Suddenly...really?

It's a real conundrum.  He has scored two tries in two games which is a significant contribution.  On the other hand his out of hand kicking is a huge problem...they are so frequent, so obvious and so forecast in advance that the opposition can position themselves and prepare for the inevitable counter attack.

I have reviewed the Bath and Northampton games again and it is staggeringly obvious that Danny Care's box kicks are, in the majority of cases, gathered under no pressure, passed wide and then run back to put the team under huge pressure.  So if that is obvious to me it must be a gift to the analytical minds of attacking coaches in the premiership.

Yesterday was no different.  He kicked the leather off the ball and whilst a small percentage led to a knock on advantage (due to the conditions) most were easily caught and returned with interest.

These are 'Rope a Dope' tactics that encourage opposing teams to attack.  3 yellow cards, 12 penalties and 20 points to Bristol suggest they are not working.   
 

I get the impression that our new-ish poster "harlequins" is on the wind-up somewhat, having just read another post.

As fine a player as Care is, he is not the man to execute tactics based on accurate box kicking.

Danny is just following orders. He is fully committed and my first name on the the TeamSheet after Robbo.

He was verging on a liablity by the second half of last season. Numerous times he was flapping his hands while the opposition just took the ball from his feet. His box kicking looked better in game 1 but has since been as bad as it’s always been - and his pace is only evident when he doesn’t take forever to take the ball and stops whining at the ref.

I have never really grasped the concept of choosing to play without the ball. 

With the ball in hand there is a commitment to attack, put the opposition under pressure and wrest an advantage which ideally will get points on the board.  Isn't that the essence of the game?  By choosing to give away possession and play without the ball the only recourse is to defend and in rugby that generally includes attempting to get the ball back.... thats the bit I just don't understand...kicking the ball back to a team in the hope they will make an error or you can win it back at a breakdown.  If they don't make an error and you can't win it back fairly then presumably you are prepared to spend the afternoon hoping for the best in your own 22?   

I understand this has been the playing philosophy at Saracens (in the past?) but are there any top teams - international or domestic - where this is the usual approach? 

"would have been better off playing without the ball" just sounds plain daft and from where I was sitting we seemed to be doing an excellent job of avoiding the thing most of the game anyway!

It will be fascinating to see how Gloucester prepare for DC's box kicks....bet they are out on the park this very afternoon practicing.
 

He very nearly gave a try away standing 4 feet from a ruck looking at the ref in our 22 on Saturday.