Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pieter Steph du Teague" data-source="post: 1116272" data-attributes="member: 72520">Also, just because a lock-blindside isn&#039;t the one jumping for the ball doesn&#039;t mean that they aren&#039;t still impacting the lineout. Just them being there means that the opposition has to mark them too, thus making it easier for the 1st/2nd choice jumpers to receive the ball. Also, if 6&#039;8 Chessum is back-lifting another jumper then that jumper is going to go 5 inches higher than if they were being lifted by 6&#039;3 Willis. There&#039;s also the matter of what more a taller option can offer once the ball is caught. Mauls are a huge part of the game now and an effective maul can be the difference between winning and losing. 120kg Chessum is going to offer much more weight and strength to a maul than &gt;110kg Willis. The length of Chessum&#039;s body would also offer more protection to the player in the maul with the ball than Willis&#039;.I&#039;m no advocate for playing locks at blindside. Ted Hill would be my choice for this 6N. And I would also prefer Willis over Chessum at 6. But to say that a lock-blindside only affects the 2-3 lineouts per game in which they&#039;re actually the recipient of the ball is massively over-simplifying the matter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pieter Steph du Teague, post: 1116272, member: 72520"] Also, just because a lock-blindside isn’t the one jumping for the ball doesn’t mean that they aren’t still impacting the lineout. Just them being there means that the opposition has to mark them too, thus making it easier for the 1st/2nd choice jumpers to receive the ball. Also, if 6’8 Chessum is back-lifting another jumper then that jumper is going to go 5 inches higher than if they were being lifted by 6’3 Willis. There’s also the matter of what more a taller option can offer once the ball is caught. Mauls are a huge part of the game now and an effective maul can be the difference between winning and losing. 120kg Chessum is going to offer much more weight and strength to a maul than >110kg Willis. The length of Chessum’s body would also offer more protection to the player in the maul with the ball than Willis’. I’m no advocate for playing locks at blindside. Ted Hill would be my choice for this 6N. And I would also prefer Willis over Chessum at 6. But to say that a lock-blindside only affects the 2-3 lineouts per game in which they’re actually the recipient of the ball is massively over-simplifying the matter. [/QUOTE]

Verification