Flake Russell: what's the point?

[Slick]

You're struggling for first phase possession, your pack are getting eaten alive and to top it all off your 10 is wasting possession on low percentage plays in miserable conditions.

He's a luxury player.

He’s a player who, like every 10 in the entire game, looks better behind a dominant pack. Dan Carter would have looked hopeless in a team that lost 6/9 of their own lineouts.

The thing is though he doesn't often play behind a dominant pack and rarely shows that he knows how to play behind what we have got. As Fester says we cannot afford the luxury of him pissing possession away on risky plays.

I’m beginning to come round to this. If he can only play well behind a dominant pack maybe we have to look elsewhere.

Hastings played very well when Finn had his wee huff, maybe we have to get behind him

[Slick]

Sorry, I just don't see it. Today was about the line out, pure and simple. Trying to pretend it was something else just makes excuses for them.

You're struggling for first phase possession, your pack are getting eaten alive and to top it all off your 10 is wasting possession on low percentage plays in miserable conditions.

He's a luxury player.

He’s a player who, like every 10 in the entire game, looks better behind a dominant pack. Dan Carter would have looked hopeless in a team that lost 6/9 of their own lineouts.

Not necessarily, Australia have won a couple of world cups and lost in a couple of finals with a pack that was getting shafted on a regular basis. Of course it’s easier, but if he can’t adapt his play to the reality of the situation then we need to find someone who can

[Yr Alban]

You're struggling for first phase possession, your pack are getting eaten alive and to top it all off your 10 is wasting possession on low percentage plays in miserable conditions.

He's a luxury player.

He’s a player who, like every 10 in the entire game, looks better behind a dominant pack. Dan Carter would have looked hopeless in a team that lost 6/9 of their own lineouts.

Not necessarily, Australia have won a couple of world cups and lost in a couple of finals with a pack that was getting shafted on a regular basis. Of course it’s easier, but if he can’t adapt his play to the reality of the situation then we need to find someone who can

I’ve said it before, but there’s a reason that the Ciprianis and the Carlos Spencers of this world didn’t become international fixtures. It’s because the selectors decided they would rather have someone who maybe wasn’t capable of hitting the same heights, but whose overall game was more dependable. Russell has all the talent, but if we had had a solid Dan Biggar type as an alternative then he probably wouldn’t have as many caps as he does.

[Biffer]

Looks like you’ll all get your wish, he’s unlikely to play next week.

[Torquemada 1420]

Didn't get to see the game til late last night. Russell was epitomised for me in the cross field kick which was contested between Earl and not sure which Scottish back.

1) He had the vision to see there might be space and an opportunity.
2) He had the execution for the kick.**
3) But he made the wrong call on a high risk play. If you are winning by 20 or 6 down with 10 secs to play, sure, go for it. But it was equally as likely to have resulted in an intercept try which is something he routinely does for Racing.


**Note his missed easy pen is an oddity. The debatable straight into touch restart and the kicking the ball dead from a pen were other examples of his inability to know when pushing the boundaries too far is not on.

It's not what Russell is capable of doing but his choices of how and when to do it that are the issue for me.

Gatland will have not been impressed.

[Slick]

Didn't get to see the game til late last night. Russell was epitomised for me in the cross field kick which was contested between Earl and not sure which Scottish back.

1) He had the vision to see there might be space and an opportunity.
2) He had the execution for the kick.**
3) But he made the wrong call on a high risk play. If you are winning by 20 or 6 down with 10 secs to play, sure, go for it. But it was equally as likely to have resulted in an intercept try which is something he routinely does for Racing.


**Note his missed easy pen is an oddity. The debatable straight into touch restart and the kicking the ball dead from a pen were other examples of his inability to know when pushing the boundaries too far is not on.

It's not what Russell is capable of doing but his choices of how and when to do it that are the issue for me.

Gatland will have not been impressed.

This is really difficult, Torq, but I agree.

He played himself out of a Lions place yesterday. If I'm a coach picking 3 10's for a squad at the moment then Sexton, Biggar, Ford and Farrell are all ahead of him.

[I like neeps]

I didn't think Russell was the problem. You can't win a six nations game when you're 2 of 8 on your own lineout and the scrums are 50/50 but maybe Ireland shaded them.

