Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
2025 Guinness Six Nations
[2016 RBS Six Nations] Round 1: Scotland vs. England (06/02/2016)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Peat" data-source="post: 782131" data-attributes="member: 42330"><p>Guys, can we have a step back and think about what being a specialist openside is all about before you drive me postal?</p><p></p><p>It's not all about the turnovers. If we're measuring the success of a specialist openside solely by turnovers, something has gone horribly awry. I know they're really prominent and a lot of specialist opensides are really good at them, but it's really not the only reason they're on the pitch. There's very few players in recent years who've made their way onto the pitch solely because they're good at turning over ball at the ruck and those guys have been exceptional.</p><p></p><p>The point of a specialist openside is he is the forward constantly working to be in support of the ball. And yes, if he's doing that correctly, frequently he will be the first person at the breakdown and that should give him a lot of chances to turnover ball at the ruck. But an openside can have a good game without ever turning over the ball there if he's effectively rucking out his own ball, preventing players from getting isolated, offering a linking option, diving on loose balls, slowing opposition ball, and so on. </p><p></p><p>Just because Haskell didn't get a turnover didn't mean he was a failure as an openside, just as Robshaw having the second most turnovers in the last 6N didn't mean he was a success as an openside. Success and failure in the role of openside depends on how they fulfilled the above paragraph.</p><p></p><p>And both men have been to date, imo, failures. There were simply too many problems in securing our own ball swiftly for the openside and too little sign of opposition ball being slowed to be deemed a success. Haskell deserves more than one game before being deemed an overall failure (and needs to play in more open games to boot) but his general history does not make for confidence on the score. Nor does the sight of Joe Launchbury once again looking more like England's openside than any of the back row - and, on reflection on the opinions of others, I'm really not sure Launchbury was properly fit that game.</p><p></p><p>Fair enough if you disagree with me on that. But please make it about how they played as an openside, and not about the turnovers, or I'm billing this place for any ensuing mental health problems.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Peat, post: 782131, member: 42330"] Guys, can we have a step back and think about what being a specialist openside is all about before you drive me postal? It's not all about the turnovers. If we're measuring the success of a specialist openside solely by turnovers, something has gone horribly awry. I know they're really prominent and a lot of specialist opensides are really good at them, but it's really not the only reason they're on the pitch. There's very few players in recent years who've made their way onto the pitch solely because they're good at turning over ball at the ruck and those guys have been exceptional. The point of a specialist openside is he is the forward constantly working to be in support of the ball. And yes, if he's doing that correctly, frequently he will be the first person at the breakdown and that should give him a lot of chances to turnover ball at the ruck. But an openside can have a good game without ever turning over the ball there if he's effectively rucking out his own ball, preventing players from getting isolated, offering a linking option, diving on loose balls, slowing opposition ball, and so on. Just because Haskell didn't get a turnover didn't mean he was a failure as an openside, just as Robshaw having the second most turnovers in the last 6N didn't mean he was a success as an openside. Success and failure in the role of openside depends on how they fulfilled the above paragraph. And both men have been to date, imo, failures. There were simply too many problems in securing our own ball swiftly for the openside and too little sign of opposition ball being slowed to be deemed a success. Haskell deserves more than one game before being deemed an overall failure (and needs to play in more open games to boot) but his general history does not make for confidence on the score. Nor does the sight of Joe Launchbury once again looking more like England's openside than any of the back row - and, on reflection on the opinions of others, I'm really not sure Launchbury was properly fit that game. Fair enough if you disagree with me on that. But please make it about how they played as an openside, and not about the turnovers, or I'm billing this place for any ensuing mental health problems. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
2025 Guinness Six Nations
[2016 RBS Six Nations] Round 1: Scotland vs. England (06/02/2016)
Top
