James Buchanan
Trevor Allan (34)
Those particular missed tackles play on my mind especially. Its not like JOC (James O'Connor) played a lot of the season for the Rebels but in that time, whilst playing 12, he made two clangers of epic proportion.
Rebels 2013
- Thread starter James Buchanan
- Start date
- Status
Those particular missed tackles play on my mind especially. Its not like JOC (James O'Connor) played a lot of the season for the Rebels but in that time, whilst playing 12, he made two clangers of epic proportion.
Antony
Alex Ross (28)
They were shockers, but you can put them down to uncertainty in the position.
I've never seen anything to suggest that JOC (James O'Connor) is a weak front on tackler (that hit on Matfield suggests the contrary) and he's too smart a footballer not to be able to learn the position. So there's no physical or mental reason that his defensive lapses should persist.
I've never seen anything to suggest that JOC (James O'Connor) is a weak front on tackler (that hit on Matfield suggests the contrary) and he's too smart a footballer not to be able to learn the position. So there's no physical or mental reason that his defensive lapses should persist.
D
daz
Guest
Sure, in the way that train wrecks are interesting.
Mitch's strength is in breaking lines and taking the ball forward as far as possible, not really in Harlem Globe-Trotter type playmaking. Not really sure his feet and hands are quick enough, especially that close to the scrum-half.
James Buchanan
Trevor Allan (34)
His defence is also one of his strengths. I suspect though the suggestion of putting him at 12 would be to accept the Nonu/Smith style "Big 12, Skillful 13" setup. This is what I think Dumbledore was referring to by the JOC (James O'Connor)-at-13 faction, who support the notion that the inside channels have changed with the increased use of extra forward runners there and that the secondary playmaker has to be moved outside.
However, as I said previously I am not sure what Hill considers the superior philosophy but I expect the one chosen will be informed by more current information than I can bring to bear.
D
daz
Guest
Absolutely agree that Mitch is extremely strong defensively. I also understand the thinking behind having, in effect, the two key playmaking roles expanded to cover more ground.
That may work and I suppose I might be curious as to how the Rebs could pull it off. That said, as much as I love the way Mitch goes about his business, he isn't quite in Nonu territory yet. Mitch is a solid unit, but he hasn't learned how to use that body of his as a weapon.
I also think that the group is too unsettled. This year should be about setting combo's in cement and getting the guys learning each other's style. I'm sure Hill and the team are a bit cleverer than me in the understanding of rugby, but the key play-making area of 10-12 has been all over the shop the last 2 years and our lack of attacking penetration (or at least, consistency) clearly comes from that confusion.
Dumbledore
Dick Tooth (41)
Personally I think Inman is a plodder. A big plodder, granted, but a plodder nonetheless. Playing him at 12 would restrict him to a McCabe-esque boshing role up the middle, which might not be the worst thing. My preference is definitely for a Beale - JOC (James O'Connor) - Inman combo though. Preferably with Stirzaker at scrumhalf so Beale can actually take the ball at pace without having to worry about whether it's coming at his boots, head, or his mates in the stands.Sure, in the way that train wrecks are interesting.
Mitch's strength is in breaking lines and taking the ball forward as far as possible, not really in Harlem Globe-Trotter type playmaking. Not really sure his feet and hands are quick enough, especially that close to the scrum-half.
Deputy Van Halen
Larry Dwyer (12)
Even google doesn't know where to play them...
D
daz
Guest
+1. I'll take that combo every day of the week. Until Phipps gets some tigher ball control and some better all-round vision/awareness, he should be warming the bench all day long.
9: Stirzaker
10: Beale
12: JOC (James O'Connor)
13: Inman
Sorted. Coach Hill, are you taking notes?
Good man.
Dumbledore
Dick Tooth (41)
9. Stirzaker
10. Beale
11. Vuna
12. JOC (James O'Connor)
13. Inman
14. Rokobaro
15. Woodward
Might actually score some of those try things I keep hearing about.
10. Beale
11. Vuna
12. JOC (James O'Connor)
13. Inman
14. Rokobaro
15. Woodward
Might actually score some of those try things I keep hearing about.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Dumbledore
Dick Tooth (41)
Yeah? I know he's played flyhalf, wing and fullback before. Can't say I've heard or seen anything about him at 12. Who would take his place on the wing?
