European Champions Cup Final - Exeter Chiefs v Racing 92 Saturday 17th October 2020

First topic message reminder :

Exeter Chiefs v Racing 92

European Champions Cup Final
Ashton Gate
Bristol

KO 16.45
Live on BT Sport


Hard not to argue that the two best sides are not in the final this year and it could be a fabulous match up of styles with the result very hard to call.

The attacking verve of the Parisians, who really can score from anywhere against the hard nosed defence and relentless pressure that Exeter can place on any side, there should be plenty for the fans and the neutrals to enjoy.

For me, the heart says Racing, with Finn Russel's brilliance breaking Exeter's hearts, but the head says the brutal pragmatism of Exeter will grind the French down and win the day.

Really point them out. Sealing off is what Exeter do full stop. It’s how the only way they can score ffs.

Cumbrian wrote:I tell you though, Exeter didn't box clever at all. It's a final, not some mid season Premiership game, kick your goals and play territory when necessary.  

They were somewhat fortunate, they are all or nothing. Even at the end there, I was shouting at the telly 'kick for the corner!'.

I don't get this. The punditry was saying the same thing on TV, namely the female pundit, and it's absolutely embarrassing tbh. It's like telling Barcelona to just knock it long when they were peak tiki taka - remember the Iniesta winner against Chelsea? Last minute play, they still built from the back, still won the game.

Exeter are where they are because of their style of rugby. So often, their style pays off in the final quarter through racking up points as the other team tires. In fact, I think this showed with Racing's last attack, despite being a man up they couldn't get over the gainline. They're not too dissimilar to the fabled 'Gatlandball' albeit with a different manner of scoring - the same attitude to ball in play time, and playing in the middle of the field, applies. The punditry talking about kicking it behind is just embarrassing tbh. It's hard going at the best of time but if you're going to get a female rugby player on to comment on the men's game it's probably best to stick what they know. Telling them to kick in behind etc...man, it's shocking. It's complete nonsense and a case of 'grass is greener' analysis or doing what seems like the obvious thing to do because it's what you're taught as a kid. Exeter are a few levels above that...let's be honest...

I thought they lacked a bit of courage to throw the killer pass in the last 20 minutes when they had those scoring positions. Or perhaps they were aware of Racing's defensive power at the breakdown and so didn't play too wide for fear of getting isolated.

It was a great game of rugby. Talking about 'boxing clever'...I thought it was two teams slugging at one another for most of it. Different styles, but a great competitive game of rugby. Talking about 'control' in such a game isn't really the point - the control you want to rely on in those moments is systems and patterns that you know by rote. And for Exeter that most definitely doesn't mean kick the ball back to the other team!

So yeah, I wholeheartedly disagree and the proof was in the pudding in that final defensive set - don't forget they pushed them back and turned the ball over prior to the TMO coming in to play with that dubious call on the Francis yellow card. I thought Exeter could have offered more in attack in that second half purely because they had Racing on toast a few times in their set phase play but didn't quite throw the pass or make the linebreak with support. But in the end, they were winning, and it's natural to play conservatively when you have something to defend and have had a physical pasting in the tight when Racing were able to slow the game down.

Keeping the ball in play won the game for Exeter. High in play time = less explosive power for Racing = why they didn't score a try at the end and why Exeter won the game. Kicking the ball away was the last thing they needed to do. Likewise, trying to chip away with 3 is anathema to Exeter unless the opportunity presents itself via a penalty from phase play. Have to disagree, Exeter played well and deserved the win.

Tigertattie! Don't feed the troll.
Exeter defended very narrow to stop Imhoff and Zebo getting the ball.

Racing put men out wide and trusted Russell to get the ball beyond the blitz.
There were no unforced errors. The fumble in goal was because he hadn't called for the ball and wasn't expecting it. The interception was caused by Machinaud throwing the ball above Finn's head; the time it took him to gather it allowed Whitten and Slade to flood the channel. The blocked Gruber kick? Again his men were wide and the blitz had isolated him, if the kick goes behind the defenders it's a bracing try. If Russell takes the tackle he's isolated and turned over. That's the way Racing play : high risk high reward.
I think Nigel got it wrong at the end though.

jimbopip wrote:Well.... a thrilling final.
I thought Sam the Spaniard came in from the side when he won the penalty on Exeter's line.
Should Racing have gone for a drop goal?
From a Scottish point of view ; Hogg was pretty anonymous, Jonny Gray didn't make a conclusive case for Lions inclusion, if Nigel penalises Sam the Spaniard Finn Russell comes off as the best 10 in the NH.
For me Imhoff was the best player on the pitch.

- Fumbled ball behind his tryline led to try scoring chance. Exeter scored from the 5m scrum. 7 points.
- Charged down grubber was hacked in to 22, 5m lineout led to Exeter try. 7 points.
- Intercept pass on his 22 led to try. 7 points.

Also a crossfield kick on halfway that led to a break in to 22 where final tryscoring pass from Exeter was dropped and an intercept pass on his 22 that led to field position and very nearly a tryscoring chance.

Really? Best 10 in the NH? Were people watching the same game...!?

Not sure what game you were watching. But it wasn’t the same as your summary

jimbopip wrote:Tigertattie!  Don't feed the troll.

Buddy, how on earth am I the one trolling after having just witnessed Russell's mistakes directly lead to 21 points to Exeter, to find a Scot on this forum claiming he's the best 10 in the NH. If that wasn't enough proof to you that he's a deeply, fundamentally flawed rugby player then quite literally nothing ever, ever, ever will. I tend to like my fly halves to have a better impact than a 50:50 scoring rate for each team - you create something for you, you give something to the other team. You can't just be throwing out guff like that following a performance where, to form, Russell is an absolute liability. I know we're living in insanely ideological times where everyone is happy to believe their own particular lies but dear me, I have to think you're the ones trolling at this point.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:I tell you though, Exeter didn't box clever at all. It's a final, not some mid season Premiership game, kick your goals and play territory when necessary.  

