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
General Rugby Union
Dual Playmakers - Bluster or Essential?
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="Umaga&#039;s Witness" data-source="post: 977728" data-attributes="member: 65365"><p>Some thought provoking insights.</p><p>[USER=74121]@Bruce_ma_goose[/USER] </p><p></p><p>I have to say I have a fan crush on penaud, disappointed with his qf performance though. I love his passing game. When France brings him in as a pass left option with his long beautiful silky pass, on top of his core wing excellence, it's just great to see.</p><p></p><p>regarding nz, some inretesting synopses I don't think I agree entirely with. I presume the "players they have teplaced" you refer to are carter, Nonu, and smith? Yes Nonu and smith are a creative combination. Saying some other combo is not as good is not saying much, I mean who is? On carter v mounga, mounga is a lot more creative than carter was. Don't get me wrong, I think carter was the best ever ( I have seen) 10 but, ironically for a 10, wasn't the most creative. He had the luxury for his whole all black career if having an incredibly creative midfield. For the crusaders most of t he time too. He was really shown up when this wasn't the case. He was still the best ten ever (that I have seen) but more because of his all round ability being so good that even if you didn't have superstars outside him you still would have played him, choosing creative players outside to make up for his lack of creativity even if those players were far less than stars. Like when the crusaders were forced to pick a below average ten as their 12 to make up for them being bereft if options with carter at ten.</p><p></p><p>THere is similarity there between carter and goodhue, goodhue too is highly skilled but not particularly creative. Alb is very creative. The main issue with the all blacks was the same of issue of creativity not suiting knockout rugby. Neuropsychology says creativity can't really exist under pressure, different brainwaves are produced. Stress creates tunnel vision too, hardly appropriate for creative rugby. The all blacks turned out to have too little experience in their creative players to overcome the pressure. Maybe pressure handling will become the focus of top sides that Need creativity to overcome weaker packs. The other factor that made alb look not so good against England was Tuilagi and Farrells defence, which allowed alb to make plenty of ground as long as he couldn't get an offload away, and of course curry undies would be at the next ruck. England deserves a lot of kudos.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Umaga's Witness, post: 977728, member: 65365"] Some thought provoking insights. [USER=74121]@Bruce_ma_goose[/USER] I have to say I have a fan crush on penaud, disappointed with his qf performance though. I love his passing game. When France brings him in as a pass left option with his long beautiful silky pass, on top of his core wing excellence, it’s just great to see. regarding nz, some inretesting synopses I don’t think I agree entirely with. I presume the “players they have teplaced” you refer to are carter, Nonu, and smith? Yes Nonu and smith are a creative combination. Saying some other combo is not as good is not saying much, I mean who is? On carter v mounga, mounga is a lot more creative than carter was. Don’t get me wrong, I think carter was the best ever ( I have seen) 10 but, ironically for a 10, wasn’t the most creative. He had the luxury for his whole all black career if having an incredibly creative midfield. For the crusaders most of t he time too. He was really shown up when this wasn’t the case. He was still the best ten ever (that I have seen) but more because of his all round ability being so good that even if you didn’t have superstars outside him you still would have played him, choosing creative players outside to make up for his lack of creativity even if those players were far less than stars. Like when the crusaders were forced to pick a below average ten as their 12 to make up for them being bereft if options with carter at ten. THere is similarity there between carter and goodhue, goodhue too is highly skilled but not particularly creative. Alb is very creative. The main issue with the all blacks was the same of issue of creativity not suiting knockout rugby. Neuropsychology says creativity can’t really exist under pressure, different brainwaves are produced. Stress creates tunnel vision too, hardly appropriate for creative rugby. The all blacks turned out to have too little experience in their creative players to overcome the pressure. Maybe pressure handling will become the focus of top sides that Need creativity to overcome weaker packs. The other factor that made alb look not so good against England was Tuilagi and Farrells defence, which allowed alb to make plenty of ground as long as he couldn’t get an offload away, and of course curry undies would be at the next ruck. England deserves a lot of kudos. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Dual Playmakers - Bluster or Essential?
Top