RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:The no.8 situation is a predictable selectorial cock up imo.
Still not sure what Eddie’s first choice XV is in its entirety. Who are our first (and numbered) choice back three, centers, stand off, flankers?

Guessing at Eddie’s first XV it looks like:

1.Mako
2.George
3.Sinkler
4.Itoje
5.Kruis
6.?
7.?
8.Billy
9.Youngs
10.?
11.May
12.?
13.?
14.?
15.?

Anyone able to fill in the gaps?

You'd say that we're stuck with Daly at 15. I'll be surprised if the midfield isn't Ford/Farrell/Manu, although there is a slight chance that he's an idiot and thinks Farrell/Manu/Slade is still his best option.

Puja

I don't think we'll see as much of Ford-Farrell-Manu as you or I would like, for reasons of rotating the fly half if nothing else (ignoring the possibility of Ford filling in at SH if one of those pulls up before Sunday)

Stom wrote:With no Wilson or Coka, who do you pick?

We need to ease some players into it and wrap others in cotton wool. Frustrating we need to play Billy against Tonga, though...

Marler
LCD
Cole
Itoje
Kruis
Ludlam
Underhill
Billy
Heinz
Farrell
May
Francis
Joseph
McConnochie
Daly

Singleton, Genge, Sinckler, Lawes, Curry, Youngs, Ford, Watson

Decent sensible team. No real heavy hitting option in the backs so the back 5 of the pack would have to carry and get go forward.....but thats kinda of the way it always used to be.

richy678 wrote:

Stom wrote:With no Wilson or Coka, who do you pick?

We need to ease some players into it and wrap others in cotton wool. Frustrating we need to play Billy against Tonga, though...

Marler
LCD
Cole
Itoje
Kruis
Ludlam
Underhill
Billy
Heinz
Farrell
May
Francis
Joseph
McConnochie
Daly

Singleton, Genge, Sinckler, Lawes, Curry, Youngs, Ford, Watson

Decent sensible team. No real heavy hitting option in the backs so the back 5 of the pack would have to carry and get go forward.....but thats kinda of the way it always used to be.

It's Tonga. They're going to be big guys. Better to just use footwork to go round them.

Stom wrote:

richy678 wrote:

Stom wrote:With no Wilson or Coka, who do you pick?

We need to ease some players into it and wrap others in cotton wool. Frustrating we need to play Billy against Tonga, though...

Marler
LCD
Cole
Itoje
Kruis
Ludlam
Underhill
Billy
Heinz
Farrell
May
Francis
Joseph
McConnochie
Daly

Singleton, Genge, Sinckler, Lawes, Curry, Youngs, Ford, Watson

Decent sensible team. No real heavy hitting option in the backs so the back 5 of the pack would have to carry and get go forward.....but thats kinda of the way it always used to be.

It's Tonga. They're going to be big guys. Better to just use footwork to go round them.

Agreed. Use the piano players against Tonga and the piano shifters against the US.

Puja

Coo----eh Mr Shifter Do you know the pianos on my foot?

You hum it son, I'll play it.

Lets hope so, eh?

Play some rugby, no injuries, build a score. Hopefully set piece will be flawless and play out of an armchair.

And all those cliches.

Sunday morning....mugs of tea....bacon sandwiches......"is it too early for a beer?"....takes me back to the Lions tour in 89...."You don't pull on the gold and green jumper to pull out that type of Micky Mouse rugby" Mr Campese.

Should be up the rugby club house to watch this one. With a large number of coaches and minis and parents. Training session has been moved to earlier in the day so we can finish up and watch .

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:

TheDasher wrote:Has Ludlam played 8 before? Anyone know?

We all know what the answer is:



Puja

Can only hope

I believe Ludlum has capacity to play 8 but Saints fans may know more - wouldn’t say hard yards carrying in tight traffic is particularly his style though. Would prefer to see a converted Itoje given a go if required.

jngf my friend, Itoje is never going to play 8! And it would a travesty if he did

I only asked about Ludlam as just looking at him, I wouldn't be surprised if he had played 8 before... if Wilson was crocked and we're resting Billy against USA, I wondered if Ludlam had the ability to play there... certainly not ideal but I was trying to think of a 3rd option and I guess I'd put him there over the other options. Hopefully it won't come to that!

If I had to find an emergency #8 in the England squad I'd probably select LCD

Digby wrote:If I had to find an emergency #8 in the England squad I'd probably select LCD

It's a specialist role involving control of the ball at the back of the scrum first and foremost, so I'd pick Curry, Underhill, and Ludlam first, as players who at least have played there in their youth. Might not be the biggest at picking up from the base, but at least they'd have some semblance of knowledge of the technique required to stop the ball shooting out the back.

Shove any ersatz back row onto the flanks where they can do less damage.

