Moderators: pedro52, chappo, Ron, Loops
Tichtheid wrote:As a general rule the tighthead has to cope with the pressure from both packs coming through their back/shoulders, as a consequence gaining forward movement, any forward movement is as a result of beating your opponent hands down.
You can attack the opposition scrum from the loosehead a lot more easily.
At tighthead you take the weight of the hooker and their number one across your shoulders, you also have a lock and a flanker driving you from behind, and the locks are supported by the number eight.
On the loosehead side you have the same except you have your left shoulder free,
The tighthead has to be very strong across the chest - think of how you'd use a pec deck at the gym, that is kind of the action you use in that your left arm is around the hooker and your right arm is reaching around the out side of their loosehead. Ideally you have your back parallel to the ground in the set up and when the ball comes in you squeeze the life out of your opponent, drop your hips a little and extend your legs, driving your opponent back
The loosehead sets up a little like a flanker would, the weight on your right shoulder as it contacts your opponent, right arm around the hooker and left arm under the opponent's right and on to his shirt.
You have to be very strong in the lower back as when the ball comes in you drop the hips a little and drive up and in, destabilising the tighthead and forcing him backwards.
Props are often caught out by having their feet too far back, this is a more secure, defensive set up as you lock out your legs and are very difficult to shift. The downside is that you can slip and the scrum goes down, from memory Kebble was getting caught out this way yesterday (I haven't watched the game again yet). Taller props ofter have this problem against shorter opponents - Bergs suffered from it during his first couple of seasons with us.
The ideal scrum is one where all eight players' backs are at the same height and almost parallel to the ground, hips a little lower than the shoulders. Looking from above you have two pods consisting of the prop, the lock and the flanker and the number eight locks them in to a single unit, the hooker doing something similar in the front row.
borderflanker wrote:Did anyone else see the stamp by Wilson on Gilco in the collapsed maul just before Horne scored ?
BigD163 wrote:
There is little doubt IMO that GG is the best second row available to Scotland now.
The Feral Goat wrote:
Like Cockerill I am getting a bit fed up of hearing that we only appear to have won because Glasgow were so poor. We executed a game plan very well and did not let them play two weeks in a row.
germain wrote:Cockerill can't really complain too much about it.
He loves to play mind games before the game. And say things like "we're underdogs", "we have so much respect for them", "how could we compete when you see their squad", or "how can we compete against the leader of the conference A", etc...
so, after hearing all this, it's only natural for commentators to say that Glasgow lost beacause they failed to deliver. They just take Cockerill's own words seriously
germain wrote:The Feral Goat wrote:
Like Cockerill I am getting a bit fed up of hearing that we only appear to have won because Glasgow were so poor. We executed a game plan very well and did not let them play two weeks in a row.
Cockerill can't really complain too much about it.
He loves to play mind games before the game. And say things like "we're underdogs", "we have so much respect for them", "how could we compete when you see their squad", or "how can we compete against the leader of the conference A", etc...
so, after hearing all this, it's only natural for commentators to say that Glasgow lost beacause they failed to deliver. They just take Cockerill's own words seriously.
Everybody knows (except Cockerill ?) for years that your pack is better than Glasgow's, and so that you have often an advantage in that kind of very tensed and tight games. And I don't think many people said you won only because Glasgow were poor.
New Gunner wrote:
‘Your’ pack? Didn’t you used to profess to be an Edinburgh (AND Glasgow) fan? Maybe you only like show pony snowflake teams?
Wottie wrote:germain wrote:Cockerill can't really complain too much about it.
He loves to play mind games before the game. And say things like "we're underdogs", "we have so much respect for them", "how could we compete when you see their squad", or "how can we compete against the leader of the conference A", etc...
so, after hearing all this, it's only natural for commentators to say that Glasgow lost beacause they failed to deliver. They just take Cockerill's own words seriously
Sorry but that’s utter b*llocks!
Return to Edinburgh Rugby Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests