card if someone had seen it, he threw a ridiculous miss pass from the base of the breakdown that was almost intercepted for a try and put ridiculous pressure on our backline and he knocked on a couple of times. I agree he managed to turn the scrums around by boring in and getting away with it, the aussie bind was dubious for the penalties and he tackled like a demon but overall i would say he still had a shocker, (reminded me of his england debut for rabbit in headlights decisions)

He wasn't helped by having little tom youngs and two (comparatively) lightweight locks and with hibbard and Gray it would have been a different story in the scrums, but they werent there and down he went. Still gripes me sheridan has been left at home pumping iron and playing guitar, Sheridan, hibbard, Jones would have demolished that aussie pack, even if sheridan did go down his reputation would have likely resulted in a penalty for the lions anyway, as it seems to sway refs decisions.

beshocked wrote:
HKC Dean Ryan has no experience at the top level in the frontrow.

I sincerely doubt any of us commenting here do either, so does that make all of our views invalid? Dean Ryan is a top level forwards coach and DoR, just because he didn't play prop doesn't mean his view isn't worthwhile. Phil Vickery lost his job as scrum coach after 1 year at Wuss, should that impact upon his view too?

I don't think anyone could argue that Vunipola was immense around the park and I certainly don't believe in the slightest our loss was due to him, but equally there is no denying our scrum was nowhere near as strong as it was the week before. I would go as far as saying that our victory does depend upon Corbisiero returning though, but that is not a reflection of Vunipola. Our attack was impotent on Saturday, whereas the week before the dominance at the scrum helped keep the scoreboard ticking over as well as keep field position. Without any real flair coming from the backs at present, we need to dominate up front and and it is a shame to single Vunipola out due to his loose work, but he doesn't aid the set piece.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Submachine wrote:
 
16. Grant/Vunipola 17. Hibbard 18. Cole 19. Grey 20. Falateu 21. Murray/Youngs 22. Farrell 23. Wade

 

Selection policy is based on battering them up the middle, creating space out wide. I think Wade could exploit space better than most.

That's fair enough Submachine, but would be one hell of a call considering he's only had one (poor) game all tour and is massively inexperienced!

sirtidychris you forgot to add - in your opinion.

I disagree HKC. I don't think Dean Ryan is a top level forwards coach. I feel that the Scottish forwards have actually gone backwards with him in charge. The Gloucester forwards with him in charge were never that special. His Gloucester side were known for their decent backs.

He is one of those coaches who seems to have a decent reputation despite achieving very little.

Phil Vickery has actual playing experience in the frontrow.

Doesn't make our views invalid no but our views don't and shouldn't carry as much weight.

There is no guarantee Grant would have done better.

beshocked, whether you like it or not, Grant has a reputation (far beyond just supposedly "chippy" Scottish fans) for being a stronger scurmmager - add to that, it cannot have helped Vunipola with the referee (or for that matter any player put in that position) that his own Lions coaches have suggested that Vunipola was (a) selected for the initial squad as an impact player who could offer dynamism in the loose, despite perceived scrummaging weakness, and (b) leap-frogged by Corbisero for the first test, again for the same set of reasons. Once again, despite my "fall from grace" (not that high, tbh), I suggest that the coaching staff shoulder the blame for putting a player in an invidious position, which is pretty much what the majority of posters on this thread have said - I completely understand your wish to jump to the defence of your Sarries player, I'm sure that I would be similar were it a Chief

You haven't fallen at all As - don't worry about it.

Much has been said for mako's loose work compared to Corbs scrummaging prowess.

Grant has both.

He's the George North of the forwards.

Interestingly, when Corbisiero first broke through at London Irish, he was seen as 'great in the loose but needs to work on his scrummaging a bit'.  A bit like Marler and I would suggest almost every young prop coming through at pro level anywhere in the world. Mako is not any different and I struggle to understand why beshocked cannot just accept that.
 
If he works hard, which he appears to be doing, then he may go on and be a better scrummager than either Corbisiero or Grant end up being, but at present he is not, and however you want to argue it, on a balance of probabilities, we would have had a better chance in the scrum with Grant starting.
 
Of course we will never know how it would have panned out, but it does not chance the fact that everything I have just posted is correct.

Mako was perhaps a touch unfairly penalised in the first half. He came back well in the second half. perhaps after the coaches had spoken to him. By the end he was knackered.

So did Mako cost us the match - Hell no.
Has he been unfairly criticised by a minority - Hell yes.
Should he have been replaced - hell yes. The only debate is when. At the very least it should have been with at least 20 minutes to go.

Mako needed help in that first half - the man closest to him (Tom Youngs) is just as inexperienced. The man locking down behind him perhaps shoudl have been able to identify what was going wrong, and certainly Warburton needed to be made aware so he could have spoken to the ref. Failing all that, the coaches should have identified the issue and passed a message on with the kicking tee, or water bottles.

