jgriffin wrote:Can I point out that teams with far greater (twice) resources than us (Perpignan and Biarritz spring to mind) have had total disasters with positions like 10 where all available candidates have got injured/banned?
It happens. You cannot legislate for succesive injuries to your first choice and his alternatives in a short space of time.
As I said before, some posters need to grow up and inhabit the real world of sports teams!
This is indeed true jg. And teams who have attempted to "throw money at it" have also rarely been successful.
In the real adult world of (professional) sports teams we all know that our teams will not win all matches all the time. Nonetheless, the fans are dissappointed when their team loses, and expect the players and management to move heaven and earth to avoid such defeats.
Rugby Union, like all sport, is "only a game". Nonetheless it stimulates heights of passion, exhilaration, and shared glory and by the same token depths of despair, frustration and even anger.
Having watched all three games I just think we look sloppy (passing straight into touch is unforgivable, but most other disappointing aspects on Saturday were accidental). Some new players need time to bed in, so did we allow ourselves a long enough pre-season? Personally I'm not sure we did. Are we now rubbish as some on this forum would have us believe? No, other teams have undoubtedly improved - Exeter have started like a train, ask Glaws and Falcons, Saints have taken their semi loss to Sarries last season to heart. Will we be in the top four at the end of the season and get beyond the pool stages of the HC? Undoubtedly. As someone else on here might say, keep the faith
I guarantee the same people who are slating Cockers, the coaches and players will be singing there praises should they bring silverware back to Welford road at the end of the season so catch a grip people and have a little faith!
I think some people on here are being very unrealistic. It would be lovely to have more depth at 10 but it simply is not possible. Firstly, you have the sal cap. The main problem however is that we have Toby as our first choice. No high quality 10 is going to want to come to Tigers to fight it out with the current England 10 - they will simply be warming the bench. Any young 10 worth his salt is going to want to go to a club where they can establish themselves as first choice. The best we can hope for is an older, steady, reliable 10 who doesn't mind playing second fiddle but can step in when needed - Staunton is about as good an example of this as you could hope for!
The succession plan is good for us at 10. Floody is young but we also have Ford coming through. Panic not!!!!
Indeed, it is tedious to listen to the whinging. Living down near Aylesbury I get enough whinging from the various Sarries, Saints and Wasps who form a Bermuda-like triangle around me.
For those with short memories, we lost to both Wasps and Saints away last season, and have also scored tries in all three games so far, which again I dont think we did last year.
Yes, we started soooo slowly in the first two and the line out was horrible but give it time folks....it's not even October yet!
fleabane wrote:Bill, presumably Plan B included what to do if the FH goes off? It didn't work, as you say. With his lack of Premiership experience, and lack of time at 10 for us, it is no great surprise that 36 couldn't measure up.
So where was a potential replacement? Not Ford, who is regarded as too small (and is also injured). This situation is also likely to occur when Toby is away.
The responsibility, (note: not blame, but responsibility) lies with Cockers, and possibly Wheeler, who should have been able to foresee exactly this scenario. With the WC next year, this issue could continue to raise its head until well into next season with Toby's absence, and the increased physical pressure 10s are under this season. If Jezza is injured, what do we do?
Things are not satisfactory, and it helps no-one ignoring the problems, or claiming that criticism is "bashing" and unjustified. We needed cover at 10, and didn't have it.
Who is responsible for that?
Without wishing to "bash the coaches" the responsibility must lie with Messrs Cockerill and Wheeler?
If they still consider George Ford to be too young/small for a regular first team place in premiership games then not recruiting a further specialist No 10 would indicate the third choice FH is Billy 12T presumably due to his previous experience at Bedford.
That being the case why on earth has he not given the opportunity to play in that position either off the bench or in Development Team fixtures?
That said I think we do have to "persevere" with Billy and believe that given the opportunity to either start or come off the bench as FH he will be more focussed on his role and we'll see some inspired performances.
Probably because Dusty got him back from Bedford and I am lead to believe that Dusty and Cockers do not see the game in the same light?
Whoever said "one person cannot change the world' never ate undercooked bat
TigerCam wrote:
Probably because Dusty got him back from Bedford and I am lead to believe that Dusty and Cockers do not see the game in the same light?
You might think that TigerCam. I could nt possibly comment!!!
I think some people on here need professional help. Every week people were bleating about Billy 12T not being picked. He was the best thing since sliced bread and could do no wrong based on the performance against Ospreys.
Now people are saying its not his fault that he did not play well at fly-half against Wasps and that it is Cockers fault because he did not give him a chance at fly-half. So pray tell me if we had dropped Flood, Staunton, Vesty or Mauger in favour of Billy would be the reigning champions. I think not! Also in the Academy/A team should Billy have been played at F/H or do we give young Mr Ford a chance to develop. I think it is right to develop Ford and Harrison at 9 and 10 and Billy and Manu at 12 and 13, but at the moment the pecking order in the heat of the premiership should be Flood and Staunton at 10 and Youngs and Grindal at 9. I dont think even the "Messiah" could have predicted the injuries to Flood and Staunton and end up playing 10 against Wasps.
As a footnote surely Green should have been playing in preference to Parling/Deacon last season so that he could get experience so that we would not be in such a mess with our locks
Of course this is my own opinion and other posters may have a different perceived factual viewpoint.
