FALTERING FALCONS? BATH V NEWCASTLE

JC had a shocker - but I think the reviews of Roko are mainly based on the fact that he made a decent tackle very soon after he came on. When he had the ball with the opportunity to run, he looked as though his pace has declined even further. Still a fantastic player, but at 33 it's hard to see him recapturing the full magic. JC on the other hand had played about 60 minutes (?) of rugby in 12 months. Perhaps they had decided that what he needed most was 80 minutes - hopefully he's knocked some rust off.

Quote:

Optimist
JC had a shocker - but I think the reviews of Roko are mainly based on the fact that he made a decent tackle very soon after he came on. When he had the ball with the opportunity to run, he looked as though his pace has declined even further. Still a fantastic player, but at 33 it's hard to see him recapturing the full magic. JC on the other hand had played about 60 minutes (?) of rugby in 12 months. Perhaps they had decided that what he needed most was 80 minutes - hopefully he's knocked some rust off.

Real pace is class in any sport!


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Wasps fan in peace here. I watched your game on Sat and was aghast at the yellow given to Ewels - had the officials and TMO been different then I'd imagine it would have been dismissed as a 'rugby incident', but Rose and CMK are a bit of a lottery as officials. There was nothing illegal or dangerous in the incident, two players ran into each other upright which resulted in a touching of heads and that was it.

This is rugby, a full blooded physical game where two sides go at each other for 80 exhausting minutes, and where winning fast, brutal collisions is fundamental. To call the Ewels challenge yellow sets you on a very slippery slope that can only end up with touch rugby - as already alluded to, there will have been plenty of worse or similar incidents during the game. It's impossible to train a player to make a split second decision not to stop an opponent because there is a slight chance of head contact.

I wouldn't be too harsh on your performance either. There's loads of mitigating factors like being without key men for internationals, only having a short break after a gruelling run in to last season and that this was Falcons first game for a long, long time. They must have been frothing for it and keen to start their return with a bang. They are a good side with a good coaching set up who finished 4th only a couple of years ago.

I can see you finishing in the top four quite easily. Good luck for the season.

Quote:

TG Kesmo
My problem with the yellow card is one of fairness we either penalise all of those tackles or none. Watched the England game after and similar tackles went un penalised because no one stayed down or they weren’t seen or they weren’t deemed worthy of a stoppage..
I know refs have a hard time ( I’ve tried it) but it’s the lack of consistency that gets me. Several head contacts by both sides were ignored in the Newcastle game. It was only the obvious outcome that caused Ewells one to be looked at . If the player gets back up with a minor unnoticed concession the outcome is “invisible” and the tackle frequently let go but the long term outcome could be far worse.
Before you ask I don’t know what the answer is but we do need to be less “outcome driven”

Head contact is (almost) always looked at now though. TMOs are looking at it and it gets reviewed after the game.

Ewels was far too upright as he went in for that tackle. The intention is to lower the tackle height. Initial contact was not with head, but as a result of technique, contact with the head occurred. If he didn't make contact with the head then it's not a penalty, but he did, so it's a yellow card every day of the week under the current interpretations (which have been in place for, what, like 2 years now?)

' Fan support has seriously eroded in recent years'

Is that true. It's not so long ago that capacity at the Rec was c. 8,000. It's now nearer 12,000 and generally sold out, and at some eye-watering prices too.

I agree with your 'B' team comment. There is no such thing as a full-strength team any more, and the strength of each club is almost entirely contingent on the strength of their best 30 players, not their best 15.

Quote:

hasta

Quote:

TG Kesmo
My problem with the yellow card is one of fairness we either penalise all of those tackles or none. Watched the England game after and similar tackles went un penalised because no one stayed down or they weren’t seen or they weren’t deemed worthy of a stoppage..
I know refs have a hard time ( I’ve tried it) but it’s the lack of consistency that gets me. Several head contacts by both sides were ignored in the Newcastle game. It was only the obvious outcome that caused Ewells one to be looked at . If the player gets back up with a minor unnoticed concession the outcome is “invisible” and the tackle frequently let go but the long term outcome could be far worse.
Before you ask I don’t know what the answer is but we do need to be less “outcome driven”

Head contact is (almost) always looked at now though. TMOs are looking at it and it gets reviewed after the game.

Ewels was far too upright as he went in for that tackle. The intention is to lower the tackle height. Initial contact was not with head, but as a result of technique, contact with the head occurred. If he didn't make contact with the head then it's not a penalty, but he did, so it's a yellow card every day of the week under the current interpretations (which have been in place for, what, like 2 years now?)

Sure Hasta, but why only review that clash there were loads of instances where upright tackles led to bumped heads. This is the point.


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Quote:

ballsout
Fan support has seriously eroded in recent years, and it's no wonder when the rugby has been so poor for years and no trophies of any kind in over a decade.

This is not correct! We last won silverware in 2008 which is as you say is more than a decade ago. The attendance figures on the premiership site in that year was 115,057. The season 2018/19 we registered 201,977 that is not serious erosion.

Of course last season was a disaster for all and up to lockdown we registered 99,747 and came 4th in the attendance stakes.