He was never a Lion anyway he's not a Gatland player.

[ASMO]

Russell is a luxury player, great with a pack that is dominant and going forwards, a liability otherwise. Against the Saffers it will be unlikely the Lions will be dominant up front so Russell should not tour.

[JM2K6]

Didn't get to see the game til late last night. Russell was epitomised for me in the cross field kick which was contested between Earl and not sure which Scottish back.

1) He had the vision to see there might be space and an opportunity.
2) He had the execution for the kick.**
3) But he made the wrong call on a high risk play. If you are winning by 20 or 6 down with 10 secs to play, sure, go for it. But it was equally as likely to have resulted in an intercept try which is something he routinely does for Racing.


**Note his missed easy pen is an oddity. The debatable straight into touch restart and the kicking the ball dead from a pen were other examples of his inability to know when pushing the boundaries too far is not on.

It's not what Russell is capable of doing but his choices of how and when to do it that are the issue for me.

Gatland will have not been impressed.

The "into touch on the restart" was a fuck-up by his winger, not by him. He nailed it - too tough for the Irish players to get it, but would've fallen into the hands of any Scottish player who'd run the right line and assumed the Irish would have missed it.

Think he had a poor game all round, though.

[Uncle fester]

Didn't get to see the game til late last night. Russell was epitomised for me in the cross field kick which was contested between Earl and not sure which Scottish back.

1) He had the vision to see there might be space and an opportunity.
2) He had the execution for the kick.**
3) But he made the wrong call on a high risk play. If you are winning by 20 or 6 down with 10 secs to play, sure, go for it. But it was equally as likely to have resulted in an intercept try which is something he routinely does for Racing.


**Note his missed easy pen is an oddity. The debatable straight into touch restart and the kicking the ball dead from a pen were other examples of his inability to know when pushing the boundaries too far is not on.

It's not what Russell is capable of doing but his choices of how and when to do it that are the issue for me.

Gatland will have not been impressed.

The "into touch on the restart" was a fuck-up by his winger, not by him. He nailed it - too tough for the Irish players to get it, but would've fallen into the hands of any Scottish player who'd run the right line and assumed the Irish would have missed it.

Think he had a poor game all round, though.

Was that the one where replays showed that the ball didn't actually go out of the full?
Trying to scrub the game from my memory so might be wrong here.

[JM2K6]

Didn't get to see the game til late last night. Russell was epitomised for me in the cross field kick which was contested between Earl and not sure which Scottish back.

1) He had the vision to see there might be space and an opportunity.
2) He had the execution for the kick.**
3) But he made the wrong call on a high risk play. If you are winning by 20 or 6 down with 10 secs to play, sure, go for it. But it was equally as likely to have resulted in an intercept try which is something he routinely does for Racing.


**Note his missed easy pen is an oddity. The debatable straight into touch restart and the kicking the ball dead from a pen were other examples of his inability to know when pushing the boundaries too far is not on.

It's not what Russell is capable of doing but his choices of how and when to do it that are the issue for me.

Gatland will have not been impressed.

The "into touch on the restart" was a fuck-up by his winger, not by him. He nailed it - too tough for the Irish players to get it, but would've fallen into the hands of any Scottish player who'd run the right line and assumed the Irish would have missed it.

Think he had a poor game all round, though.

Was that the one where replays showed that the ball didn't actually go out of the full?
Trying to scrub the game from my memory so might be wrong here.

Yes, they reversed the decision. I think it probably brushed the line as it landed, but maybe not as the first contact. Either way, if you've deliberately done a low flat kickoff for your backs to try and steal, if it bounces infield they done fucked up

[JM2K6]

Russell is a luxury player, great with a pack that is dominant and going forwards, a liability otherwise. Against the Saffers it will be unlikely the Lions will be dominant up front so Russell should not tour.

This doesn't hold up. Scotland with Russell playing have frequently failed to get on top of their opponents up front and Russell's been the thing keeping them in the game. When you need to score tries against a team that are physically dominant you're not going to do it with Dan Biggar.

[Uncle fester]

This is really difficult, Torq, but I agree.

