RugbyRebels

Also, for the try after halftime, I'm on board with refs not allowing 9s to buy penalties. Price saw the man there getting up and ran into him deliberately - if he had tried to pass over him and been impeded I would have more sympathy. However, once Price loses it, Woki clearly picks it up while still on the ground.

All academic butbI think the point is that with that and the 14 point swing we did have a chance to make a game of it. With France playing as they are now, we were always going to need a bit of luck, but if you get a lead they can lose their composure a bit. Great to see them playing with such ambition though - their backs moves are so slick.

Final point - what has happened to our maul? It doesn't go anywhere any more?

So what's the feeling on Russell? I think he's often criticised for superficial reasons, or the 'maverick' label etc, but he just didn't seem to be all there vs France. Do we bring Hasting back in? If Kinghorn is seriously supposed to be an option then should we give him some proper time vs Italy? It feels like it would be just the same as Hogg there last year - fine, does the job, a bit underwhelming.

Is he perhaps not happy with the way we're trying to play at the moment or is he part of the reason we're not clicking in attack? We look so short of ideas all over the field and it feels like there's this expectation on him to just magic tries up out of nothing.

Mikey Brown wrote:So what's the feeling on Russell? I think he's often criticised for superficial reasons, or the 'maverick' label etc, but he just didn't seem to be all there vs France. Do we bring Hasting back in? If Kinghorn is seriously supposed to be an option then should we give him some proper time vs Italy? It feels like it would be just the same as Hogg there last year - fine, does the job, a bit underwhelming.

Is he perhaps not happy with the way we're trying to play at the moment or is he part of the reason we're not clicking in attack? We look so short of ideas all over the field and it feels like there's this expectation on him to just magic tries up out of nothing.

I posted these elsewhere, may as well c+p:

The lack of effort needs a kick in the balls. (this was abou the video thag showed he didnt get back into the defensive line for thr 1st try.

Picking any 10 with centres who can't pass, kick or run any other sort of line than mostly straight is a recipe for the 10 having too much to do.

So far under the AB Zondagh our attack has relied heavily on cross kicks, breaks from contested kicks or returning kicks and very little goes through the centres.

All that doesn't excuse Russell's performance but it certainly doesn't help him.

There are a few that I think should be embarrassed after tape review this week, Russell on that first try and Price ambling back just after half time after his error too for starters.

The problem for Scotland is all the errors and lack of determination is adding up. 4 missed tackles and Russell ambling back created that 1st try. Any one of them does their job and France might not have scored.

‐-----------


Russell is the attack. That's the thing, we have reduced our attacking patterns taking breaks from kicks or relying on Finns passing and/or kicking to get it wide to the wings as the centres offer nothing other than running straight.

Russell is a lightning rod for criticism, sometimes he's the the easy target, this time it is justified but we don't have a 10 with his range of skills or one that can compensate for lack of centres with any ball playing skill as he's been lumbered with, or a pack getting outplayed as they have been (esp. v Wales). He's also by far the best tackler (it isn't close) we have at 10 which, if gets Harris picked will be a plus for Russell in the eyes of the selectors.

If there was a viable option then great, but there isn't. Kinghorn isn't an international 10, Thompson not ready and Hastings has been up and down all season and between getting 15min in November and being dropped for the 6N clearly the coaches aren't happy with him.

Apparently there's a video of Edwards telling the French only to focus on Hogg and Russell as the other backs were no threat. We badly need a change in the centres. Harris is a world class defender but scaring no one.

I'm not meaning to throw the centres under the bus, they are not the reason we lost at the weekend, but there are some key concerns that every time I think about it the list gets longer and we have depth in both positions:
- Tuipulotu has no or very limited distribution skills at the top level.
- Harris has very limited handling skills for the top level. Given how good our back 3 is this is an issue.
- Neither has a kicking game. This puts it all on Russell or Hogg.
- Neither of them (or Johnson) are that quick (not slow, just not quick) so don't really threaten an outside break that will stick. In the blown 3 on 2 Harris is put on the outside of the 12 and the 12 gets him reasonably comfortably.
- We aren't good enough to blow 3 on 2s and 4 on 1s and both centres from the weekend did. Partly because they are not the best ball players.

