Russell off to Bath?

[Torquemada 1420]

Rumour mill in full swing in France.

Bernol suggesting Russell off to Bath which, of course, I'd be delighted with. Not least because I rate Gibert (who was brilliant yesterday as Racing mullered Clermont 46-12 in their best performance of the season) and he's not getting proper game time because of Russell. However............... suggestions that if Russell goes, then in usual French madness, Racing will chase Jalibert who continues to be unsettled at UBB (despite him getting his wish to force his manager Urios out).

Not sure how the Scots would feel about Russell going to sh*thouse Bath with their culture.

[inactionman]

It's been rumoured for a few weeks, but generally seen as agent games to get his wages up.

If the unlikely did happen, the Scottish fans might be interested to see how he'd go day-in-day-out alongside Redpath, although there were also rumblings about Redpath moving on - these seem to have quietened down but that cold be as nothing firm happens until January contracts-wise.

Bath's issues with coaching have/are being resolved, btw, with a new coaching team in place.

[ASMO]

Not gonna happen, as others have mentioned, he loves France and wants residency, so i cant see him moving away to a club who are still struggling.

[Torquemada 1420]

Bath's issues with coaching have/are being resolved, btw, with a new coaching team in place.

I'll reserve judgement on that. Will take more than flipping staff to exorcise years of ingrained culture?

[inactionman]

Bath's issues with coaching have/are being resolved, btw, with a new coaching team in place.

I'll reserve judgement on that. Will take more than flipping staff to exorcise years of ingrained culture?

What's this years of culture? The good time Charlies were shipped out, and then Bath got to European semi-finals and a playoff final, where Owen Farrell kindly concussed our prime attacking weapon. Then, well, the post-Mike Ford coaching didn't quite work out over the last few years. To put it mildly.

We're due another uptick before the wheels come off again.

[PornDog]

I severely doubt that Van Graan is the man to help you achieve that uptick.

[Torquemada 1420]

Decision decision

She needs to be brought up immersed in Scottish culture.

[Torquemada 1420]

Lol

I don’t get it, Finn at the Racing should make you happy as you never liked this club.

I like even less overpaid foreign players keeping Fre qualified players out of game time.

[Simian]

Lol

I don’t get it, Finn at the Racing should make you happy as you never liked this club.

I like even less overpaid foreign players keeping Fre qualified players out of game time.

what exactly is your objection to Russell? I read your thread on him and, tbh, I'm still not really clear on this. Is it basically just that his form dropped off for a bit? This is a genuine question, by the way.

[Torquemada 1420]

Lol

I don’t get it, Finn at the Racing should make you happy as you never liked this club.

I like even less overpaid foreign players keeping Fre qualified players out of game time.

what exactly is your objection to Russell? I read your thread on him and, tbh, I'm still not really clear on this. Is it basically just that his form dropped off for a bit? This is a genuine question, by the way.

I guess it's multifold and some of which is simply personal prejudice. I've always had an inherent dislike for players who look flash but don't appear to graft or, worse, do random sh*t which as often costs their sides as it does reward them. Poitrenaud was probably the prime example. Rugby has an inherent love in towards such players, as seen in the amount of times MOTM goes to a back and hardly ever to a prop. Which is weird for a game built upon "fwds win games and backs decide by how much".

Don't get me wrong: I am as p*ssed off with the next person at how turgid the game is now and the contradiction that brings in how guys like Russell and Michalak are probably needed in the game in terms of attracting viewers.

Such players are all capable of match winning genius: just that it's so occasional. And that's because rugby is such a complex team game, rarely can one player decide the outcome by a moment of inspiration whereas it's far more frequent for one to lose it from a moment of stupidity. And therein lies the rub: Russell over the 3 years (allowing for COVID) at Racing has delivered more match losing efforts (I will wager no player has thrown as many intercept pass/kick tries in T14) than winning ones. And much of the rest of the time he creates rudderless 80 minutes. Plus he gives the impression he doesn't give a flying f**k in the manner of Alain Penaud's frequent shrug of shoulders. He's a key component of them winning f**k all. They remind me of the Ospreys in their prime. Russell was at least as responsible as Iribaren for losing Racing a Euro final: dumb chip near half way charged down and suicide random pass in own 22 which led to Slade's try being 2 moments that stick in mind......... in a game decided by 4 points.

This season is a great example: just before the Sco recall, he had a blinder for Racing against Montpellier. But pretty much every other game this year he'd been anonymous to a liability. He then had a blinder against the ABs** but I don't doubt he'll lose Scotland a game soon enough through something daft. It's not a form thing. Players like him don't do form. At least not as measured in normal time frames.

