Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ragey Erasmus" data-source="post: 904429" data-attributes="member: 56232">It&#039;s not the size that matters, it&#039;s how it&#039;s used. Crashball failed for Wales because they would just plop the ball out to Roberts and the aim was that he would simply run at the nearest defender he could see to tie in the defence, quickly recycle and then off they go. That worked for a bit until it became predictable and Roberts would be gang tackled and the recycled ball would be slow. The Barbarians were good because their big players would actively avoid direct contact, they would go for gaps all the time. England&#039;s bigger runners aren&#039;t used like this, they are used to run into brick walls. Had the Barbarians used their big guys to look for contact, England would have held them out without too much trouble. Likewise this is why England&#039;s attack has faltered in recent years, they know that the 1 out forward is never going to look for the gap or offload, they are going to look to crash into contact and recycle. It can still work but you need to get in and secure your own ball quickly. England have played crash ball but with our players fanned out in a way more suitable for a fast paced game where you keep the ball alive. It&#039;s the worst of both worlds.We don&#039;t necessarily need players in the centres who are big and powerful, we need players who show some intelligence and hit good lines. George Ford running a good line at a gap between 2 large players will achieve far more than Tuilagi running directly at 2 defenders set and ready to hit him.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ragey Erasmus, post: 904429, member: 56232"] It's not the size that matters, it's how it's used. Crashball failed for Wales because they would just plop the ball out to Roberts and the aim was that he would simply run at the nearest defender he could see to tie in the defence, quickly recycle and then off they go. That worked for a bit until it became predictable and Roberts would be gang tackled and the recycled ball would be slow. The Barbarians were good because their big players would actively avoid direct contact, they would go for gaps all the time. England's bigger runners aren't used like this, they are used to run into brick walls. Had the Barbarians used their big guys to look for contact, England would have held them out without too much trouble. Likewise this is why England's attack has faltered in recent years, they know that the 1 out forward is never going to look for the gap or offload, they are going to look to crash into contact and recycle. It can still work but you need to get in and secure your own ball quickly. England have played crash ball but with our players fanned out in a way more suitable for a fast paced game where you keep the ball alive. It's the worst of both worlds. We don't necessarily need players in the centres who are big and powerful, we need players who show some intelligence and hit good lines. George Ford running a good line at a gap between 2 large players will achieve far more than Tuilagi running directly at 2 defenders set and ready to hit him. [/QUOTE]

Verification