[Torquemada 1420]

Russell is a luxury player, great with a pack that is dominant and going forwards, a liability otherwise. Against the Saffers it will be unlikely the Lions will be dominant up front so Russell should not tour.

This doesn't hold up. Scotland with Russell playing have frequently failed to get on top of their opponents up front and Russell's been the thing keeping them in the game. When you need to score tries against a team that are physically dominant you're not going to do it with Dan Biggar.

I would agree but not entirely in the context you are painting
1) The nature of rugby is that if you are physically dominated, you are losing period. "Fwds decide games, backs by how much" etc. If what you are saying is Scotland are routinely so outclassed up front, they may as well roll the dice then you might have a point. A high risk strategy in that situation is more likely to compound a loss than turn the result in your favour but you are right: may as well lose by lots more with a chance of a miracle than just lose by a lot.

2) But I don't see the same picture as you of Scotland routinely being outclassed up front. I know that's not the same as "failed to get on top of their opponents" but failing to get on top of opponents doesn't equate to being subjugated by them either which then negates the need for Hail Mary. Scotland have been competitive enough up front for a while now.

I'd like some examples of Russell frequently being the one thing keeping them in the game. Here's an odd stat: I know he hasn't always been the pen taker which will distort this but he only averages just over 3 points a game.

[JM2K6]

Russell is a luxury player, great with a pack that is dominant and going forwards, a liability otherwise. Against the Saffers it will be unlikely the Lions will be dominant up front so Russell should not tour.

This doesn't hold up. Scotland with Russell playing have frequently failed to get on top of their opponents up front and Russell's been the thing keeping them in the game. When you need to score tries against a team that are physically dominant you're not going to do it with Dan Biggar.

I would agree but not entirely in the context you are painting
1) The nature of rugby is that if you are physically dominated, you are losing period. "Fwds decide games, backs by how much" etc. If what you are saying is Scotland are routinely so outclassed up front, they may as well roll the dice then you might have a point. A high risk strategy in that situation is more likely to compound a loss than turn the result in your favour but you are right: may as well lose by lots more with a chance of a miracle than just lose by a lot.

2) But I don't see the same picture as you of Scotland routinely being outclassed up front. I know that's not the same as "failed to get on top of their opponents" but failing to get on top of opponents doesn't equate to being subjugated by them either which then negates the need for Hail Mary. Scotland have been competitive enough up front for a while now.

I'd like some examples of Russell frequently being the one thing keeping them in the game. Here's an odd stat: I know he hasn't always been the pen taker which will distort this but he only averages just over 3 points a game.

Well yeah. He's the guy who creates things for other players.

[Torquemada 1420]

Well yeah. He's the guy who creates things for other players.

The entirely predicable answer. We don't have stats in rugby for assists and, even if we did, they really would be no use because the nature of the game is too complex for that. But you could help convince me with some examples of Russell being the one thing keeping Scotland in a game.

Before you start rooting around in the records, I think you'll fail. And it's got nothing to do with Russell and everything to do with rugby: another nature of the game is it's almost impossible for one player to be that influential consistently**. Even for a side on the front foot e.g. Dupont. The best example I can think off is Parrisse who was regularly cited as being a one man side.......... but he couldn't keep his side in games alone.

This really is the nub of the argument. There is no player alive or dead whose maverick play was consistently enough to have the impact you are attributing.

**Before anyone says McCaw or Carter, they played in sides surrounded by players who were the best in the world in their respective positions.

[JM2K6]

Well yeah. He's the guy who creates things for other players.

The entirely predicable answer. We don't have stats in rugby for assists and, even if we did, they really would be no use because the nature of the game is too complex for that. But you could help convince me with some examples of Russell being the one thing keeping Scotland in a game.

Before you start rooting around in the records, I think you'll fail. And it's got nothing to do with Russell and everything to do with rugby: another nature of the game is it's almost impossible for one player to be that influential consistently**. Even for a side on the front foot e.g. Dupont. The best example I can think off is Parrisse who was regularly cited as being a one man side.......... but he couldn't keep his side in games alone.

This really is the nub of the argument. There is no player alive or dead whose maverick play was consistently enough to have the impact you are attributing.