Puja

if it's a specialist role picking up at the base why would flankers be inherently superior to a hooker? also I don't know LCD has never played 8 in the event that Plymouth u12s is of relevance

Digby wrote:if it's a specialist role picking up at the base why would flankers be inherently superior to a hooker? also I don't know LCD has never played 8 in the event that Plymouth u12s is of relevance

Three reasons:
1) A flanker has cross-over skills, as they will often have to control the ball at the back if it comes out to their side and are used to packing at the back of the scrum.
2) While hardly specialists, a flanker will have had some cross-training at club level in case of needing to cover in a match. They will also have been involved in training with 8s and will know a lot of the technicalities, in the same way that a loosehead would understand more of how to play tight than a beefy lock would, simply through being present at the appropriate training.
3) All three of those named have played 8 for academies or universities. It's a bit of a step down from internationals, but at least it's not completely alien to them. LCD, on the other hand, played prop and has never been in the back row in a professional environment.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:if it's a specialist role picking up at the base why would flankers be inherently superior to a hooker? also I don't know LCD has never played 8 in the event that Plymouth u12s is of relevance

Three reasons:
1) A flanker has cross-over skills, as they will often have to control the ball at the back if it comes out to their side and are used to packing at the back of the scrum.
2) While hardly specialists, a flanker will have had some cross-training at club level in case of needing to cover in a match. They will also have been involved in training with 8s and will know a lot of the technicalities, in the same way that a loosehead would understand more of how to play tight than a beefy lock would, simply through being present at the appropriate training.
3) All three of those named have played 8 for academies or universities. It's a bit of a step down from internationals, but at least it's not completely alien to them. LCD, on the other hand, played prop and has never been in the back row in a professional environment.

Puja

I think the main selling point is anyone playing 7 is going to be much more familiar with the running lines in attack and defence. Though you do want some carrying heft at 8 and LCD is and oddly strong little blighter

If we're being forced to play a 3rd choice 8 out of the current 31, the only picking up I'd expect is if the scrum is wheeling and they need to pick it up, take it out the scrum, and take the hit!

Otherwise, I'd take the limiting on our game and just have the 9 play most balls from the scrum…

If we're needing to do this against France (or later) I'd expect us to sack someone off and call up another 8!

Mako isn't fit but I reckon he would make a good 8 if you want a left field suggestion.

You'd hope your hooker has some skills controlling the ball with his feet.

Just put Farrell there...

Just when you need a Burgess...…...

Shiny wrote:Just when you need a Burgess...…...

One of life's great remaining mysteries is watching White 23 meander around the pitch in this passage of play and wonder just what is he trying to do



Not entirely his fault, he should never have been exposed to the nuances of centre play (especially without that crucial kicking game)

Stom wrote:Just put Farrell there...

Only if the 45 other blokes don't fancy it.

I think if we're gonna ask someone to play emergency stop-gap 8, Launchberry should be considered. He is big, experienced and I'm pretty sure used to be considered as a 6 middle rower at Wasps.

richy678 wrote:I think if we're gonna ask someone to play emergency stop-gap 8, Launchberry should be considered. He is big, experienced and I'm pretty sure used to be considered as a 6 middle rower at Wasps.

The least athletic loose forward in history?

Digby wrote:

Shiny wrote:Just when you need a Burgess...…...

One of life's great remaining mysteries is watching White 23 meander around the pitch in this passage of play and wonder just what is he trying to do



Not entirely his fault, he should never have been exposed to the nuances of centre play (especially without that crucial kicking game)

Wow... he doesn't have a clue what he's doing...

Digby wrote: I think the main selling point is anyone playing 7 is going to be much more familiar with the running lines in attack and defence. Though you do want some carrying heft at 8 and LCD is and oddly strong little blighter

Renniks wrote:If we're being forced to play a 3rd choice 8 out of the current 31, the only picking up I'd expect is if the scrum is wheeling and they need to pick it up, take it out the scrum, and take the hit!

Otherwise, I'd take the limiting on our game and just have the 9 play most balls from the scrum…

If we're needing to do this against France (or later) I'd expect us to sack someone off and call up another 8!

It's not so much about the picking and carrying as it is about the control at 8. As we've explained to jngf many times, the position you pack down at the scrum does not affect what you provide in the loose (cf. Exeter playing Armand and Ewers at flank with lighter players at 8) and, if we are bodging, then we will likely avoid 8-picks where possible.

What I'm concerned about is the ball actually staying in the scrum, rather than shooting out the back for anyone to gather.

Puja

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:

Shiny wrote:Just when you need a Burgess...…...

One of life's great remaining mysteries is watching White 23 meander around the pitch in this passage of play and wonder just what is he trying to do



Not entirely his fault, he should never have been exposed to the nuances of centre play (especially without that crucial kicking game)

Wow... he doesn't have a clue what he's doing...

That was the phase when I really took a dislike to him. Being confused and lost is one thing, but he's ambling about without a care in the world. I don't care how lost you are - you f*cking run when you're playing for England.

Especially, when you compare it to Robshaw, who is clearly knackered, but sprinting for everything.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote: I think the main selling point is anyone playing 7 is going to be much more familiar with the running lines in attack and defence. Though you do want some carrying heft at 8 and LCD is and oddly strong little blighter

Renniks wrote:If we're being forced to play a 3rd choice 8 out of the current 31, the only picking up I'd expect is if the scrum is wheeling and they need to pick it up, take it out the scrum, and take the hit!

Otherwise, I'd take the limiting on our game and just have the 9 play most balls from the scrum…

If we're needing to do this against France (or later) I'd expect us to sack someone off and call up another 8!

It's not so much about the picking and carrying as it is about the control at 8. As we've explained to jngf many times, the position you pack down at the scrum does not affect what you provide in the loose (cf. Exeter playing Armand and Ewers at flank with lighter players at 8) and, if we are bodging, then we will likely avoid 8-picks where possible.

What I'm concerned about is the ball actually staying in the scrum, rather than shooting out the back for anyone to gather.

Puja

I take the point you're making, but to label it a specialist role and then declare one none specialist is preferable to another none specialist I find a little odd. Also the number of times running lines will matter vs control at the base skews massively in favour of the running lines.