There were dips in 2011/12 (-518), 2012/13 (-3,183), 2015/16 (-14,570) and 2018/19 (-1,822) but no “serious erosion”.

So you have two players jumping for a ball and they clash heads.............who gets the obvious and appropriate yellow card................both has to be the answer!

Quote:

Bath Supporter Jack
So you have two players jumping for a ball and they clash heads.............who gets the obvious and appropriate yellow card................both has to be the answer!

If it's a fair contest for the ball then it's no penalty. The difference here is it would be caused by the tackle technique of the tackler.

Intent is not part of the consideration. If there was an 'accidental' clash of heads, it's deemed to be caused by tackle technique that you weren't in control of. Again, this is very much a deliberate decision to encourage a lower tackle height.

If there are other accidental clashes of heads in tackles, I'm surprised they aren't looked at.

High tackle framework clearly followed:

I thought the Ewells card was absurd on first watch, but Ben Kay (I know, I know..) says here that refs have been told to watch for head contact and if no attempt to bend at waist, tackler is at risk of a card:

[twitter.com]

I do struggle with why, given we've had how many seasons now where the emphasis was on avoiding high tackles, people still go in high. All that needed was Ewells to smash Radwan into touch with a waist high tackle, or even his shoulder at chest/sternum height. I appreciate it is difficult for players in the heat of the moment, but surely by now they should know to go lower?

That's particularly bad if Radwan has had his teeth knocked out....

Quote:

shipwrecked

Quote:

hasta

Quote:

TG Kesmo
My problem with the yellow card is one of fairness we either penalise all of those tackles or none. Watched the England game after and similar tackles went un penalised because no one stayed down or they weren’t seen or they weren’t deemed worthy of a stoppage..
I know refs have a hard time ( I’ve tried it) but it’s the lack of consistency that gets me. Several head contacts by both sides were ignored in the Newcastle game. It was only the obvious outcome that caused Ewells one to be looked at . If the player gets back up with a minor unnoticed concession the outcome is “invisible” and the tackle frequently let go but the long term outcome could be far worse.
Before you ask I don’t know what the answer is but we do need to be less “outcome driven”

Head contact is (almost) always looked at now though. TMOs are looking at it and it gets reviewed after the game.

Ewels was far too upright as he went in for that tackle. The intention is to lower the tackle height. Initial contact was not with head, but as a result of technique, contact with the head occurred. If he didn't make contact with the head then it's not a penalty, but he did, so it's a yellow card every day of the week under the current interpretations (which have been in place for, what, like 2 years now?)

Sure Hasta, but why only review that clash there were loads of instances where upright tackles led to bumped heads. This is the point.

Heres my response to SW on that thread as I cant post:

Sure Hasta, but why only review that clash there were loads of instances where upright tackles led to bumped heads. This is the point.

THe official thought he'd spotted a red card offence, the debate then was about whether it was red or just yellow. It was almost as if the option for it to be accidental wasn't even up for consideration it wasnt on the table. Psychology I guess.

They could probably review the whole match and find 5 more, but they didnt.

Quote:

SJS
I thought the Ewells card was absurd on first watch, but Ben Kay (I know, I know..) says here that refs have been told to watch for head contact and if no attempt to bend at waist, tackler is at risk of a card:
[twitter.com]

I do struggle with why, given we've had how many seasons now where the emphasis was on avoiding high tackles, people still go in high. All that needed was Ewells to smash Radwan into touch with a waist high tackle, or even his shoulder at chest/sternum height. I appreciate it is difficult for players in the heat of the moment, but surely by now they should know to go lower?

That's particularly bad if Radwan has had his teeth knocked out....

Thing is that Ewells starts to bend at the waist but Radwan ducks as well at the same time.



Was he wearing a mouthguard its unusual to loose teeth wearing one?


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

'All that needed was Ewells to smash Radwan into touch with a waist high tackle'

The difficulty is that so many tackles are made within a very confined space. For Ewels to make a low tackle on, say, Harry Randall, he would have to start his descent from at least 6 feet away.

Quote:

It was almost as if the option for it to be accidental wasn't even up for consideration it wasnt on the table. Psychology I guess.

As I think you can see from the framework above - no there is no option for it to be accidental. If it's accidental it's still the tackler's fault.

Ewels didn't bend. He slightly leant forwards. Contact chest-to-chest first, change of direction just before tackle and not massively dangerous, but clearly a card.

Quote:

Optimist
The difficulty is that so many tackles are made within a very confined space. For Ewels to make a low tackle on, say, Harry Randall, he would have to start his descent from at least 6 feet away.

But isn't that supposed to be part of the professional rugby player's skillset nowadays? Underhill and Dunn are masters of the 'chop' tackle. Now, I agree that here a chop tackle might have resulted in an offload to score, which is probably why Ewels went high in the first place - but he must know in doing so there is a risk.

And, at the risk of coming across as contrary, it wasn't against Randall, but a near 6ft winger.

Edit: I do beg your pardon, I've given Charlie an extra 'L' (now changed!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020:11:23:16:04:47 by SJS.

