Édition du Nord

Select Edition

Nord Nord
Sud Sud
Mondial Mondial
Nouvelle Zélande Nouvelle Zélande
France France

Six Nations : Allan et Varney dans le groupe de l'Italie

Par AFP
Stephen Varney (Photo by Ryan Hiscott/Getty Images) (Photo by Ryan Hiscott/Getty Images)

L’ouvreur de Perpignan (Top 14) Tommaso Allan et le demi de mêlée de Vannes (Top 14) Stephen Varney figurent dans le groupe de l’Italie pour préparer le Tournoi des six nations, dont la composition a été communiquée vendredi 10 janvier.

ADVERTISEMENT

Allan, détenteur du record de points inscrits par un Italien dans le Tournoi (165), avait annoncé en février dernier, après la courte défaite de l’Italie devant l’Angleterre (27-24), prendre ses distances avec le rugby international.

Il n’était revenu qu’en novembre contre l’Argentine, où il était entré en cours de jeu pour remplacer Ange Capuozzo, blessé. Lui-même blessé, il avait dû ensuite renoncer aux test-matches contre la Géorgie et la Nouvelle-Zélande.

Related

Le demi de mêlée Stephen Varney, passé en octobre du club anglais de Gloucester à celui français de Vannes, promu en Top 14, n’avait pas été retenu pour les tests de novembre. Il est de retour dans le groupe.

Un groupe où figure l’ailier Simone Gesi, qui prend la place de Louis Lynagh, opéré du ligament d’un genou au début de la semaine et privé de Tournoi.

Le XV d’Italie débutera sa campagne dans le Tournoi des six nations en allant défier l’Ecosse, qu’il avait battue l’an dernier à domicile 31-29, le 1er février à Murrayfield.

Rencontre
Six Nations
Scotland
08:15
1 Fév 25
Italy
Toutes les stats et les données

Le groupe de l’Italie pour le Tournoi des Six Nations :

Avants (20) : Simone Ferrari, Danilo Fischetti, Marco Ricconi, Luca Rizzoli, Giosue Zilocchi, Gianmarco Lucchesi, Giacomo Nicotera, Niccolo Cannone, Riccardo Favretto, Dino Lamb, Federico Ruzza, Lorenzo Cannone, Alessandro Izekor, Michele Lamaro (cap), Sebastian Negri, Ross Vintcent, Manuel Zuliani, Matteo Canali, Tommaso Di Bartolomeo, Muhamed Hasa

ADVERTISEMENT

Arrières (14) : Alessandro Garbisi, Martin Page-Relo, Stephen Varney, Tommaso Allan, Paolo Garbisi, Leonardo Marin, Juan Ignacio Brex, Tommaso Menoncello, Ange Capuozzo, Matt Gallagher, Simone Gesi, Monty Ioane, Jacopo Trulla, Giulio Bertaccini

Related

Visionnez l'épisode exclusif de "Walk the Talk" où Ardie Savea discute avec Jim Hamilton de son expérience à la Coupe du Monde de Rugby 2023, de sa vie au Japon, de son parcours avec les All Blacks et de ses perspectives d'avenir. Regardez-le gratuitement dès maintenant sur RugbyPass TV.

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Commentaires

0 Comments
Soyez le premier à commenter...

Inscrivez-vous gratuitement et dites-nous ce que vous en pensez vraiment !

Inscription gratuite
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 1 hour ago
How law changes are speeding up the game - but the scrum lags behind

so what's the point?

A deep question!


First, the point would be you wouldn't have a share of those penalities if you didn't choose good scrummers right.


So having incentive to scrummaging well gives more space in the field through having less mobile players.


This balance is what we always strive to come back to being the focus of any law change right.


So to bring that back to some of the points in this article, if changing the current 'offense' structure of scrums, to say not penalizing a team that's doing their utmost to hold up the scrum (allowing play to continue even if they did finally succumb to collapsing or w/e for example), how are we going to stop that from creating a situation were a coach can prioritize the open play abilities of their tight five, sacrificing pure scrummaging, because they won't be overly punished by having a weak scrum?


But to get back on topic, yes, that balance is too skewed, the prevalence has been too much/frequent.


