RugbyRebels

Whoops. Posted that to a comment about 5 pages back.

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Danno wrote:Can we put this Lawtoje shit to bed once and for all now, please?

Very much hope so, but we’ll probably see it again if we lose 3 flankers in a week again.

Fair point, but it does beg the question of what Eddie would do, should this happen in a world cup, if this was indeed a simulation. He could have used Kvesic, for example, today. Would he swap an injured squad member out to avoid Lawtoje?

Depends on the game we had in front of us. Tonga or the US? Sure, that's fine. Argentina or France? Feeling much less comfortable with that - would depend on who we were avoiding replacing and how long they'd be out for. Any one of Wales, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, or South Africa? One of the injured squad members should be flying back to England immediately.

Puja

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:Just as last week I would be reticent to make too many judgements on that 80 minutes, positive or negative. It was a step up physically, and I think that took us by surprise a bit in the first half. That was their first choice packs second hit out so you’d expect them to be a handful.

It’s a lesson we’ve learned often, but clear we need at least 2 of our 4 flankers to be fit and on the park together for every game or we will have some serious struggles. Outgunned at the breakdown today.

and the penalties, and the continuing to kick when it was costing us....

these issues are prevalent whatever the personnel and whatever the context. Its a worry, for me.

On the penalties, I think we’ve made improvements in this area over the last 12 months...but interestingly not against Wales for some reason. Averaging 10 penalties a game against them, significantly less against everyone else. Possibly playing 2 of those games in Cardiff doesn’t help...

I will say as a general observation that I think Wales’ all round game matches up quite well against us. They negate a lot of our strengths, and the psyche of this current Eng team is one that gets frustrated when things don’t go our way. Not sure Wales can replicate that emotional intensity away from The Principality, mind.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:
Very much hope so, but we’ll probably see it again if we lose 3 flankers in a week again.

Fair point, but it does beg the question of what Eddie would do, should this happen in a world cup, if this was indeed a simulation. He could have used Kvesic, for example, today. Would he swap an injured squad member out to avoid Lawtoje?

Depends on the game we had in front of us. Tonga or the US? Sure, that's fine. Argentina or France? Feeling much less comfortable with that - would depend on who we were avoiding replacing and how long they'd be out for. Any one of Wales, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, or South Africa? One of the injured squad members should be flying back to England immediately.

Puja

I was thinking about this, and it occurred to me that it would be an enormous pain in the arse for Eddie if he drafted somebody in for these warm ups who then proceeded to have an absolute stormer.

The idea anyone thought he would get a shot seems quite funny though.

Mikey Brown wrote:Give it up. Simon Shaw isn’t a type that exists anymore.

And I’d question if it is a player we’d want and if so why!!!! Some mystical enforcer where people badge different players are being the same for some bizarre reason, without ever articulating what it is they think it is we need beyond the word enforcer.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:
Very much hope so, but we’ll probably see it again if we lose 3 flankers in a week again.

Fair point, but it does beg the question of what Eddie would do, should this happen in a world cup, if this was indeed a simulation. He could have used Kvesic, for example, today. Would he swap an injured squad member out to avoid Lawtoje?

Depends on the game we had in front of us. Tonga or the US? Sure, that's fine. Argentina or France? Feeling much less comfortable with that - would depend on who we were avoiding replacing and how long they'd be out for. Any one of Wales, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, or South Africa? One of the injured squad members should be flying back to England immediately.

Puja

Quite, hence begging the question. Inscrutable is Eddie.

Timbo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: Fair point, but it does beg the question of what Eddie would do, should this happen in a world cup, if this was indeed a simulation. He could have used Kvesic, for example, today. Would he swap an injured squad member out to avoid Lawtoje?

Depends on the game we had in front of us. Tonga or the US? Sure, that's fine. Argentina or France? Feeling much less comfortable with that - would depend on who we were avoiding replacing and how long they'd be out for. Any one of Wales, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, or South Africa? One of the injured squad members should be flying back to England immediately.

Puja

I was thinking about this, and it occurred to me that it would be an enormous pain in the arse for Eddie if he drafted somebody in for these warm ups who then proceeded to have an absolute stormer.

yes, awks. But hey, there are worse things that can happen.

padprop wrote:May have missed this earlier in the chat but what on earth was the thinking behind Singleton being back row sub when Kvesic had been training all week? He really could have staked a claim if he had a good half and could have been a like-for-like if underhill or curry get injured in the world cup.

Yes, that occurred to me as well.