Quote:

OutsideBath

Quote:

warrenball
The most worrying thing, having supported Bath for more years than I care to remember is that I don't really care too much about the result. Is this the result of not being able to see them live, or have I just got out of a habit and found other things to do on a Saturday afternoon?

This is a very good point, normally I'd be spitting nails for days after such a humiliating defeat but this time I'm just a little disappointed. Obviously would prefer Bath to win games, but as I can't watch any of the games until 2021/22 (hopefully) I'm
not that bothered what happens this season (aside from relegation clearly). When you aren't permitted to do something for so long it's quite easy to find other things to entertain yourself.

Both posts sum up my attitude perfectly!

Quote:

shipwrecked
Was he wearing a mouthguard its unusual to loose teeth wearing one?

Yes he was wearing one- it is visible in pics from earlier in the game. From the pic he posted later, it looks like he lost maybe three teeth?

Most important thing- which no one here is saying- is that he was up and about and seemingly otherwise unaffected after the incident.

Quote:

The Boyfriend

Quote:

shipwrecked
Was he wearing a mouthguard its unusual to loose teeth wearing one?

Yes he was wearing one- it is visible in pics from earlier in the game. From the pic he posted later, it looks like he lost maybe three teeth?

Most important thing- which no one here is saying- is that he was up and about and seemingly otherwise unaffected after the incident.

He was subbed though presumably for an HIA.


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Andy1210-thanks for that post-very charitable!

From the footage I saw the , there was no contact head to face from Ewels ? Close, yes but Radwan's head did not go back (as you'd expect with a clash of heads) or was he holding his face afterwards and I saw no blood which you'd expect after loosing teeth ?? Also he was definitely playing soon after, not sure he even went off for a HIA , if he did I'd have thought it was for hitting the ground with Ewels.
Also I would of expected some blood from Ewels if he had smashed three teeth out with his head... He looked totally unscathed. But didn't argue or seem surprised when sent off, so assume he felt it was a correct decision.
I'm not saying it didn't happen but it looked like tackles you see every RL game .
All very strange ...

Quote:

Banachek
From the footage I saw the , there was no contact head to face from Ewels ? Close, yes but Radwan's head did not go back (as you'd expect with a clash of heads) or was he holding his face afterwards and I saw no blood which you'd expect after loosing teeth ?? Also he was definitely playing soon after, not sure he even went off for a HIA , if he did I'd have thought it was for hitting the ground with Ewels.
Also I would of expected some blood from Ewels if he had smashed three teeth out with his head... He looked totally unscathed. But didn't argue or seem surprised when sent off, so assume he felt it was a correct decision.
I'm not saying it didn't happen but it looked like tackles you see every RL game .
All very strange ...

Not really strange, it was a head on head. Radwan did go off for a HIA and is currently going through the protocol.

Poor picture of the tackle but you can get the jist:

[pbs.twimg.com]

The result:

[pbs.twimg.com]


I get what people are saying, this happens a lot. Because it's out wide in space, it's been picked up. Doesn't make it ok. I think we'll see more and more of this being picked up.

The posters saying this is a mans game etc etc....rubbish. Not so long ago, rucking was seen as ok. The game moves on and player safety is paramount imo. Getting hit in the head can end a career, it's not manly to accept it.

Anyway, good luck for season boys. looking forward to the return game.

Apologies if you've already discussed this (I have looked through this thread) but I'm confident that the first Falcons' try should not have been allowed, but not for possibly not travelling 5m as you have discussed. Lineouts may not be taken ahead of both wherever the ball crossed touch and the defending 5m line. Clearly it was thrown from ahead of the 5m.

And fwiw I thought the Ewels decision correct - duty of care. Though I tend to be a hanging judge.

Quote:

Pool_falcon
Not so long ago, rucking was seen as OK.

It is still OK - just different. I think you are referring to boot on body - which was never nexessary, even if it was popular with teams that like to intimidate.

Ironically concussions have gone up since handling was allowed in the ruck!

PG

Quote:

P G Tips

Quote:

Pool_falcon
Not so long ago, rucking was seen as OK.

It is still OK - just different. I think you are referring to boot on body - which was never nexessary, even if it was popular with teams that like to intimidate.

Ironically concussions have gone up since handling was allowed in the ruck!

PG

TBF, it often was necessary, just not especially legal.

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Oh for the return of the ruck, was it really that bad? Not the raking of course.


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Quote:

shipwrecked
Cleary not, are you saying that Stuart, Dunn, Obano, Underhill, Joseph, Watson, Faletau are duplicate in our squad?

Which international were missing from the Newcastle squad then?

The players selected were more than good enough. But as usual, we play below the sum of our parts, while other teams, like Newcastle, play above the sum of theirs.

Quote:

Dreadful but certainly not terminal. This coaching team is here to stay to build up exactly the sort of the club identity you want. Get used to it and get behind the team!

Lam built the Bears culture in one season, it doesn't take years.

Pat Lam is a transient influence, he has left no legacy at all at Connaught. Look at Ulster, Leinster and Munster currently they have twice the points of Lam's ex club.
This is precisely why Hooper has been appointed, to leave a continuing legacy, isn't that what you want as well?


