England Backs

England Backs

Post by Norm_Flem.. » Mon, 23 Oct 1995 04:00:00


In another posting, John Williams mentioned the whisper of a possibility
of playing Guscott on the wing against SA. Perhaps a better ploy would be
to give Bum-Face a run on the wing. He's fast enough, loves to get the ball
under his arm and his head down, and, given a bit of space is hard to stop.
Tony Underwood would be no great loss.
This would have the added advantage of being able to select Bath team-mates
Catt, Guscott and DeGlanville, who regularly play together, in midfield.

Cheers

Norm

 
 
 

England Backs

Post by R.M. Howe » Fri, 27 Oct 1995 04:00:00

Quote:

>>>In another posting, John Williams mentioned the whisper of a possibility
>>>of playing Guscott on the wing against SA. Perhaps a better ploy would be
>>>to give Bum-Face a run on the wing. He's fast enough, loves to get the ball
>>>under his arm and his head down, and, given a bit of space is hard to stop.
>>>Tony Underwood would be no great loss.
>>>This would have the added advantage of being able to select Bath team-mates
>>>Catt, Guscott and DeGlanville, who regularly play together, in midfield.
>>>Norm
>Norm, on a tour, given no specialist wingers available, you have an
>excellent point. Also, it would have been lovely if the same tactic
>had been used in the WC95 semi-final ! :-) .
>>Clarke, Robinson & Ojomoh in the back row, Redman, Ubogu,
>>Catt, Guscott, DeGlanville, Callard
>>Then you'd have the backbone of a great Bath and England side to get beaten
>>out of sight.
>>Good thinking Batman,
>>Rhodri  
>Rhodri, with the exception of Ojomoh and Redman they are all
>legitimate candidates at the moment. Not that I'd choose any of them
>except for Clarke (at blind side). Callard has apparently improved
>greatly this year, though I didn't spot it when the Tigers played
>Bath. Robinson was far more effective than Back in that game too. A
>persuasive case is made for him in the November issue of Rugby World
>by (I think) Stephen Jones.
>John Williams

Yes, they are all in contention. That was a point I was trying to make:
international sides with too many players from one club don't tend to actually
play to their full potential. England may well pick a side with a lot of Bath
players in it for their next international.
I'm making the point that it isn't necessarily a good thing.
Rhodri

 
 
 

England Backs

Post by Tracey Nels » Sat, 28 Oct 1995 04:00:00

Quote:

>Yes, they are all in contention. That was a point I was trying to make:
>international sides with too many players from one club don't tend to actually
>play to their full potential. England may well pick a side with a lot of Bath
>players in it for their next international.
>I'm making the point that it isn't necessarily a good thing.
>Rhodri

Exactly!  One only has to look back to the 1991 World Cup when the All Blacks
were made up pre***ly of Auckland players.  Not only did they not play to
their full potential, they were boring with it.  While combinations from club
sides do often play well together when shifted up to national honours, it is
sometimes easier for a national coach to meld together a group of individuals,
rather than try to ammend the play of a group of players who are used to
playing together under the same game plan which may be vastly different to the
one the national coach is looking to implement!

Tracey.