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:

jngf wrote:
In his two games thus far I would say Ludlum has put a stake in the ground to get the preference as a starter ahead of both Wilson and Underhill and I would say both these players now have a much more sizeable job on their hands to show that they merit a starting flanker berth.

The latter has an argument. On the former you will be very, very lonely in holding that opinion.

Puja

Prepared to take the John the Baptist role

If we’re talking 6 I would say Ludlum’s as good as Wilson defensively, maybe not quite as powerful as a carrier but significantly quicker and more dynamic/energetic about the park.

Wilson is yards ahead in thought and deed. He's a super smart and effective player.

Timbo wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:Just as last week I would be reticent to make too many judgements on that 80 minutes, positive or negative. It was a step up physically, and I think that took us by surprise a bit in the first half. That was their first choice packs second hit out so you’d expect them to be a handful.

It’s a lesson we’ve learned often, but clear we need at least 2 of our 4 flankers to be fit and on the park together for every game or we will have some serious struggles. Outgunned at the breakdown today.

and the penalties, and the continuing to kick when it was costing us....

these issues are prevalent whatever the personnel and whatever the context. Its a worry, for me.

On the penalties, I think we’ve made improvements in this area over the last 12 months...but interestingly not against Wales for some reason. Averaging 10 penalties a game against them, significantly less against everyone else. Possibly playing 2 of those games in Cardiff doesn’t help...

I will say as a general observation that I think Wales’ all round game matches up quite well against us. They negate a lot of our strengths, and the psyche of this current Eng team is one that gets frustrated when things don’t go our way. Not sure Wales can replicate that emotional intensity away from The Principality, mind.

Not convinced on penalties, in absolute numbers conceded maybe (and we gave 11 away v SA in the AIs) , but the stupidity and clustering count remains high; as you said, we are a side that wears its frustration on its sleeve! And we persist with things that aren't working- a chicken and egg on the frustration front- see mauling and kicking today. I think there is a chunky leadership issue here.
Totally agreed on the breakdown, and we've gone with 6 in the back three, but only 5 specialist backrows with one number 8 (albeit decent cover).

p/d wrote:On the upside, Piers carries off a scrum cap with a sense of elegance and a confident swagger

If a man called Piers can’t carry off some jaunty headwear then is there even any point being English.

Mellsblue wrote:

p/d wrote:On the upside, Piers carries off a scrum cap with a sense of elegance and a confident swagger

If a man called Piers can’t carry off some jaunty headwear then is there even any point being English.

I thought it was the appropriate sequel to the utter disdain we displayed towards him getting knocked out last week. Who cares about HIAs, who cares about the fact that we haven't even checked if you should be playing, here's a stylish hat that offers zero extra protection, but makes it look like we care. Job done.

Puja

ST player rating fyi- Courtney Lawes – Now a fixture for England, probably made the blindside position his own and looked as mean as usual. 8.

Banquo wrote:ST player rating fyi- Courtney Lawes – Now a fixture for England, probably made the blindside position his own and looked as mean as usual. 8.

F*ck me running. Lemme guess, Ludlam got a 5 for not doing two flankers' jobs, Ford got a 3 for his goal kicking not being up to Fazlet' standards, and Farrell got a 12 for gaining us a moral victory.

Puja

Youngs - everyone but Eddie Jones can see that he is a very mediocre performer. A player of that ability would not make the 6N squad of any other nation in the competition, yet Jones will take only Youngs and Heinz (a better player, but the best in England??) as scrum halves to the RWC. Daft, or what?

Will somebody explain to me why Jones picked Ford for these two matches. He is arguably one of the best passing FHs around and certainly has better hands than Farrell. Having picked Ford, why would you have kicking the ball downfield aimlessly as the default tactic? Then, when his kicking from hand was poor all game why would Daly not kick penalties to the corner?

Then, when you are playing against that Welsh pack why would you not have practised all week gettiing our best carrier, Billy V, running low to avoid getting held up? Similarly, against that pack why would you not either get the maul right or not use it from lineouts, especially with Ford having been picked at FH in the first place. Surely you'd want quick lineout ball zipped out via Ford's hands to stretch those Welsh forwards?

