RugbyRebels

Spiffy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 4:13 am

Danno wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 12:12 am Criticising Aldritt is kind of funny.
(Being kind)

We all see what we see, sometimes different things, and need not all agree. Aldritt is very good at what he does. I think he would make the England team. (But not the Irish .

If you had made the final word of the last sentence rhyme with ‘does’ that would’ve been the most beautifully crafted post this place had even seen.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 10:43 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 10:37 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 10:32 pm

Not quite the same with Chile being the worst team in the tournament and Italy being a historical banana skin with qualification not assured. #IBWBT

Italy aren't a banana skin to a team as good as France. They had their scare with the second team they sent out earlier in the tournament. Didn't think this one would be anything other than one sided

I see you ignored the word historical - I’m sure it would’ve played on their minds and informed selection. Point still stands that comparing Chile and Italy is comparing apples and oranges. I’d also note that JBB has played three matches to Arundell’s one.

Ultimately, history is only relevant to a point. Italy may have pushed France in the 6N but any though of that playing on French minds would have evaporated when Italy shipped 96 points last week.

Other than Arundell, which other 20 year olds should be being fast tracked but haven’t been? I’m usually fairly disappointed with our squad selections, but failing to integrate young players isn’t really a fair criticism. Eddie Jones was actually pretty good at it and in fairness to SB, I can’t think of anyone he’s overlooked on account of age/experience.

Post RWC, I can see Chessum Jnr coming through but he’s the only one from the recent U20s who looks close to being ready. Cleaves has potential, but he’s got to make a proper breakthrough with Quins first. CCS is promising, but has competition in the form of Earl, Mercer and T. Willis - all of whom are better than he is today.

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 7:46 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 10:43 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 10:37 pm

Italy aren't a banana skin to a team as good as France. They had their scare with the second team they sent out earlier in the tournament. Didn't think this one would be anything other than one sided

I see you ignored the word historical - I’m sure it would’ve played on their minds and informed selection. Point still stands that comparing Chile and Italy is comparing apples and oranges. I’d also note that JBB has played three matches to Arundell’s one.

Ultimately, history is only relevant to a point. Italy may have pushed France in the 6N but any though of that playing on French minds would have evaporated when Italy shipped 96 points last week.

Other than Arundell, which other 20 year olds should be being fast tracked but haven’t been? I’m usually fairly disappointed with our squad selections, but failing to integrate young players isn’t really a fair criticism. Eddie Jones was actually pretty good at it and in fairness to SB, I can’t think of anyone he’s overlooked on account of age/experience.

Post RWC, I can see Chessum Jnr coming through but he’s the only one from the recent U20s who looks close to being ready. Cleaves has potential, but he’s got to make a proper breakthrough with Quins first. CCS is promising, but has competition in the form of Earl, Mercer and T. Willis - all of whom are better than he is today.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the first point as we’ll never know either way but, regardless, Italy are almost certainly viewed as more dangerous oppo by France than Samoa are by England which is the comparison I made.
There aren’t any other 20 year olds to bring into the team but that’s not the debate.

So what is? I thought the comparison was between France’s promotion of youth in comparison to our own?

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 10:54 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 10:43 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 10:37 pm

Italy aren't a banana skin to a team as good as France. They had their scare with the second team they sent out earlier in the tournament. Didn't think this one would be anything other than one sided

I see you ignored the word historical - I’m sure it would’ve played on their minds and informed selection. Point still stands that comparing Chile and Italy is comparing apples and oranges. I’d also note that JBB has played three matches to Arundell’s one.

And is likely to be replaced by their first choice winger rather than being ignored for a centre and wing/fb cover by an anglers’s dream

Arundell is being replaced by the same centre that made a third of his starts last season on the wing.

Spiffy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 4:13 am

Danno wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 12:12 am Criticising Aldritt is kind of funny.
(Being kind)

We all see what we see, sometimes different things, and need not all agree. Aldritt is very good at what he does. I think he would make the England team. (But not the Irish .

Every time I watch Aldritt play for France, I see a number 8 who is fundamentally constructive and destructive exactly as required. He is the mortar in the brickwork in attack and defence. If I was an international flanker or SH, I'd want to play alongside him. I'd choose him for a World XV just ahead of Doris.

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:33 am So what is? I thought the comparison was between France’s promotion of youth in comparison to our own?