We have Johnson, Hutchinson and Lang available for 12, all good ball players and have qualities they can bring, the latter two having played 10. Lang has shown for Edinburgh he can truck it up to a point (obviously not as good as Tuipolotu at that) if that is what GT wants.

Bennett and Hutchinson whilst clearly not as good as Harris in defence where Harris is truly world class but can bring a dynamic aspect to the attack.

It is easy to get caught up looking to the world cup and think how we can challenge big teams, but we play Ireland in 3 weeks and from a defensive POV they'd be happy to see Tuipolotu and Harris rock up. We have an awful record against Ireland under Townsend and have to try something different.

We should also be having a crack at Dingwall to see if we can change his mind.

Yep, agree with just about all of that. I feel taking a completely passive approach in attack, in addition to our very passive defence, sort of robs the team of the potential those momentum-turning moments.

I really hope we're looking to address this and Zondagh isn't just saying we need more time for this kicking game to start paying off more consistently. It's like we've given up on so many of the things that were good about this team a few seasons back.

Big D wrote:Apparently there's a video of Edwards telling the French only to focus on Hogg and Russell as the other backs were no threat. We badly need a change in the centres. Harris is a world class defender but scaring no one.

I'm not meaning to throw the centres under the bus, they are not the reason we lost at the weekend, but there are some key concerns that every time I think about it the list gets longer and we have depth in both positions:
- Tuipulotu has no or very limited distribution skills at the top level.
- Harris has very limited handling skills for the top level. Given how good our back 3 is this is an issue.
- Neither has a kicking game. This puts it all on Russell or Hogg.
- Neither of them (or Johnson) are that quick (not slow, just not quick) so don't really threaten an outside break that will stick. In the blown 3 on 2 Harris is put on the outside of the 12 and the 12 gets him reasonably comfortably.
- We aren't good enough to blow 3 on 2s and 4 on 1s and both centres from the weekend did. Partly because they are not the best ball players.

We have Johnson, Hutchinson and Lang available for 12, all good ball players and have qualities they can bring, the latter two having played 10. Lang has shown for Edinburgh he can truck it up to a point (obviously not as good as Tuipolotu at that) if that is what GT wants.

Bennett and Hutchinson whilst clearly not as good as Harris in defence where Harris is truly world class but can bring a dynamic aspect to the attack.

It is easy to get caught up looking to the world cup and think how we can challenge big teams, but we play Ireland in 3 weeks and from a defensive POV they'd be happy to see Tuipolotu and Harris rock up. We have an awful record against Ireland under Townsend and have to try something different.

We should also be having a crack at Dingwall to see if we can change his mind.

you're right in saying that Russell is the attack, and I thought at the time there was some irony in the pre match talk from withing the Scotland camp. About Russell brining inside info about the french players. I'm sure he did, but what was more obvious was that they knew all about him, and I thought it obvious that the french defensive set up was even more than usual focused on shutting down Russell (by cutting out his options when he got the ball, and by attacking Price as well. We had no answer

On the centres Tuipolotu has shown an ability to pass at Glasgow. Its not test level altho some of the opposition not far short, but its at 13 not 12. He can play 12 at URC level IMHO, but he is a better 13 and that is where he should be considered for Scotland, or the bench. Not a 12 at this level
Then we have Harris. Is anyone still going to question my description of him as the best defensive player for both teams? No wonder he was hooked at HT (I'm finding to difficult to believe that we only found out he had needed an HIA then). We just have to move past him.

Lang on form merits a look, and should mean we can ditch the Kinghorn as 10 back up. But we won't. Bennett deserves a start at 10.

The worry I have is that with Nonu at 12 and BOD at 13 the plan might still just be to all run a bit sideways, at the same, at the same time, and just sort of hope a defender makes a mistake or Hogg can jink back inside the 13 defenders that have drifted across.

