Second row

[westwaleswasp]

We have said a lot here and elsewhere about Myall, Rowlands etc. in the absence of Gaskell/Launch for much of the season.
There is an obvious temptation to say "they have done well at times/good second choice etc." This is reasonable given their contributions at times last year and, indeed, parts of this. That is until you consider the lock options at Sarries. The second choice locks, our Rowlands/Myall equivalents are Kruis, or Skelton or whichever of their stock of international locks are deemed second choice. I am not sure what their second choice pair actually is, which says sonething. Our back row operates in a similar fashion. Hughes/Young/Willises/Carr/Ashley/Shields etc. Whichever way we go the back row will be class, and I am not sure of the pecking order. Sarries second row is exactly the same. Whichever combination they have picked in the second row for two years it has been top notch by club standards.
That is the reality we are up against, the top team has at least four quality locks with a fag paper between them at their best. At Chiefs the individual quality is lower but the effect the same, they lose two locks the next choices perform as well. So, surely we must ask ourselves if we are going to compete with that with what we have? I think   it is accepted thst every club needs two  quality options of both types of prop and hookers, and yet we have a situation where the second row is not seen in that light by many of the GP clubs apart from the most successful ones, who have it as one of the better stocked areas.

I think we have missed a trick here, the second row has become more vital and we have recruited elsewhere whilst losing options. Matthews for Symons may have made sense but we were taking a big gamble without further recruitment, one that was exposed without Launch/Gaskell. Regardless of our style moving forward, we need to see what is on the market post WC, and use some of that cap to bring our second row depth up towards that of the top teams. We can't match everyone everywhere, but I think the gap is big enough to warrant recruitment if we want to be top table next year, do rather than exchanging one for one when Willie et al go, I think we should strengthen second row, even if we end up a bit short of stardust eksewhere...



 

[BG]

I think its a little unfair to compare our 3rd - 5th choice 2nd row (in fact any position) with Sarries. Being one of the best premiership teams for the last 6 years  and one of the best european teams over the last 4 years they naturally attract the best U18 and U20 talent (and full-time fringe players home and abroad - Skelton for eg.)

They also seem very adept at bringing that talent through and importantly keeping hold of it when their wage demands soar (I won't go there.. its been done to death).

Myall and Rowlands must be almost out on their feet given how much rugby they've have had to play covering for Launch and Gaskell, which is why I'm a bit surprised Matthews hasn't been used more.

I think its fairly simple, we can only have x amount of players whilst being under the salary cap. We've been unfortunate with injuries and importantly to some of our key "spine" players.

I'm not sure where we stand in terms of contracts with Myall, Rowlands and Gaskell though. There's a possibility that one may be replaced at the end of the season

[Vespula Vulgaris]

It wasn't that long ago that Myall was pushing to be 1st choice.  He seems to have dropped off the pace a lot.  I'd be interested to know why.  Is he carrying a knock that isn't serious enough to take him out but affects his ability?

[RBB]

On reading this I wonder how Saracens are managing to stay under the cap? The depth they have costs money, also taking into account the location of the club and living costs etc. I cannot believe people move their just for silverware and 'love', at the end of the day rugby is their job and salary matters....They seem to have a knack of creating immense depth everywhere and still stay within the rules.

I hadn't really considered their second row but when it's spelt out you start to scratch your head?

I do agree that we need to look at this aspect, we perhaps have not placed enough emphasis on it, as the locks are becoming more intrinsic to gaining and maintaining ground, an area where we have been poor this season. Launch has become more fragile I suspect due to the fact he has played so much and put in so many shifts in over recent years. EJ will now knacker him in the 6N

We have said a lot here and elsewhere about Myall, Rowlands etc. in the absence of Gaskell/Launch for much of the season.
There is an obvious temptation to say "they have done well at times/good second choice etc." This is reasonable given their contributions at times last year and, indeed, parts of this. That is until you consider the lock options at Sarries. The second choice locks, our Rowlands/Myall equivalents are Kruis, or Skelton or whichever of their stock of international locks are deemed second choice. I am not sure what their second choice pair actually is, which says sonething. Our back row operates in a similar fashion. Hughes/Young/Willises/Carr/Ashley/Shields etc. Whichever way we go the back row will be class, and I am not sure of the pecking order. Sarries second row is exactly the same. Whichever combination they have picked in the second row for two years it has been top notch by club standards.
That is the reality we are up against, the top team has at least four quality locks with a fag paper between them at their best. At Chiefs the individual quality is lower but the effect the same, they lose two locks the next choices perform as well. So, surely we must ask ourselves if we are going to compete with that with what we have? I think   it is accepted thst every club needs two  quality options of both types of prop and hookers, and yet we have a situation where the second row is not seen in that light by many of the GP clubs apart from the most successful ones, who have it as one of the better stocked areas.

I think we have missed a trick here, the second row has become more vital and we have recruited elsewhere whilst losing options. Matthews for Symons may have made sense but we were taking a big gamble without further recruitment, one that was exposed without Launch/Gaskell. Regardless of our style moving forward, we need to see what is on the market post WC, and use some of that cap to bring our second row depth up towards that of the top teams. We can't match everyone everywhere, but I think the gap is big enough to warrant recruitment if we want to be top table next year, do rather than exchanging one for one when Willie et al go, I think we should strengthen second row, even if we end up a bit short of stardust eksewhere...