It’s picking Arundell over an aging May or a 13 against a team we should best 9 times out if 10. The France comparison came up because we were watching them look like a well drilled and coached team with a winger who is getting meaningful game time at the very start of their careers, plus Penaud being afford the same 5/6/7 years ago. One of the reasons put forward for not picking Arundell was the fact he’d only just cemented his place in the LI XV this season.
France also did just sack off the tournament four years ago to start prepping for this one so why we can’t I don’t know. It was obvs slightly different as they had a golden generation coming through for a home tournament but still… I’ve no idea why we’re prepping for the knockout stages as if we’ve a chance of winning the thing as it’ll take 2007-esque slices of luck for us to make the final. Hopefully I’m wrong, obvs.

FKAS wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:35 am

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 10:54 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 10:43 pm
I see you ignored the word historical - I’m sure it would’ve played on their minds and informed selection. Point still stands that comparing Chile and Italy is comparing apples and oranges. I’d also note that JBB has played three matches to Arundell’s one.

And is likely to be replaced by their first choice winger rather than being ignored for a centre and wing/fb cover by an anglers’s dream

Arundell is being replaced by the same centre that made a third of his starts last season on the wing.

The argument in the round is that Marchant should be at 13 and Arundell at 14 or, preferably imo, 15.
I’m surprised you’re defending the selection of Marchant given he’s off to France for 2 years, and without a break clause.

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:33 am So what is? I thought the comparison was between France’s promotion of youth in comparison to our own?

Maybe, it's the perception from the warm-ups onward, linked with the selection in the 33 of Care, Youngs, Cole, Tuilagi and Vunipola initially followed by May. I've said all along that I can see why SB has done that, not that I would have. Where the inconsistency arises is selecting Arundell initially, then pushing May past him together with moving Marchant to the wing.

Why take Arundell at all?

In a straight comparison of value to the side does Marchant not get the 13 shirt ahead of Tuilagi? I think SB should have started there with selecting the back line. He then should have made similar one v one choices at 9, 10 and 12 before selecting the back three. So, Mitchell or a veteran, Farrell OR Ford at 10, Farrell OR Tuilagi at 12 (I'd pick Lawrence). At that stage, with Steward getting the nod at 15, in choosing the best two wingers, not to have Arundell as a genuine option is weird, IMO.

It will be interesting to see if exactly the same 23 starts the QF. I applaud SB's selection if that is what he has in mind - just for continuity. I really dislike the team though.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:58 am

FKAS wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:35 am

p/d wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2023 10:54 pm

And is likely to be replaced by their first choice winger rather than being ignored for a centre and wing/fb cover by an anglers’s dream

Arundell is being replaced by the same centre that made a third of his starts last season on the wing.

The argument in the round is that Marchant should be at 13 and Arundell at 14 or, preferably imo, 15.
I’m surprised you’re defending the selection of Marchant given he’s off to France for 2 years, and without a break clause.

But Ford, Farrell & Marchant won't work, so round & round we go. Wrt Arundell, the real issue for me is his complete absence from the 23. Why is Lawrence on the bench, when they already have 3 centre options in the starting 15? It made sense after Farrell's red card, but it now gives the squad an unbalanced look, at least to me. Are they really concerned about Tuilagi's fitness & want the closest like-for-like replacement?

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:53 am

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:33 am So what is? I thought the comparison was between France’s promotion of youth in comparison to our own?

It’s picking Arundell over an aging May or a 13 against a team we should best 9 times out if 10. The France comparison came up because we were watching them look like a well drilled and coached team with a winger who is getting meaningful game time at the very start of their careers, plus Penaud being afford the same 5/6/7 years ago. One of the reasons put forward for not picking Arundell was the fact he’d only just cemented his place in the LI XV this season.
France also did just sack off the tournament four years ago to start prepping for this one so why we can’t I don’t know. It was obvs slightly different as they had a golden generation coming through for a home tournament but still… I’ve no idea why we’re prepping for the knockout stages as if we’ve a chance of winning the thing as it’ll take 2007-esque slices of luck for us to make the final. Hopefully I’m wrong, obvs.

OK fine. In that case I agree with most of this. I’m really not sure France did ‘sack off the tournament 4yrs ago’ though. But for a dumb red, they might well have made the SF. TBH I don’t think England are ever really in the position where we can say ‘we’re writing this one off because we can’t compete with top sides’. The media/public simply wouldn’t accept it, even if it might be the right thing to do.

rjjb wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 9:59 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:58 am

FKAS wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:35 am

Arundell is being replaced by the same centre that made a third of his starts last season on the wing.