They were somewhat fortunate, they are all or nothing. Even at the end there, I was shouting at the telly 'kick for the corner!'.

I don't get this. The punditry was saying the same thing on TV, namely the female pundit, and it's absolutely embarrassing tbh. It's like telling Barcelona to just knock it long when they were peak tiki taka - remember the Iniesta winner against Chelsea? Last minute play, they still built from the back, still won the game.

Exeter are where they are because of their style of rugby. So often, their style pays off in the final quarter through racking up points as the other team tires. In fact, I think this showed with Racing's last attack, despite being a man up they couldn't get over the gainline. They're not too dissimilar to the fabled 'Gatlandball' albeit with a different manner of scoring - the same attitude to ball in play time, and playing in the middle of the field, applies. The punditry talking about kicking it behind is just embarrassing tbh. It's hard going at the best of time but if you're going to get a female rugby player on to comment on the men's game it's probably best to stick what they know. Telling them to kick in behind etc...man, it's shocking. It's complete nonsense and a case of 'grass is greener' analysis or doing what seems like the obvious thing to do because it's what you're taught as a kid. Exeter are a few levels above that...let's be honest...

I thought they lacked a bit of courage to throw the killer pass in the last 20 minutes when they had those scoring positions. Or perhaps they were aware of Racing's defensive power at the breakdown and so didn't play too wide for fear of getting isolated.

It was a great game of rugby. Talking about 'boxing clever'...I thought it was two teams slugging at one another for most of it. Different styles, but a great competitive game of rugby. Talking about 'control' in such a game isn't really the point - the control you want to rely on in those moments is systems and patterns that you know by rote. And for Exeter that most definitely doesn't mean kick the ball back to the other team!

So yeah, I wholeheartedly disagree and the proof was in the pudding in that final defensive set - don't forget they pushed them back and turned the ball over prior to the TMO coming in to play with that dubious call on the Francis yellow card. I thought Exeter could have offered more in attack in that second half purely because they had Racing on toast a few times in their set phase play but didn't quite throw the pass or make the linebreak with support. But in the end, they were winning, and it's natural to play conservatively when you have something to defend and have had a physical pasting in the tight when Racing were able to slow the game down.

Keeping the ball in play won the game for Exeter. High in play time = less explosive power for Racing = why they didn't score a try at the end and why Exeter won the game. Kicking the ball away was the last thing they needed to do. Likewise, trying to chip away with 3 is anathema to Exeter unless the opportunity presents itself via a penalty from phase play. Have to disagree, Exeter played well and deserved the win.

I get that, but just because playing a certain way brings you success doesn't mean you can't adapt to the situation.   To borrow your analogy, if Barcelona were in the semi final and winning on away goals, they would definitely head to the corner.

It is difficult to argue because, yes they won, but surely you've seen enough games where a team has messed around on their own ball.  I mean if Racing had kicked the penalty at the end, rather than pushing for the line,  we might be having a very difficult conversation here.

Geen sport voor watjes wrote:Look I’m not going to detail Owens mistakes in the last 15 mins but mishearing your Assistent ref and tmo to give a penalty. Saying rucks formed and then giving a penalty (twice). Calling advantage over for a knock on but it wasn’t. They are just the obvious ones.

Hey if your happy with that’s fine. But don’t kid yourself. It has always been the case that having a British ref with non British teams is a mistake. It shouldn’t happen. Alan Quinlan has just gone over all these just now on Irish tv. Clear as day.

Plenty of decisions went Racing's way. The high tackle ignored on Yeandle when Exeter were about 30 phases in. Constant not rolling away from Racing. Offside from kick chase.

Terrible Ending, time for Nigel to retire.

Cumbrian wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:I tell you though, Exeter didn't box clever at all. It's a final, not some mid season Premiership game, kick your goals and play territory when necessary.  

They were somewhat fortunate, they are all or nothing. Even at the end there, I was shouting at the telly 'kick for the corner!'.

I don't get this. The punditry was saying the same thing on TV, namely the female pundit, and it's absolutely embarrassing tbh. It's like telling Barcelona to just knock it long when they were peak tiki taka - remember the Iniesta winner against Chelsea? Last minute play, they still built from the back, still won the game.

Exeter are where they are because of their style of rugby. So often, their style pays off in the final quarter through racking up points as the other team tires. In fact, I think this showed with Racing's last attack, despite being a man up they couldn't get over the gainline. They're not too dissimilar to the fabled 'Gatlandball' albeit with a different manner of scoring - the same attitude to ball in play time, and playing in the middle of the field, applies. The punditry talking about kicking it behind is just embarrassing tbh. It's hard going at the best of time but if you're going to get a female rugby player on to comment on the men's game it's probably best to stick what they know. Telling them to kick in behind etc...man, it's shocking. It's complete nonsense and a case of 'grass is greener' analysis or doing what seems like the obvious thing to do because it's what you're taught as a kid. Exeter are a few levels above that...let's be honest...

I thought they lacked a bit of courage to throw the killer pass in the last 20 minutes when they had those scoring positions. Or perhaps they were aware of Racing's defensive power at the breakdown and so didn't play too wide for fear of getting isolated.

It was a great game of rugby. Talking about 'boxing clever'...I thought it was two teams slugging at one another for most of it. Different styles, but a great competitive game of rugby. Talking about 'control' in such a game isn't really the point - the control you want to rely on in those moments is systems and patterns that you know by rote. And for Exeter that most definitely doesn't mean kick the ball back to the other team!

