England's RWC Preparations

First topic message reminder :

Original thread about to explode

https://www.606v2.com/t59064-englands-50-man-training-squad-for-rwc

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you think at 6 his strengths shine and it minimises weakness but you want to move him to where he was mediocre and didn't get enough ball. Hide him in the tight?!

Feels like Fanster wants to take us back a few years.

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you think at 6 his strengths shine and it minimises weakness but you want to move him to where he was mediocre and didn't get enough ball. Hide him in the tight?!

Feels like Fanster wants to take us back a few years.

Take you back a few years? How so?

Ah OK, so the likes of Richard Hill, Michael Jones, François Pienaar, Juan Smith all played in a non vital position.. Didn't stop them being some of the best players of all time

Well according to his coach centre isn't going to be his position. He's looked very average. I can give you a list of average players playing all positions at a higher level! Think you must be on the wind up if you think 6 is just a whatever position, and you'd rather have Easter or Lawes there!

BamBam wrote:Ah OK, so the likes of Richard Hill, Michael Jones, François Pienaar, Juan Smith all played in a non vital position.. Didn't stop them being some of the best players of all time

Who said players couldn't specialise? I never said there weren't exceptional players who were vital to their team despite the position they play in!

Do you think Wing is a vital position? Was Lomu not a vital player?

Come on, try to keep focus, there are certain positions that are more important than others!!!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well according to his coach centre isn't going to be his position. He's looked very average. I can give you a list of average players playing all positions at a higher level! Think you must be on the wind up if you think 6 is just a whatever position, and you'd rather have Easter or Lawes there!

OK so his coach says he's not a centre...

How much international experience does his coach have? How much knowledge of Englands current systems and styles does Ford have? How much intimate knowledge of EPL playing standards does Ford have?

I would Suggest Lancster trumps Ford in every area, which is the important factor coming to RWC don't you agree?

Let's take back row as an example, is 6 more important than 7 and 8? If selecting your back row for England which position would you build your back row around? 6?

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well according to his coach centre isn't going to be his position. He's looked very average. I can give you a list of average players playing all positions at a higher level! Think you must be on the wind up if you think 6 is just a whatever position, and you'd rather have Easter or Lawes there!

OK so his coach says he's not a centre...

How much international experience does his coach have? How much knowledge of Englands current systems and styles does Ford have? How much intimate knowledge of EPL playing standards does Ford have?

I would Suggest Lancster trumps Ford in every area, which is the important factor coming to RWC don't you agree?

Let's take back row as an example, is 6 more important than 7 and 8? If selecting your back row for England which position would you build your back row around? 6?

You know his coach is Mike Ford and you're questioning his international experience? You know that Lancaster is only discounting him as a 6 now because of the lineout?

For England 7 because it's Robshaw; but I'm told he's a 6 really.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well according to his coach centre isn't going to be his position. He's looked very average. I can give you a list of average players playing all positions at a higher level! Think you must be on the wind up if you think 6 is just a whatever position, and you'd rather have Easter or Lawes there!

OK so his coach says he's not a centre...

How much international experience does his coach have? How much knowledge of Englands current systems and styles does Ford have? How much intimate knowledge of EPL playing standards does Ford have?

I would Suggest Lancster trumps Ford in every area, which is the important factor coming to RWC don't you agree?

Let's take back row as an example, is 6 more important than 7 and 8? If selecting your back row for England which position would you build your back row around? 6?

You know his coach is Mike Ford and you're questioning his international experience? You know that Lancaster is only discounting him as a 6 now because of the lineout?

For England 7 because it's Robshaw; but I'm told he's a 6 really.

We are talking the same guy who was a D coach for a couple of seasons about 10 years ago? You don't think the game has changed, and you think his time under Johnstone was succesfull, was the 2011 RWC a success and usefull experience?

In the last 4 years how many players have turned out for England Ford hasn't seen or worked with 50/60 maybe? How many of this squad does he know intimately? Ford is doing what every coach does, bigs up his players and clubs wants, a RWC with Burgess at 6 for England benefits Bath, more than him in and out at 12!!

