RugbyRebels

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
If anyone wants to see it tried then I'd suggest watching Sam Hill play.

Bit harsh on Hill tbh. One dimensional, but effective at that one dimension.

Most definitely, which I'm pretty sure SImmonds would also be, but little beyond that dimension. Hence the comparison.

I think he’d be somewhat worse tbh. Must admit I’d assumed you were being derogatory about Sam Hill who I actually think a bit underrated.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: Bit harsh on Hill tbh. One dimensional, but effective at that one dimension.

Most definitely, which I'm pretty sure SImmonds would also be, but little beyond that dimension. Hence the comparison.

I think he’d be somewhat worse tbh. Must admit I’d assumed you were being derogatory about Sam Hill who I actually think a bit underrated.

I like Hill. Had a devil with injuries, but when fit was an effective cog in the Exeter machine. And I agree, that I think Simmonds would be a lesser version somewhat, but would essentially be the same offering.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Most definitely, which I'm pretty sure SImmonds would also be, but little beyond that dimension. Hence the comparison.

I think he’d be somewhat worse tbh. Must admit I’d assumed you were being derogatory about Sam Hill who I actually think a bit underrated.

I like Hill. Had a devil with injuries, but when fit was an effective cog in the Exeter machine. And I agree, that I think Simmonds would be a lesser version somewhat, but would essentially be the same offering.

Jobs a good un.

I’ve got to stop making these unfunny jokes.

Mellsblue wrote:I’ve got to stop making these unfunny jokes.

Mellsblue wrote:I’ve got to stop making these unfunny jokes.

At least got the conversation going, even if we all knew it was tongue firmly in cheek

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Tom Curry is in the squad. For some reason they missed him off the main announcements, but then corrected it.

By position

Loosehead:
Mako Vunipola, Saracens
Ellis Genge, Leicester Tigers
Beno Obano, Bath Rugby*

Hooker:
Jamie George, Saracens
Tom Dunn, Bath Rugby*

Tighthead:
Will Stuart, Bath Rugby
Joe Heyes, Leicester Tigers*

Lock:
Charlie Ewels, Bath Rugby
Maro Itoje, Saracens
Alex Moon, Northampton Saints*
David Ribbans, Northampton Saints*

Flanker:
Tom Curry, Sale Sharks
Sam Underhill, Bath Rugby
Ted Hill, Worcester Warriors
Mark Wilson, Newcastle Falcons

No8:
Billy Vunipola, Saracens
Alex Dombrandt, Harlequins*

SH:
Ben Youngs, Leicester Tigers
Willi Heinz, Gloucester Rugby
Alex Mitchell, Northampton Saints*

FH:
Owen Farrell, Saracens
George Ford, Leicester Tigers

IC:
Piers Francis, Northampton Saints
Fraser Dingwall, Northampton Saints*

OC:
Jonathan Joseph, Bath Rugby
Joe Marchant, Harlequins
Ollie Lawrence, Worcester Warriors*

Wing:
Jonny May, Gloucester Rugby
Ollie Thorley, Gloucester Rugby*
Ali Crossdale, Saracens*

FB:
Anthony Watson, Bath Rugby
George Furbank, Northampton Saints

So what's the side from that lot? And what would you pick?

Option 1:
Mako
George
Stuart
Itoje
Ewels
Curry
Underhill
Billy
Youngs
Ford
May
Farrell
Joseph
Thorley
Watson

Dunn, Genge, Heyes, Moon, Wilson, Heinz, Francis, Furbank

Option 2:
Mako
George
Stuart
Itoje
Moon
Hill
Curry
Dombrandt
Mitchell
Ford
May
Farrell
Marchant
Thorley
Watson

Dunn, Obano, Heyes, Ribbans, Underhill, Youngs, Lawrence, Crossdale

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I’ve got to stop making these unfunny jokes.

At least got the conversation going, even if we all knew it was tongue firmly in cheek

Not sure all did

I’m not sure what I’d go with for this one TBH.

Even if we’re treating as a warm-up, there’s still a bit of room for experimentation.

Sinckler being with Bristol is a bit of a blessing in disguise as it pretty much guarantees Stuart a start with Heyes coming off the bench. It gives them both a good chance to lay down a marker for the second and third choice tighthead slots.

As I posted earlier, the Saracens players haven’t played that much rugby so will benefit from the runout, but I’d like to see Dombrandt start with Billy coming off the bench. We always hear about Billy needing games to warm up to form but I’d like to see Dombrandt get enough time to put a bit of pressure on him.

I’m curious to see who gets the nod at 13. IMO, Marchant is the more complete player, but Lawrence also looks like a special talent. I’d be semi-tempted to play both with Marchant shifting across to 14. That would be a useful experiment IMO.

I really hope we see Mitchell on the bench at least. I don’t really understand why Heinz is even there.

Wilson is a slightly unusual case. I’m a big fan of his and I think we’ve forgotten how good he is. He is clearly there because Eddie still feels like he has something to offer. My only gripe with that is that it adds to an already difficult back row dilemma and I can’t see why we’d retain Wilson ahead of the younger guys who have a years’ worth of good form that he doesn’t ... if he’d been playing and in good form, he’d have a case for keeping his spot. As it is, I can’t see that he does.