So yeah, I wholeheartedly disagree and the proof was in the pudding in that final defensive set - don't forget they pushed them back and turned the ball over prior to the TMO coming in to play with that dubious call on the Francis yellow card. I thought Exeter could have offered more in attack in that second half purely because they had Racing on toast a few times in their set phase play but didn't quite throw the pass or make the linebreak with support. But in the end, they were winning, and it's natural to play conservatively when you have something to defend and have had a physical pasting in the tight when Racing were able to slow the game down.

Keeping the ball in play won the game for Exeter. High in play time = less explosive power for Racing = why they didn't score a try at the end and why Exeter won the game. Kicking the ball away was the last thing they needed to do. Likewise, trying to chip away with 3 is anathema to Exeter unless the opportunity presents itself via a penalty from phase play. Have to disagree, Exeter played well and deserved the win.

I get that, but just because playing a certain way brings you success doesn't mean you can't adapt to the situation.   To borrow your analogy, if Barcelona were in the semi final and winning on away goals, they would definitely head to the corner.

It is difficult to argue because, yes they won, but surely you've seen enough games where a team has messed around on their own ball.  I mean if Racing had kicked the penalty at the end, rather than pushing for the line,  we might be having a very difficult conversation here.

Fair points, a lot can hinge on 'did they, didn't they' results. That said, I think the solution for Exeter was to, basically, keep doing what they were doing but do it with a bit more courage and really just have a crack. Get Hogg on the ball, run wide. There was a moment where they were about 20m infield and everyone was lined up to the left, Sam Simmonds and the winger broke right, the ball went to Simmonds, he runs between the two scrambling Racing defenders and in the Prem I think he would have chanced the offload, which would give the winger/player (not sure who it was) a clear run at the full back. That's where I think the pressure of the final got to them a little bit. Changing up their actual tactics, for me, is a non-starter. Man for man, Racing have the better players - Exeter win games because of their systems and accuracy and team work. Breaking that up, as per the pundit's suggestion, is a hiding to nothing.

Strange finish to the game. Forget the scoreboard screw up for Nigel Owens to get more screen time. He called for hands off the ball on the Exeter line as SHC is on top of it and then gives Exeter a penalty. Handed the finish to Exeter. Overall, Exeter made less mistakes and defended better.

For me, Racing constantly messing up the restarts (most of which were not overly pressured) was the killer blow as it handed Exeter field position time and again. Not sure I saw any Exeter player beyond 10 get the ball for 60 minutes.

Well done exeter, great win. I think Radrada will win POTY though. Hogg seemed quiet in the biggest game of the season, whilst Russell was sublime then ridiculous.

Hazel Sapling wrote:Strange finish to the game. Forget the scoreboard screw up for Nigel Owens to get more screen time. He called for hands off the ball on the Exeter line as SHC is on top of it and then gives Exeter a penalty. Handed the finish to Exeter. Overall, Exeter made less mistakes and defended better.

For me, Racing constantly messing up the restarts (most of which were not overly pressured) was the killer blow as it handed Exeter field position time and again. Not sure I saw any Exeter player beyond 10 get the ball for 60 minutes.

Something I noticed too. Nige was certainly harsher on Racing at the breakdown. A couple penalties that went against them I thought were good turnovers...

I am not knowledgeable enough to determine if the SHC turnover was good or not. The racing player had got over the line but was on his back with the ball trapped on his chest. I can't see how it could be a ruck. SHC was behind his own goal line so I am not sure if the same rules on offside apply.

Funny game. Neither side could cope with the other close to their own line. Exeter pack was great, and smart. Hill is a beast. Simmonds was very good but outside of the pack Nowell showed up very well, Slade had his moments but the rest were quiet.

Racing didn't tire and could look very dangerous at times, and stopped Exeter away from their 22 but ultimately their pack was 2nd best.

No offside if you are behind the line - and SHC was the first player on his feet and in the ruck. Everyone else was a part of the tackle and off their feet so no ruck.  the cry of hands off came just as SHC got hold of the ball.  Right decision

BTW - please do not feed the trollls

whilst Russell was sublime then ridiculous.

Thats Finn. More good than bad tho in this game. Its a while sisnce I have seen bad finn with more bad than good

TJ wrote:No offside if you are behind the line - and SHC was the first player on his feet and in the ruck.  Everyone else was a part of the tackle and off their feet so no ruck.  the cry of hands off came just as SHC got hold of the ball.  Right decision

BTW - please do not feed the trollls

The call was ruck formed and the player had joined from the side of the ruck (if ball was over the line = scrum ). In addition the tackler had not released the tackled player.

Regardless of that call it was the penalty call at the subsequent lineout when the assistent ref said sack was good and old nige blew for a penalty.

Only two examples. There were at least three others in the last 15 mins.

All teams want is a level playing field and fairness.

TJ wrote:

whilst Russell was sublime then ridiculous.

Thats Finn.  More good than bad tho in this game.  Its a while sisnce I have seen bad  finn with more bad than good

21 points. 21 points, 21 points, 21 points.

It's bad enough living in the twilight zone on every other avenue of the internet, where we all have to lie about objective truths and pretend lies are true, but how has rugby been infected with such madness?

His mistakes directly led to 21 points being scored for the opposition. It could very, very easily have been 35 points - in all likelihood should have been 28.

What's going on, have people forgotten what rugby is actually about...?! I genuinely no satisfaction from 'I told you so' because I'd rather people just accept things at face value in the first place but, quite literally, is this just doubling down for the sake of saving face...on a forum? On an anonymous rugby forum?

His mistakes directly led to 21 points being scored. More good than bad? How? Did he cure coronavirus after the match?

too many of you do not understand the laws.

So why have we had the English dominance in Europe this season (especially since the re-start) Has the increased competitiveness of the Premiership assisted in sharpness coming back for the run in?

Great achievement from Exeter, really hope they get the double. See there's a lot of complaining about Owens but you play to the ref end of the day, it is what it is.