So your saying 6 is more important than 7? or 8? I would select both 7 and 8 before 6, making it non vital to the back row, let alone entire team! Do you really not believe that there are a few positions that are vital, then a number of positions that are impoartant, but less vital? Or are you saying 1-15 is as important as each other?

It was the game against Wasps. He absolutely tore us apart. Running hard lines off Ford, smashing tackles, and making hard yards. Wasps managed to secure the 4 try BP at the end after Bath took their foot off the gas.

I think he could work very well at 12 for England, coming up off the line for big hits in the blitz defence (with Joseph calling it). Hope he goes well.

Shuffle shuffle. You talk about international experience he has it, you forgot trying to make a point.

Ford sees him as a back rower as do most people who have seen him. Lancaster says he only considers him as a 12 because he doesn't do enough/anything yet in the lineout. That's a mistake and he won't make the squad as a midfielder (I hope). Going forward given his club coach is only going to play him as a back rower it would be strange to think long term Lancaster will stick him in the centre especially as Tuilagi should be back and Burgess will have learnt his lineouts or be back off to league!

I would say you pick your team around key players no matter where they play. Rugby is more a team game than any other for me. You would pick a 7 when a lot of teams play left right.

All positions have a role to play. Some positions naturally get involved more than others. I'd say 6 and 7 have more freedom in where and how they are involved than a lot of other positions.

Plenty of people here think that Burgess has the best opportunity to influence games from 6. 8 might be a long term option but I think it demands more experience and ability to read the game than 6. I don't really want to see him at 12 because I think he's going to be too 1 dimensional there (no kicking game, no subtlety etc) and at 6 he can stay involved all the time.

Raggs wrote:It was the game against Wasps.  He absolutely tore us apart. Running hard lines off Ford, smashing tackles, and making hard yards. Wasps managed to secure the 4 try BP at the end after Bath took their foot off the gas.

I think he could work very well at 12 for England, coming up off the line for big hits in the blitz defence (with Joseph calling it).  Hope he goes well.

Cheers Raggs, have to say didn't see that game. He was pretty abject in all his other centre outings though, a much more impressive flanker. Who were your centres that day?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Shuffle shuffle. You talk about international experience he has it, you forgot trying to make a point.

Ford sees him as a back rower as do most people who have seen him. Lancaster says he only considers him as a 12 because he doesn't do enough/anything yet in the lineout. That's a mistake and he won't make the squad as a midfielder (I hope). Going forward given his club coach is only going to play him as a back rower it would be strange to think long term Lancaster will stick him in the centre especially as Tuilagi should be back and Burgess will have learnt his lineouts or be back off to league!

I would say you pick your team around key players no matter where they play. Rugby is more a team game than any other for me. You would pick a 7 when a lot of teams play left right.

Ford has never led an intrnational team, he has 1 successfull and 1 disastrous RWC and decided to bow out before his reputation was tarnished! He doesn't know the current squad, and will have very little knowledge ofer player standards, whereas Lancaster has done a fantastic job of steadying a sinking ship.

Thats the difference between us, you 'hope' Burgess doesn't make the squad, and I look at where Burgess could potentially be successfull without hoping he does or doesnt make the squad!!!

Let me ask you a different question re 6... you have 3 back row players to pick from, 2 are renowned in their position, very good athletes in a 6 and an 8, the third is a much lesser athlete, overweight and slow, what do you do?

A) Play the 2 better players in their positions in 6 and 8?

B) Play the 8 at 8, the athletic 6 at 7, and hide the lump at 6?

BE HONEST!

Are you at least going to acknowledge that Lancaster has only ruled out Burgess at 6 because of the lineout nothing more?

Personally in that scenario I'd play the lump (steffon Armitage) at 7, he's actually quite good.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Raggs wrote:It was the game against Wasps.  He absolutely tore us apart. Running hard lines off Ford, smashing tackles, and making hard yards. Wasps managed to secure the 4 try BP at the end after Bath took their foot off the gas.