Forcefield
Ken Catchpole (46)
I agree. I actually think that if you are going to play a defensive 12 you should go for Rory Sidey at 12. He isn't as big as Inman but he is a touch faster and he is very good at the breakdown. He would make up for the fact that the Rebels don't really have a good 7 (or at least not a proven 7).
Dumbledore
Dick Tooth (41)
Too many good ideas, not enough Lachlan Mitchell.
en_force_er
Geoff Shaw (53)
STILL with this absurd argument about Stirzaker starting over Phipps, it's infuriating. 2 years ago Phipps was in Stirzaker's shoes, everyone said he was ready to be a super star with no actual substance.
Stirzaker may be a great player (possibly even better than Phipps), I'm not arguing with his potential. Like any unproven Super rugby player the man has the potential to be the next big thing in world rugby. However, he's almost certainly not there yet so why would you replace the improving Wallaby incumbent halfback with a player that has a pretty pass at SS level?
Sure, start giving Stirzaker 10 minutes and if it goes well feel free to keep increasing that over time until he's eventually a starter but don't honestly suggest it's the correct decision to start him in the team's best line-up come round 1.
I'm all for rewarding form but come on, the man has blanks all across his form sheet at Super rugby level. No crosses, no ticks, nothing.
Stirzaker may be a great player (possibly even better than Phipps), I'm not arguing with his potential. Like any unproven Super rugby player the man has the potential to be the next big thing in world rugby. However, he's almost certainly not there yet so why would you replace the improving Wallaby incumbent halfback with a player that has a pretty pass at SS level?
Sure, start giving Stirzaker 10 minutes and if it goes well feel free to keep increasing that over time until he's eventually a starter but don't honestly suggest it's the correct decision to start him in the team's best line-up come round 1.
I'm all for rewarding form but come on, the man has blanks all across his form sheet at Super rugby level. No crosses, no ticks, nothing.
D
daz
Guest
Why is putting Stirzaker over Phipps such a bad idea?
I agree it should be a gradual implementation, but let's not drag it out.
And this argument about an experienced "Wallaby" scrum half is frankly bullshit. Ma'afu is a capped Wallaby and I wouldn't want him in Melbourne Uni front row, let alone the fucking Wallabies. Nothing against Phipps personally, but for all of his "experiences", what has he learned, really?
Stirzaker will make mistakes as he learns, but since we are already turning the ball over or failing to capitalise on our attacking options due to, wait for it, a sub-standard scrummy, what the hell are we going to lose?
The two biggest positional problems the Rebels have is the Hooker and the Scrummy.
The two biggest playing issues are that the boys have shown they repeatedly drop their collective defensive bundle, and are extremely vulnerable to being scored against within 5 minutes of them scoring themselves. Heads drop, etc.
The win/loss ratio will always be weighted towards the loss column unless those 4 key issues are sorted.
That said, there is some serious talent out there and if they ever really click, look out.
I agree it should be a gradual implementation, but let's not drag it out.
And this argument about an experienced "Wallaby" scrum half is frankly bullshit. Ma'afu is a capped Wallaby and I wouldn't want him in Melbourne Uni front row, let alone the fucking Wallabies. Nothing against Phipps personally, but for all of his "experiences", what has he learned, really?
Stirzaker will make mistakes as he learns, but since we are already turning the ball over or failing to capitalise on our attacking options due to, wait for it, a sub-standard scrummy, what the hell are we going to lose?
The two biggest positional problems the Rebels have is the Hooker and the Scrummy.
The two biggest playing issues are that the boys have shown they repeatedly drop their collective defensive bundle, and are extremely vulnerable to being scored against within 5 minutes of them scoring themselves. Heads drop, etc.
The win/loss ratio will always be weighted towards the loss column unless those 4 key issues are sorted.
That said, there is some serious talent out there and if they ever really click, look out.
Phipps is the least of the Rebels problems.
If he was so bad then coaches would stop selecting him and select alternatives in his place (Stirzaker or Kingi).
People are comparing Phipps form as a test halfback against Stirzaker's form as a Shute Shield halfback. It really is comparing to apples and oranges.
If he was so bad then coaches would stop selecting him and select alternatives in his place (Stirzaker or Kingi).
People are comparing Phipps form as a test halfback against Stirzaker's form as a Shute Shield halfback. It really is comparing to apples and oranges.
D
daz
Guest
Absolutely could not disagree more.
But, I will be arguing in circles on this so I might just have to quietly step out.
- Status