As SCW said, why didn’t Jones move Ford to 9 and Francis to 10 when Heinz went off. As Jones had stated Ford is our back up 9 and these warm up games, result wise, aren’t important. All we learned is Youngs is Youngs and Farrell is loved by the Welsh

p/d wrote:As SCW said, why didn’t Jones move Ford to 9 and Francis to 10 when Heinz went off. As Jones had stated Ford is our back up 9 and these warm up games, result wise, aren’t important. All we learned is Youngs is Youngs and Farrell is loved by the Welsh

Not just the Welsh p/d. He is universally loved and respected. The Dalai Lama of Rugby, without the sexism.

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:As SCW said, why didn’t Jones move Ford to 9 and Francis to 10 when Heinz went off. As Jones had stated Ford is our back up 9 and these warm up games, result wise, aren’t important. All we learned is Youngs is Youngs and Farrell is loved by the Welsh

Not just the Welsh p/d. He is universally loved and respected. The Dalai Lama of Rugby, without the sexism.

‘tis true. The Faz Factor was why Japan agreed to host the WC

Oakboy wrote:Will somebody explain to me why Jones picked Ford for these two matches. He is arguably one of the best passing FHs around and certainly has better hands than Farrell. Having picked Ford, why would you have kicking the ball downfield aimlessly as the default tactic? Then, when his kicking from hand was poor all game why would Daly not kick penalties to the corner?

Then, when you are playing against that Welsh pack why would you not have practised all week gettiing our best carrier, Billy V, running low to avoid getting held up? Similarly, against that pack why would you not either get the maul right or not use it from lineouts, especially with Ford having been picked at FH in the first place. Surely you'd want quick lineout ball zipped out via Ford's hands to stretch those Welsh forwards?

To be fair, I thought we played a lot more ball in hand rugby than Wales did.

Francis, in particular, was hitting some good lines but in general we were really poor at securing our own ball after first phase so our attacks either got slowed down to the extent that we kicked it away or we lost the ball. In short, there was a bit of ambition but a lack of good execution.

More than anything else, yesterday showed us the importance of a balanced back row. Curry (or Underhill) and Wilson would have made a big difference.

Oakboy wrote:Will somebody explain to me why Jones picked Ford for these two matches. He is arguably one of the best passing FHs around and certainly has better hands than Farrell. Having picked Ford, why would you have kicking the ball downfield aimlessly as the default tactic? Then, when his kicking from hand was poor all game why would Daly not kick penalties to the corner?

Then, when you are playing against that Welsh pack why would you not have practised all week gettiing our best carrier, Billy V, running low to avoid getting held up? Similarly, against that pack why would you not either get the maul right or not use it from lineouts, especially with Ford having been picked at FH in the first place. Surely you'd want quick lineout ball zipped out via Ford's hands to stretch those Welsh forwards?

I'm guessing, whilst agreeing with your views...

Because the result isn't what's important, it's about practicing the playbook. Farrell wil be Eddie's FH, so Ford needs to play like Farrell as that's what the playbook is built around, and that means kicking the ball away aimlessly. If it goes through the hands it has to be laboured and uninventive - otherwise it's a bad impression of the first choice. Same goes for Daly kicking for the line - however bad a game faz might have kicking from hand, no-one's allowed to suggest that anyone else take them, so there's no need to see what Daly, Slade or Francis might be able to do.

Of course, having locks in the back row also means that we can't get quick ball, meaning that aimless kicking is the percentage play anyway - it's all interlinked, and part of an overarching game-plan.
Having said that, of course, idnhave thought that having so many tight 5 forwards on the pitch would be theoretically strengthened our maul and lineout... Nice theory I guess, really not sure how we were weakened in those areas by having more jumpers, more powerful shovers and longer arms...

Jones:
We set these games up to deliberately practise things," added Jones. "We've got other options five metres from the line that we haven't shown yet and we won't show for a while.

Phew. And there was me worrying

p/d wrote:Jones:
We set these games up to deliberately practise things," added Jones. "We've got other options five metres from the line that we haven't shown yet and we won't show for a while.

Phew. And there was me worrying

I'm glad that we used this game to practice sucking at scoring from a 5m lineout in a crucial moment. Would be worried if we went into the RWC without having locked that skill down.

Puja

p/d wrote:Jones:
We set these games up to deliberately practise things," added Jones. "We've got other options five metres from the line that we haven't shown yet and we won't show for a while.

Phew. And there was me worrying

Pigs with wings?

I just yearn for a bit of inventiveness, especially when we are a few points behind. Why not take the occasional scrum from a penalty rather than kick to the corner? At least Youngs tried the odd quick tap, I suppose. It seems that sticking to Plan A is all that matters. It is just so brainless and pre-programmed. I can't wait for a new head coach.