I think he could work very well at 12 for England, coming up off the line for big hits in the blitz defence (with Joseph calling it).  Hope he goes well.

Cheers Raggs, have to say didn't see that game. He was pretty abject in all his other centre outings though, a much more impressive flanker. Who were your centres that day?

Ben Jacobs and Daly I believe. Definitely Jacobs (who was in fantastic form at the time).  It was right towards the end of his time at centre, and as I said, his first start at 12 working with JJ at 13.

This search in Google will bring up the reports (guardian and daily mail are the most praiseworthy) "bath wasps burgess"

He was very impressive in that game, I'm sure it'll be available on premiershiprugby.tv

You'd pick him for centre then even with his average performances there above others? Wasps started off well but went a bit down him after Chrimbo not sure I'd follow you in that line of thought as if the performance was that impressive it was in the minority, people pretty much worked him out quickly.

It was his only start at 12, 13 is a far tougher position. And he'd improve regardless with more exposure to the game.

As I said, long term I view him more as a 6, but that's not an option due to his lack of lineout ability (the same reason Ewers will not make this England squad at 6).

I'd not condemn Lancaster for having him in the squad. That says less about his abilities at 12, and a lot about our other options at 12.

All the other options are better for me. he says he wants him as a carrier in midfield but there's better than him in the prem.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Are you at least going to acknowledge that Lancaster has only ruled out Burgess at 6 because of the lineout nothing more?

Personally in that scenario I'd play the lump (steffon Armitage) at 7, he's actually quite good.

I'd start Armitage at 7 also with Robshaw at 6, but then that wasn't the question, why are you trying to wriggle out of saying that you would hide the lump at 6? e both know thats your answer!!

Lancaster has mentioned the lineout, and the loss of Tuilagi, but in all fairness he's not going to come out and say 'He's Poopie at the breakdown and Woods better' now is he!! He's given a typical coaches answer in the Poopie ice cream cone, he's given a reason Burgess isn't a 6, followed by what he can do to help an underpowered midfield! It's coaching 101, never just tell the theyre rubbish, give them something constructive to help the swallowing of it!

Oh, and as for Wasps form at the time, we'd smashed Irish, finally got the away game monkey off our backs beating Glaws, smashed Sale, then lost to Bath, went on to smash Quins, then a 5 day turnaround saw us get a draw with Falcons. Our form was fine at the time.

No 7&1/2 wrote:All the other options are better for me. he says he wants him as a carrier in midfield but there's better than him in the prem.

Who? There's Burrell and Hill. Hill has very little experience and no flexibility, Burrell isn't that good a carrier and is awful in defence (Burgess would be no worse, and is a more aggressive tackler). Barritt gives us defence, but reduces our attack. 36 is too inconsistent.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Are you at least going to acknowledge that Lancaster has only ruled out Burgess at 6 because of the lineout nothing more?

Personally in that scenario I'd play the lump (steffon Armitage) at 7, he's actually quite good.

I'd start Armitage at 7 also with Robshaw at 6, but then that wasn't the question, why are you trying to wriggle out of saying that you would hide the lump at 6? e both know thats your answer!!

Lancaster has mentioned the lineout, and the loss of Tuilagi, but in all fairness he's not going to come out and say 'He's Poopie at the breakdown and Woods better' now is he!! He's given a typical coaches answer in the Poopie ice cream cone, he's given a reason Burgess isn't a 6, followed by what he can do to help an underpowered midfield! It's coaching 101, never just tell the theyre rubbish, give them something constructive to help the swallowing of it!

If the lump is a 7 stick him at 7. Just play left right if he's not is the proper answer. How can you hide someone at 6, they're more involved than the 7 in most games. He wouldn't say he's bad at the breakdown as he's clearly very good.

Raggs wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:All the other options are better for me. he says he wants him as a carrier in midfield but there's better than him in the prem.

Who?  There's Burrell and Hill.  Hill has very little experience and no flexibility, Burrell isn't that good a carrier and is awful in defence (Burgess would be no worse, and is a more aggressive tackler).  Barritt gives us defence, but reduces our attack.  36 is too inconsistent.