And finally....Finn has been bloody brilliant for Racing this season!

Sgt_Pooly wrote:So why have we had the English dominance in Europe this season (especially since the re-start) Has the increased competitiveness of the Premiership assisted in sharpness coming back for the run in?

Great achievement from Exeter, really hope they get the double. See there's a lot of complaining about Owens but you play to the ref end of the day, it is what it is.

And finally....Finn has been bloody brilliant for Racing this season!

I agree with a lot of that....play to the ref indeed. If he shouts hands off and you don't...that should be a penalty! Else don't issue instructions.

Geen sport voor watjes wrote:

TJ wrote:No offside if you are behind the line - and SHC was the first player on his feet and in the ruck.  Everyone else was a part of the tackle and off their feet so no ruck.  the cry of hands off came just as SHC got hold of the ball.  Right decision

BTW - please do not feed the trollls

The call was ruck formed and the player had joined from the side of the ruck (if ball was over the line = scrum ). In addition the tackler had not released the tackled player.

Regardless of that call it was the penalty call at the subsequent lineout when the assistent ref said sack was good and old nige blew for a penalty.

Only two examples. There were at least three others in the last 15 mins.

All teams want is a level playing field and fairness.

I think the SHC penalty win was the ref telling the tackler hands away. Two Racing players then went straight off the their feet which is why there was no ruck and SHC could then target the ball. Having said that if I was a fan of the attacking team I wouldn't have been happy with that call as the communication from Owens wasn't good.

Owens let a lot of things go in that game. It made it an end to end game but there was a lot of things that would have been called say in a Prem game that weren't. As Sgt you have to play to the whistle. Racing seemed to do that better than Chiefs at the breakdown particularly for turnovers where you are supposed to show that you are trying to lift the ball now and they just got hands on and kept their weight there. More of a pre lockdown interpretation.

rugby racing and beer wrote:

TJ wrote:

whilst Russell was sublime then ridiculous.

Thats Finn.  More good than bad tho in this game.  Its a while sisnce I have seen bad  finn with more bad than good

21 points. 21 points, 21 points, 21 points.

It's bad enough living in the twilight zone on every other avenue of the internet, where we all have to lie about objective truths and pretend lies are true, but how has rugby been infected with such madness?

His mistakes directly led to 21 points being scored for the opposition. It could very, very easily have been 35 points - in all likelihood should have been 28.

What's going on, have people forgotten what rugby is actually about...?! I genuinely no satisfaction from 'I told you so' because I'd rather people just accept things at face value in the first place but, quite literally, is this just doubling down for the sake of saving face...on a forum? On an anonymous rugby forum?

His mistakes directly led to 21 points being scored. More good than bad? How? Did he cure coronavirus after the match?

Surprised this comment didn’t get culled. It’s not as simple as that... It’s just your opinion the he cost his team 21 points. There is nothing factual about it. Once you can get over trying to pass off your opinions as fact, and stop trying to dismiss and talk down to those who disagree with you, you might actually gain a friend on here.

TJ wrote:

whilst Russell was sublime then ridiculous.

Thats Finn.  More good than bad tho in this game.  Its a while sisnce I have seen bad  finn with more bad than good

I would agree, but people will pick holes in that and it’s a worthy talking point. For me, he’s a quality player and think the Lions could do with utilising the sublime .

To be fair on FR there was a huge amount of pressure on him to produce magic as soon as R92 were 14 points behind. And he did, but not all of it came off.

To be fair on FR there was a huge amount of pressure on him to produce magic as soon as R92 were 14 points behind. And he did, but not all of it came off.

All arguments settled, Sam Simmons is the best player in the NH............Fact.

Well it is if you have any regard for those who decided these things.

Fantastic weekend for the Simmons family, Joe captains Exeter to be the European champions, Joe gets MotM award in the said Heineken cup final, Sam get European player of the year.

They can't all celebrate together as the have another final next week, apart from the obvious bubble system restrictions, however if they win that one Exeter is going to erupt. Fans are probably already planning how they can do it safely.

Looks like Nige cleared up the SHC side entry argument, that’s me and everyone else informed. I still believe he was a little bit harsh on Racing at times but Nige usually allows a more open game anyway. I thought Racing would be used to that style of play. Zebo was fantastic for them.

Did Simmonds get POTY? There doesn’t seem to be much news about it. Many congratulations to him if true.

Owens saying that he was talking to the team in possession when he said hands off. We'll just put it down as awful communication by him then.

lostinwales wrote:To be fair on FR there was a huge amount of pressure on him to produce magic as soon as R92 were 14 points behind.  And he did, but not all of it came off.

Agree with that. He seemed to go into game chase mode and then not really come out of it. Racing were the same across the board though they were all looking to make the miracle break themselves. They butchered a couple of overlaps with the ball carrier taking it on themselves rather than drawing the man and passing.

If you are struggling and you let a flyhalf like Russell off the leash then you know it's a gamble. He got them back into the game but also cost them points.

I hear ref's say "hands away" quite often, and then they penalise the other team. They should probably be more clear.

mikey_dragon wrote:

rugby racing and beer wrote:

TJ wrote:

whilst Russell was sublime then ridiculous.

Thats Finn.  More good than bad tho in this game.  Its a while sisnce I have seen bad  finn with more bad than good

21 points. 21 points, 21 points, 21 points.

It's bad enough living in the twilight zone on every other avenue of the internet, where we all have to lie about objective truths and pretend lies are true, but how has rugby been infected with such madness?

His mistakes directly led to 21 points being scored for the opposition. It could very, very easily have been 35 points - in all likelihood should have been 28.

What's going on, have people forgotten what rugby is actually about...?! I genuinely no satisfaction from 'I told you so' because I'd rather people just accept things at face value in the first place but, quite literally, is this just doubling down for the sake of saving face...on a forum? On an anonymous rugby forum?