Did Wilson even play a game for Sale this year?

He is very good. Also seems to have that Nonu/ Ben Morgan knack of playing even better at international level that club.

I think 2 or 3 games at the most in Jan? Something like that, but he hasn’t played competitively for the best part of a year.

He’s never been less than very good for England, it’ll just be hard to justify his inclusion if it’s at the expense of someone like Hill or worse, Willis.

padprop wrote:Did Wilson even play a game for Sale this year?

He is very good. Also seems to have that Nonu/ Ben Morgan knack of playing even better at international level that club.

He's been back at Newcastle since lockdown, as that's when his loan deal ended.

Puja

Not that I don't rate him, but Wilson would be a backward step wouldn't he?

TheNomad wrote:Not that I don't rate him, but Wilson would be a backward step wouldn't he?

Not necessarily. If he's there to support the squad until Earl and Willis are released from club duty, then no. He's not ahead of anyone untoward in this current squad - BCurry's injured and Ludlam's been COVIDed (and probably would be behind Wilson anyway).

If he's picked ahead of Hill/Dombrandt on the bench, then probably. If Earl and Willis are not added to the squad next week and he is retained in their stead, then yes, definitely.

Puja

Surely Wilson will start. he's not been brought in to make the numbers up.

fivepointer wrote:Surely Wilson will start. he's not been brought in to make the numbers up.

Why? We've got the RWC back row available - which of them do you think has been brought in to make the numbers up so he can start?

I can see him being on the bench quite easily, but I can't see who he'd usurp to get into the starting lineup.

Puja

Wilson needs game time. He hasnt played for months. He's obviously still in Jones plans and is likely to be involved in the coming games. Otherwise, why pick him at all? Makes sense to play him at the weekend in a low pressure game so he can ease back in.
Wouldnt hurt Curry or Underhill to sit this one out completely.

Puja wrote:

TheNomad wrote:Not that I don't rate him, but Wilson would be a backward step wouldn't he?

Not necessarily. If he's there to support the squad until Earl and Willis are released from club duty, then no. He's not ahead of anyone untoward in this current squad - BCurry's injured and Ludlam's been COVIDed (and probably would be behind Wilson anyway).

If he's picked ahead of Hill/Dombrandt on the bench, then probably. If Earl and Willis are not added to the squad next week and he is retained in their stead, then yes, definitely.

Puja

The Ludlum / Wilson choice would be interesting in a COVID free context, personally feel Ludlum had raised the bar for what a 6 could do beyond the Robshaw/Wilson traditional 6 approach (and Ludlum 6 T Curry 7 looked nice balanced pairing ) - could also see Willis making a similar bar raiding impact at 6.

Bringing Ludlow into earlier training squad is a left field selection in a similar vein to his near-namesake above.

Puja wrote:

TheNomad wrote:Not that I don't rate him, but Wilson would be a backward step wouldn't he?

Not necessarily. If he's there to support the squad until Earl and Willis are released from club duty, then no. He's not ahead of anyone untoward in this current squad - BCurry's injured and Ludlam's been COVIDed (and probably would be behind Wilson anyway).

If he's picked ahead of Hill/Dombrandt on the bench, then probably. If Earl and Willis are not added to the squad next week and he is retained in their stead, then yes, definitely.

Puja

Screw you guys are well thought out arguments

Can't you just do what every other internet site does and either say 'fully agree' or call me a 'f*ckwit'?

TheNomad wrote:

Puja wrote:

TheNomad wrote:Not that I don't rate him, but Wilson would be a backward step wouldn't he?

Not necessarily. If he's there to support the squad until Earl and Willis are released from club duty, then no. He's not ahead of anyone untoward in this current squad - BCurry's injured and Ludlam's been COVIDed (and probably would be behind Wilson anyway).

If he's picked ahead of Hill/Dombrandt on the bench, then probably. If Earl and Willis are not added to the squad next week and he is retained in their stead, then yes, definitely.

Puja

Screw you guys are well thought out arguments

Can't you just do what every other internet site does and either say 'fully agree' or call me a 'f*ckwit'?

You 'his a f*ckwit.

X

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:

TheNomad wrote:Not that I don't rate him, but Wilson would be a backward step wouldn't he?

Not necessarily. If he's there to support the squad until Earl and Willis are released from club duty, then no. He's not ahead of anyone untoward in this current squad - BCurry's injured and Ludlam's been COVIDed (and probably would be behind Wilson anyway).

If he's picked ahead of Hill/Dombrandt on the bench, then probably. If Earl and Willis are not added to the squad next week and he is retained in their stead, then yes, definitely.

Puja

The Ludlum / Wilson choice would be interesting in a COVID free context, personally feel Ludlum had raised the bar for what a 6 could do beyond the Robshaw/Wilson traditional 6 approach (and Ludlum 6 T Curry 7 looked nice balanced pairing ) - could also see Willis making a similar bar raiding impact at 6.