Barritt, Hill, Burrell for a big carrier. Burgess is just not an international centre or a club one for that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Are you at least going to acknowledge that Lancaster has only ruled out Burgess at 6 because of the lineout nothing more?

Personally in that scenario I'd play the lump (steffon Armitage) at 7, he's actually quite good.

I'd start Armitage at 7 also with Robshaw at 6, but then that wasn't the question, why are you trying to wriggle out of saying that you would hide the lump at 6? e both know thats your answer!!

Lancaster has mentioned the lineout, and the loss of Tuilagi, but in all fairness he's not going to come out and say 'He's Poopie at the breakdown and Woods better' now is he!! He's given a typical coaches answer in the Poopie ice cream cone, he's given a reason Burgess isn't a 6, followed by what he can do to help an underpowered midfield! It's coaching 101, never just tell the theyre rubbish, give them something constructive to help the swallowing of it!

If the lump is a 7 stick him at 7. Just play left right if he's not is the proper answer. How can you hide someone at 6, they're more involved than the 7 in most games. He wouldn't say he's bad at the breakdown as he's clearly very good.

So the 6 is more important than your open side? Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don't think delusion like this is worthy of any more discussion. Have a good night though

Especially when playing left right. You'll be suggesting to the Irish fans that Heaslip is really much better at full back next.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Especially when playing left right. You'll be suggesting to the Irish fans that Heaslip is really much better at full back next.

Of course he is, but then as every position is equally important then it wouldn't matter eh

Yes every position is important so you wouldnt deliberately start someone you think is sub par.Mask is starting to slip a bit.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes every position is important so you wouldnt deliberately start someone you think is sub par.Mask is starting to slip a bit.

Don't try to change your viewpoint now, I never said every position wasn't important, I said some were vital and others were less so!

If you really think 6 is as important as any other position on the park at least have the cahonas to say so, you've skirted around the issue so much, and tried to wriggle away from answering.

Either you think every position, 1-15 are all as important as each other, or you agree with me that there are some positions that are more vital, which is it?

All because you get offended by me liking Burgess and considering worthy of 12... really? Come on!

You re playing the same game here and with the Welsh. Every position is vital. Teams pick apart weakness.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Raggs wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:All the other options are better for me. he says he wants him as a carrier in midfield but there's better than him in the prem.

Who?  There's Burrell and Hill.  Hill has very little experience and no flexibility, Burrell isn't that good a carrier and is awful in defence (Burgess would be no worse, and is a more aggressive tackler).  Barritt gives us defence, but reduces our attack.  36 is too inconsistent.

Barritt, Hill, Burrell for a big carrier. Burgess is just not an international centre or a club one for that.

Agree.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You re playing the same game here and with the Welsh. Every position is vital. Teams pick apart weakness.

I'm not playing any game, Burgess has the potential to play 12, on the international stage, and has been managed very well first season by Ford, and now Lancaster has decided he is better suited there.

I'f i'm trying to wind you up, then Lancaster is also trying to do the same?

I don't understand this attitude of unwavering certainty that the best coach in England is wrong and you are right, why is that? What are your credentials in comparison to Lancaster?

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You re playing the same game here and with the Welsh. Every position is vital. Teams pick apart weakness.

I'm not playing any game, Burgess has the potential to play 12, on the international stage, and has been managed very well first season by Ford, and now Lancaster has decided he is better suited there.

I'f i'm trying to wind you up, then Lancaster is also trying to do the same?

I don't understand this attitude of unwavering certainty that the best coach in England is wrong and you are right, why is that? What are your credentials in comparison to Lancaster?

Jim Mallinder is wrong?

To be fair you re thrown around some comedy gold. Burgess hides at 6 where his strengths are made use of and his weaknesses minimised so he should move to 12 which isnt s decision making position! Pick Lawes or Easter at 6 as it isnt vital you have the best 6 you can. Ford lacks international experience. Now Lancaster is the best coach in England; hes done a fine job in my eyes but you wont find many backing that statement.

doctor_grey wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You re playing the same game here and with the Welsh. Every position is vital. Teams pick apart weakness.