His mistakes directly led to 21 points being scored. More good than bad? How? Did he cure coronavirus after the match?

Surprised this comment didn’t get culled. It’s not as simple as that... It’s just your opinion the he cost his team 21 points. There is nothing factual about it. Once you can get over trying to pass off your opinions as fact, and stop trying to dismiss and talk down to those who disagree with you, you might actually gain a friend on here.

It's not necessarily factual in the world of alternative facts, I agree. The fact you want it 'culled' says a lot about you and nothing about the post.

I said pre game to see how he played on the back foot. We had glimpses of that. It's really simple stuff. Either you understand rugby or you don't tbh.

I'd also pay heed to RDW's big, red message if I were you.

No it isn't factual, it's your opinion. Oh talking down to people again because they won't bow down and agree. Read what I said again but try harder this time.

"I'd also pay heed to RDW's big, red message if I were you." Oh dear miaow

Don't agree with the narrative that Russell was chasing the game, either. I hate stressing this point because clearly it's a controversial one but the dropped ball was quite literally a mistake whether you try to blame someone else or not, the grubber kick through with poor cover in backfield was terrible execution that led to a try, and he put in a poor up and under when in his own 22 that led to Exeter dropping the try scoring pass that came from winnning the knock down.

All of those were in the first half. They were absolutely not chasing the game at that point. If anything, Racing were never chasing the game. Once Russell threw the intercept, Racing scored only a few minutes later and you could see it was like a weight lifted from him and the team as it was like 'right, that writes off the intercept'.

So I don't see any truth in the narrative his mistakes came from chasing the game. That's just how Russell and Racing play. It makes for great club rugby and there's no shame in getting beaten in a European cup final. However, for me, it perfectly demonstrates the key points I made about him (and not the strawman argument other people are trying to pretend I've said): 1. He's a higlight reel player in that if you only watch highlights you'll miss all the bad things he does. 2. He's a club player but not a reliable international, because as intense as that game was, it wasn't test match quality. At club level you can pick and choose how and who you play with. At test level there's much less scope for choosing your style or players. You are what you are and Russell is better suited to club rugby in the same way Cipriani and Carlos Spencer were. 3. He can basically only play winning rugby behind a dominant pack. Again, Racing were dominating Exeter for the majority of that game and the best work he did ball in hand all came from lightning quick ruck ball that was getting over the gainline time and time again. That he has absolutely world class backs in Vakatawa and Imhoff outside him helps, of course, to finish off the chances he creates. 4. He's a liability. Which was perfectly evident in his errors leading to 21 points that could very easily have been 35.

None of that means I think he's rubbish or hate him or have a chip on my shoulder about him as mentioned. I just don't think he's nearly as good as other people are pretending. Everything counts - which is something people are trying to brush over. Everything counts, in life and in rugby. Every flaw and failure isn't erased simply because he makes lovely passes. I do think there's too much of what I said in the Scotland thread (and was accused of trolling) but I just don't know how else to put it: it's a 'losing mentality'. It's a mindset that is happy to lose and takes pride in losing 'prettily'. Or claiming some kind of moral victory for scoring the most beautiful try. And I get why the Scots have this after the last 15 years tbf because they're clearly better than they have been, and it's been rough for them, but I also think it shouldn't get in the way of being able to honestly discuss the deep flaws of one of their star players. His mistakes directly led to 21 points for Exeter. He had a massive impact on Exeter winning the game. And overlooking that, or trying to claim that scoring tries through backs is somehow 'better' than through the forwards (the missed conversions suggest otherwise), is just compensation for not being able to face the very basic facts.

I didn't see a test match performance from Russell yesterday. At all, in the slightest. I very rarely do tbh. Anscombe being injured has given him a great opportunity to tour with the Lions and if Ford is injured he basically has to go but I can't say I want to see him play the Boks. Put it this way: I'm glad Russell isn't Welsh. Not because I hate him or anything like that, but because the 'debate' around him would be absolutely maddening. He wouldn't get in the Welsh team ahead of Anscombe or Biggar (certainly not under Gats), and after every defeat the noise about playing him (in the same way we did about Hook for the best part of a decade) would be deafening. I understand his value to Scottish fans who see him do remarkable things in a team that is lacking world class talent but I also have to say he's basically guaranteed that Racing lost that game yesterday. In the end, Exeter should have gone for the throat in that 50-70 minute mark and should have been out of sight with the scoring positions he handed to them through his mistakes. I'd be gutted if I were a Racing fan because as good as Exeter are, their actual points came from errors. Not from chasing the game, not from overplaying when the scoreboard looked out of sight, but in that first half where the damage was done when Racing were on top up front.

So, that's my opinion. It's long, I get that, but I don't want some strawman version thrown my way. I don't think there's anything more to say about that tbh from my perspective but I saw a great game of club rugby yesterday where almost the deciding factor in who won the game was Finn Russell's mistakes and the resulting points for Exeter.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

lostinwales wrote:To be fair on FR there was a huge amount of pressure on him to produce magic as soon as R92 were 14 points behind.  And he did, but not all of it came off.

Agree with that. He seemed to go into game chase mode and then not really come out of it. Racing were the same across the board though they were all looking to make the miracle break themselves. They butchered a couple of overlaps with the ball carrier taking it on themselves rather than drawing the man and passing.

If you are struggling and you let a flyhalf like Russell off the leash then you know it's a gamble. He got them back into the game but also cost them points.

There was that moment he chipped over the top 3 times in a row. 1st time looked clever and almost lead to a break from vakatawa. 2nd time was so so but R92 got the ball back. 3rd time looked dreadfull and was a turn over if I remember right

The first time Vakatawa was also about 5 metres offside, but because it's Nige...