I get why Scotland, faced with the options they have, would rather have an erratic Russell than the other choices. Equally, I'm happy for him to leave France and allow space for French FHs to get game time: in Gibert, France has a genuine hope for a controlling FH no seen in decades but he's twiddling thumbs behind Russell. The acid test is "would I have him in my team?" and the answer in either Racing's or France's case is a definitive no.

**PS, part of me wonders whether he felt he had a point to prove whereas when he was the "dead cert" on the team sheet, he put in much less effort.

[Tichtheid]

Games Finn has played and scored in this season for Racing

Castres - no score
Bayonne - 1 try (le Garrec kicking) 20% of Racing's points
Lyon - 5 pens 79% of Racing's points
Toulouse - 1 conversion, 1 pen, 50% of Racing's point
La Roch - 1 con, 4 pens - 74%of Racings points
Pau - 2 cons, 4 pens - 62% of Racings points
Bord Beg - 4 pens - 71% of Racing's points
Mont - 3 cons, 4 pens 47% of Racings points
Brive - 4 cons, 5 pens - 47% of Racings points
Perp - 1 try, 4 cons, 1 pen - 34% of Racing's points

Obviously the percentage goes down when there are a lot of tries scored, however Finn is currently joint top overall points scorer in the Top14 and second top goal kicker.

His two tries don't get him into the top ten try scoring list - two players are on 6, three on 5 tries and the rest on 4 tries.

https://all.rugby/tournament/top-14/

I watched Russell maybe three times this season and I don't recognise the description in the previous post as being accurate.

[Simian]

I like even less overpaid foreign players keeping Fre qualified players out of game time.

what exactly is your objection to Russell? I read your thread on him and, tbh, I'm still not really clear on this. Is it basically just that his form dropped off for a bit? This is a genuine question, by the way.

I guess it's multifold and some of which is simply personal prejudice. I've always had an inherent dislike for players who look flash but don't appear to graft or, worse, do random sh*t which as often costs their sides as it does reward them. Poitrenaud was probably the prime example. Rugby has an inherent love in towards such players, as seen in the amount of times MOTM goes to a back and hardly ever to a prop. Which is weird for a game built upon "fwds win games and backs decide by how much".

Don't get me wrong: I am as p*ssed off with the next person at how turgid the game is now and the contradiction that brings in how guys like Russell and Michalak are probably needed in the game in terms of attracting viewers.

Such players are all capable of match winning genius: just that it's so occasional. And that's because rugby is such a complex team game, rarely can one player decide the outcome by a moment of inspiration whereas it's far more frequent for one to lose it from a moment of stupidity. And therein lies the rub: Russell over the 3 years (allowing for COVID) at Racing has delivered more match losing efforts (I will wager no player has thrown as many intercept pass/kick tries in T14) than winning ones. And much of the rest of the time he creates rudderless 80 minutes. Plus he gives the impression he doesn't give a flying f**k in the manner of Alain Penaud's frequent shrug of shoulders. He's a key component of them winning f**k all. They remind me of the Ospreys in their prime. Russell was at least as responsible as Iribaren for losing Racing a Euro final: dumb chip near half way charged down and suicide random pass in own 22 which led to Slade's try being 2 moments that stick in mind......... in a game decided by 4 points.

This season is a great example: just before the Sco recall, he had a blinder for Racing against Montpellier. But pretty much every other game this year he'd been anonymous to a liability. He then had a blinder against the ABs** but I don't doubt he'll lose Scotland a game soon enough through something daft. It's not a form thing. Players like him don't do form. At least not as measured in normal time frames.

I get why Scotland, faced with the options they have, would rather have an erratic Russell than the other choices. Equally, I'm happy for him to leave France and allow space for French FHs to get game time: in Gibert, France has a genuine hope for a controlling FH no seen in decades but he's twiddling thumbs behind Russell. The acid test is "would I have him in my team?" and the answer in either Racing's or France's case is a definitive no.

**PS, part of me wonders whether he felt he had a point to prove whereas when he was the "dead cert" on the team sheet, he put in much less effort.

Having literally watched virtually every game of pro rugby he’s played, incluing since he went to france, I find this assessment of him totally baffling, tbh. It’s just completely at odds with what I’ve seen.