I'm not playing any game, Burgess has the potential to play 12, on the international stage, and has been managed very well first season by Ford, and now Lancaster has decided he is better suited there.

I'f i'm trying to wind you up, then Lancaster is also trying to do the same?

I don't understand this attitude of unwavering certainty that the best coach in England is wrong and you are right, why is that? What are your credentials in comparison to Lancaster?

Jim Mallinder is wrong?

What has Jim MAllinder said? I find it hard to believe he's had the same access to Burgess and the rest of the England squad that Lancaster has.

No 7&1/2 wrote:To be fair you re thrown around some comedy gold. Burgess hides at 6 where his strengths are made use of and his weaknesses minimised so he should move to 12 which isnt s decision making position! Pick Lawes or Easter at 6 as it isnt vital you have the best 6 you can. Ford lacks international experience. Now Lancaster is the best coach in England; hes done a fine job in my eyes but you wont find many backing that statement.

Comedy gold? Its a fact that 6 and 12 aren't decision making roles, unlike 8 or 10. Do you think 8 and 10 make less decisions than 6 and 12?

Are you saying (again) that 6 is more important than 7 and 8?

Has Ford led an international team? Has he more experience of this EPS than Lancaster?

Lancaster has done a great job in getting England to this point, he has the biggest job in English rugby and therefore is the best coach to take England to the RWC!!

You can try to twist my words, wriggle from the hole you've dug but we both know what has been said, the crux of the argument is I think Burgess is an 8 or 12 in the making, and applauded Fords and Lancasters management of what is clearly a big talent. You take offence at what you perceive is a non English view different to yours and got outraged, try just considering things logically, it'll help I promise!

Im continuing to say that are positions are important. Teams take advantage of weakness. You mentioned Fords international xp and now try to change your argument! Best coach to take us to the world cup,yes. Again changing your point from the best coach in England.

I take no offence but Burgessw ill be a 6 for bath as hes not a very good centre and Bath have better. Given the reason England dont want him as a 6 yet is his lineout, understandable but Id take the risk, if he does stick with union he will learn that and will come into contention.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Im continuing to say that are positions are  important. Teams take advantage of weakness. You mentioned Fords international xp and now try to change your argument! Best coach to take us to the world cup,yes. Again changing your point from the best coach in England.

I take no offence but Burgessw ill be a 6 for bath as hes not a very good centre and Bath have better. Given the reason England dont want him as a 6 yet is his lineout, understandable but Id take the risk, if he does stick with union he will learn that and will come into contention.

Saying all positions are important now is a copout and you know it, of course they all are which I've said a thousand times, but some are vital to a succesfull team, others aren't so. Like I said, 2 pro players in the back row, a 6 and 8, then the third back rower is you, I guarentee you the 6 starts at 7 and you take blind every time! Why? because blind you can hide a weaker player to a degree more than 7!

I havn't changed my argument, Lancaster is the best guy for the job, he is the best in England!

What have I changed about Ford, he's a good AP head coach with little experience at international level in the same job, I also mentioned his knowledge of the current EPS, but that doesn't suit your argument.

I'm sick of asking why your so offended, by me complimenting Burgess, Ford, Lancaster, and the whole situation. Are you a former 6 who hates the fact it isn't the most important in the 15? Or are you just offended by me admitting I support Wales? The exact same argument has broken out on the Welsh thread because I dared to say i'd play a centre on the wing.

Maybe these boards have just been fished to the point where there is no nibble of sensible discussion, and the only people left are the ones trying to offend, or trying to be offended. It's a shame because I know theres knowledge here!!!

Play any player below par in the backrow and you re in trouble. Given england dont play an out and out 7 in your eyes I fail to see why its a position which is more important than 6. You initially said Burgess was rubbish at centre why would you want him there for the wc?