If they're going to stay at the top, Exeter really need to tidy up their kicking game, particularly the accuracy and chase off 9. It mostly amounted to little more than handing the ball over, and giving Racing's most dangerous players a chance to get into the game running onto the ball. Maunder is a decent player, but a significant drop from White. I'm surprised SHC didn't come on earlier.

Kicking identification was poor as well. It's fair enough keeping posession and trying to build pressure through phase play running the ball out, but when you're around your 22, not making ground (or indeed losing it) after several phases, with acres of space behind the opposition because they've commited to the defensive line, the right play against top sides who are physically resurging back into the game is to kick behind, deep to space or long touch. That's even more true when you've got kicking ability like Slade, Devoto, Simmonds & Hogg, and a top functioning lineout.

rugby racing and beer wrote:Don't agree with the narrative that Russell was chasing the game, either. I hate stressing this point because clearly it's a controversial one but the dropped ball was quite literally a mistake whether you try to blame someone else or not, the grubber kick through with poor cover in backfield was terrible execution that led to a try, and he put in a poor up and under when in his own 22 that led to Exeter dropping the try scoring pass that came from winnning the knock down.

All of those were in the first half. They were absolutely not chasing the game at that point. If anything, Racing were never chasing the game. Once Russell threw the intercept, Racing scored only a few minutes later and you could see it was like a weight lifted from him and the team as it was like 'right, that writes off the intercept'.

So I don't see any truth in the narrative his mistakes came from chasing the game. That's just how Russell and Racing play. It makes for great club rugby and there's no shame in getting beaten in a European cup final. However, for me, it perfectly demonstrates the key points I made about him (and not the strawman argument other people are trying to pretend I've said): 1. He's a higlight reel player in that if you only watch highlights you'll miss all the bad things he does. 2. He's a club player but not a reliable international, because as intense as that game was, it wasn't test match quality. At club level you can pick and choose how and who you play with. At test level there's much less scope for choosing your style or players. You are what you are and Russell is better suited to club rugby in the same way Cipriani and Carlos Spencer were. 3. He can basically only play winning rugby behind a dominant pack. Again, Racing were dominating Exeter for the majority of that game and the best work he did ball in hand all came from lightning quick ruck ball that was getting over the gainline time and time again. That he has absolutely world class backs in Vakatawa and Imhoff outside him helps, of course, to finish off the chances he creates. 4. He's a liability. Which was perfectly evident in his errors leading to 21 points that could very easily have been 35.

None of that means I think he's rubbish or hate him or have a chip on my shoulder about him as mentioned. I just don't think he's nearly as good as other people are pretending. Everything counts - which is something people are trying to brush over. Everything counts, in life and in rugby. Every flaw and failure isn't erased simply because he makes lovely passes. I do think there's too much of what I said in the Scotland thread (and was accused of trolling) but I just don't know how else to put it: it's a 'losing mentality'. It's a mindset that is happy to lose and takes pride in losing 'prettily'. Or claiming some kind of moral victory for scoring the most beautiful try. And I get why the Scots have this after the last 15 years tbf because they're clearly better than they have been, and it's been rough for them, but I also think it shouldn't get in the way of being able to honestly discuss the deep flaws of one of their star players. His mistakes directly led to 21 points for Exeter. He had a massive impact on Exeter winning the game. And overlooking that, or trying to claim that scoring tries through backs is somehow 'better' than through the forwards (the missed conversions suggest otherwise), is just compensation for not being able to face the very basic facts.

I didn't see a test match performance from Russell yesterday. At all, in the slightest. I very rarely do tbh. Anscombe being injured has given him a great opportunity to tour with the Lions and if Ford is injured he basically has to go but I can't say I want to see him play the Boks. Put it this way: I'm glad Russell isn't Welsh. Not because I hate him or anything like that, but because the 'debate' around him would be absolutely maddening. He wouldn't get in the Welsh team ahead of Anscombe or Biggar (certainly not under Gats), and after every defeat the noise about playing him (in the same way we did about Hook for the best part of a decade) would be deafening. I understand his value to Scottish fans who see him do remarkable things in a team that is lacking world class talent but I also have to say he's basically guaranteed that Racing lost that game yesterday. In the end, Exeter should have gone for the throat in that 50-70 minute mark and should have been out of sight with the scoring positions he handed to them through his mistakes. I'd be gutted if I were a Racing fan because as good as Exeter are, their actual points came from errors. Not from chasing the game, not from overplaying when the scoreboard looked out of sight, but in that first half where the damage was done when Racing were on top up front.

So, that's my opinion. It's long, I get that, but I don't want some strawman version thrown my way. I don't think there's anything more to say about that tbh from my perspective but I saw a great game of club rugby yesterday where almost the deciding factor in who won the game was Finn Russell's mistakes and the resulting points for Exeter.

Hes a hell of a lot better than Anscombe , as is Simmonds. So it should be Farrell, Russell, Simmonds. Then Ford.

hawalsh wrote:If they're going to stay at the top, Exeter really need to tidy up their kicking game, particularly the accuracy and chase off 9.  It mostly amounted to little more than handing the ball over, and giving Racing's most dangerous players a chance to get into the game running onto the ball.  Maunder is a decent player, but a significant drop from White.  I'm surprised SHC didn't come on earlier.

Kicking identification was poor as well.  It's fair enough keeping posession and trying to build pressure through phase play running the ball out, but when you're around your 22, not making ground (or indeed losing it) after several phases, with acres of space behind the opposition because they've commited to the defensive line, the right play against top sides who are physically resurging back into the game is to kick behind, deep to space or long touch.  That's even more true when you've got kicking ability like Slade, Devoto, Simmonds & Hogg, and a top functioning lineout.

I imagine the tactic was there to try and wear down the Racing pack. French teams aren't known for their high levels of fitness whereas Exeter pride themselves on being an 80 minute team. Kicking the ball to Racing's dangerous back three to counter is not the best tactic. Going for the lineout is but you've got to make sure you land it.