I'm assuming that's Bennet at 13 you'd like to see, and so would I, but I still worry we'll just have someone slightly faster and stronger running up the same blind alleys with nobody in support.

Mikey Brown wrote:The worry I have is that with Nonu at 12 and BOD at 13 the plan might still just be to all run a bit sideways, at the same, at the same time, and just sort of hope a defender makes a mistake or Hogg can jink back inside the 13 defenders that have drifted across.

I'm assuming that's Bennet at 13 you'd like to see, and so would I, but I still worry we'll just have someone slightly faster and stronger running up the same blind alleys with nobody in support.

there's quite a bit in common between Scotland and Glasgow when up against a big pack and good defence that can shut down attacks from slowish ball. Glasgow stil try to play off ball that is too slow. Scotland did the same which is why it was easy to shut down Russell and cut off his options.

Glasgow have hit on the answer a couple of times but have failed to stick that solution enough. The best example was against Exeter at Scotstoun (in the fog). They did a lot more pick and go from the ruck, repeat a few, suck defence in tighter. Can then play off the 2nd or 3rd phase quick ball. Or can just batter them, as Glasgow did to Exeter.
We have the players to do this. That monster scrum so many were worried about made no impact at the set scrum (maul D not so bad, attack poor TBF), Schoeman, Fagerson, Skinner, Gilchrist, Skinner, Bradbury, Darge all very competent close carries, Turner and Kebble ditto, keeps the opposition guessing, they will have to commit more and they can't rush to cut off Russell when they are still retreating. This is when cracks appear

Mikey Brown wrote:The worry I have is that with Nonu at 12 and BOD at 13 the plan might still just be to all run a bit sideways, at the same, at the same time, and just sort of hope a defender makes a mistake or Hogg can jink back inside the 13 defenders that have drifted across.

I'm assuming that's Bennet at 13 you'd like to see, and so would I, but I still worry we'll just have someone slightly faster and stronger running up the same blind alleys with nobody in support.

That Harris butchery doesn't happen with any of Benentt, Jones or Hutchison at 13, or Tuiplotu. All have more than enough nous and pace to score themselves, and to pass properly if they need to. And any one of Hogg, VDm or Graham or Kinghorn score. Almost certainly Price or White score, Darge definitely scores, I'd back Turner to score

Harris runs and passes like a lower lever blindside flanker, and most of those pass better

I'm not defending that moment, but that was a moment of bad execution from 1 of only about 3 really attacking opportunities we had. Of course I want those to be finished, but we need to be able to create more than that in the first place. Jones is playing quite well now but let's not pretend he hasn't blown chances like that himself.

I think you're right about mixing up the way we attack with forward carriers around the ruck, but we just seem to be hopeless at getting through a few phases like this or changing the point of attack with forward runners off 9 or 10. I'm not sure exactly what makes us so easy to read, but you can see it a mile off when we're switching from crashing it up with a forward (either we get bored, or it becomes predictable because we keep doing it the same way) to then flinging it wide. It's like we do this in training under no pressure, then get confused when it doesn't work at test level.

septic 9 wrote:

Big D wrote:Apparently there's a video of Edwards telling the French only to focus on Hogg and Russell as the other backs were no threat. We badly need a change in the centres. Harris is a world class defender but scaring no one.

I'm not meaning to throw the centres under the bus, they are not the reason we lost at the weekend, but there are some key concerns that every time I think about it the list gets longer and we have depth in both positions:
- Tuipulotu has no or very limited distribution skills at the top level.
- Harris has very limited handling skills for the top level. Given how good our back 3 is this is an issue.
- Neither has a kicking game. This puts it all on Russell or Hogg.
- Neither of them (or Johnson) are that quick (not slow, just not quick) so don't really threaten an outside break that will stick. In the blown 3 on 2 Harris is put on the outside of the 12 and the 12 gets him reasonably comfortably.
- We aren't good enough to blow 3 on 2s and 4 on 1s and both centres from the weekend did. Partly because they are not the best ball players.