**Before anyone says McCaw or Carter, they played in sides surrounded by players who were the best in the world in their respective positions.

Mate, I'm English. I can instantly give you the game where we were 30 points up at half time and giving Scotland a hiding. Russell won MOTM for that turnaround.

It's a predictable answer because it's true. Russell's ability is his creating space for teammates and putting them in space with his kicks and passes. I don't see how that's a controversial statement.

[Line6 HXFX]

Suspect Gatland will go with the tried and tested, Grand Slam winning combination of Dan Biggar and Callum Sheedy.

And who could blame him?

[frodder]

Suspect Gatland will go with the tried and tested, Grand Slam winning combination of Dan Biggar and Callum Sheedy.

And who could blame him?

Nobody tbf

[Torquemada 1420]

Is Russell dropped or is he out due to an HIA?

[Biffer]

Is Russell dropped or is he out due to an HIA?

HIA

[SaintK]

Suspect Gatland will go with the tried and tested, Grand Slam winning combination of Dan Biggar and Callum Sheedy.

And who could blame him?

I suspect you've been smoking something that's far too strong for you!

[Torquemada 1420]

Is Russell dropped or is he out due to an HIA?

HIA

Ironic. Italy is a game where he would have thrived.

[shaggy]

Suspect Gatland will go with the tried and tested, Grand Slam winning combination of Dan Biggar and Callum Sheedy.

And who could blame him?

I suspect you've been smoking something that's far too strong for you!

That’s unfair. It is just the first evidence of humour that we have witnessed.

[Yr Alban]

Is Russell dropped or is he out due to an HIA?

HIA

Ironic. Italy is a game where he would have thrived.

Oh, so he is good some of the time then? Your hatred is inconsistent.

Here’s the thing, though. I’ve watched Russell in a lot of Test matches and I don’t ever recall him excelling against Italy in particular. His best games in a Scotland jersey have been against England (twice) and Australia. Also one against France, if memory serves.

[Torquemada 1420]

Oh, so he is good some of the time then? Your hatred is inconsistent.

Here’s the thing, though. I’ve watched Russell in a lot of Test matches and I don’t ever recall him excelling against Italy in particular. His best games in a Scotland jersey have been against England (twice) and Australia. Also one against France, if memory serves.

Your ability to think cogently is what is inconsistent. Against a side who should be easily beaten and is weak defensively, there should be zero game consequence for Russell's errors and he should also have acres of space to utilise. If he can't thrive against oppos tailor made for his style.....

As an aside, Racing has done the right thing and released Russell for the France game.

[Yr Alban]

Oh, so he is good some of the time then? Your hatred is inconsistent.

Here’s the thing, though. I’ve watched Russell in a lot of Test matches and I don’t ever recall him excelling against Italy in particular. His best games in a Scotland jersey have been against England (twice) and Australia. Also one against France, if memory serves.

Your ability to think cogently is what is inconsistent. Against a side who should be easily beaten and is weak defensively, there should be zero game consequence for Russell's errors and he should also have acres of space to utilise. If he can't thrive against oppos tailor made for his style.....

As an aside, Racing has done the right thing and released Russell for the France game.

That’s where your logic falls down though, isn’t it? The picture you paint is that he should shine in easier games and struggle in tougher ones. Actually it’s the other way round, so your theory is wrong. The truth is that he is a high risk player and he doesn’t always perform, but when he does he can win big games by himself. If we had a slightly less talented but steadier option, he might not have as many caps, but we don’t (although Hastings is maybe getting there).

[Biffer]

Torq now sayIng Russell would shine. Basically he’s changed hands so it feels like someone else is doing it.

[Line6 HXFX]

Suspect Gatland will go with the tried and tested, Grand Slam winning combination of Dan Biggar and Callum Sheedy.

And who could blame him?

I suspect you've been smoking something that's far too strong for you!

Huh?
I don't smoke anything my deary, I am super anti drugs and have been since forever.

