VARNDELL TO BEDFORD ON LOAN
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
Tom Varndell is better off at Bedford, and Tigers are better off without him. He is a liability in defence, can't tackle , can't catch, and as for his confidence being dented, well ythink he has avery high opinion of himself and needs to get into the nitty gritty, and lookat some top class players i(.e Tiger's teammates)and how they put their bodies on the line.For all the plaudits , I think tha,t until he becomes a more rounded player, then Tigers are well rid of him.
Tom Varndell is better off at Bedford, and Tigers are better off without him. He is a liability in defence, can't tackle , can't catch, and as for his confidence being dented, well ythink he has avery high opinion of himself and needs to get into the nitty gritty, and lookat some top class players i(.e Tiger's teammates)and how they put their bodies on the line.For all the plaudits , I think tha,t until he becomes a more rounded player, then Tigers are well rid of him.
Can I make some comments based on 40 years of watching American football and about 4 of watching rugby?
One of the things I notice about your game is the necessity for all players to have all around skills. In this way, it differs considerably from American football, which has become a game of specialists. Not only do we have offense, defense, and kickers, but we have specialists at the same positions for different game situations. A team may prefer a power back on 3rd and 2 and a finesse back on 3rd and 12.
Now, the thing about Varndell is that he is a specialist. What he does well he does extremely well. World class well. If this were American football, we would know what to do with Varndell. We would use him as a specialist at a position and in situations that allowed him to take advantage of his talent.
That doesn't work in rugby, however. In your sport, a player needs to do a wide array of things well--or at least passably well. And this accounts for the polar division of comments I see here.
Everyone is seeing the same thing: Varndell is great at some things and sub-standard in others. I doubt anyone would dispute that.
The disagreement comes in 3 areas:
- Do you value finishing at the expense of defense, skills and toughness?
- Do you value defense, skills and toughness at the expense of finishing?
- Do you believe that he can improve in the areas in which he is weak?
People differ in answering those questions. But I don't think there's much doubt about what Varndell currently is:
An amazing combination of world class finishing ability and substandard skills and toughness.
I'll just close with my read, based as it is on a very limited amount of rugby knowledge.
To get value out of Varndell, a team has to be able to use the other players to, first, build up a dominant platform from which Varndell can explode and, second, to defend effectively without counting on him much. Given a dominant platform, Varndell will be extraordinarily productive in scoring tries.
Leicester can often afford do that, because they are a strong side. But insofar as they find it difficult to get separation from other sides in increasingly difficult competitions, they will find it hard to get value from Varndell. It seems to me that loaning T V out indicates that the coaching staff feel that they currently can't afford his narrowly specialized upside until and unless he starts to substantially improve in his areas of weakness.
Internationally, it is really almost impossible to get value from Varndell as he now plays, because it is so difficult to build the platform of dominance he needs to be productive. I mean, the image of Loquiri just toying with him is a painful memory.
I actually think that playing down could be a good test and opportunity for him. I wonder--would it make any sense for him to play a different position, say, center to get experience and extensive testing in the areas that he needs to work on: ball handling, recycling the ball, defense, etc.? Maybe that's a daft idea from a non-rugby guy, but I wonder about it.
Well, that's what I see from a long, long way away. Hope I haven't bolloxed things up too badly.
One of the things I notice about your game is the necessity for all players to have all around skills. In this way, it differs considerably from American football, which has become a game of specialists. Not only do we have offense, defense, and kickers, but we have specialists at the same positions for different game situations. A team may prefer a power back on 3rd and 2 and a finesse back on 3rd and 12.
Now, the thing about Varndell is that he is a specialist. What he does well he does extremely well. World class well. If this were American football, we would know what to do with Varndell. We would use him as a specialist at a position and in situations that allowed him to take advantage of his talent.
That doesn't work in rugby, however. In your sport, a player needs to do a wide array of things well--or at least passably well. And this accounts for the polar division of comments I see here.
Everyone is seeing the same thing: Varndell is great at some things and sub-standard in others. I doubt anyone would dispute that.
The disagreement comes in 3 areas:
- Do you value finishing at the expense of defense, skills and toughness?
- Do you value defense, skills and toughness at the expense of finishing?
- Do you believe that he can improve in the areas in which he is weak?
People differ in answering those questions. But I don't think there's much doubt about what Varndell currently is:
An amazing combination of world class finishing ability and substandard skills and toughness.
I'll just close with my read, based as it is on a very limited amount of rugby knowledge.
To get value out of Varndell, a team has to be able to use the other players to, first, build up a dominant platform from which Varndell can explode and, second, to defend effectively without counting on him much. Given a dominant platform, Varndell will be extraordinarily productive in scoring tries.
Leicester can often afford do that, because they are a strong side. But insofar as they find it difficult to get separation from other sides in increasingly difficult competitions, they will find it hard to get value from Varndell. It seems to me that loaning T V out indicates that the coaching staff feel that they currently can't afford his narrowly specialized upside until and unless he starts to substantially improve in his areas of weakness.
Internationally, it is really almost impossible to get value from Varndell as he now plays, because it is so difficult to build the platform of dominance he needs to be productive. I mean, the image of Loquiri just toying with him is a painful memory.
I actually think that playing down could be a good test and opportunity for him. I wonder--would it make any sense for him to play a different position, say, center to get experience and extensive testing in the areas that he needs to work on: ball handling, recycling the ball, defense, etc.? Maybe that's a daft idea from a non-rugby guy, but I wonder about it.
Well, that's what I see from a long, long way away. Hope I haven't bolloxed things up too badly.
Just a Yankee looker-on from afar.
Outlander makes some good points but as a guy with Rugby experience spanning 40 years both on and off the park and 8 years NFL and CFL purly spectator experience I can see where he is coming from. Having just watched this weeks Rugby Club on Sky it showed one of the Bath trys where TV was skinned because of his defensive errors. This may sound harsh but the Bath player was running just off the touch line and while TV had to make ground to get to the player his resulting tackle was woeful. He took the guy high at arms length which resulted in a hand-off and allowed the player to continue his line of attack and in the scramble the try was scored. TV's tackle was a typical 7's scragging which I guess is ingrained and therefore becomes a impulse reaction or based on desperation. Very easy for me to say in front of the telly but in those circumstances he should have taken the guy low - driving from the side so the player was forced either into touch or to make a rushed pass His time at Bedford will see him get game time which he still needs but when you have Alex, GM Leon and now Johnny Murphy on the scene I can understand why he has been moved. I am all in favour of 'blooding' new young players at the highest club level and see if they have the mental strength as well as the skill and performance to shine. TV given space will score every time but teams have worked out how to shut him down and not necessarily directly but making sure he get no ball or bad ball at least. Unfortunately at the moment TV's defensive skills are very much lacking. The Tigers cannot afford to have team which isnt 'up to snuff' in all depts. As much as we may admire his 'fleet of foot' when put into space, the team needs a winger that has the all-round ability for that position and the edge to get to be the best. I like TV he will do well I'm sure but the trip to Auss was AR looking for a saving grace - he was not reeady then and TV is not that player YET!
Whoever said "one person cannot change the world' never ate undercooked bat
Outlander makes some good points. I disagree with what stevetelcom2000 has said. TV may not be a top class rugby player at the moment, but he has potential to be and he's pretty good now.
The problem lies in the way he is brought into the game. This has happened with both Tigers and by England on tour in Australia. The backline invariably passes straight to Varndell, offering him no lines of running and nothing by way of drawing the defence. One of th epoints Outlander makes about having specialist players applies to a certain extent here. Varndell is a specialist player - a try scorer. But, in order to use him it is essential to have the right game situation. Not to just throw the ball at him and see how fast he can run.
Sending Varndell to Bedford may give him the opportunity to score a hat full of tries and get back some confidence. However, he could probably achieve this in the Dev team. What is needed more urgently is a backline with a brain that can unlock a defence and give TV the right situation to exploit his specialist capabilities. In that vein, Gibson needs to be at 12 and Goode should be th eone sent packing.
The problem lies in the way he is brought into the game. This has happened with both Tigers and by England on tour in Australia. The backline invariably passes straight to Varndell, offering him no lines of running and nothing by way of drawing the defence. One of th epoints Outlander makes about having specialist players applies to a certain extent here. Varndell is a specialist player - a try scorer. But, in order to use him it is essential to have the right game situation. Not to just throw the ball at him and see how fast he can run.
Sending Varndell to Bedford may give him the opportunity to score a hat full of tries and get back some confidence. However, he could probably achieve this in the Dev team. What is needed more urgently is a backline with a brain that can unlock a defence and give TV the right situation to exploit his specialist capabilities. In that vein, Gibson needs to be at 12 and Goode should be th eone sent packing.