We have Johnson, Hutchinson and Lang available for 12, all good ball players and have qualities they can bring, the latter two having played 10. Lang has shown for Edinburgh he can truck it up to a point (obviously not as good as Tuipolotu at that) if that is what GT wants.

Bennett and Hutchinson whilst clearly not as good as Harris in defence where Harris is truly world class but can bring a dynamic aspect to the attack.

It is easy to get caught up looking to the world cup and think how we can challenge big teams, but we play Ireland in 3 weeks and from a defensive POV they'd be happy to see Tuipolotu and Harris rock up. We have an awful record against Ireland under Townsend and have to try something different.

We should also be having a crack at Dingwall to see if we can change his mind.

you're right in saying that Russell is the attack, and I thought at the time there was some irony in the pre match talk from withing the Scotland camp. About Russell brining inside info about the french players. I'm sure he did, but what was more obvious was that they knew all about him, and I thought it obvious that the french defensive set up was even more than usual focused on shutting down Russell (by cutting out his options when he got the ball, and by attacking Price as well. We had no answer

On the centres Tuipolotu has shown an ability to pass at Glasgow. Its not test level altho some of the opposition not far short, but its at 13 not 12. He can play 12 at URC level IMHO, but he is a better 13 and that is where he should be considered for Scotland, or the bench. Not a 12 at this level
Then we have Harris. Is anyone still going to question my description of him as the best defensive player for both teams? No wonder he was hooked at HT (I'm finding to difficult to believe that we only found out he had needed an HIA then). We just have to move past him.

Lang on form merits a look, and should mean we can ditch the Kinghorn as 10 back up. But we won't. Bennett deserves a start at 10.

On Tuipolotu, the coaches clearly don't trust his passing. I watched the highlights for November and the 6N. With Johnson they are happy to get it wide, trusting him to pass well, with Tuipolotu everything seems to rely on Finn through miss passes or cross kicks. I'm not convinced he should be considered at 13 either yet as I feel he has been rushed into international rugby.

Changes to the centres and game plan needed. If they do that they can maybe change the 10, but asking Kinghorn or even Hastings to play how they are wanting Finn to play will be a disaster.

Mikey Brown wrote:I'm not defending that moment, but that was a moment of bad execution from 1 of only about 3 really attacking opportunities we had. Of course I want those to be finished, but we need to be able to create more than that in the first place. Jones is playing quite well now but let's not pretend he hasn't blown chances like that himself.
l.

Against good sides we may only get a couple of opportunities. We score that 4 on 1, or Harris puts Hogg and Graham away before that, or Tuipolotu puts VdM into space and we'd have scored 1 and been in great position to score more.

Even that 4 on 1 being a try totally changes the game.

On the 3 on 2 Harris blew by putting the ball under his arm and not looking to pass, Finn had put him on the outside of the 12. Not quick enough to make it count, not aware enough to pass. Sums Harris up in attack.

I know you're all bored by my attacks on Russell, but it feels like you're blaming the centres for problems that stem from him.

Let's suppose we had the best attacking centres in the world. With Russell blowing hot and cold, and blowing hot means trying everything and no-one, least of all his teammates know what's coming next, we still wouldn't be able to build attacking patterns. These things require consistency more than anything else. So even if our centres were better than they are, our attack would still amount to nothing more than give it to some who's a fast/powerful/elusive runner and see what they can do.

The only way to build a coherent attack is if everyone knows what they are supposed to be doing and when. That cannot happen with Russell being Russell. Either he changes how he plays, or it really really doesn't matter who is outside him. And yes, with better centres we might have scored one of those that went begging on Saturday, but the underlying problem would remain.

None of this is me bigging up our available centres, they're all pretty limited. Personally I would play Bennett with someone as I prefer to see us win by attacking rather than defending, and he strikes me as our most talented attacking centre.