[Hymenoptera]

Hang on...its wasn't long ago Rowlands was putting in MOM performances and Myall is no slouch. I'm not sure its fair to be picking these guys out when you have a whole team under performing everywhere. I'd go on to suggest that you could have swapped them both out for Kruis and Skelton against Bath and it wouldn't have made a scrap of difference.
The constant comparison with Sarries is getting kind of old, as is how they created this foundation, there are 10 other team, how do our second rows stand up against them?...pretty good i'd say.
Its easy to look bad poorly performing team and vice versa. Launch is world class so of course he'd be a miss and Gaskell is high energy but the 2 we have give 100% and arent doing much wrong as individuals.

[westwaleswasp]

My point is you could easily look at our back row and go "wow, how do they afford it"?
The comparison I make with Chiefs and Sarries, they all have 4 locks of similar standard. I don't see the point of comparing to the other nine clubs, as any one of them could be facing the drop.   
We choose where we put our resources. Sarries maintain theirs by having relatively weak links elsewhere, and yes, they do have a strong programme and talent coming up, but they chose to recruit in the lock slot as well, despite the talent they did have.

We chose to recruit both Shields and Carr this year, despite Willisx2, Young, Reider, Hughes, Ashley. You could argue we could have recruited on an either/or basis and gone after a lock. Maybe we did and their were none about, but next year there will be you would think.

Looking at the Bath  game I would say Kruis and Skelton with Myall to replace them would have added a hell of a lot to us.
The whole team is under-performing...? Actually I am not so sure about that. Looking at our scrum v Quins,   the back row performance of Young in particular, Shields' workrate, Carrs' breaks, the work we have seen from our props around the field. There have been positive aspects. Its just that our second row to me at least looks perpetually under-powered and, actually, knackered. 


 

[westwaleswasp]

Should also say that Myall's strength has been his pace and lineout, and as such is ideal as a replacement.

[Hymenoptera]

My point is you could easily look at our back row and go "wow, how do they afford it"?
The comparison I make with Chiefs and Sarries, they all have 4 locks of similar standard. I don't see the point of comparing to the other nine clubs, as any one of them could be facing the drop.   
We choose where we put our resources. Sarries maintain theirs by having relatively weak links elsewhere, and yes, they do have a strong programme and talent coming up, but they chose to recruit in the lock slot as well, despite the talent they did have.

We chose to recruit both Shields and Carr this year, despite Willisx2, Young, Reider, Hughes, Ashley. You could argue we could have recruited on an either/or basis and gone after a lock. Maybe we did and their were none about, but next year there will be you would think.

Looking at the Bath  game I would say Kruis and Skelton with Myall to replace them would have added a hell of a lot to us.
The whole team is under-performing...? Actually I am not so sure about that. Looking at our scrum v Quins,   the back row performance of Young in particular, Shields' workrate, Carrs' breaks, the work we have seen from our props around the field. There have been positive aspects. Its just that our second row to me at least looks perpetually under-powered and, actually, knackered. 

If we werent under performing we wouldn't be losing the games we are.

Willis x 2? - We signed back row knowing that 1 is still developing, regardless of talent and the other would be crocked for the entire season, you speak of Reider who again wont play the whole season and we lost Haskell..Ashley is a 2 backup and Hughes is away in Intl. So we shouldn't have recruited back row?

I disagree on all your other points.

[westwaleswasp]

I suggested one recruitment in the back row and one second row. It is pretty clear to me, so you are willfully misreading or simply in error to suggest I was saying we should have recruited no back row players. I did not say we should not have recruited in the back row. It sounds to me like you are building a straw man to attack rather than my actual suggestion. I never said we weren't under-performing. I said the whole team is not under-performing, I said there were positive aspects.


If you are taking internationals into account, we lose Launch,  just like we lose Nathan. We still had Willises, I am aware they are at different levels of development, one is in my view better than Haskell was last year.

Ashley gives flexibility, you might think he is just a "back up two", but Dai clearly plays him where he is needed.


You are welcome to disagree on "all my other points" but I made a lot of points in the thread. So how about we take some?

Do you think Myall's strength is pace and lineout work as I do? If not what is?

Do you think Tom Young has been outstanding in defeat?  How would you describe his performances if you disagree with me?

I stated Wasps are inferior to Sarries in the second row. Do you in fact think Wasps have a better second row than Sarries? I am particularly looking forward to hearing your response on this one.

I said Sarries have four equally high quality locks. Do you not think so?

Do you think Carr's breaks were not a positive aspect?

Do you actually think my picking out of positives from the game was wrong? Do you think I have the wrong positives or do you think there are simply no positives?

I praised Shield's work rate as a positive. How would you describe it?

I acknowledged Sarries have a  strong academy. How would you describe it if not strong?

I suggested we go shopping for a second row next year, do you not think we need one?

I don't think you really do disagree with me on all my points, do you? You disagree with one, clearly, and frankly you had to alter that beyond what I actually said in order to make your opposition sound more reasonable.  Regardless, I will leave it at that, there is little point in continuing the discussion unless you actually do wish to answer some of the questions above and discuss further.