LE18 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 1:01 pm
[quote=RagingBull post_id=804419 time=<a href="tel:1641804793">1641804793</a> user_id=10459]
Do wonder if yesterday highlighted the need for another back row
If we had Brink still it would’ve been
4. Wells
5. Snyman
6. Chessum
7. Reffell
8. Brink
A very different looking prospect.
Please posters don't keep mentioning Brink, he's gone, forget it, I'm surprised RB that you mentioned it, we have what we have and cant bring him back, we let him go because he was not good enough and always injured.
[/quote]
Why not I could understand if it was a year ago but it’s not even a month ago.
We let two back rowers go mid season and it bite in the bum I understand moving forward just smacks of poor planning which is odd given the management so far.
RagingBull wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:53 am
Do wonder if yesterday highlighted the need for another back row
If we had Brink still it would’ve been
4. Wells
5. Snyman
6. Chessum
7. Reffell
8. Brink
A very different looking prospect.
Please posters don't keep mentioning Brink, he's gone, forget it, I'm surprised RB that you mentioned it, we have what we have and cant bring him back, we let him go because he was not good enough and always injured.
I thought Brink was very good last season. He brought a physicality and carrying that our back row had been lacking for a long time. Hence others had to match, then surpass it. With Wiese and van Staden amongst others surpassing him he moved on through mutual consent. To say he wasn't good enough is just silly when compared to the back rows that we've put up with in recent years.
Similar to the often criticised Lavanini. Not a perfect lock by any means and a bit of a blunt instrument but he's a fantastic defender around the fringes and carries well off 9. When he joined our fringe defence and carrying off 9 was genuinely abysmal and had been for years. He immediately offered improvement in an area where it was desperately needed. The squad raised it's standards there as a whole and Tomas moved on with the side in a much better place.
I agree with RB that we need another back row in the squad to cover for internationals and injuries. It's a very attritional position. Our inability to get over the game line in early phase play yesterday felt similar to packs we used to put out with no carriers. We couldn't get momentum or front foot ball, hence a lot of possession and territory was squandered.
Please posters don't keep mentioning Brink, he's gone, forget it, I'm surprised RB that you mentioned it, we have what we have and cant bring him back, we let him go because he was not good enough and always injured.
I was on the Brink of mentioning him again, but I won't now.
RagingBull wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:53 am
Do wonder if yesterday highlighted the need for another back row
If we had Brink still it would’ve been
4. Wells
5. Snyman
6. Chessum
7. Reffell
8. Brink
A very different looking prospect.
Please posters don't keep mentioning Brink, he's gone, forget it, I'm surprised RB that you mentioned it, we have what we have and cant bring him back, we let him go because he was not good enough and always injured.
I thought Brink was very good last season. He brought a physicality and carrying that our back row had been lacking for a long time. Hence others had to match, then surpass it. With Wiese and van Staden amongst others surpassing him he moved on through mutual consent. To say he wasn't good enough is just silly when compared to the back rows that we've put up with in recent years.
Similar to the often criticised Lavanini. Not a perfect lock by any means and a bit of a blunt instrument but he's a fantastic defender around the fringes and carries well off 9. When he joined our fringe defence and carrying off 9 was genuinely abysmal and had been for years. He immediately offered improvement in an area where it was desperately needed. The squad raised it's standards there as a whole and Tomas moved on with the side in a much better place.
I agree with RB that we need another back row in the squad to cover for internationals and injuries. It's a very attritional position. Our inability to get over the game line in early phase play yesterday felt similar to packs we used to put out with no carriers. We couldn't get momentum or front foot ball, hence a lot of possession and territory was squandered.
RB is right, if we had a no.8 in any capacity yesterday we probably would’ve won. I don’t mean that is a bad way towards Chessum, he’s been one of the finds of the season and is a quality lock who cover blindside. No.8 he isn’t though. We missed that carrier to get us some momentum.
Brink was a quality player, albeit who had his injury problems. We took a gamble in releasing him early and paid the price against Wasps. Like I said previously, chances of Weise, Liebenberg and MVS all being unavailable were slim. But that’s what happened last weekend.
biggest difference having an 8, even if it were George Martin, would be getting Wells out of the 6 shirt, good quality lock but a back row player he isn't
RagingBull wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:53 am
Do wonder if yesterday highlighted the need for another back row
If we had Brink still it would’ve been
4. Wells
5. Snyman
6. Chessum
7. Reffell
8. Brink
A very different looking prospect.
Please posters don't keep mentioning Brink, he's gone, forget it, I'm surprised RB that you mentioned it, we have what we have and cant bring him back, we let him go because he was not good enough and always injured.
I thought Brink was very good last season. He brought a physicality and carrying that our back row had been lacking for a long time. Hence others had to match, then surpass it. With Wiese and van Staden amongst others surpassing him he moved on through mutual consent. To say he wasn't good enough is just silly when compared to the back rows that we've put up with in recent years.