Whichever way you look at it, the coaches deserve the castigation being aimed at Mako.

beshocked wrote:
I disagree HKC. I don't think Dean Ryan is a top level forwards coach. I feel that the Scottish forwards have actually gone backwards with him in charge. The Gloucester forwards with him in charge were never that special. His Gloucester side were known for their decent backs.

He is one of those coaches who seems to have a decent reputation despite achieving very little.

Phil Vickery has actual playing experience in the frontrow.

Actually when he was forwards coach under Nigel Melville we had quite a fearsome pack of forwards, including the likes of Woodman, Vickery, Collazo, Azam and Roncero! It was only in his latter years as DoR at Glaws with Carl Hogg as forwards coach that we moved to a back orientated style of play.

Furthermore, you mention Flatman, Moore and Vickery who have the grand total of one year's coaching experience; play they may be able to, but can they tell people how to play? I appreciate you are defending your club player, but I fail to see how you can discount Ryan's view because he wasn't a prop. Personally I rate both Flatman and Ryan as analysts and thoroughly enjoy when either do the front line for Sky - they both have a valid point here. Vunipola was hard done by, but he was being targeted and he failed to deal with this initially. He cost the Lions 6 points, so you could argue he did cost them the match. I really don't see it that wa,y as there were more than enough opportunities for other players to make amends who failed to take the opportunity in front of them.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Interestingly, when Corbisiero first broke through at London Irish, he was seen as 'great in the loose but needs to work on his scrummaging a bit'.  A bit like Marler and I would suggest almost every young prop coming through at pro level anywhere in the world. Mako is not any different and I struggle to understand why beshocked cannot just accept that.
 

I was quite happy to eat humble pie about Corbs. I remember seeing him as a young TH and wondering what on earth the fuss was. Likewise, when he first converted to LH I was bemused how Nick Wood was overlooked in favour of him, but he has really developed as a scrummager. Young props are rarely good scrummagers, as it is nigh on impossible to master the dark arts until mid to late 20s.

LondonTiger wrote:Mako was perhaps a touch unfairly penalised in the first half. He came back well in the second half. perhaps after the coaches had spoken to him. By the end he was knackered.

So did Mako cost us the match - Hell no.
Has he been unfairly criticised by a minority - Hell yes.
Should he have been replaced - hell yes. The only debate is when. At the very least it should have been with at least 20 minutes to go.

Mako needed help in that first half - the man closest to him (Tom Youngs) is just as inexperienced. The man locking down behind him perhaps shoudl have been able to identify what was going wrong, and certainly Warburton needed to be made aware so he could have spoken to the ref. Failing all that, the coaches should have identified the issue and passed a message on with the kicking tee, or water bottles.

Whichever way you look at it, the coaches deserve the castigation being aimed at Mako.

So can we just replace Mako in that post with Mike Phillips as Ben Youngs kicked in exactly the same manner. yet no one has even mentioned it and Phillips was demonised in the same way last weekend without standing much of a chance.  

You can Ruby - though youngs kicked away about half as much (perhaps due to having less ball).

Like Mako, who will improve his scrummaging, I am sure that Mikey will improve his passing as he matures.

 I just think both of them are being treated unfairly on here without recourse to how their roles ar so interdependent on others

RubyGuby wrote: I just think both of them are being treated unfairly on here without recourse to how their roles ar so interdependent on others

Yes they probably are, which then leads people to defend their hero by unfairly castigating the potential replacement.

Sadly t'internet discourages reasoned discussion.

LondonTiger wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: I just think both of them are being treated unfairly on here without recourse to how their roles ar so interdependent on others

Yes they probably are, which then leads people to defend their hero by unfairly castigating the potential replacement.

Sadly t'internet discourages reasoned discussion.

What nonsense, I completely and utterly disagree...  

The problem is the written word can be interpreted in so many different ways, which is why these threads can often descend into slanging matches. That's why I litter my posts with emoticons, as at least it gives some indication of how the comment was intended.

HKC,

How dare you disagree with me, then wink in such a condescending manner.

LondonTiger wrote:HKC,

How dare you disagree with me, then wink in such a condescending manner.

You two are so pathetic, I think you are anti Emoticons:censored:  

Stop it now and get behind the emoticons, we are one team of emoticons and must come together to win

Let us be as one...

                                                                           

HongKongCherry wrote:Let us be as one...

                                                                           

typical, still no Scots in the starting line up

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:Let us be as one...

                                                                           

typical, still no Scots in the starting line up

 

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:Let us be as one...

                                                                           

typical, still no Scots in the starting line up

 

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:Let us be as one...

                                                                           

typical, still no Scots in the starting line up

I beg to differ           

I've seen encountered many of these in an Edinburgh tavern.

 Top marks to Rugger for spotting the omission once again