The argument in the round is that Marchant should be at 13 and Arundell at 14 or, preferably imo, 15.
I’m surprised you’re defending the selection of Marchant given he’s off to France for 2 years, and without a break clause.

But Ford, Farrell & Marchant won't work, so round & round we go. Wrt Arundell, the real issue for me is his complete absence from the 23. Why is Lawrence on the bench, when they already have 3 centre options in the starting 15? It made sense after Farrell's red card, but it now gives the squad an unbalanced look, at least to me. Are they really concerned about Tuilagi's fitness & want the closest llike-for-like replacement?

Yep, it all comes about from the compromises needed to select Farrell. There was a piece in the The Times saying that Marchant is picked solely to hold Tuilagi’s hand in d and that in training they were running 13. Marchant 14. Tuilagi is defence drills. Imagine having to come up with those mental and tactical contortions just so Farrell can play.
I’m so annoyed with the starting backline that I hadn’t even contemplated the make-up of the replacement backs… you’re spot on, imo.

rjjb wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 9:59 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:58 am

FKAS wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:35 am

Arundell is being replaced by the same centre that made a third of his starts last season on the wing.

The argument in the round is that Marchant should be at 13 and Arundell at 14 or, preferably imo, 15.
I’m surprised you’re defending the selection of Marchant given he’s off to France for 2 years, and without a break clause.

But Ford, Farrell & Marchant won't work, so round & round we go. Wrt Arundell, the real issue for me is his complete absence from the 23. Why is Lawrence on the bench, when they already have 3 centre options in the starting 15? It made sense after Farrell's red card, but it now gives the squad an unbalanced look, at least to me. Are they really concerned about Tuilagi's fitness & want the closest llike-for-like replacement?

Good point. Another centre on the bench doesnt make a lot of sense given Marchant is in the starting XV.

Arundell could have been accommodated in place of Lawrence.

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 10:05 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:53 am

Scrumhead wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:33 am So what is? I thought the comparison was between France’s promotion of youth in comparison to our own?

It’s picking Arundell over an aging May or a 13 against a team we should best 9 times out if 10. The France comparison came up because we were watching them look like a well drilled and coached team with a winger who is getting meaningful game time at the very start of their careers, plus Penaud being afford the same 5/6/7 years ago. One of the reasons put forward for not picking Arundell was the fact he’d only just cemented his place in the LI XV this season.
France also did just sack off the tournament four years ago to start prepping for this one so why we can’t I don’t know. It was obvs slightly different as they had a golden generation coming through for a home tournament but still… I’ve no idea why we’re prepping for the knockout stages as if we’ve a chance of winning the thing as it’ll take 2007-esque slices of luck for us to make the final. Hopefully I’m wrong, obvs.

OK fine. In that case I agree with most of this. I’m really not sure France did ‘sack off the tournament 4yrs ago’ though. But for a dumb red, they might well have made the SF. TBH I don’t think England are ever really in the position where we can say ‘we’re writing this one off because we can’t compete with top sides’. The media/public simply wouldn’t accept it, even if it might be the right thing to do.

Yeah, ‘sack off’ was too strong a phrase, borne out of frustration, but it was publicly admitted/hinted at that one eye was on this tournament.

I think most would accept it if well communicated, a stretch given comms over almost anything coming out of Twickers, admittedly. Stodgy Backline had laid the foundations for it when stating, shortly after taking charge, that weren’t good at anything.
We could pick:
Mitchell
Ford
May
Lawrence or Tuilagi
Marchant
Arundell
Steward
and would performance really drop off?
Tbh, I’d have 14. Freeman 15. Arundell but what do I know.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 10:17 amI think most would accept it if well communicated, a stretch given comms over almost anything coming out of Twickers, admittedly.

I remember Eddie telling us all (I paraphrase) "I'm going be beating the players through the week, we'll be playing whilst knackered, in order to get used to playing knackered, giving their last calorie and learning from the stupid mistakes they'll inevitably make"
And then doing exactly that.
I'm a way that it was obvious that that was the case.

What I do t remember, is that being accepted - by the media, by casual fans, or even by us more obsessive fans.

I distinctly remember calls for his head, bemusement about what could possibly be happening and anger that we lost a few matches, despite being told exactly what was going to happen in advance.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 10:49 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 10:17 amI think most would accept it if well communicated, a stretch given comms over almost anything coming out of Twickers, admittedly.