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

I think the strategy and the balance of players in midfield is wrong, but his indiscipline with kicking/work-rate/concentration is frustrating.

I’m curious though what you’re seeing in him in attack where we could be doing/creating more. To me it looks like he doesn’t have many options most of the time, and seems to have stopped taking it to the line himself, perhaps as we don’t have a Horne/Redpath at centre who can vary the attack or step up as first receiver.

Mikey Brown wrote:I think the strategy and the balance of players in midfield is wrong, but his indiscipline with kicking/work-rate/concentration is frustrating.

I’m curious though what you’re seeing in him in attack where we could be doing/creating more. To me it looks like he doesn’t have many options most of the time, and seems to have stopped taking it to the line himself, perhaps as we don’t have a Horne/Redpath at centre who can vary the attack or step up as first receiver.

I agree about the balance in midfield and I'd love some more natural ball players in there, particularly at 12.

Russell's skill levels are so high, if we can get players running into space I have to believe he could get the ball to them. But they can't currently run into space as they've no idea where he is or what he's doing.

Maybe I'm unfair on Russell and better centres would bring out a better side to him. But we've only got who we've got and I feel like even as limited as Johnson/Tupo/all the rest are they could at least make a run if they knew where and when to run.

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

You really think we just have no plan at all, or an attacking structure that Russell is throwing out the window every game and still getting selected? I think his execution and effort have been lacking at times, definitely, but I think the idea he completely makes it up as he goes just isn't that realistic. It can't be up to him to have to tell the centres "please try and run some sort of incisive line" every single phase. I just don't know what they're set up to do.

Yes he has to direct the attack, but it must be quite a shock each time he goes from having Claasens/Lauret on his shoulder and Fickou/Vakatawa outside.

You see, I think at Racing (and when Scotland have been playing well), he does have that consistency. For Racing, when they are playing well, they are really relentless with Russell hitting different runners in midfield with hard flat passes before mixing it up once there is space. Russell has maverick skills but if you are a centre, run at a gap and he'll do his best to find you (as Huw Jones consistently found). I actually think T is better than SJ in this regard. I love SJ but he goes through phases where he seems to wait to get the ball before deciding where to run.

The workrate thing does worry me though as it is uncharacteristic. He normally seems to enjoy defending.

Anyway, I'm beginning to think it all comes down to M Fagerson's injury. He was playing great then he got injured and it all turned to pot.

Yeah, he looked quality against England and even better in the first 10 vs Wales. Like he was suddenly the player we've all been waiting for in the 8 shirt. Obviously doesn't all come down to that but it really did seem to coincide with a big drop off in intensity.

And yes - get players running at gaps and Russell will either find them with a pass or attack the line himself when defenders have to cover the threat. A very simplistic take, but I don't envy what he has had to work with.

That's another thing I still don't understand is having accepted we need Harris in the side to run the defence we don't ever seem to try and use him just running a simple short line, we're seemingly running patterns for someone to make an outside break in that 13 channel and that just isn't his strength. We just open ourselves up to turnovers in every area of the game.

Mikey Brown wrote:You really think we just have no plan at all, or an attacking structure that Russell is throwing out the window every game and still getting selected? I think his execution and effort have been lacking at times, definitely, but I think the idea he completely makes it up as he goes just isn't that realistic. It can't be up to him to have to tell the centres "please try and run some sort of incisive line" every single phase. I just don't know what they're set up to do.

Yes he has to direct the attack, but it must be quite a shock each time he goes from having Claasens/Lauret on his shoulder and Fickou/Vakatawa outside.

I think we have two centres incapable of incisive running or quality passing. We created opportunitues for them to put men away and they fluffed their lines. So this being the case it relies on Russell being almost perfect in attacking situations. He and we look far better with SJ at 12.

Our 5 tries this 6N have remarkably little input from centres either directly involved or involved in the lead up play bar SJ hitting it up for the England try.