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Quote:

shipwrecked
Pat Lam is a transient influence, he has left no legacy at all at Connaught. Look at Ulster, Leinster and Munster currently they have twice the points of Lam's ex club.
This is precisely why Hooper has been appointed, to leave a continuing legacy, isn't that what you want as well?

Personally I’d settle for a transient influence that wins the PL.

Hooper does appear to be building a continuing legacy, but not one of success. He’s had more than long enough to put a stop to abject performances, which sounds like what he delivered against Falcons.

It does feel like the Newcastle game was a big step backwards tbf. Team selection, game awareness, basic errors and general preparedness for what was coming at them. Looking back I think that they approached it with more than a spoonful of arrogance rather than playing the same game than they would have against a perceived stronger team. In old school lingo, they didn't earn the right to go wide and thought that Newcastle wouldn't have enough if they played a bit of 7s style rugby. Wrongly so as it turns out against a Newcastle who were yin to Baths yang.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Quote:

shipwrecked
Pat Lam is a transient influence, he has left no legacy at all at Connaught. Look at Ulster, Leinster and Munster currently they have twice the points of Lam's ex club.
This is precisely why Hooper has been appointed, to leave a continuing legacy, isn't that what you want as well?

Struggling to see the relevance of Connacht's points total, four years after Lam left.

What is relevant is that Bristol have surpassed Bath, in a remarkably short time, and won silverware within two seasons of being in the Premiership. I don't care about this flimsy "lasting legacy' thing, just turn us into a good side that players love to run out for, that'll sort the legacy out.

Look having had time to think - Maybe I was a little over the top in my criticism of the club and I would thank Shipwrecked for bringing that to my attention. My real concern as Bath Matt has pointed out is the backward steps instead of progression.

Post lockdown we were showing positive signs of progression - a style and identity of how the coaches wanted us to play and on the whole it was effective until we met a side much more proficient, accurate and clinical at that style of play. That was palatable, Chiefs are way down the line from where we are.

One month on and personally I did not recognise that teams style of play - it was a complete opposite from how we had played post lockdown.

My concern is that the squad which took the pitch on Saturday did not just decide to abandon the style which had been reasonably successful only a month before and adopt whatever game plan that was because I could not personally identify what we were trying to achieve? There just appeared to be a malaise about the team and that is what has got me so upset and we did not pay Newcastle the respect they deserved and we got what we deserved.

What is also getting me upset is talk that we lost because we were missing our Internationals. As I mentioned previously Newcastle were missing more players than we were - no perhaps not expensive house hold names but equally important to their team - it is about proportionality not every team has a "Sugar Daddy" pumping millions into their team. You could argue what good has it done us? Many of that team that took the side on Saturday would be part of our first team squad on a normal matchday - so please can we stop hiding behind smoke screens and some of those international players missing haven't exactly set our world alight in a BBW shirt recently.

Like I have said - serious teams - teams capable of winning trophies even when playing bad do not play as bad as we did on Saturday - Yes things may go against you but you can generally see they are still playing to a trusted system, we did not only play badly but we changed the system and it was clear that the team didn't know what was going on - hence why people were making breaks and no - one was within 10 metres of them, throwing big loopy passes etc resulting a turnover/penalty sound familiar?

I imagine some interesting training sessions this week - but let us not forget give or take one or two players the squad will be the same taking the field against the Chiefs on Saturday - same abstractions as Saturday - DoR and Coaches have some serious thinking to do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020:11:24:10:25:49 by Ali1969.

Quote:

ballsout

Quote:

shipwrecked
Pat Lam is a transient influence, he has left no legacy at all at Connaught. Look at Ulster, Leinster and Munster currently they have twice the points of Lam's ex club.
This is precisely why Hooper has been appointed, to leave a continuing legacy, isn't that what you want as well?

Struggling to see the relevance of Connacht's points total, four years after Lam left.

Surprised at that, its obvious Lam has NOT left a legacy of success. Exactly your criticism of Bath. A legacy is a group of players that grow up with belief in success as at Sarries and Exeter. It is rooted in the youth of the club.
Isn't that exactly what is happening now at Bath, young local EQ qualified players coming through? TdG, GHW, Bailey, Ogomoh, Reid, Atkins etc.


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Very well said Ali. One of the more reasoned reviews of last Saturday.

Fully agree, you cannot say the lack of internationals contributed to the woeful performance and, surely, their replacements should have grabbed their chance to shine with both hands, if they had the ability. And that is the crux of the problem. Example is Walker, and not just him. He has had plenty of time now and games to know what he has to do and at what level, but falls woefully short. I am not the greatest Batty fan, but he , Stooke, Williams, Judge, Roko, Matevesi, Clark, Ruirid, Ellis, Mercer and probably Bayliss have to start against Exeter to keep the score to an acceptable level. Otherwise, it will be very embarressing and demoralising for the team and us fans.