I remember Eddie telling us all (I paraphrase) "I'm going be beating the players through the week, we'll be playing whilst knackered, in order to get used to playing knackered, giving their last calorie and learning from the stupid mistakes they'll inevitably make"
And then doing exactly that.
I'm a way that it was obvious that that was the case.

What I do t remember, is that being accepted - by the media, by casual fans, or even by us more obsessive fans.

I distinctly remember calls for his head, bemusement about what could possibly be happening and anger that we lost a few matches, despite being told exactly what was going to happen in advance.

My memory is that he wasn’t that explicit and it wasn’t well communicated, but I could be wrong. It was also off the back of him claiming, on being appointed, that the 6N were the most important matches of the year, plus the fact it’s Jones and 90% of what he tells you is bs or spin.
Borthers, and his northern, gruff honesty, off the back of 2.5 years of abject rugby might have got more sympathy/leeway.

fivepointer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 10:09 am

rjjb wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 9:59 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:58 am

The argument in the round is that Marchant should be at 13 and Arundell at 14 or, preferably imo, 15.
I’m surprised you’re defending the selection of Marchant given he’s off to France for 2 years, and without a break clause.

But Ford, Farrell & Marchant won't work, so round & round we go. Wrt Arundell, the real issue for me is his complete absence from the 23. Why is Lawrence on the bench, when they already have 3 centre options in the starting 15? It made sense after Farrell's red card, but it now gives the squad an unbalanced look, at least to me. Are they really concerned about Tuilagi's fitness & want the closest llike-for-like replacement?

Good point. Another centre on the bench doesnt make a lot of sense given Marchant is in the starting XV.

Arundell could have been accommodated in place of Lawrence.

Agreed but SB always has Lawrence to cover Tuilagi breaking. It is consistent (even if it's daft).

I’ve just had the thought maybe this is trialling the bench/late-game backline to some degree. You know, once we shuffle everyone around, and we actually are planning to start 2 centres and 2 wingers, but that would also likely mean dropping Mitchell and Ford to the bench.

It’s probably nonsense, particularly with the suggestion of Marchant defending at 13, but the reality is we had to test Faz at 12 again at some point before deciding we have a reason to demote Ford/Marchant in his favour.

Swapping wing and 13 in defence puzzles me as much as the fly-half one to be honest. I at least understood the thinking of having the kicker drop back to field kicks, whereas as the 13 on a left-hand openside swapping with the right wing makes no sense. Or would it just be a first phase thing?

Again it’s fucking idiotic if we’re willing to make this many compromises in order not to just choose a fulltime fly-half.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 11:27 am I’ve just had the thought maybe this is trialling the bench/late-game backline to some degree. You know, once we shuffle everyone around, and we actually are planning to start 2 centres and 2 wingers, but that would also likely mean dropping Mitchell and Ford to the bench.

It’s probably nonsense, particularly with the suggestion of Marchant defending at 13, but the reality is we had to test Faz at 12 again at some point before deciding we have a reason to demote Ford/Marchant in his favour.

Swapping wing and 13 in defence puzzles me as much as the fly-half one to be honest. I at least understood the thinking of having the kicker drop back to field kicks, whereas as the 13 on a left-hand openside swapping with the right wing makes no sense. Or would it just be a first phase thing?

Again it’s fucking idiotic if we’re willing to make this many compromises in order not to just choose a fulltime fly-half.

Basically, until we get a head-coach with the balls simply to pick the best FH (and then select others in their proper positions) fans will be unhappy.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 10:08 am

rjjb wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 9:59 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 8:58 am

The argument in the round is that Marchant should be at 13 and Arundell at 14 or, preferably imo, 15.
I’m surprised you’re defending the selection of Marchant given he’s off to France for 2 years, and without a break clause.

But Ford, Farrell & Marchant won't work, so round & round we go. Wrt Arundell, the real issue for me is his complete absence from the 23. Why is Lawrence on the bench, when they already have 3 centre options in the starting 15? It made sense after Farrell's red card, but it now gives the squad an unbalanced look, at least to me. Are they really concerned about Tuilagi's fitness & want the closest llike-for-like replacement?

Yep, it all comes about from the compromises needed to select Farrell. There was a piece in the The Times saying that Marchant is picked solely to hold Tuilagi’s hand in d and that in training they were running 13. Marchant 14. Tuilagi is defence drills. Imagine having to come up with those mental and tactical contortions just so Farrell can play.
I’m so annoyed with the starting backline that I hadn’t even contemplated the make-up of the replacement backs… you’re spot on, imo.