Why do you think Lancaster is the best in England?

You mentioned Fords lacking international experience you ve brought in the argument of head coach after I pointed out your mistake. Same with eps but dont think that has a bearing anyway.

Im not offended, just answering and making points against errors and incorrect judgements I perceive you to be making;it is afterall a discussion forum.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Play any player below par in the backrow and you re in trouble. Given england dont play an out and out 7 in your eyes I fail to see why its a position which is more important than 6. You initially said Burgess was rubbish at centre why would you want him there for the wc?

Why do you think Lancaster is the best in England?

You mentioned Fords lacking international experience you ve brought in the argument of head coach after I pointed out your mistake. Same with eps but dont think that has a bearing anyway.

Im not offended, just answering and making points against errors and incorrect judgements I perceive you to be making;it is afterall a discussion forum.

I never said Burgess is the RWC 12 option for England, I said Lancaster has taken Burgess's development into consideration when considering what his best position will be. Ford wants him played at 6 for Bath, however if Burgess has a stormer of a RWC at 12 you better believe Ford will change his mind!

You have to consider Burgess development is ongoing, and will be more rapid than others, just because he looked raw early on doesn't mean he won't grow into the role!

Lancaster has steadied a sinking ship, he's devloped a first 15 and probably given England a depth they havn't seen before, all this has been reflected by the bookies!

I mentioned Ford not being as experienced as Lancaster, and having little knowledge of the current squad! Lancaster is very much worth listening to, over anyone else willing to throw their opinions in for no reason, you know what they say about opinions...

Lancaster hasnt mentioned his long term thoughts only his short term. I dont see Burgess making a great impact at 12 in the wc and given Bath have Devoto coming through and Eastmond there and Burgess more keen to play 6 its unlikely he will go back to 12 in anything other than cover. He looks a far better 6 than centre. You dont come across someone whos seen a lot of Burgess.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Lancaster hasnt mentioned his long term thoughts only his short term. I dont see Burgess making a great impact at 12 in the wc and given Bath have Devoto coming through and Eastmond there and Burgess more keen to play 6 its unlikely he will go back to 12 in anything other than cover. He looks a far better 6 than centre. You dont come across someone whos seen a lot of Burgess.

I've seen plenty, have you? His abilities lend themselves to 12 or 8 nicely!

For the 90th time your not considering development, Burgess was always going to look at seas early on, there are numerous 'highlight' videos of him, and watch his reactions post tackle, and post ruck.... he is lost for a few seconds, as his instinct is to hit hold and watch. He has developed nicely at 6, but there will be a point where I want to see more. He has the potential to graduate from 6, and has been given the platform to do so by Ford and now Lancaster.

7.5, I don't know why you bother conversing with this 'Fanster' character. He obviously just takes a contrary position (same as he's doing on the Wales thread), makes oddball, faintly ludicrous statements and has no real back-up to his comments. The Welsh fans are also wondering why he's picking players out of position (like the rather 'interesting' suggestion of Easter at 6 on this thread).

I think he's found his niche on Sin é's 'which river is better?' thread where he can complain about Eastern European immigrants and water quality.

Cyril wrote:7.5, I don't know why you bother conversing with this 'Fanster' character. He obviously just takes a contrary position (same as he's doing on the Wales thread), makes oddball, faintly ludicrous statements and has no real back-up to his comments. The Welsh fans are also wondering why he's picking players out of position (like the rather 'interesting' suggestion of Easter at 6 on this thread).

I think he's found his niche on Sin é's 'which river is better?' thread where he can complain about Eastern European immigrants and water quality.

Nice to see your following me buddy, keep reading and something will rub off...

So your saying myself and Stuart Lancaster are taking contrary positions because? I think Burgess will make a good 12, why is that contrary, when his abilities clearly show he could be a top 12, Ford, LAncaster and plenty others think/thought so!

East for the record could make a very good 6, he hasn't quite the legs for 8 at international level, but definately has the head! And people are calling for more muscle, grit and ball carrying from 6!