At the highest level, with the best referees and most capable props, it can play out appealingly well. As you go down the levels, the coaching of tactics seems to remain high, but the ability of the players to adapt and hold their scrum up against that guy boring, or the skill of the ref in determining what the cause was and which of those two to penalize, quickly degrades the quality of the contest and spectacle imo (thank good european rugby left that phase behind!)


Personally I have some very drastic changes in mind for the game that easily remedy this prpblem (as they do for all circumstances), but the scope of them is too great to bring into this context (some I have brought in were applicable), and without them I can only resolve to come up with lots of 'finicky' like those here. It is easy to understand why there is reluctance in their uptake.


I also think it is very folly of WR to try and create this 'perfect' picture of simple laws that can be used to cover all aspects of the game, like 'a game to be played on your feet' etc, and not accept it needs lots of little unique laws like these. I'd be really happy to create some arbitrary advantage for the scrum victors (similar angle to yours), like if you can make your scrum go forward, that resets the offside line from being the ball to the back foot etc, so as to create a way where your scrum wins a foot be "5 meters back" from the scrum becomes 7, or not being able to advance forward past the offisde line (attack gets a free run at you somehow, or devide the field into segments and require certain numbers to remain in the other sgements (like the 30m circle/fielders behind square requirements in cricket). If you're defending and you go forward then not just is your 9 still allowed to harras the opposition but the backline can move up from the 5m line to the scrum line or something.


Make it a real mini game, take your solutions and making them all circumstantial. Having differences between quick ball or ball held in longer, being able to go forward, or being pushed backwards, even to where the scrum stops and the ref puts his arm out in your favour. Think of like a quick tap scenario, but where theres no tap. If the defending team collapses the scrum in honest attempt (even allow the attacking side to collapse it after gong forward) the ball can be picked up (by say the eight) who can run forward without being allowed to be tackled until he's past the back of the scrum for example. It's like a little mini picture of where the defence is scrambling back onside after a quick tap was taken.


The purpose/intent (of any such gimmick) is that it's going to be so much harder to stop his momentum, and subsequent tempo, that it's a really good advantage for having such a powerful scrum. No change of play to a lineout or blowing of the whistle needed.

161 Go to comments
J
JW 2 hours ago
How law changes are speeding up the game - but the scrum lags behind

Very good, now we are getting somewhere (though you still didn't answer the question but as you're a South African I think we can all assume what the answer would be if you did lol)! Now let me ask you another question, and once you've answered that to yourself, you can ask yourself a followup question, to witch I'm intrigued to know the answer.


Well maybe more than a couple of questions, just to be clear. What exactly did this penalty stop you from doing the the first time that you want to try again? What was this offence that stopped you doing it? Then ask yourself how often would this occur in the game. Now, thinking about the regularity of it and compare it to how it was/would be used throughout the rest of the game (in cases other than the example you gave/didn't give for some unknown reason).


What sort of balance did you find?


Now, we don't want to complicate things further by bringing into the discussion points Bull raised like 'entirety' or 'replaced with a ruck', so instead I'll agree that if we use this article as a trigger to expanding our opinions/thoughts, why not allow a scrum to be reset if that is what they(you) want? Stopping the clock for it greatly removes the need to stop 5 minutes of scrum feeds happening. Fixing the law interpretations (not incorrectly rewarding the dominant team) and reducing the amount of offences that result in a penalty would greatly reduce the amount of repeat scrums in the first place. And now that refs a card happy, when a penalty offence is committed it's going to be far more likely it results in the loss of a player, then the loss of scrums completely and instead having a 15 on 13 advantage for the scrum dominant team to then run their opposition ragged. So why not take the scrum again (maybe you've already asked yourself that question by now)?


It will kind be like a Power Play in Hockey. Your outlook here is kind of going to depend on your understanding of what removing repeat scrums was put in place for, but I'm happy the need for it is gone in a new world order. As I've said on every discussion on this topic, scrums are great, it is just what they result in that hasn't been. Remove the real problem and scrum all you like. The All Blacks will love zapping that energy out of teams.

161 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Davit Niniashvili: 'Georgia can qualify for the Rugby World Cup quarter-finals' Davit Niniashvili: 'Georgia can qualify for the Rugby World Cup quarter-finals'
Search