Yeah I agree the backline is contorted as round the need to select Farrell.

On rjjb's point about F/F/M not working I'd argue that 10/12 combo with Joseph was very successful.

I think he's gone for two and a half centres because Mapasua has promised that Samoa will be direct and aggressive. They are some big lads so keeping us in the physical fight is going to be a must. I presume that's why he's gone for Lawrence on the bench as well. The issue with that being I can see Farrell putting in a big shot and us being down to 14 again.

Arundell for his many plus points has looked mediocre on the tactical kick chase and I imagine we're going to use that heavily in the first half to frustrate Samoa and keep them boxed into their own half. In a similar way to what we did to Argentina but hopefully with much better execution in attack.

FKAS wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 11:58 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 10:08 am

rjjb wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 9:59 am

But Ford, Farrell & Marchant won't work, so round & round we go. Wrt Arundell, the real issue for me is his complete absence from the 23. Why is Lawrence on the bench, when they already have 3 centre options in the starting 15? It made sense after Farrell's red card, but it now gives the squad an unbalanced look, at least to me. Are they really concerned about Tuilagi's fitness & want the closest llike-for-like replacement?

Yep, it all comes about from the compromises needed to select Farrell. There was a piece in the The Times saying that Marchant is picked solely to hold Tuilagi’s hand in d and that in training they were running 13. Marchant 14. Tuilagi is defence drills. Imagine having to come up with those mental and tactical contortions just so Farrell can play.
I’m so annoyed with the starting backline that I hadn’t even contemplated the make-up of the replacement backs… you’re spot on, imo.

Yeah I agree the backline is contorted as round the need to select Farrell.

On rjjb's point about F/F/M not working I'd argue that 10/12 combo with Joseph was very successful.

I think he's gone for two and a half centres because Mapasua has promised that Samoa will be direct and aggressive. They are some big lads so keeping us in the physical fight is going to be a must. I presume that's why he's gone for Lawrence on the bench as well. The issue with that being I can see Farrell putting in a big shot and us being down to 14 again.

Arundell for his many plus points has looked mediocre on the tactical kick chase and I imagine we're going to use that heavily in the first half to frustrate Samoa and keep them boxed into their own half. In a similar way to what we did to Argentina but hopefully with much better execution in attack.

I was going to mention Ford/Farrell/Joseph as well - that was our most balanced and effective midfield of the past 15 years and I don't see why Marchant can't slot into that in exactly the same way. We're still unwilling to lose the safety blanket of Tuilagi, which is almost as big of a problem as the pathological inability to leave Farrell out of the XV.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 12:18 pm

FKAS wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 11:58 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 10:08 am

Yep, it all comes about from the compromises needed to select Farrell. There was a piece in the The Times saying that Marchant is picked solely to hold Tuilagi’s hand in d and that in training they were running 13. Marchant 14. Tuilagi is defence drills. Imagine having to come up with those mental and tactical contortions just so Farrell can play.
I’m so annoyed with the starting backline that I hadn’t even contemplated the make-up of the replacement backs… you’re spot on, imo.

Yeah I agree the backline is contorted as round the need to select Farrell.

On rjjb's point about F/F/M not working I'd argue that 10/12 combo with Joseph was very successful.

I think he's gone for two and a half centres because Mapasua has promised that Samoa will be direct and aggressive. They are some big lads so keeping us in the physical fight is going to be a must. I presume that's why he's gone for Lawrence on the bench as well. The issue with that being I can see Farrell putting in a big shot and us being down to 14 again.

Arundell for his many plus points has looked mediocre on the tactical kick chase and I imagine we're going to use that heavily in the first half to frustrate Samoa and keep them boxed into their own half. In a similar way to what we did to Argentina but hopefully with much better execution in attack.

I was going to mention Ford/Farrell/Joseph as well - that was our most balanced and effective midfield of the past 15 years and I don't see why Marchant can't slot into that in exactly the same way. We're still unwilling to lose the safety blanket of Tuilagi, which is almost as big of a problem as the pathological inability to leave Farrell out of the XV.

Puja

Because Joseph then was a class above Marchant now.

I think if we had a vote on Joseph/Marchant/Slade it would be something like 40/35/25. I'm one of the 25. Combine the three and you'd get a useful player!

Has Sinfield been in the Welsh camp for a few days?

p/d wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 3:18 pm Has Sinfield been in the Welsh camp for a few days?

Dunno but Raynal might have been.