-
dailywaffle
- Super User
- Posts: 7106
- Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:40 pm
- Location: NW Leics
A welcome also from me, Outlander, a very thoughtful post. And as someone who has followed American Football (USC Trojans fan) for over a quarter of a century, just as I have rugby, I have to say that you are spot on with most of your observations.
k1 you are, of course, quite right. A poor midfield can make the greatest winger look distinctly average. We can't look at Gibbo as the long-term solution here, I suspect he has missed more games than he has played over the last 2 seasons and he is clearly at the end of his career. Developing or finding a replacement at IC is, arguably, as big a deal as sorting out the FH situation. I still think Pat has hopes that Ollie may be the man ..... but we are some way off knowing if that is true.
k1 you are, of course, quite right. A poor midfield can make the greatest winger look distinctly average. We can't look at Gibbo as the long-term solution here, I suspect he has missed more games than he has played over the last 2 seasons and he is clearly at the end of his career. Developing or finding a replacement at IC is, arguably, as big a deal as sorting out the FH situation. I still think Pat has hopes that Ollie may be the man ..... but we are some way off knowing if that is true.
-
Ollie smith rules
- Gold Member
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 4:51 pm
- Location: Exeter Devon
Sorry but what is the point unless it is purely for the point of giving him game time.
Division 1 is a long way below the premiship and therefore Tom should score a hat full of tries this afternoon especially coz Chiefs defence isn't that strong and they do often make lots of handling erors.
From the point of Div 1 it doesn't say much for their players just getting pushed out so that Tom can play and could be considered unfair on the opposition. :twisted:
Division 1 is a long way below the premiship and therefore Tom should score a hat full of tries this afternoon especially coz Chiefs defence isn't that strong and they do often make lots of handling erors.
From the point of Div 1 it doesn't say much for their players just getting pushed out so that Tom can play and could be considered unfair on the opposition. :twisted:
TIGERS rock especially Ollie, CRANE, Moody, Crofty, and Matt C OSR, while I agree it may have been more prudent to play TV in the Dev team instead of loaning him out. But the point you make about him probably scoring a load of tries is, probably, the reason why he has been sent there. He is a try scorer and sending him somewhere where he can get use to scoring frequently will probably do him good.
-
stevetelcom2000
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1612
- Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:20 pm
- Location: A village in South Leicestershire
K1 you say you dont agree with what I said. Now theres a surprise. So you feel then that he did well against Australia. That he is not a good 7 sevens player. That he is not a nice bloke. & I dont want him want to play against Munster & Ireland. If you dont agree with what I say without being specific then these must be your opinions as they are all contary to what I said. 
When he dosent improve, will you come back on here & admit you were wrong I very much doubt it. You keep basing your opinions on Rugby as being the opposite to anything I say. It's quite flattering 
When he dosent improve, will you come back on here & admit you were wrong I very much doubt it. You keep basing your opinions on Rugby as being the opposite to anything I say. It's quite flattering I appreciate the kind responses I have received.
Rizzo, at first I wasn't sure why you mentioned the Gabaldon books. Then I thought, "Ah, yes--Outlander!"
I have never read those books but my wife, Meg, went through a Gabaldon phase a few years back.
Maybe that's why the name popped into my head as I registered the other day. I was just looking for something that suggested that I can only follow rugby and Leicester from afar.
Anyway, thanks again.
Rizzo, at first I wasn't sure why you mentioned the Gabaldon books. Then I thought, "Ah, yes--Outlander!"
I have never read those books but my wife, Meg, went through a Gabaldon phase a few years back.
Maybe that's why the name popped into my head as I registered the other day. I was just looking for something that suggested that I can only follow rugby and Leicester from afar.
Anyway, thanks again.
Just a Yankee looker-on from afar.
stevetelcom2000 wrote:K1 you say you dont agree with what I said. Now theres a surprise. So you feel then that he did well against Australia. That he is not a good 7 sevens player. That he is not a nice bloke. & I dont want him want to play against Munster & Ireland. If you dont agree with what I say without being specific then these must be your opinions as they are all contary to what I said.
What I said was:
I disagree with what stevetelcom2000 has said. TV may not be a top class rugby player at the moment, but he has potential to be and he's pretty good now.
Is that not specific enough for you?!If Varndell makes no improvement then I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. I've got no problem criticising a player who I think isn't performing. Likewise, I shall expect a lengthy and humbling post from yourself if he shows he can be a good player
I wouldn't be too flattered that I don't tend to agree with you, it's called a difference of opinion. Sometimes, believe it or not, you might not be right