Scrum half has been a problem area for Chiefs for some time. Given they had to release Santi Cordedo to bring in Hogg suggesting that they are struggling with the limitations of the cap and there's no scope for bringing in a better option. Maunder does need to tighten up several areas of his game if he wants to progress to the next level.

What a game or rugby, about as far from your bog standard final as you could imagine.

I thought over the piece that Racing were just about the better side, but take nothing away from Exeter - they do what they do exceptionally well.

On the Russell debate, calling that move that led to the intercept takes a huge amount of courage - it wasn't off the cuff arrogance, but a pre-planned set-play that had obviously been worked on in training. The execution wasn't there this time, but i'd rather watch that than the safety first, physical grind that so much of pro-rugby has become.  He's getting a panning on social media and by some posters on here, but I hope he never changes how he plays - our game would be much more exciting if it had a few more players willing to put their neck on the line like he does.

EST wrote:What a game or rugby, about as far from your bog standard final as you could imagine.

I thought over the piece that Racing were just about the better side, but take nothing away from Exeter - they do what they do exceptionally well.

On the Russell debate, calling that move that led to the intercept takes a huge amount of courage - it wasn't off the cuff arrogance, but a pre-planned set-play that had obviously been worked on in training. The execution wasn't there this time, but i'd rather watch that than the safety first, physical grind that so much of pro-rugby has become.  He's getting a panning on social media and by some posters on here, but I hope he never changes how he plays - our game would be much more exciting if it had a few more players willing to put their neck on the line like he does.

I love watching Russell play but just wish he went through more phases ball in hand before looking for those wonder plays. Perhaps you'd lose some of the magic that he brings by doing that but with the right structure I think it'd bring the best out of him.

The intercept was an example of that for me. His best play in early phases usually comes when he has multiple options carrying off him fairly tight in. That way the runners can try to line up so you have an option carrying at both of a single defenders shoulders (something Nonu/Smith or BOD/D'Arcy we're great at in their prime). Then Russell can pick a runner on a split second decision, which is where he is so good.

Instead for the intercept he has one runner between him and Vakatawa (the intended recipient) about 15 metres away, with a set Chiefs defence. Chiefs are short of numbers but have Slade and Nowell defending the wide channel with no runners to force them in tighter. It's a moment to just got through the hands (draw and pass) or put boot to ball (Vakatawa is pointing over the top into space rather than calling for the pass).

The first try is classic Russell at his best. He is playing very flat, has both centres running hard lines to hold the defence, then at the last moment possible when the defence has rushed up he throws that brilliant pass to Zebo in space. It's born out of giving him structure to work with though.

I think there's also something to be said for Russell producing his best when he has a player in the wide channels who is on his wavelength with those big plays. At his best for Scotland and Glasgow it has been Hogg (and briefly Jones), for Racing it's been Zebo who has been outstanding since moving to France and may well be an outside bet for the Lions.

king_carlos wrote:

EST wrote:What a game or rugby, about as far from your bog standard final as you could imagine.

I thought over the piece that Racing were just about the better side, but take nothing away from Exeter - they do what they do exceptionally well.

On the Russell debate, calling that move that led to the intercept takes a huge amount of courage - it wasn't off the cuff arrogance, but a pre-planned set-play that had obviously been worked on in training. The execution wasn't there this time, but i'd rather watch that than the safety first, physical grind that so much of pro-rugby has become.  He's getting a panning on social media and by some posters on here, but I hope he never changes how he plays - our game would be much more exciting if it had a few more players willing to put their neck on the line like he does.

I love watching Russell play but just wish he went through more phases ball in hand before looking for those wonder plays. Perhaps you'd lose some of the magic that he brings by doing that but with the right structure I think it'd bring the best out of him.

The intercept was an example of that for me. His best play in early phases usually comes when he has multiple options carrying off him fairly tight in. That way the runners can try to line up so you have an option carrying at both of a single defenders shoulders (something Nonu/Smith or BOD/D'Arcy we're great at in their prime). Then Russell can pick a runner on a split second decision, which is where he is so good.

Instead for the intercept he has one runner between him and Vakatawa (the intended recipient) about 15 metres away, with a set Chiefs defence. Chiefs are short of numbers but have Slade and Nowell defending the wide channel with no runners to force them in tighter. It's a moment to just got through the hands (draw and pass) or put boot to ball (Vakatawa is pointing over the top into space rather than calling for the pass).

The first try is classic Russell at his best. He is playing very flat, has both centres running hard lines to hold the defence, then at the last moment possible when the defence has rushed up he throws that brilliant pass to Zebo in space. It's born out of giving him structure to work with though.

I think there's also something to be said for Russell producing his best when he has a player in the wide channels who is on his wavelength with those big plays. At his best for Scotland and Glasgow it has been Hogg (and briefly Jones), for Racing it's been Zebo who has been outstanding since moving to France and may well be an outside bet for the Lions.

I agree that he does sometimes go for the miracle ball prematurely, but would disagree on the intercept in this game. I've read a number of times from players and coaches that Russell is actually a pretty studious guy and does a lot of analysis on his opposition - this move has been planned to exploit something he and Racing have seen in the way Exeter defend. You can see Vakatawa, Zebo and Imhoff are all lined up outside Nowell, if the pass is executed better its likely a score at the other end - It wasn't, and on such fine margins games are won or lost, but it was calculated rather than last ditch. It takes a lot of guts to contemplate doing that in a game of this magnitude, knowing what would be leveled at him if he got it wrong.