And the 'Welsh fans' of which I am one are outraged I would select a young 5th choice (potentially) centre to wing for a warm up game!

Context never hurts lads, either come at my opinions head on, or concede to them, don't go skirting around behind my back to attack my character, it's not noble

IMO its a bit daft to suggest that 6 isnt a vital position. Would Dallaglio and Back been as effective as a unit wihtout the immense Richard Hill at 6?
In 2009 Rocky Elsom was voted European player of the year. During Leinter's European cup run he claimed 3 man of the match performances from Leinster's six wins. In the Magners League Elsom picked up 11 'Man of the Match' awards from his last 13 outings and was judged the 'Magners League Player of the Year 2008/9' as well as being included in both Celtic and European 'Dream Team'.
How could someone playing  in a position that clearly wasnt "vital" and has a non-vital influence in  the game of rugby union go on to garner such acclaim?
Must be because all the journos and ex players who voted for him dont know how non - vital an outstanding 6 is.

sensisball wrote:IMO its a bit daft to suggest that 6 isnt a vital position. Would Dallaglio and Back been as effective as a unit wihtout the immense Richard Hill at 6?
In 2009 Rocky Elsom was voted European player of the year. During Leinter's European cup run he claimed 3 man of the match performances from Leinster's six wins. In the Magners League Elsom picked up 11 'Man of the Match' awards from his last 13 outings and was judged the 'Magners League Player of the Year 2008/9' as well as being included in both Celtic and European 'Dream Team'.
How could someone playing  in a position that clearly wasnt "vital" and has a non-vital influence in  the game of rugby union go on to garner such acclaim?
Must be because all the journos and ex players who voted for him dont know how non - vital an outstanding 6 is.

Lets be honest, Elsoms award was based on his ball carrying and defence in wider channells, he was never an out and out 6!

I never said 6 isn't important, but...

You have 2 world class athletes and a 20 stone prop who all have to play back row! The 2 world class back rows are 6, and 8, the unfit prop has to start at back row or you play with 14...

Where do you play your world class athletes and where do you play your prop?

Do you mean Elsom wasnt really a 6 because he wasnt a one paced unathletic lump with a low skill set? Your seem to have a very restricted view of what a quality 6 brings to a team.
Consider this: Are South Africa more, or less, likely to win the world cup with a fully fit Willem Albetz in their starting 15?

sensisball wrote:Do you mean Elsom wasnt really a 6 because he wasnt a one paced unathletic lump with a low skill set? Your seem to have a very restricted view of what a quality 6 brings to a team.
Consider this: Are South Africa more, or less, likely to win the world cup with a fully fit Willem Albetz in their starting 15?

Didn't Elsom play 8 for Australia after his season with Leinster at 6? He was a very good back row player in the wider channells, and had an incredible season, as a rampaging ball carrier, and support player!

Hill was a totally different 6, but much more effective within a gameplan!

My restrictive view is based on my above question, please answer the question and assess what you think of 6 too! Does the prop wear the 7 or 8 shirt as opposed to the 6?

When was the last time Alberts was fully fit? The SA back row needs an Alberts type IMO, however they don't play open and blind, and prefer a left right system with 2 styles of player similar to an open blind scenario. BTW Louw and Burger look very good, Coetzee not bad either! They need another on the bench as Mohoje just doesn't look great.

Elsom wasn't a 6? I'm lost.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Elsom wasn't a 6? I'm lost.

This is exactly whats wrong with these boards, your not interested in actually postings, or context, or discussion...

Cyril wrote:7.5, I don't know why you bother conversing with this 'Fanster' character. He obviously just takes a contrary position (same as he's doing on the Wales thread), makes oddball, faintly ludicrous statements and has no real back-up to his comments. The Welsh fans are also wondering why he's picking players out of position (like the rather 'interesting' suggestion of Easter at 6 on this thread).

I think he's found his niche on Sin é's 'which river is better?' thread where he can complain about Eastern European immigrants and water quality.

But its either a slow news day at work or a slow sports day dut to rubbish Aussie batting.