Adopted player 2020/21 Beno 'the Transformer' Obano


Adopted player 2019/20 Jonathan 'JJ' Joseph.The Jink Joseph.
Adopted player 2018/19 Adopted player 2018/19 Semesa 'The Rock' Rokoduguni

Quote:

shipwrecked

Quote:

ballsout

Quote:

shipwrecked
Pat Lam is a transient influence, he has left no legacy at all at Connaught. Look at Ulster, Leinster and Munster currently they have twice the points of Lam's ex club.
This is precisely why Hooper has been appointed, to leave a continuing legacy, isn't that what you want as well?

Struggling to see the relevance of Connacht's points total, four years after Lam left.

Surprised at that, its obvious Lam has NOT left a legacy of success. Exactly your criticism of Bath. A legacy is a group of players that grow up with belief in success as at Sarries and Exeter. It is rooted in the youth of the club.
Isn't that exactly what is happening now at Bath, young local EQ qualified players coming through? TdG, GHW, Bailey, Ogomoh, Reid, Atkins etc.

Every club has young local EQ qualified players coming through.

It means nothing if they play like they played on Saturday, or go through season after season of never winning anything.

Quote:

ballsout

Quote:

shipwrecked

Quote:

ballsout

Quote:

shipwrecked
Pat Lam is a transient influence, he has left no legacy at all at Connaught. Look at Ulster, Leinster and Munster currently they have twice the points of Lam's ex club.
This is precisely why Hooper has been appointed, to leave a continuing legacy, isn't that what you want as well?

Struggling to see the relevance of Connacht's points total, four years after Lam left.

Surprised at that, its obvious Lam has NOT left a legacy of success. Exactly your criticism of Bath. A legacy is a group of players that grow up with belief in success as at Sarries and Exeter. It is rooted in the youth of the club.
Isn't that exactly what is happening now at Bath, young local EQ qualified players coming through? TdG, GHW, Bailey, Ogomoh, Reid, Atkins etc.

Every club has young local EQ qualified players coming through.

It means nothing if they play like they played on Saturday, or go through season after season of never winning anything.

Of course but thats not the point BO, that's where the legacy gets perpetuated c.f. Sarries and Exeter. Lam didn't do that at Connaught. Remember he left over money before he could build that. The difference between Lam, Baxter and Hooper is that the later 2 are rooted in the club. Irrespective of Hooper's rugby merit as a DOR you must see the clubs intention surely.


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Of course I can see the intention, but you don't win anything on intention.

What sort of legacy do you think losing to the newly promoted side, at home, will leave? That was the most likely 5 point win teams will have this season, and we were lucky to get 1 point from it. How many failed seasons can we have after all these years, when you might think that something isn't right? When other teams are winning trophies every year and we're nowhere near?

But if you do get a level of success, as we have up front at least, then it perpetuates as Baxter and McCall have. The pack that gave us success last season haven't even played yet and won't do for a while.


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Ballsout,

I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but is it fair to say you think Bath are rubbish?

Quote:

shipwrecked
But if you do get a level of success, as we have up front at least, then it perpetuates as Baxter and McCall have. The pack that gave us success last season haven't even played yet and won't do for a while.

"A level of success up front"?

You mean like when Saracens' championship props Alec Clarey and Robin Hislop won a penalty try against our first choice pack a couple of months back?

It's a squad game, every club loses players, you can't put all your eggs in one basket. Newcastle didn't need star players to win well at the weekend.

You know, maybe if we'd played Obano, Dunn and Stuart we might have won against Newcastle, but it would have still been a collective underperformance, and as usual, underperformance is the club's middle name.

Quote:

shipwrecked
The difference between Lam, Baxter and Hooper is that the later 2 are rooted in the club. Irrespective of Hooper's rugby merit as a DOR you must see the clubs intention surely.

I would say the most significant difference between Lam, Baxter and Hooper is the former 2 are proven winners and continue build on their success. Has Hooper actually won anything in his rugby career? I don't think so and the "progress" to date doesn't suggest that will change.

I don't doubt Hooper is rooted in the club, but that's not enough to succeed.

Jon Hall & Andy Robinson with us - Both rooted in Bath FC history both legends of the club , however their success wasn't brilliant yes we won silverware but there were signs of an ageing team with very little coming through and certainly no legacy. Johnson, Cockerill, Murphy - all legends with Tigers and again didn't work for them either.

On the flip side McCall at Saracens - No affiliation with Sarries and has built a real legacy and with mega bucks from Wray but his players want to stay with him. He also did the same at Ulster.

Luatua made reference to coming to Bristol purely because of Pat Lam - he clearly has a draw to be able to bring a current (at the time) All Black from Auckland to join a Championship side. Personally I really like Lam, I like the way he talks and his vision and would give anything to have him at Bath. I remember July 2019 my wife and I bumped into the Bristol squad having a coffee at Cribbs Causeway and I had a chat with Jordan Crane - He stated Lam was so empowering and players really respect him and it showed the togetherness of the squad even my wife who has no interest in rugby really commented that they seemed to really enjoy each others company.

I am a fan of Hoops as a player and a person - whether he is the messiah we all need well only time will tell, he clearly has a lot to learn. Personally II am not sure he has handled certain situations as well as they could have been handles but you have to look forward and learn. It is not a given because you have an affiliation to a club that means you will make it and after all Hoops played for us - One could argue he has more of an affiliation with Chiefs or Sarries - but I agree he is here to stay unless of course we end up in a relegation scrap in which case who knows.