Cameo wrote:You see, I think at Racing (and when Scotland have been playing well), he does have that consistency. For Racing, when they are playing well, they are really relentless with Russell hitting different runners in midfield with hard flat passes before mixing it up once there is space. Russell has maverick skills but if you are a centre, run at a gap and he'll do his best to find you (as Huw Jones consistently found). I actually think T is better than SJ in this regard. I love SJ but he goes through phases where he seems to wait to get the ball before deciding where to run.

The workrate thing does worry me though as it is uncharacteristic. He normally seems to enjoy defending.

Anyway, I'm beginning to think it all comes down to M Fagerson's injury. He was playing great then he got injured and it all turned to pot.

half backs always play better when they have quick ball and options. And always get blamed when they produce little, ignoring that no ball or poor ball almost guarantees a mixture of an anonymous display or one full of forced errors. Or a bit of both.

I think people are getting carried away about Russell and work rate. It seems to be based on one instance. It looks poor but unless we see more instances I'll guess we can find an instance of just about everyone who at some point for some reason ambles back then I'm moving on. Its such a typical fan reaction. Scored a great try once so always must be a great player, missed a tackle once or a kick to touch, must always be a shite player. And there has never been any question about his work rate or his defence - both are on a different planet to Hastings or Kinghorn

With Russell there is an awful lot of tall poppy syndrome involved, and not just from Scots.

septic 9 wrote:

Cameo wrote:You see, I think at Racing (and when Scotland have been playing well), he does have that consistency. For Racing, when they are playing well, they are really relentless with Russell hitting different runners in midfield with hard flat passes before mixing it up once there is space. Russell has maverick skills but if you are a centre, run at a gap and he'll do his best to find you (as Huw Jones consistently found). I actually think T is better than SJ in this regard. I love SJ but he goes through phases where he seems to wait to get the ball before deciding where to run.

The workrate thing does worry me though as it is uncharacteristic. He normally seems to enjoy defending.

Anyway, I'm beginning to think it all comes down to M Fagerson's injury. He was playing great then he got injured and it all turned to pot.

half backs always play better when they have quick ball and options. And always get blamed when they produce little, ignoring that no ball or poor ball almost guarantees a mixture of an anonymous display or one full of forced errors. Or a bit of both.

I think people are getting carried away about Russell and work rate. It seems to be based on one instance. It looks poor but unless we see more instances I'll guess we can find an instance of just about everyone who at some point for some reason ambles back then I'm moving on. Its such a typical fan reaction. Scored a great try once so always must be a great player, missed a tackle once or a kick to touch, must always be a shite player. And there has never been any question about his work rate or his defence - both are on a different planet to Hastings or Kinghorn

With Russell there is an awful lot of tall poppy syndrome involved, and not just from Scots.

His (Russell's) tackling is up there with any 10 in the world imo.

Mikey Brown wrote:You really think we just have no plan at all, or an attacking structure that Russell is throwing out the window every game and still getting selected? I think his execution and effort have been lacking at times, definitely, but I think the idea he completely makes it up as he goes just isn't that realistic. It can't be up to him to have to tell the centres "please try and run some sort of incisive line" every single phase. I just don't know what they're set up to do.

Yes he has to direct the attack, but it must be quite a shock each time he goes from having Claasens/Lauret on his shoulder and Fickou/Vakatawa outside.

Mate, you're the one who plaintively asked if anyone could see our attacking structure. And yes, I think he'd get selected no matter what because his skill levels are so high and there's no one else.

Maybe he doesn't just make it up as he goes, but that would suggest the attacking plan is "Finn, just make it up as you go mate" cos not you nor me nor anyone else can see a structure or a pattern. It's not like he's the predictable one and everyone else is running around harum scarum.

The centres can't be set up to do anything without it starting from him. You can't say to your centres "Just run any line you like, no idea if the ball will get to you or not". If they're going to run attacking lines around him they need to know where and when to run.

No wonder he's better at Racing. The amount of time they all spend together training the outside players there know him inside out.