[Torquemada 1420]

That’s where your logic falls down though, isn’t it? The picture you paint is that he should shine in easier games and struggle in tougher ones. Actually it’s the other way round, so your theory is wrong. The truth is that he is a high risk player and he doesn’t always perform, but when he does he can win big games by himself. If we had a slightly less talented but steadier option, he might not have as many caps, but we don’t (although Hastings is maybe getting there).

Think about that sentence. Because any professional whose performances are that way around ought to be having serious questions being asked over attitude.

Italic bit. Errr.... yes. Which is pretty much my point although I'm further down the slider in regards how many "win big games by himself" there actually are.

[charltom]

2) But I don't see the same picture as you of Scotland routinely being outclassed up front. I know that's not the same as "failed to get on top of their opponents" but failing to get on top of opponents doesn't equate to being subjugated by them either which then negates the need for Hail Mary. Scotland have been competitive enough up front for a while now.

Scotland have been matching their opponents up front (in the referee's eyes, at least) only this year and last year.

For almost all of the matches in that period, Finn Russell has been unavailable.

He has almost always played behind a pack on the back foot. I look forward to seeing him get used to playing behind a competitive pack.

[Torquemada 1420]

2) But I don't see the same picture as you of Scotland routinely being outclassed up front. I know that's not the same as "failed to get on top of their opponents" but failing to get on top of opponents doesn't equate to being subjugated by them either which then negates the need for Hail Mary. Scotland have been competitive enough up front for a while now.

Scotland have been matching their opponents up front (in the referee's eyes, at least) only this year and last year.

For almost all of the matches in that period, Finn Russell has been unavailable.

He has almost always played behind a pack on the back foot. I look forward to seeing him get used to playing behind a competitive pack.

He does that every time he steps out on the field for Racing.

[Biffer]

2) But I don't see the same picture as you of Scotland routinely being outclassed up front. I know that's not the same as "failed to get on top of their opponents" but failing to get on top of opponents doesn't equate to being subjugated by them either which then negates the need for Hail Mary. Scotland have been competitive enough up front for a while now.

Scotland have been matching their opponents up front (in the referee's eyes, at least) only this year and last year.

For almost all of the matches in that period, Finn Russell has been unavailable.

He has almost always played behind a pack on the back foot. I look forward to seeing him get used to playing behind a competitive pack.

He does that every time he steps out on the field for Racing.

Where they've extended his contract for 3 years at £850k a season.

[SaintK]

Scotland have been matching their opponents up front (in the referee's eyes, at least) only this year and last year.

For almost all of the matches in that period, Finn Russell has been unavailable.

He has almost always played behind a pack on the back foot. I look forward to seeing him get used to playing behind a competitive pack.

He does that every time he steps out on the field for Racing.

Where they've extended his contract for 3 years at £850k a season.

Silly money!!!

[Torquemada 1420]

Where they've extended his contract for 3 years at £850k a season.

Ahhh. The old "money men tossing cash about equates to good decisions" argument eh?

[Biffer]

Where they've extended his contract for 3 years at £850k a season.

Ahhh. The old "money men tossing cash about equates to good decisions" argument eh?

Not really. If it was signing someone new, there's a case to be made, but extending a contract when you've had guy with you for two years doesn't really work that way.

[Torquemada 1420]

Where they've extended his contract for 3 years at £850k a season.

Ahhh. The old "money men tossing cash about equates to good decisions" argument eh?

Not really. If it was signing someone new, there's a case to be made, but extending a contract when you've had guy with you for two years doesn't really work that way.

Or the fact that although Lorenzetti has very deep pockets
- there is a shortage of top quality FHs in the world (as ever)**
- and none of the Fre ones (Ntamack: Toulouse, Carbonel: Toulon, Jalibert: UBB) are coming away from clubs who can afford to keep them
- and Russell is still the next best available option to them in part on ability and in part because even if other FHs were available, they are under contract

** To emphasise that point, Ireland had to field Billy Burns FFS

[charltom]

Ah, so you admit he's top quality?

[Sandstorm]

Ah, so you admit he's top quality?

Top quality flake

[Torquemada 1420]

Ah, so you admit he's top quality?

You need an explanation in relativism?

If you picked 10 dog turds from the pavement, one of them would be the top quality pile. You get my drift?

He can still be in the top 20 FHs in the world and still be a flake.