Quote:

ballsout

Quote:

shipwrecked
But if you do get a level of success, as we have up front at least, then it perpetuates as Baxter and McCall have. The pack that gave us success last season haven't even played yet and won't do for a while.

"A level of success up front"?

You mean like when Saracens' championship props Alec Clarey and Robin Hislop won a penalty try against our first choice pack a couple of months back?

It's a squad game, every club loses players, you can't put all your eggs in one basket. Newcastle didn't need star players to win well at the weekend.

You know, maybe if we'd played Obano, Dunn and Stuart we might have won against Newcastle, but it would have still been a collective underperformance, and as usual, underperformance is the club's middle name.

Read the rest of the quote you highlighted please, "The pack that gave us success last season haven't even played yet and won't do for a while."

You last paragraph actually agrees with me!


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Quote:

OutsideBath
Has Hooper actually won anything?

2005 he was in the Leeds side that beat us in the cup final at Twickenham. Balshaw was the captain but had to leave the field with injury after 3 mins. I think Hoops took over!

Quote:

CoochieCoo

Quote:

OutsideBath
Has Hooper actually won anything?

2005 he was in the Leeds side that beat us in the cup final at Twickenham. Balshaw was the captain but had to leave the field with injury after 3 mins. I think Hoops took over!

Thank you I stand corrected, although doesn't change my view of him as DOR making Bath successful. He won't.

Quote:

shipwrecked

Quote:

ballsout

Quote:

shipwrecked
But if you do get a level of success, as we have up front at least, then it perpetuates as Baxter and McCall have. The pack that gave us success last season haven't even played yet and won't do for a while.

"A level of success up front"?

You mean like when Saracens' championship props Alec Clarey and Robin Hislop won a penalty try against our first choice pack a couple of months back?

It's a squad game, every club loses players, you can't put all your eggs in one basket. Newcastle didn't need star players to win well at the weekend.

You know, maybe if we'd played Obano, Dunn and Stuart we might have won against Newcastle, but it would have still been a collective underperformance, and as usual, underperformance is the club's middle name.

Read the rest of the quote you highlighted please, "The pack that gave us success last season haven't even played yet and won't do for a while."

You last paragraph actually agrees with me!

So with three international players in the front row we can beat Newcastle at home, without them, we barely scrape a losing bosing point. Got it.

What a legacy!

bo - I'm not a great fan of your incessant negativity, but you're also very often proven right. So, for a change and for the record - who, from the current set-up, would you like to see removed? There's not much point in asking who, specifically, you (or any of us) would like to see in, because nothing is going to change any time soon. But I'm interested to know, from the Club hierarchy: who gets the bullet from you?

Bruce Craig, owner
Tarquin McDonnald, chief exec
Stuart Hooper, DoR
Neil Hatley, head coach
Girvan Dempsey, backs coach

Below that - there are various other coaches who can't themselves be blamed for the Club's failure to achieve consistency - but there may be gaps that you feel should be filled. Tell us, which ones?

Give us your blueprint for success. From where we stand now - not from 3, 5 or 10 years ago. We are where we are.

I draw the line at being an armchair critic, it's easy to point out glaring failings (although seemingly difficult for some to actually admit them) and it's easy to point out that other clubs achieve success a lot easier than we do, but I don't have the insight to know who specifically is at fault or what needs to change.

I don't often single out individuals (apart from the Freddie Burns Show, supported by Bath Rugby, disaster), but I think that Hooper's head down low-ambition template stifles ability and drains enjoyment, rendering Dempsey's input as marginal, and Bruce Craig meddled in the past much to the annoyance of players (and coaches), not sure if that's still the case.

Quote:

ballsout

Quote:

shipwrecked

Quote:

ballsout

Quote:

shipwrecked
But if you do get a level of success, as we have up front at least, then it perpetuates as Baxter and McCall have. The pack that gave us success last season haven't even played yet and won't do for a while.

"A level of success up front"?

You mean like when Saracens' championship props Alec Clarey and Robin Hislop won a penalty try against our first choice pack a couple of months back?

It's a squad game, every club loses players, you can't put all your eggs in one basket. Newcastle didn't need star players to win well at the weekend.

You know, maybe if we'd played Obano, Dunn and Stuart we might have won against Newcastle, but it would have still been a collective underperformance, and as usual, underperformance is the club's middle name.

Read the rest of the quote you highlighted please, "The pack that gave us success last season haven't even played yet and won't do for a while."

You last paragraph actually agrees with me!

So with three international players in the front row we can beat Newcastle at home, without them, we barely scrape a losing bosing point. Got it.

What a legacy!

All I’m saying is stand back and consider whats been said. On the basis of one game where we played a B team up front several of you are condemning the club stating we are complete and utter failures at various levels.

ONE game. Seriously that isn’t rational!

Its simply proof that our squad lack depth.

PS That not right anyway only McNally and Ewels remained on Saturday from our semifinal team last season. Ewels only played 20 minutes as well, (should have been 30 but he got carded for some reason!)