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:You really think we just have no plan at all, or an attacking structure that Russell is throwing out the window every game and still getting selected? I think his execution and effort have been lacking at times, definitely, but I think the idea he completely makes it up as he goes just isn't that realistic. It can't be up to him to have to tell the centres "please try and run some sort of incisive line" every single phase. I just don't know what they're set up to do.

Yes he has to direct the attack, but it must be quite a shock each time he goes from having Claasens/Lauret on his shoulder and Fickou/Vakatawa outside.

Mate, you're the one who plaintively asked if anyone could see our attacking structure. And yes, I think he'd get selected no matter what because his skill levels are so high and there's no one else.

Maybe he doesn't just make it up as he goes, but that would suggest the attacking plan is "Finn, just make it up as you go mate" cos not you nor me nor anyone else can see a structure or a pattern. It's not like he's the predictable one and everyone else is running around harum scarum.

The centres can't be set up to do anything without it starting from him. You can't say to your centres "Just run any line you like, no idea if the ball will get to you or not". If they're going to run attacking lines around him they need to know where and when to run.

No wonder he's better at Racing. The amount of time they all spend together training the outside players there know him inside out.

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

I wasn't trying to have a dig. I think we're arguing two sides of the same issue. I'm just asking what it is you see him doing that is stopping anybody from offering him serious options in attack?

I feel like the idea you can't run a certain line in attack without knowing whether you'll get the ball or not is weirdly spot-on for this side. Our dummy runners and ability to commit defenders is so unconvincing. No pace, no variation in angles, players jogging at defenders rather than moving them around by running at spaces. When we want to spread it wide and Hogg shoots up from fullback, having Haining, Gilchrist, Tuipulotu and Harris all plodding the same telegraphed out-to-in line just isn't cutting it.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:You really think we just have no plan at all, or an attacking structure that Russell is throwing out the window every game and still getting selected? I think his execution and effort have been lacking at times, definitely, but I think the idea he completely makes it up as he goes just isn't that realistic. It can't be up to him to have to tell the centres "please try and run some sort of incisive line" every single phase. I just don't know what they're set up to do.

Yes he has to direct the attack, but it must be quite a shock each time he goes from having Claasens/Lauret on his shoulder and Fickou/Vakatawa outside.

Mate, you're the one who plaintively asked if anyone could see our attacking structure. And yes, I think he'd get selected no matter what because his skill levels are so high and there's no one else.

Maybe he doesn't just make it up as he goes, but that would suggest the attacking plan is "Finn, just make it up as you go mate" cos not you nor me nor anyone else can see a structure or a pattern. It's not like he's the predictable one and everyone else is running around harum scarum.

The centres can't be set up to do anything without it starting from him. You can't say to your centres "Just run any line you like, no idea if the ball will get to you or not". If they're going to run attacking lines around him they need to know where and when to run.

No wonder he's better at Racing. The amount of time they all spend together training the outside players there know him inside out.

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

I wasn't trying to have a dig. I think we're arguing two sides of the same issue. I'm just asking what it is you see him doing that is stopping anybody from offering him serious options in attack?

I feel like the idea you can't run a certain line in attack without knowing whether you'll get the ball or not is weirdly spot-on for this side. Our dummy runners and ability to commit defenders is so unconvincing. No pace, no variation in angles, players jogging at defenders rather than moving them around by running at spaces. When we want to spread it wide and Hogg shoots up from fullback, having Haining, Gilchrist, Tuipulotu and Harris all plodding the same telegraphed out-to-in line just isn't cutting it.

No worries mate, didn't think you were having a dig at all.

Look, I'm not going to keep beating this drum, I'm even boring myself now. Our centres aren't up to much, that's undeniably true, but the role of the 10 is to orchestrate the teams structure, and from where I sit if we haven't got the first clue what the teams structure is supposed to be, it's just not good enough to simply absolve the 10 and blame the centres.

Russell is insanely talented, it's up to him and the coaches to work with the other backs to bring that talent out. If that's not happening, it's at least as much his fault as anyone elses.

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk