Search results

A lack of playing smarts is what I'd call it.

Does consistent play year on year qualify for "solid"status?

You having a larf, Reg, you having a larf? Blythe over Hockings, indeed.

I think, on the one hand, you are a bit harsh on Arnold, B, but I agree that the three top locks atm are Rodda, Coleman and Arnold. To me, Arnold is more of an Izzy Folau comparison in forward play. Is the best in the country at setting up the rolling maul and defending the opposition maul, just...

Ah, Reg. But the strategy of going in with the beige option has been soooo successful over the past 4 years.

Rather optimistic Wamb, but I sincerely hope you are right.

Can't tell if that's a discussion about the Wallabies or the Waratahs. Think I'll give it a miss. :) Now, I really would be interested in a discussion of the Wallabies prospects (players and game-wise) with Schnoz and Johnson, the other two selectors.

True Wamb. They were so lacklustre in fact that I am beginning to think there is something wrong going on in the set up.If all is not rosy behind the scenes, it quickly starts to show on the field.

That occurred to me too, and it is something to be feared.

Froggy, you'd start two LHPs and have two THPs on the bench. Now that is very creative.

The Reds' backs generally, including Hegarty, had significantly more pace than the Brumbies' backline which looked pedestrian in comparison.

I think DHP can play that second playmaker role from fullback if required. He has a better boot on him than Beale, is a better defender than Beale, is better in the air than Beale, and more experienced in fullback play in Rugby than Hunt. I am satisfied with a backline of Genia, Quade, Maddocks...

D, I see my post was somewhat ambiguous. I meant after Foley's one good game last weekend. I was wanting to make the point that on the basis of 5 or 6 rounds in all, Quade was still in front of Foley this year.

I can see there might have been a difference as you describe TSR, but if that's the case then why have the law in the first place. If the ball is tied up as it was by Hockings, then it will result in a turnover scrum anyway, whereas if it is free then there is not reason for the ref to say use...

Inconsistency is the killer though Strewth. Two similar situations in the one game refereed quite differently, with ultimately an impact on the game itself.

Big call Barb to have Foley as a certain starter after last weekend's game where he did little other than put a couple of kicks on Izzy's chest. After 6 rounds, Quade is still in front of Foley by a fair margin in my book. I am not so committed to TK at 13 on present form, but all things taken...

You might think that's being sarcastic KOB, but I would say it's just the truth of the matter. The very poor performance by the Brumbies ( and I'm starting to think that is their par for the season) it does not detract at all from the Sub-standard performance put in by the Crusaders the day before.

Maybe a matter for the Refereeing Decisions thread, but the Brumbies stopped the Reds maul on the required two occasions, and the ref gave the order to use it on the second occasion. As far as I know, the ball has to be used withing 5 seconds or possession turns over. It took 10 seconds...

To quote you Dan, from the Canes' game, most of the Crusaders looked like ITM players, not up to Super standard.

Most interesting that Dentsu Inc has bought out CSM, a leading NZ rugby agent. Does anyone know which players in NZ are managed by CSM, and what the implications might be for any new competition started up by Dentsu?