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Newcastle were missing more players than we were.

And it's not one game, Gloucester for 60 minutes, Saracens for 40, Exeter for 80, and now Newcastle for 80.

Our first choice team got beaten up by the Saracens D team in a game that meant nothing to them, everything to us. It's not one game. If we had continued our early post-lockdown form all the way into the semi final against Exeter, then fair enough, but we didn't, we fell apart in the last three games, when the pressure was on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020:11:24:11:46:47 by ballsout.

As disappointing as the Newcastle game was, I think it's fair to wait 3 or 4 games in before deciding if we've taken any steps and in what direction.

I probably don't know what i'm talking about.

Quote:

ballsout
I think that Hooper's head down low-ambition template stifles ability and drains enjoyment, rendering Dempsey's input as marginal, and Bruce Craig meddled in the past much to the annoyance of players (and coaches), not sure if that's still the case.

That is pretty much, word for word, the precise criticism of the Club that Freddie Burns made.

Maybe Ballsout is secretly Freddie Burns and all the criticism is to throw us off the scent.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Quote:

Optimist

Quote:

ballsout
I think that Hooper's head down low-ambition template stifles ability and drains enjoyment, rendering Dempsey's input as marginal, and Bruce Craig meddled in the past much to the annoyance of players (and coaches), not sure if that's still the case.

That is pretty much, word for word, the precise criticism of the Club that Freddie Burns made.

Thats really funny, also ironic!


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Was it only six weeks ago most on here were saying how well the team were playing, how they looked comfortable with each other and looked like they were enjoying the game? So what has happened in those 6 weeks (if anything) to cause Saturday's performance. I still think they might have been over-trained and were tired (mentally and physically).

Quote:

ballsout
I draw the line at being an armchair critic,.

With respect BO - you don't. Your posts on this thread are a good example of an armchair critic in action.

See below:

draw the line

C2
to never do something because you think it is wrong:
I swear a lot, but even I draw the line at saying certain words.

From: [dictionary.cambridge.org]

PG

Quote:

Optimist

Quote:

ballsout
I think that Hooper's head down low-ambition template stifles ability and drains enjoyment, rendering Dempsey's input as marginal, and Bruce Craig meddled in the past much to the annoyance of players (and coaches), not sure if that's still the case.

That is pretty much, word for word, the precise criticism of the Club that Freddie Burns made.

I thought one of saturday's problems was that we were too ambitious without "earning the right"?

The moves for the tries were fine, and running as an exit strategy worked on occasion but several - you included BO - have condemned on here the backline moves that failed or stuttered through poor execution. They may have been poor but surely more "ambitious" than last season- even the end when we were mostly winning.

PG

Quote:

ballsout
I draw the line at being an armchair critic...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

Oh, wait, you're serious.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

... IMHO, of course.

Now in Honolulu

Point missed.

Quote:

ballsout
Point missed.

Make it clearer then. Doesn’t the very fact of posting here make us all ‘armchair’ critics - especially those, like you and me, who use pseudonyms?

Interesting that sometimes people cop a lot of stick on here for questioning the professionalism/attitude of the players and the club culture but the captains post match comments were basically 'they wanted it more than us, they tried harder than us'.

It isnt great is it, first game of season when you should be putting a marker down that you mean business after a good restart campaign.

Everyone has off days but doesn't sit wonderfully with me.

How do people feel we are managing joe c?

I think he is a huge talent and needs careful management physically and probably mentally.

I do worry about over protecting players and not demanding enough of them on the flipside though.

They keep emphasising he hasnt played for bath for 16 mths but he was out of rugby games for c11 months. He has been fit for nearly 3 months in full training for bath and england (tho think that was only 4th game and 2nd start). Is it acceptable for a winger to look completely cooked after 50 mins and like he has never played rugby before from minute 1?

I love big joe and would give him all the love and support he needs. Also totally appreciate every player needs handling differently. I just worry whether we dont demand enough. Having watched 'the edge' cricket docu aware of the fall out of demanding too much tho!

I love big joe and would give him all the love and support he needs.

I hope he's reading this board.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020:11:25:15:47:53 by woodpecker.

It isn't great Charlie, but it's one thing when the captain or coach refers to the opposition wanting it more, quite another for fans to assume it.

Posters who claim lack of effort cannot possibly know what goes on in a player's mind and often those who make the claim do so when it is clear that the winning team had more strength, skill, cohesion or even luck.

Those who get most stick for it are those who resort to the complaint every time they are frustrated with a performance - without justifying their claim. They get stick rightly IMHO.

PG

I don't think that Joe C has ever been a great footballer though has he? Frighteningly good going forward when he is at his best and good at the offload but his turning, tackling and general skillset hasn't ever been seen as a strength from what I understand. The stereotypical pros and cons of a very large man on the wing basically.

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Quote:

P G Tips
It isn't great Charlie, but it's one thing when the captain or coach refers to the opposition wanting it more, quite another for fans to assume it.
Posters who claim lack of effort cannot possibly know what goes on in a player's mind and often those who make the claim do so when it is clear that the winning team had more strength, skill, cohesion or even luck.