[Torquemada 1420]

Games Finn has played and scored in this season for Racing

Castres - no score
Bayonne - 1 try (le Garrec kicking) 20% of Racing's points
Lyon - 5 pens 79% of Racing's points
Toulouse - 1 conversion, 1 pen, 50% of Racing's point
La Roch - 1 con, 4 pens - 74%of Racings points
Pau - 2 cons, 4 pens - 62% of Racings points
Bord Beg - 4 pens - 71% of Racing's points
Mont - 3 cons, 4 pens 47% of Racings points
Brive - 4 cons, 5 pens - 47% of Racings points
Perp - 1 try, 4 cons, 1 pen - 34% of Racing's points

Obviously the percentage goes down when there are a lot of tries scored, however Finn is currently joint top overall points scorer in the Top14 and second top goal kicker.

His two tries don't get him into the top ten try scoring list - two players are on 6, three on 5 tries and the rest on 4 tries.

https://all.rugby/tournament/top-14/

I watched Russell maybe three times this season and I don't recognise the description in the previous post as being accurate.

Pointless (ahem) quoting points stats for the goal kicker. You'd expect that and even more so in T14 which has a reputation for being a 3pt league. And he's probably played more minutes than any other kicker in the comp anyway.

Until the Montpellier game, Racing had been uniformly gash and Russell's directionless play was as much to blame for that as anything else. Their recent form (MH apart) has been aided by 3 of the 4 games against the worst sides in the league form wise (Brive, Clermont and relegation favourites USAP).

[Tichtheid]

Games Finn has played and scored in this season for Racing

Castres - no score
Bayonne - 1 try (le Garrec kicking) 20% of Racing's points
Lyon - 5 pens 79% of Racing's points
Toulouse - 1 conversion, 1 pen, 50% of Racing's point
La Roch - 1 con, 4 pens - 74%of Racings points
Pau - 2 cons, 4 pens - 62% of Racings points
Bord Beg - 4 pens - 71% of Racing's points
Mont - 3 cons, 4 pens 47% of Racings points
Brive - 4 cons, 5 pens - 47% of Racings points
Perp - 1 try, 4 cons, 1 pen - 34% of Racing's points

Obviously the percentage goes down when there are a lot of tries scored, however Finn is currently joint top overall points scorer in the Top14 and second top goal kicker.

His two tries don't get him into the top ten try scoring list - two players are on 6, three on 5 tries and the rest on 4 tries.

https://all.rugby/tournament/top-14/

I watched Russell maybe three times this season and I don't recognise the description in the previous post as being accurate.

Pointless (ahem) quoting points stats for the goal kicker. You'd expect that and even more so in T14 which has a reputation for being a 3pt league.

Ha, yeah right enough, it's pointless quoting one of his major contributions to the team when he's not doing outrageous offloads or
putting players in for a score via dummies, passes or kicks.

Optojohnny has him at 91% kicking success btw, it's all about keeping your team in the game, even when the team isn't playing its best rugby

And he's probably played more minutes than any other kicker in the comp anyway.

Nope, you can check by clicking through on the players' names

Until the Montpellier game, Racing had been uniformly gash and Russell's directionless play was as much to blame for that as anything else.

This is just pure opinion.

Honestly, I don't understand the effort put in by some to say how crap these creative players are.

[Torquemada 1420]

Games Finn has played and scored in this season for Racing

Castres - no score
Bayonne - 1 try (le Garrec kicking) 20% of Racing's points
Lyon - 5 pens 79% of Racing's points
Toulouse - 1 conversion, 1 pen, 50% of Racing's point
La Roch - 1 con, 4 pens - 74%of Racings points
Pau - 2 cons, 4 pens - 62% of Racings points
Bord Beg - 4 pens - 71% of Racing's points
Mont - 3 cons, 4 pens 47% of Racings points
Brive - 4 cons, 5 pens - 47% of Racings points
Perp - 1 try, 4 cons, 1 pen - 34% of Racing's points

Obviously the percentage goes down when there are a lot of tries scored, however Finn is currently joint top overall points scorer in the Top14 and second top goal kicker.

His two tries don't get him into the top ten try scoring list - two players are on 6, three on 5 tries and the rest on 4 tries.

https://all.rugby/tournament/top-14/

I watched Russell maybe three times this season and I don't recognise the description in the previous post as being accurate.

Pointless (ahem) quoting points stats for the goal kicker. You'd expect that and even more so in T14 which has a reputation for being a 3pt league.

Ha, yeah right enough, it's pointless quoting one of his major contributions to the team when he's not doing outrageous offloads or
putting players in for a score via dummies, passes or kicks.

Optojohnny has him at 91% kicking success btw, it's all about keeping your team in the game, even when the team isn't playing its best rugby

And he's probably played more minutes than any other kicker in the comp anyway.

Nope, you can check by clicking through on the players' names

Until the Montpellier game, Racing had been uniformly gash and Russell's directionless play was as much to blame for that as anything else.

This is just pure opinion.

Honestly, I don't understand the effort put in by some to say how crap these creative players are.

Your link does not work.
https://www.lnr.fr/rugby-top-14/joueurs/finn-russell
has him playing every game this season with an average of 67 minutes per game. I doubt any other FH has played as much time.

Meantime, the merry-go-round continues
https://www.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/transfer ... tory.shtml
and annoyingly it seems he's staying.

[Tichtheid]

The site I linked to seems to be down, but Russell’s average of 67 mins was less than most of the others in the top ten list, more than one or two. The number of games was very similar to the others, certainly not different enough to be significant

As I said though, the percentage success and the percentage of your team’s points are the thing, keeping your side in the hunt if they are not playing well is invaluable to a team

[Biffer]

what exactly is your objection to Russell? I read your thread on him and, tbh, I'm still not really clear on this. Is it basically just that his form dropped off for a bit? This is a genuine question, by the way.

I guess it's multifold and some of which is simply personal prejudice. I've always had an inherent dislike for players who look flash but don't appear to graft or, worse, do random sh*t which as often costs their sides as it does reward them. Poitrenaud was probably the prime example. Rugby has an inherent love in towards such players, as seen in the amount of times MOTM goes to a back and hardly ever to a prop. Which is weird for a game built upon "fwds win games and backs decide by how much".

Don't get me wrong: I am as p*ssed off with the next person at how turgid the game is now and the contradiction that brings in how guys like Russell and Michalak are probably needed in the game in terms of attracting viewers.

Such players are all capable of match winning genius: just that it's so occasional. And that's because rugby is such a complex team game, rarely can one player decide the outcome by a moment of inspiration whereas it's far more frequent for one to lose it from a moment of stupidity. And therein lies the rub: Russell over the 3 years (allowing for COVID) at Racing has delivered more match losing efforts (I will wager no player has thrown as many intercept pass/kick tries in T14) than winning ones. And much of the rest of the time he creates rudderless 80 minutes. Plus he gives the impression he doesn't give a flying f**k in the manner of Alain Penaud's frequent shrug of shoulders. He's a key component of them winning f**k all. They remind me of the Ospreys in their prime. Russell was at least as responsible as Iribaren for losing Racing a Euro final: dumb chip near half way charged down and suicide random pass in own 22 which led to Slade's try being 2 moments that stick in mind......... in a game decided by 4 points.

This season is a great example: just before the Sco recall, he had a blinder for Racing against Montpellier. But pretty much every other game this year he'd been anonymous to a liability. He then had a blinder against the ABs** but I don't doubt he'll lose Scotland a game soon enough through something daft. It's not a form thing. Players like him don't do form. At least not as measured in normal time frames.

I get why Scotland, faced with the options they have, would rather have an erratic Russell than the other choices. Equally, I'm happy for him to leave France and allow space for French FHs to get game time: in Gibert, France has a genuine hope for a controlling FH no seen in decades but he's twiddling thumbs behind Russell. The acid test is "would I have him in my team?" and the answer in either Racing's or France's case is a definitive no.

**PS, part of me wonders whether he felt he had a point to prove whereas when he was the "dead cert" on the team sheet, he put in much less effort.

Having literally watched virtually every game of pro rugby he’s played, incluing since he went to france, I find this assessment of him totally baffling, tbh. It’s just completely at odds with what I’ve seen.

YeahTorq just hates him, doesn’t have to make sense.

[Torquemada 1420]

The site I linked to seems to be down, but Russell’s average of 67 mins was less than most of the others in the top ten list, more than one or two. The number of games was very similar to the others, certainly not different enough to be significant

As I said though, the percentage success and the percentage of your team’s points are the thing, keeping your side in the hunt if they are not playing well is invaluable to a team

The average isn't really the main point: he's played every game. If I could be arsed, I'd check, but watching T14 every week and I already know that other club's FHs have not done so. Ntamack and Jalibert have been injured for starters. Germain (not FH but kicker) is out for the season.

I still don't get your last point. It's the job of every kicker to kick the points. By your seeming rationale, that makes Ntamack (or Ramos) more valuable than, say, Dupont or Marchand. The only merit to this argument is if a kicker is materially better than others and even then, we have to take that in context
- conversion ratio: because in toto is going to dependent on no of pens awarded and hence style of play
- difficulty of kicks: for example, Ntamack's is distorted because he has no range so the kicks he gets the task for are easier than other players'

[Tichtheid]

The site I linked to seems to be down, but Russell’s average of 67 mins was less than most of the others in the top ten list, more than one or two. The number of games was very similar to the others, certainly not different enough to be significant

As I said though, the percentage success and the percentage of your team’s points are the thing, keeping your side in the hunt if they are not playing well is invaluable to a team

The average isn't really the main point: he's played every game. If I could be arsed, I'd check, but watching T14 every week and I already know that other club's FHs have not done so. Ntamack and Jalibert have been injured for starters. Germain (not FH but kicker) is out for the season.

If you can't be arsed then you'll have to take my word for it that I have checked.

I still don't get your last point. It's the job of every kicker to kick the points. By your seeming rationale, that makes Ntamack (or Ramos) more valuable than, say, Dupont or Marchand. The only merit to this argument is if a kicker is materially better than others and even then, we have to take that in context
- conversion ratio: because in toto is going to dependent on no of pens awarded and hence style of play
- difficulty of kicks: for example, Ntamack's is distorted because he has no range so the kicks he gets the task for are easier than other players'

You've spent a lot of energy and time, all opinion and no fact btw, on how Russell is little more than a show pony. When presented with facts as to how important he is to his team even when he is not turning in performances like he did against the All Blacks, you shifted the goal posts and tried to undermine and find fault with his position as second top goal kicker and top overall points scorer.

To be honest it all sounds a bit desperate.

[JM2K6]

The thing with Russell is that he's so good at some things that the game plan is always going to be based around that (unless you're insane, like Eddie Jones) and he's always going to try the game-breaking stuff. No-one is ever going to succeed at everything, so he will always fail a few times and it will cost his team. For example in the final - yes, he threw an intercept. He also threw a pass that was so good it let the fat Irishman jog to the tryline practically unopposed from the 22m line despite a superb defence being absolutely on it.

The best comparison I can make is the All Blacks. Not the current lot so much, but All Blacks in general over the past 15 years or so. Their style of playing won them countless games that other teams would not have won, because they were capable of creating something out of nothing, and tried it constantly to the point where it happened more often than not. Quite often those were not traditionally the "percentage plays" but for them, they basically were, because they had made it their game plan and were so good at the madskillz offloads and crazy shit that it was second nature to them. But it didn't work all the time, and their penchant for trying it was also one of their few weaknesses - they could, every now and then, be 'got at' and that desire to play a certain way turned into an area for the opposition to exploit; it also made them less likely to play another way, a way that in a few cases might have won them important games instead of losing them.

But the important thing to note is that if they were the team that didn't try those things except for when it was truly on, they'd never have won so many matches in the first place, never raised the bar for world rugby, never made their players so much better, and never pulled off those incredible heart-breaker wins. The crazy attacking genius was their genuine point of difference, and putting that away would've made them a much lesser side overall.

Same deal with Russell.

edit: It's also one of my biggest complaints about how Eddie has handled Marcus Smith. Smith's a brilliantly instinctive player who's been put in a straitjacket by a coach that simply does not believe that a) it is winning rugby, or b) that England in general are capable of competing playing the sort of rugby that Marcus Smith is good at. So instead a rare talent is asked to be a bad copy of George Ford. And he and the team are much diminished for it.

[dpedin]

The thing with Russell is that he's so good at some things that the game plan is always going to be based around that (unless you're insane, like Eddie Jones) and he's always going to try the game-breaking stuff. No-one is ever going to succeed at everything, so he will always fail a few times and it will cost his team. For example in the final - yes, he threw an intercept. He also threw a pass that was so good it let the fat Irishman jog to the tryline practically unopposed from the 22m line despite a superb defence being absolutely on it.

The best comparison I can make is the All Blacks. Not the current lot so much, but All Blacks in general over the past 15 years or so. Their style of playing won them countless games that other teams would not have won, because they were capable of creating something out of nothing, and tried it constantly to the point where it happened more often than not. Quite often those were not traditionally the "percentage plays" but for them, they basically were, because they had made it their game plan and were so good at the madskillz offloads and crazy shit that it was second nature to them. But it didn't work all the time, and their penchant for trying it was also one of their few weaknesses - they could, every now and then, be 'got at' and that desire to play a certain way turned into an area for the opposition to exploit; it also made them less likely to play another way, a way that in a few cases might have won them important games instead of losing them.

