Oakboy wrote:Let's be honest, none of the backrowers worked hard enough till Eddie 'adjusted' them. Billy is now putting in 80 minutes. Robshaw is totally committed. Wood has been recalled. Once Hughes has adjusted and IF he is fully on-form, he has the potential to be our best back-rower, IMO. His pace and skill-set give him something over and above the rest. Would I pick him tomorrow? No. Ignore the prejudice because of how he qualified and judge on rugby ability would me my plea.
Tsch. Robshaw has his limitations and has had his periods of poor form, but to say he's not previously been totally committed is just wrong. He has *always* run his heart out for England.
This - I can't believe that comment was allowed to stand unopposed for so long.
I can't think of a single match where Robshaw has been anything less than 100% committed. Hell, I can't think of a single minute.
For all his flaws and over-promotion; his commitment as surely never been doubted.
Last edited by Which Tyler on Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
Which Tyler wrote:This - I can't believe that comment was allowed to stand unopposed for so long.
Hey, occasionally my work like it when I at least pretend to work!
Good news for England's back row, for the first game at least. South Africa are now going to be missing Jaco Kriel as well as Louw for the AIs. He's torn a knee ligament.
Puja wrote:Hey, occasionally my work like it when I at least pretend to work!
Wasn't aimed at you - you (eventually) adressed the silliness. It was aimed at everyone who saw his post, and let it stand unchallenged.
It wasn't aimed at me either, as I'd only just gotten online when I quoted you.
Stom wrote:Do we seriously think putting Hughes in our backrow is a good idea? He doesn't work hard enough, and the entire ruck burden will fall on Robshaw. We've seen what happens when that's the case before...
Let's be honest, none of the backrowers worked hard enough till Eddie 'adjusted' them. Billy is now putting in 80 minutes. Robshaw is totally committed. Wood has been recalled. Once Hughes has adjusted and IF he is fully on-form, he has the potential to be our best back-rower, IMO. His pace and skill-set give him something over and above the rest. Would I pick him tomorrow? No. Ignore the prejudice because of how he qualified and judge on rugby ability would me my plea.
Tsch. Robshaw has his limitations and has had his periods of poor form, but to say he's not previously been totally committed is just wrong. He has *always* run his heart out for England.
My enduring memory of the world cup debacle against Australia is AAC's try when the game was already lost - one of the replays perfectly captures [redacted] ambling gently over to give an impression of being in the right area, while at the same time Robshaw is sprinting at top speed in a futile last ditch attempt to stop the try (and is in fact the reason it's scored in the corner rather than under the posts). I loved him for that.
Puja
A smidgeon of cross purposes here. I agree that Robshaw is and always was totally committed but he is producing more effective work over 80 minutes under Jones than he ever has before. Call me wrong for including that in a generalisation of all back-rowers working harder if you like. I think his efforts are more usefully applied. Can we agree on that? Incidentally, I don't see that as entirely a matter of moving from 7 to 6 as Jones likes to portray it. Robshaw will always be affected by his limitations (who isn't?). I suspect that Jones is doing a 'confidence' job on him after the RWC by publicly detaching him from the 7 shirt and the captaincy. Injuries have not forced him to backtrack on that - yet.
A shame if SA lose players. We want/need our team to be pushed as much as possible, Australia let us down over the summer, hopefully we're forced to do more to earn some wins this next series.
Oakboy wrote:
Let's be honest, none of the backrowers worked hard enough till Eddie 'adjusted' them. Billy is now putting in 80 minutes. Robshaw is totally committed. Wood has been recalled. Once Hughes has adjusted and IF he is fully on-form, he has the potential to be our best back-rower, IMO. His pace and skill-set give him something over and above the rest. Would I pick him tomorrow? No. Ignore the prejudice because of how he qualified and judge on rugby ability would me my plea.
Tsch. Robshaw has his limitations and has had his periods of poor form, but to say he's not previously been totally committed is just wrong. He has *always* run his heart out for England.
My enduring memory of the world cup debacle against Australia is AAC's try when the game was already lost - one of the replays perfectly captures [redacted] ambling gently over to give an impression of being in the right area, while at the same time Robshaw is sprinting at top speed in a futile last ditch attempt to stop the try (and is in fact the reason it's scored in the corner rather than under the posts). I loved him for that.
Puja
A smidgeon of cross purposes here. I agree that Robshaw is and always was totally committed but he is producing more effective work over 80 minutes under Jones than he ever has before. Call me wrong for including that in a generalisation of all back-rowers working harder if you like. I think his efforts are more usefully applied. Can we agree on that? Incidentally, I don't see that as entirely a matter of moving from 7 to 6 as Jones likes to portray it. Robshaw will always be affected by his limitations (who isn't?). I suspect that Jones is doing a 'confidence' job on him after the RWC by publicly detaching him from the 7 shirt and the captaincy. Injuries have not forced him to backtrack on that - yet.
I disagree. I don't think Robshaw's personal performances have particularly improved, it's more that he is in a better performing unit. As such, he can just get on with his work quietly and effectively, without having to take on extra work that stunts his performance elsewhere.
Puja wrote:
Tsch. Robshaw has his limitations and has had his periods of poor form, but to say he's not previously been totally committed is just wrong. He has *always* run his heart out for England.
My enduring memory of the world cup debacle against Australia is AAC's try when the game was already lost - one of the replays perfectly captures [redacted] ambling gently over to give an impression of being in the right area, while at the same time Robshaw is sprinting at top speed in a futile last ditch attempt to stop the try (and is in fact the reason it's scored in the corner rather than under the posts). I loved him for that.
Puja
A smidgeon of cross purposes here. I agree that Robshaw is and always was totally committed but he is producing more effective work over 80 minutes under Jones than he ever has before. Call me wrong for including that in a generalisation of all back-rowers working harder if you like. I think his efforts are more usefully applied. Can we agree on that? Incidentally, I don't see that as entirely a matter of moving from 7 to 6 as Jones likes to portray it. Robshaw will always be affected by his limitations (who isn't?). I suspect that Jones is doing a 'confidence' job on him after the RWC by publicly detaching him from the 7 shirt and the captaincy. Injuries have not forced him to backtrack on that - yet.
I disagree. I don't think Robshaw's personal performances have particularly improved, it's more that he is in a better performing unit. As such, he can just get on with his work quietly and effectively, without having to take on extra work that stunts his performance elsewhere.
I'd say a mixture of both - Robshaw was really struggling by the end of the RWC, which wasn't really surprising given the obloquy heaped upon him. I think he's improved by having the pressure of the 7 and captaincy being overtly removed from him and he is definitely playing much better than his nadir.
However, at his previous peak for England, I thought his performances excellent and equal or better than what we've seen now. Stom's right in that it shows more now that he's in a less dysfunctional team.
I'd say a mixture of both - Robshaw was really struggling by the end of the RWC, which wasn't really surprising given the obloquy heaped upon him. I think he's improved by having the pressure of the 7 and captaincy being overtly removed from him and he is definitely playing much better than his nadir.
However, at his previous peak for England, I thought his performances excellent and equal or better than what we've seen now. Stom's right in that it shows more now that he's in a less dysfunctional team.
Puja[/quote]
Assuming Eddie wanted to go that way, I'd be quite happy with Robshsaw back at 7. Until the RWC debacle, he performed admirably there, IMO. As captain and as a 'non-traditional' 7, he was a scapegoat. People easily forget the pack in its entirity underperforming, the backrow as a unit failing and the coaching crew revealing how out of touch they were. Opinion on this board was overwhelmingly in favour of him being discarded (me included) on the grounds of assuming he could not recover from the disaster. Eddie proved us all wrong. He got something out of Robshaw that I would have said was not possible.
Oakboy wrote:
A smidgeon of cross purposes here. I agree that Robshaw is and always was totally committed but he is producing more effective work over 80 minutes under Jones than he ever has before. Call me wrong for including that in a generalisation of all back-rowers working harder if you like. I think his efforts are more usefully applied. Can we agree on that? Incidentally, I don't see that as entirely a matter of moving from 7 to 6 as Jones likes to portray it. Robshaw will always be affected by his limitations (who isn't?). I suspect that Jones is doing a 'confidence' job on him after the RWC by publicly detaching him from the 7 shirt and the captaincy. Injuries have not forced him to backtrack on that - yet.
I disagree. I don't think Robshaw's personal performances have particularly improved, it's more that he is in a better performing unit. As such, he can just get on with his work quietly and effectively, without having to take on extra work that stunts his performance elsewhere.
I'd say a mixture of both - Robshaw was really struggling by the end of the RWC, which wasn't really surprising given the obloquy heaped upon him. I think he's improved by having the pressure of the 7 and captaincy being overtly removed from him and he is definitely playing much better than his nadir.
However, at his previous peak for England, I thought his performances excellent and equal or better than what we've seen now. Stom's right in that it shows more now that he's in a less dysfunctional team.
Puja
That is some effort cramming these 3 gems into one reply.
Mellsblue wrote:Only a tangential note, I can't believe we've come to the point where 'the Haskell role', or variations of, is now common rugby parlance that needs no further explanation. Jones, for all the good he's done, has some apologising to do.
Surely the Wurzle role was never around hitting the first ruck? We kept him in midfield to chop down whoever was the most dangerous runner on the opposition side.
So, possibly no Lawes. This is starting to get a little bit concerning. All we need now is one of Robshaw or Launchbury to go down and we'll be fully screwed.
If we do lose Lawes, would we be better having a like-for-like in Ewels or the big lump of Attwood. Anyone know which of them calls Bath's lineout?
Puja wrote:So, possibly no Lawes. This is starting to get a little bit concerning. All we need now is one of Robshaw or Launchbury to go down and we'll be fully screwed.
If we do lose Lawes, would we be better having a like-for-like in Ewels or the big lump of Attwood. Anyone know which of them calls Bath's lineout?
Puja
It's crazy ... If Lawes is ruled out, I make that 11 players injured from the original 45 man squad - nearly 25% of the squad!
Attwood is the logical choice to step in, but I think Ewels is potentially a better foil for Launchbury.
Puja wrote:So, possibly no Lawes. This is starting to get a little bit concerning. All we need now is one of Robshaw or Launchbury to go down and we'll be fully screwed.
If we do lose Lawes, would we be better having a like-for-like in Ewels or the big lump of Attwood. Anyone know which of them calls Bath's lineout?
Puja
It's crazy ... If Lawes is ruled out, I make that 11 players injured from the original 45 man squad - nearly 25% of the squad!
Attwood is the logical choice to step in, but I think Ewels is potentially a better foil for Launchbury.
Symons and/or Gaskell probably next after that.
That's the figure often quoted for usual number of players out of a rugby squad at any one time.
Getting a quarter of the squad injured isn't always going to result in an equal distribution between the team and back ups. Look at last 6N. We looked injury free but there were quite a few to fringe players. This time round, not many injuries outside of the 23 other than to back rows.
IIRC it's generally 20-30% injured from any squad.
It therefore follows (logically) that it's generally 20-30% injured from any starting 23 too (if anything more, as the starters will be playing more rugby).
Now, wha's 25% of 23 I wonder?
It's not the % of the squad that's the issue, it's the % per position. We have 75% of the locks injured (assuming Lawes is crocked) and 100% of the openside flankers, plus 100% of the next three in line (assuming Harrrison was behind Jones, Williams and Itoje). There's also 66% of the wings and it would've been 100% if May hasn't recovered well ahead of schedule. The other position affected by injuries is the 0% of scrumhalves that are injured.
Last season we did seem to be very lucky with injuries. Not so now. Swings and roundabouts really.
If Lawes doesnt make it losing 3 of our 4 best locks is a blow, as are the injuries to the back rowers. Wing I dont think is such an issue with May coming back and looking sharp.
In the 2nd row Attwood should move up. I'd be inclined to bypass Ewels, who I dont think is quite ready, and bring in Slater and possibly Kitchener.
We'll be OK .......assuming no one else gets crocked this weekend.
Mikey Brown wrote:Kitchener is a good shout. Really haven't seen enough of Ewels to comment. I like both Slater and Atwood but would question them with launch too.
Good point, that. Launchbury and Kitchener would be a balanced pairing.