EST wrote:I agree that he does sometimes go for the miracle ball prematurely, but would disagree on the intercept in this game.  I've read a number of times from players and coaches that Russell is actually a pretty studious guy and does a lot of analysis on his opposition - this move has been planned to exploit something he and Racing have seen in the way Exeter defend. You can see Vakatawa, Zebo and Imhoff are all lined up outside Nowell, if the pass is executed better its likely a score at the other end - It wasn't, and on such fine margins games are won or lost, but it was calculated rather than last ditch.  It takes a lot of guts to contemplate doing that in a game of this magnitude, knowing what would be leveled at him if he got it wrong.

I can fully imagine Russell being a studious guy. Mercurial playmakers often get pigeonholed as wanting broken play and no structure but in order for extravagant plays to come off you often need the opposite. Plays aimed at targeting a particular defence require exact running lines and a lot of analysis.

The one thing I'd say with that play in particular being pre-planned is that Vakatawa is pointing over the top into the space behind Nowell rather than calling for the pass. Vakatawa and Imhoff are also standing very flat for two players expecting a pass, with Zebo slightly deeper having looped outside Vakatawa whilst the pass is in the air. To me it looks like a miscommunication with the three quickest players in the Racing team expecting a kick to chase rather than the pass.

For the Racing's opening try the inside defenders (I think Whitten and both Simmonds brothers) bite in on Vakatawa and Chavancy leaving O'Flaherty to cover Zebo and Dupichot. O'Flaherty arguably does the right thing by rushing but is beaten by a sublime pass. The circumstances mean that it's on with Exeter weaker defending wing (no slight on O'Flaherty meant when the other wing is Nowell) isolated.

For the intercept though it's being thrown with Slade and Nowell (two very strong outside channel defenders by international standards) covering the player it's intended for. I don't think it was last ditch more a miscommunication and poor execution at a notable moment that people will jump on.

king_carlos wrote:

EST wrote:I agree that he does sometimes go for the miracle ball prematurely, but would disagree on the intercept in this game.  I've read a number of times from players and coaches that Russell is actually a pretty studious guy and does a lot of analysis on his opposition - this move has been planned to exploit something he and Racing have seen in the way Exeter defend. You can see Vakatawa, Zebo and Imhoff are all lined up outside Nowell, if the pass is executed better its likely a score at the other end - It wasn't, and on such fine margins games are won or lost, but it was calculated rather than last ditch.  It takes a lot of guts to contemplate doing that in a game of this magnitude, knowing what would be leveled at him if he got it wrong.

I can fully imagine Russell being a studious guy. Mercurial playmakers often get pigeonholed as wanting broken play and no structure but in order for extravagant plays to come off you often need the opposite. Plays aimed at targeting a particular defence require exact running lines and a lot of analysis.

The one thing I'd say with that play in particular being pre-planned is that Vakatawa is pointing over the top into the space behind Nowell rather than calling for the pass. Vakatawa and Imhoff are also standing very flat for two players expecting a pass, with Zebo slightly deeper having looped outside Vakatawa whilst the pass is in the air. To me it looks like a miscommunication with the three quickest players in the Racing team expecting a kick to chase rather than the pass.

For the Racing's opening try the inside defenders (I think Whitten and both Simmonds brothers) bite in on Vakatawa and Chavancy leaving O'Flaherty to cover Zebo and Dupichot. O'Flaherty arguably does the right thing by rushing but is beaten by a sublime pass. The circumstances mean that it's on with Exeter weaker defending wing (no slight on O'Flaherty meant when the other wing is Nowell) isolated.

For the intercept though it's being thrown with Slade and Nowell (two very strong outside channel defenders by international standards) covering the player it's intended for. I don't think it was last ditch more a miscommunication and poor execution at a notable moment that people will jump on.

You could be right, Vakatawa does point to space and then puts his hand up like he wants the ball, although I still think it looks like something they have worked on and called, with the Racing attackers standing wide on the outside shoulder of Nowell who has bitten in and Zebo flooding round. I think he will be more annoyed about the execution rather than the pass selection, regardless of what Austin Healy on comms may think .

It is remarkably similar to his pass against England in 2018, which was probably tougher to make given it was off his wrong hand.

My issue with the intercept is that it probably is a pre planned move but Russell catches the ball above his head which totally messes up the flow and timing of the whole thing. He then still tries to Chuck the ball out wide and as the flow has been disrupted, it’s an easier read for Nowell

Would dan carter have thrown the pass? Nah. He’d have kicked the ball into space and the built again. Finn does force things too often.

As folk have said though, if you want more “safety first” play from Finn, it will reduce the amount of opportunity for him to pull out that box of tricks.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t.

While the Racing coach has been slammed for taking off his best players, Quinlan told the OTB podcast Zebo was injured. Not sure about Chat on the 51st minute.

https://www.planetrugby.com/champions-cup-team-of-the-tournament-3/

Kingshu wrote:https://www.planetrugby.com/champions-cup-team-of-the-tournament-3/

I can't argue with much there. I'm glad that Pita Ahki in particular makes the side, he has been an absolute cannonball.

I'd probably take Eddy Ben Arous over Mako on this seasons form. He has started all 9 of Racing's games and was excellent at the ruck in the final.

Hill over Ryan on form for me. Henderson was very impressive in the group stages whilst Mako had one huge game in the QF so probably Henderson on Euro form. I'd perhaps argue that Hill and Ryan showed the best form across the tournament but maybe not the most balanced engine room with both of them. Then again it is a hypothetical side! 

I'd just take Kaino over Ewers as well. Ewers has been very good for Chiefs this season deservedly combining with Vermeulen to keep Armand in particular out the side. He has slid under the radar a bit having fallen out of England contention but it was an excellent 2019/20 for the blindside, he started all 9 of Chiefs Euro games. Kaino has been brilliant for Toulouse and a real source of leadership in their pack so I'd just give him it at a push. Perhaps I'm being nostalgic about the old timer still chugging on though.

I think Tom O’Flaherty was a case of, let's fit in another Exeter player. Would have opted for Lowe.