Those who get most stick for it are those who resort to the complaint every time they are frustrated with a performance - without justifying their claim. They get stick rightly IMHO.

PG

Agreed. Saturday seems a rare legitimate gripe backed up by the words of the captain.

Thought hoops did well tbh just to say it was totally unacceptable rather than attempt to sugar coat it.

Quote:

BathMatt53
I don't think that Joe C has ever been a great footballer though has he? Frighteningly good going forward when he is at his best and good at the offload but his turning, tackling and general skillset hasn't ever been seen as a strength from what I understand. The stereotypical pros and cons of a very large man on the wing basically.

Agreed tho i have always thought he has decent hands and a decent rugby brain. when he first arrived our main tactic was 'give it to joe' and it worked quite well. I think he is one of those blokes who probably needs reminding now and again that he is very big, very quick and very powerful and if he backs himself he is going to cause defenders serious problems.

Looks v tentative at the moment which , whilst understandable, he has been back in full training and playing some matches for 2-3 mths now.

Quote:

shipwrecked
Pat Lam is a transient influence, he has left no legacy at all at Connaught. Look at Ulster, Leinster and Munster currently they have twice the points of Lam's ex club.

There was no "legacy" at Connaught - that is correct. His replacement, Kieran Kane, arrived later than planned, from outside the club, so there the managment deliberately looked to change things. He also left after one year so there was added disruption. The new coach, Andy Friend, is improving things there.

However, there was never going to be a period of Connaught domination as the other provinces are a higher priority for the IRFU and get preferential funding and selection of players. So not entirely sure you can blame Pat Lam for Connaught not dominating Irish rugby.

I'll let you get back to your own issues now...

Its wasn't really a criticism of Lam more an observation, was his departure ever really understood? As a matter of interest do you think that had Lam been from say Galway or Sligo it might have made a difference?


Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.

Lam did give an interview explaining why he left - something to do with the IRFU "only" offering 2-year contracts, whereas he wanted a 4-year contract or something. There was also a 6-month release clause (again - or something). I'll have to see if I can find the link to the interview.

The main issue with "leaving a legacy" was Lam also taking his assistant head coach (McPhillips), captain (Muldoon) and I think some strength & conditioning staff. That isn't how you leave a legacy. I guess you can argue it either way - if Connacht wanted some continuity, they would have worked harder (paid more) to keep those staff.

One of my theories on "culture", primarily at Bristol, is that we do still have a local or an ex-player (or both) driving things - Mark Tainton. He obviously took over for a few months when Robinson was asked to leave, but he's still there in his COO capacity. Chris Booy is still CEO. And the relationships they all enjoy with Lansdown "appear" to be very healthy - as does Lam. My theory is that this goes a long way to driving the culture - the staff (players) know that all parties are working to a common goal. I would guess 80% of people here who have worked for corporates, know how precarious that is - it's often obvious when one level of management is butting up against another (or not).

Exeter "appear" to have a very healthy relationship between Baxter and Tony Rowe. Saracens "appeared" to have a very healthy relationship between McCall and Wray. I know it won't be hard to find a club that is an exception to a rule. Leicester are a good example where those relationships don't "appear" to be working.

This is a very long-winded way of saying: could the fact that the relationship between Bath's head coach/director of rugby and Tarquin/Bruce Craig doesn't "appear" to work, be something that adversely affects "culture"? Just a theory, and obviously by an outsider, but...

What indication is there at all that Hooper and Tarquin/Bruce don't have a good relationship?

Quote:

hasta
What indication is there at all that Hooper and Tarquin/Bruce don't have a good
relationship?

Makes a change from the usual gripe on this board that exactly the opposite is true?

[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]

Absolutely none whatsoever - I'm purely basing that on various posts going back through the years where one (or both) of Tarquin/Bruce have allegedly done/not done this, that or the other. I'm posting a theory of mine, where some clubs go out of their way to highlight a harmonious top layer of management, whereas others don't. As I said, it won't be hard to find examples of clubs that shoot my theory to pieces.

In fairness, there haven't been stories about Bath's top level management for some time. Just theorising about this mythical "culture" thing that is often quoted. Bristol, as one example, do go out of their way to push that to front and centre.

Bristol Ian

I think the only indications of any disagreement between owner, CEO & DOR have come from speculation on this board!

PG

Interesting thoughts Bristol Ian - and there is definitely some correlation between such close ties and success, you have rightly cited clubs where DoR's and Owners do appear to have a close relationship.

In our case I am not so sure - Todd Blackadder & Tabai Matson certainly from what I was told did not enjoy a good working relationship with Craig/McDonald, particularly Matson who was rumoured could not and would not put up with the interference. Todd Blackadder was more of a diplomat but even his patience was ground down - but Hoops is their man - he has been somewhat groomed by McDonald into his position - even to the point of rushing his appointment a year early despite not even having the requisite training badges.

So I believe Hoops does have the backing at the moment of Craig/McDonald - but any more performances such as Saturday he may well have to borrow the Metal Backplate that Todd Blackadder wore to protect himself from the Ides of March and Stabs to the back.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020:11:26:13:58:16 by Ali1969.