Hughes was always most effective targeting the midfield/edges, rather than running at other lumps. But he gets moved into running at lumps because he's not bad at it. Workrate is a question too. I view Hughes a bit like Dombrandt, but Dombrandt seems to be a bit smarter spotting opportunities than Hughes was.
I might well be latching onto other's comments, but I always felt that Hughes went from probably better than Billy, in the round, to being ineffective too often, in the period he was being played by England. And played - if rumour is correct- when not exactly 100% fit. Why that should in the longer term affect what he does or aims to do is more of a question that remains unanswered. He is better in the wider channels, I thought he was good for us doing that.
As for Dombrandt, he seemed to draw the dismay of England's coaching team for almost being too versatile. I think he's got a rep for not doing the hard yards - but like Simmonds at 8, he works best in a back row that's a team which fits. I think England especially, have been guilty of wanting players to shoehorn into how the overall England pattern is - regardless. Simmonds at Exeter is best in a backrow including some serious size at flanker.....
But if I was Pat Lam and my bosses were paying Hughes serious money - I'd really be wanting more delivered by the player. The failure seems both at player and coaching level.
I think Billy is better suited to international level over both.
Hughes could use his size and ability to just wave the ball in one hand, to go through the midfield, his pace, whilst not winger like, was enough to capitalise on the break. Dombrandt picks his lines exceptionally well, and has good pace and good hands, but I feel like sometimes he's too busy waiting for the right moment, and relying on others to create those moments through the slower harder carries (Tom Willis is a great example of someone who's willing to run into brick walls to create space for others).
I think people misunderstand Billy's role, especially after the fireworks he used to create long ago. When I was doing ruck marks on games, it's surprising just how many turnovers come from half breaks. The support are surprised and the defence are usually quicker to scramble, since the half break is more vital than the attack setting up next phase (running for your lunch vs running for your life situation). Billy doesn't have the pace to make full breaks very often, and more importantly, he's never given the space to. Where Billy is insane is that he still usually bends the defence and sucks in the defenders.
This matters, especially as the ruck has got faster, but also often a quicker reward for a good jackaller, who no longer has to survive a million clearouts to get his reward. In the last 6N, our kicking game was just poor, Scotland absolutely smashed us in the kicking game. We adapted by using Billy in the backfield to run it up rather than trying to win the kicking game. He was never meant to make a break, he was meant to target 2 big defenders (or 3), and run at them, knocking them back in the impact. They would wait for him to come more often than not also. This gave our support time to get behind BV, and significantly, when he's tackled, it takes 2-3, which nearly always meant bodies on the floor in the way, unable to roll away quickly enough, so there's no opportunity for the jackal. A less effective carrier would have been isolated and turned over repeatedly.
It doesn't look flash, it doesn't look effective, but it's massively useful to a side to have a player like that.
Always a Wasp
Topic: What pleased Lee the most about emphatic Bristol Bears victory (Read 1300 times)