Similar to the often criticised Lavanini. Not a perfect lock by any means and a bit of a blunt instrument but he's a fantastic defender around the fringes and carries well off 9. When he joined our fringe defence and carrying off 9 was genuinely abysmal and had been for years. He immediately offered improvement in an area where it was desperately needed. The squad raised it's standards there as a whole and Tomas moved on with the side in a much better place.
I agree with RB that we need another back row in the squad to cover for internationals and injuries. It's a very attritional position. Our inability to get over the game line in early phase play yesterday felt similar to packs we used to put out with no carriers. We couldn't get momentum or front foot ball, hence a lot of possession and territory was squandered.
Brink may well have been very good last year, better than what we had then? but not now, he was not good enough, or fit to have been selected for this game, we let him go, we have to cut our Cap and only 6N to come. SB could not have anticipated our injuries and so we played our fit players, Brink was not fit before he left and not good enough this year.
It has been an unfortunate and unforeseen series of events that has brought the back row resources so short, and recently releasing two players has undoubtedly contributed to that scenario.
'Adaptability' is a bit of a thing at the moment, and playing players out of their usual position worked against the Falcons, but arguably were a factor in the loss at Wasps. I suppose it was a 'backs to the wall' decision and SB called it as he saw it.
However, we do have, admittedly inexperienced, resources in Agbongbon and Illione. There are also the back row players at Nottingham, who we have used before in similar situations, especially now we have the closer relationship, including shared training plans etc. Nottingham did not have a game at the weekend.
Hopefully, the young players will have their day, but for now you have to conclude that SB considered Dolly and Muri as better options.
MurphysLaw wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 8:45 am
It has been an unfortunate and unforeseen series of events that has brought the back row resources so short, and recently releasing two players has undoubtedly contributed to that scenario.
'Adaptability' is a bit of a thing at the moment, and playing players out of their usual position worked against the Falcons, but arguably were a factor in the loss at Wasps. I suppose it was a 'backs to the wall' decision and SB called it as he saw it.
However, we do have, admittedly inexperienced, resources in Agbongbon and Illione. There are also the back row players at Nottingham, who we have used before in similar situations, especially now we have the closer relationship, including shared training plans etc. Nottingham did not have a game at the weekend.
Hopefully, the young players will have their day, but for now you have to conclude that SB considered Dolly and Muri as better options.
Yes, indeed, plus we don't know how much Covid has affected availability of, say, players at Nottingham?
There has been some impact at all clubs, which I suspect is the reason why parent clubs need all the players that they can get and there's been no "loaning" of players for bench or otherwise.
We released two back row players, one a young guy who deserved regular game time and needed it to develop to full potential, hopefully he will get there and possibly be like Harry Wells and rejoin us in a years or to or maybe he will just find his level, have a career in the sport but not achieve top Premiership status. The other was a presumably highly paid seasoned player who in his time with us was rarely available, I recall his signing from South Africa was delayed because of injury so possibly the signs were there then. The salary cap is a limiting factor. Illione was suggested as a possible option but he has been injured all of this season and not played a game. Abongdom is just not ready for the Premiership yet, we probably went with the best option based on the players available and lets face it the team selected did enough to show that they COULD have won the game scoring the only try touched down and having two others disallowed.
[quote=johnthegriff post_id=804674 time=1642074591 user_id=7213]
We released two back row players, one a young guy who deserved regular game time and needed it to develop to full potential, hopefully he will get there and possibly be like Harry Wells and rejoin us in a years or to or maybe he will just find his level, have a career in the sport but not achieve top Premiership status. The other was a presumably highly paid seasoned player who in his time with us was rarely available, I recall his signing from South Africa was delayed because of injury so possibly the signs were there then. The salary cap is a limiting factor. Illione was suggested as a possible option but he has been injured all of this season and not played a game. Abongdom is just not ready for the Premiership yet, we probably went with the best option based on the players available and lets face it the team selected did enough to show that they COULD have won the game scoring the only try touched down and having two others disallowed.
[/quote]
Not disagreeing with most of your points, but Thom Smith was already getting game time for Donny, on loan. He came back from injury to be their standout forward in a couple of recent games. He subsequently signed for Donny until the end of the season. Maybe he will re-join us in time, or maybe he will go elsewhere, but it does seem a little odd that just as he was apparently playing so well in a useful Donny team, he was released mid season to sign a short-term contract.
I know I’m in the minority but I thought that when fit Brink looked very good but obviously the club had to make decisions due to salary cap reduction so understand him going.
ay2oh wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:28 pm
I know I’m in the minority but I thought that when fit Brink looked very good but obviously the club had to make decisions due to salary cap reduction so understand him going.
+1
"Rugby isn't a contact sport,ballroom dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision sport" Heyneke Meyer