Bringing Ludlow into earlier training squad is a left field selection in a similar vein to his near-namesake above.

What is it that you love so much about Ludlam? And in what way has he ‘raised the bar’?

I think he’s a good player and I wouldn’t dismiss him as a decent squad option, but honestly, I’d take any of the current back row players in this squad (including Mark Wilson) and I also prefer Willis, Earl, Ben Curry and Sam Simmonds, so that puts him in a long queue.

Obviously Wilson doesn’t have any recent form to be measured by, but has always been at least very good and often excellent for England. I’m happy for him to be included on that basis. Ludlam’s been good, but nothing so ‘bar raisingly’ spectacular to warrant why he’d be so high on your list? What am I missing?

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:
Not necessarily. If he's there to support the squad until Earl and Willis are released from club duty, then no. He's not ahead of anyone untoward in this current squad - BCurry's injured and Ludlam's been COVIDed (and probably would be behind Wilson anyway).

If he's picked ahead of Hill/Dombrandt on the bench, then probably. If Earl and Willis are not added to the squad next week and he is retained in their stead, then yes, definitely.

Puja

The Ludlum / Wilson choice would be interesting in a COVID free context, personally feel Ludlum had raised the bar for what a 6 could do beyond the Robshaw/Wilson traditional 6 approach (and Ludlum 6 T Curry 7 looked nice balanced pairing ) - could also see Willis making a similar bar raiding impact at 6.

Bringing Ludlow into earlier training squad is a left field selection in a similar vein to his near-namesake above.

What is it that you love so much about Ludlam? And in what way has he ‘raised the bar’?

I think he’s a good player and I wouldn’t dismiss him as a decent squad option, but honestly, I’d take any of the current back row players in this squad (including Mark Wilson) and I also prefer Willis, Earl, Ben Curry and Sam Simmonds, so that puts him in a long queue.

Obviously Wilson doesn’t have any recent form to be measured by, but has always been at least very good and often excellent for England. I’m happy for him to be included on that basis. Ludlam’s been good, but nothing so ‘bar raisingly’ spectacular to warrant why he’d be so high on your list? What am I missing?

You aren’t stuck in a black and white timewarp

TheNomad wrote:

Puja wrote:

TheNomad wrote:Not that I don't rate him, but Wilson would be a backward step wouldn't he?

Not necessarily. If he's there to support the squad until Earl and Willis are released from club duty, then no. He's not ahead of anyone untoward in this current squad - BCurry's injured and Ludlam's been COVIDed (and probably would be behind Wilson anyway).

If he's picked ahead of Hill/Dombrandt on the bench, then probably. If Earl and Willis are not added to the squad next week and he is retained in their stead, then yes, definitely.

Puja

Screw you guys are well thought out arguments

Can't you just do what every other internet site does and either say 'fully agree' or call me a 'f*ckwit'?

Fully agree, f*ckwit.

Puja

Scrumhead wrote:

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:
Not necessarily. If he's there to support the squad until Earl and Willis are released from club duty, then no. He's not ahead of anyone untoward in this current squad - BCurry's injured and Ludlam's been COVIDed (and probably would be behind Wilson anyway).

If he's picked ahead of Hill/Dombrandt on the bench, then probably. If Earl and Willis are not added to the squad next week and he is retained in their stead, then yes, definitely.

Puja

The Ludlum / Wilson choice would be interesting in a COVID free context, personally feel Ludlum had raised the bar for what a 6 could do beyond the Robshaw/Wilson traditional 6 approach (and Ludlum 6 T Curry 7 looked nice balanced pairing ) - could also see Willis making a similar bar raiding impact at 6.

Bringing Ludlow into earlier training squad is a left field selection in a similar vein to his near-namesake above.

What is it that you love so much about Ludlam? And in what way has he ‘raised the bar’?

I think he’s a good player and I wouldn’t dismiss him as a decent squad option, but honestly, I’d take any of the current back row players in this squad (including Mark Wilson) and I also prefer Willis, Earl, Ben Curry and Sam Simmonds, so that puts him in a long queue.

Obviously Wilson doesn’t have any recent form to be measured by, but has always been at least very good and often excellent for England. I’m happy for him to be included on that basis. Ludlam’s been good, but nothing so ‘bar raisingly’ spectacular to warrant why he’d be so high on your list? What am I missing?

Maybe Wilson's circumstances mirror those of Saracens' players this time next year so Jones is measuring his performance from zero form?

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:

jimKRFC wrote:Interesting article from Ben Darwin about familiarity and stablity of teams on performance: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... ds-success

Eddie Jones needs to pay attention to the bit about a drop in performance when asked to play a slightly different position.

Interesting stuff, tah. If Jones follows the logic one would expect it to be tough for the Simmondses to break in. It also makes we wish English rugby was organised differently.

In what way?

Less clubs, so more combos together outside of the international season. It'd perhaps make it easier for people to break through, as people would be less likely to be penalised for being the only one coming from club.