Dave wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 1:21 pm
I have outlined why I don't rate him. If you do, go ahead and tell us why. We don't have to agree of course, but perhaps I will learn something from your perspective. I haven't read anyone slagging him off for being not world class, that certainly wasn't my point so I have no response to that.
The impression I get is if someone's not world class, then they're rubbish, which I just don't get.
I presumed you were referring to me when you wrote "You can't make the broad assumption that he must be good because we won".
I never said he was good - I said he was decent. He certainly wasn't bad - we wouldn't have won if he had been. It took a team performance and that includes No10. Of course all that is relative to where you set the benchmark.
I think we are in agreement that we all want a better player than Billy as our first choice 10 - I'm just saying it's not gonna happen and getting behind Billy and pushing him to keep playing his best is better than slagging him off. Let's be honest, if we had him as our #10 understudy, he's probably as good as many teams' backup outhalf and better than some.
That's where I rate him. If you don't rate him at all that's your choice.
I said the parts of his game that I think are poor. He also makes too many mistakes. He was awful against Connacht. I'm not just choosing to say that. I didn't see any defending him. He is capable of good performances but we don't see it enough.
Once again, I don't know who is asserting 'if someone's not world class, then they're rubbish', so I can't help with that.
It’s an interesting one.
Harry Byrne had been absolute tom kite every time I’ve seen him this season yet he’s in the Ireland squad.
You haven't watch the last couple of games for Leinster Byrne (H) has been a yard and and half better the Burns> Admittedly Byrne has been playing to a script with very little ad libbing necessary.
Mostly passing the ball to be pre determined receivers and very little kicking necessary and behind a pack going forward but the back line has performed outside him basically because they have been playing a deep back line .
Ulster are playing mostly a flat back line game which makes the task much harder for an out half -- there is very little time to vary the game and options are quickly lost due rush defences at obvious receivers.
My major criticism of Burns is that he tends to run across the pitch away from on coming tacklers and play across the pitch and as a consequence those outside him continue to run across the field instead of up field -- by doing so they run from their support and reduce the space available to players outside them and bring the defence across the field with them. thus when Player gets tackled he is frequently isolated and caught as "failing to release "
My major contribution would that at the moment Burns' kicking has been poor too long and not contestable and seldom into space .
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
I have always said he was too small and would be A Target for a late tackle -- if that is not stating the fact I think he would be frequently injured and therefore I believe it is obvious I consider his welfare would be at stake.
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
rumncoke wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 7:50 am
I have always said he was too small and would be A Target for a late tackle -- if that is not stating the fact I think he would be frequently injured and therefore I believe it is obvious I consider his welfare would be at stake.
You've got a point there*.
Playing him at 10, and all the tackles would be late.
The latest we normally play at is 8, but more normally about half past 7.
* as your point relates to '10', you must have a decimal point.
I'm not arguing -
I'm just explaining why I'm right
I thought they would at least review the tip tackle and possibly Raka's fingers in Kane' s eyes. Normally even accidental contact with the eyes gets a ban.
rumncoke wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 7:50 am
I have always said he was too small and would be A Target for a late tackle -- if that is not stating the fact I think he would be frequently injured and therefore I believe it is obvious I consider his welfare would be at stake.
You've got a point there*.
Playing him at 10, and all the tackles would be late.
The latest we normally play at is 8, but more normally about half past 7.
