Scrum Talk

[Brumbieman]

OK, lads what is the consensus about next year, RE tighthead props?



At this stage I think Alexander is the only tight head who will be left in the country!

 

[Marcelo]

The Clermont's front row is top class at the scrum time. With this 3 guys: "Debaty-Kayser-Zirakashvili" Wallabies would be immortals

 

[Sully]

Greg Holmes looked pretty damned good tonight.

 

[kiap]

Bit of analysis here of the Bok Test by Neil Treacy with screenshots plus lines drawn on and a few gifs:

South African scrum control ruined by poor game management (click link)

Not sure he calls every detail right, but it's worth a look (there are also comments) .

 

[fatprop]

Bit of analysis here of the Bok Test by Neil Treacy with screenshots plus lines drawn on and a few gifs:

South African scrum control ruined by poor game management (click link)

Not sure he calls every detail right, but it's worth a look (there are also comments) .


View attachment 6677

View attachment 6676

Actually it was pretty complimentary of both scrums, showing that even under pressure Kepu was able to stay square and straight and not be penalised until the sixth scrum; and then suggested it was Skelton's work was the issue

 

[kiap]

That was probably fair enough.

The scrum where Louw apparently pushed his own prop off balance would have been pushed backwards anyway IMO.

Also thought the comeback kicked in well before the 70th minute.

 

[Marcelo]

The reserve front row of SA was smashed by Sio and Holmes. That provided a solid platform for the team. In other words, with Alexander and Robinson we would have been defeated

 

[fatprop]

The reserve front row of SA was smashed by Sio and Holmes. That provided a solid platform for the team. In other words, with Alexander and Robinson we would have been defeated

Possibly, but we have no evidence of that, we only have evidence that Sio and Holmes did very well against their reserve props

I think the underlying point was the attitude and how we battled under pressure. No games at engage, just be square and straight.

I think that led to us not being penalised off the park (we would have in previous years as we tried to gain parity through "other" means)

 

[Chris McCracken]

The reserve front row of SA was smashed by Sio and Holmes. That provided a solid platform for the team. In other words, with Alexander and Robinson we would have been defeated

That simply does not follow logically.

 

[Brumby Runner]

But intuitively, it has a lot going for it.

 

[topo]

Possibly, but we have no evidence of that, we only have evidence that Sio and Holmes did very well against their reserve props

I think the underlying point was the attitude and how we battled under pressure. No games at engage, just be square and straight.

I think that led to us not being penalised off the park (we would have in previous years as we tried to gain parity through "other" means)

This is exactly what Ledesma is all about. Stay straight and square and stay up and all 8 pushing. Take the ref out of it. That's the starting premise and you work from there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JJJ]

The Louw hand pushing the scrum sideways looks like an unfortunate optical illusion to me. I think he'd have to push a hell of a lot harder than he would've been to from that angle to have that big (and immediate) an impact.

 

[Marcelo]

That simply does not follow logically.

That makes sense if you saw the performances of Alexander and Robinson at the test level in the last years

 

[fatprop]

That makes sense if you saw the performances of Alexander and Robinson at the test level in the last years

Yeah nah, Robinson's scrummaging has been a good as any, (just not as good as it was when there was the hit)

but his work rate hasn't been enough around his scrummaging work

Alexander probably should have stayed at LH, he had the ability to hold his own there and had an immense work rate. Since moving the TH, his work rate isn't there and he doesn't scrum well enough for test match rugby

 

[kiap]

More great analysis from Neil Treacy with screenshots plus gifs, this time of the first Bledisloe test:

http://www.the42.ie/australia-new-zealand-scrum-analysis-2267495-Aug2015/

Worth a look.

 

[qwerty51]

I don't really agree at all. His view is a dominant scrum is always a penalty. That's Poite's style.

 

[Gnostic]

I don't really agree at all. His view is a dominant scrum is always a penalty. That's Poite's style.

I thought his view was that boring in like Woodcock was doing was dangerous play and should be penalised regardless of the status of the ball emerging. The penalty that Australia eventually got they did because they held the ball in when the ABs screwed the scrum.

 

[kiap]

I don't really agree at all. His view is a dominant scrum is always a penalty.

Except he doesn't say that.

He did say "Woodcock had blatantly angled across the scrum, and he’d do it several times". He did say that was illegal.

So you disagree. What's your analysis for comparison?

 

[Strewthcobber]

I don't really agree at all. His view is a dominant scrum is always a penalty. That's Poite's style.

Don't think that's what he was saying at all. Just look a the pictures - he's highlighting Woodcock's boring the whole way through....

 

[pjm]

Don't think that's what he was saying at all. Just look a the pictures - he's highlighting Woodcock's boring the whole way through..

And he only got pinged once, that's why he's still in the side.