But the important thing to note is that if they were the team that didn't try those things except for when it was truly on, they'd never have won so many matches in the first place, never raised the bar for world rugby, never made their players so much better, and never pulled off those incredible heart-breaker wins. The crazy attacking genius was their genuine point of difference, and putting that away would've made them a much lesser side overall.

Same deal with Russell.

edit: It's also one of my biggest complaints about how Eddie has handled Marcus Smith. Smith's a brilliantly instinctive player who's been put in a straitjacket by a coach that simply does not believe that a) it is winning rugby, or b) that England in general are capable of competing playing the sort of rugby that Marcus Smith is good at. So instead a rare talent is asked to be a bad copy of George Ford. And he and the team are much diminished for it.

For the record I think that Russell is a marvellous player and a game winner for every team he has played for.

I also reckon that Smith could be almost, but not quite, as good. If I was Jones, and I am happy I am not, then I would build my team and tactics around him and develop the style of play that would get the most out of him. Instead Jones doesnt trust him and puts Farrell at 12 to play as a second FH and as said above puts Smith into a straight jacket. Smith needs a mobile 8 with good hands at the back of the scrum, a nippy 9 with fast service and a 12 who can crash the ball up and develop space in 2nd phase ball. Smith can then play flat on the gain line and look to bring his 13 and back 3 into the game. Instead Jones puts Vunipola at 8, the slowest 8 in the world with hands of clay, Youngs at 9 who is glacial and Farrell at 12 who sits deep, barks out instructions and kicks good ball away. As a result the 13 ends up as crash ball and the back 3 rarely get a chance on the ball, which doesnt matter much given that Jones picks a slow or out of form back 3 anyway. Smith is the future for England however as a Scot I am glad Jones doesnt accept this.

[Ymx]

Are you saying that Torq doesn’t even support the French team Russell plays in ffs?!!!

With all that bleating and he doesn’t even have a horse in the race(ing).

That’s some serious rent free living he has there.

[lemonhead]

I severely doubt that Van Graan is the man to help you achieve that uptick.

Could hardly get any worse than last season. Van Graan won't win them league titles but I'd allow for him learning from mistakes at Munster and Ferreira gives you a proper stingy defence.

Struggling with his pursuit of Russell though, that's a bit off the deep end for him.

[Torquemada 1420]

Bye.

Couldn't think of a more appropriate club either.

[Torquemada 1420]

The best comparison I can make is the All Blacks. Not the current lot so much, but All Blacks in general over the past 15 years or so. Their style of playing won them countless games that other teams would not have won, because they were capable of creating something out of nothing, and tried it constantly to the point where it happened more often than not. Quite often those were not traditionally the "percentage plays" but for them, they basically were, because they had made it their game plan and were so good at the madskillz offloads and crazy shit that it was second nature to them. But it didn't work all the time, and their penchant for trying it was also one of their few weaknesses - they could, every now and then, be 'got at' and that desire to play a certain way turned into an area for the opposition to exploit; it also made them less likely to play another way, a way that in a few cases might have won them important games instead of losing them.

But the important thing to note is that if they were the team that didn't try those things except for when it was truly on, they'd never have won so many matches in the first place, never raised the bar for world rugby, never made their players so much better, and never pulled off those incredible heart-breaker wins. The crazy attacking genius was their genuine point of difference, and putting that away would've made them a much lesser side overall.

That's not quite an accurate comparison because rugby is a team game and the ABs you describe were all on the same page. And that's the trouble with Russell: whether you believe he is the messiah or just a naughty boy, the huge failing is most of the time even his own side doesn't know what he's doing or going to do. It's just that I think most of the time he doesn't know either but the latter is largely immaterial to the wider outcome.

[OomStruisbaai]

Thomas Tank will be a huge signing for Bath.

[sockwithaticket]

I severely doubt that Van Graan is the man to help you achieve that uptick.

Could hardly get any worse than last season. Van Graan won't win them league titles but I'd allow for him learning from mistakes at Munster and Ferreira gives you a proper stingy defence.

Struggling with his pursuit of Russell though, that's a bit off the deep end for him.

It almost certainly comes from the owner, Bruce Craig.

[Torquemada 1420]

And............. you guessed it

ESSAI DU STADE FRANCAIS ! MACALOU INTERCEPTE ! Oh la passe de Russell est parfaitement anticipée par le troisième ligne international Macalou, qui avec sa pointe de vitesse, fait la différence

Russell's trademark, intercept pass