Moderator: Puja
...or either of those two. I think it a position where, over a number of years now, we really have failed to develop strength in depth.Banquo wrote: Ben was unfortunate to have a bad day at the office today. I'd look to Robson or Cook over them tbh.
Or did get a call of course. Seemed a very odd decision mind whoever made it. Who received the pass?Banquo wrote:Hartley's throwing was off, but something else was wrong with the lineouts.....and I'd agree that calling may have been something to do with that. They did use four jumpers, which was nice.Peat wrote:Thank you. Nothing exasperates me more than the hooker getting it in the neck for a dodgy lineout while the caller isn't even considered for criticism.Banquo wrote: it was Kruis, as he had against Scotland.
Care was much sharper than Youngs and that kick through for JJ's try was inspired.
The kick for JJ's try was wonderful - but then I thought Youngs spotting there was no one at home for that chip through that got us the 5m lineout was fine work too. But less memorable as the forwards then made a hash of it.
Still, I'm willing to go with the consensus on this.
Care was sharper and more consistent than Youngs, whose passing was 'variable' if we are being kind, a little ponderous, and made one howler of a decision coming left, when there was something like a 7 on 3 to the right...maybe he didnt get a call, but.......
worrying innit.p/d wrote:...or either of those two. I think it a position where, over a number of years now, we really have failed to develop strength in depth.Banquo wrote: Ben was unfortunate to have a bad day at the office today. I'd look to Robson or Cook over them tbh.
I mean, Wigglesworth ffs
Not sure, think he picked up, shaped left, did a little pirouette and popped to some poor mug.Epaminondas Pules wrote:Or did get a call of course. Seemed a very odd decision mind whoever made it. Who received the pass?Banquo wrote:Hartley's throwing was off, but something else was wrong with the lineouts.....and I'd agree that calling may have been something to do with that. They did use four jumpers, which was nice.Peat wrote:
Thank you. Nothing exasperates me more than the hooker getting it in the neck for a dodgy lineout while the caller isn't even considered for criticism.
The kick for JJ's try was wonderful - but then I thought Youngs spotting there was no one at home for that chip through that got us the 5m lineout was fine work too. But less memorable as the forwards then made a hash of it.
Still, I'm willing to go with the consensus on this.
Care was sharper and more consistent than Youngs, whose passing was 'variable' if we are being kind, a little ponderous, and made one howler of a decision coming left, when there was something like a 7 on 3 to the right...maybe he didnt get a call, but.......
The only one I remember I thought I saw go straight through Kruis' hands; but no one else seems to remember that, so maybe that was over his hands. This is what happens when you watch games in the morning all bleary-eyed, and not particularly interested because England aren't particularly interesting.Renniks wrote:Was there not 1 overthrow over a full stretch jumper, and at least 1 pinged for not straight (though at least 2 more that were really bad) ?Peat wrote:
Thank you. Nothing exasperates me more than the hooker getting it in the neck for a dodgy lineout while the caller isn't even considered for criticism.
Hoping Kruis doesn't call the same line outs for first few next time out - but would keep letting him call them
Billy was definitely doing the solo carrying gig again, though Mako helped out a bit. On the JJ thing, well he could have passed to the wings, who likely would have just been bundled into touch- there wasn't much sign of say Mikey or the BSW hitting the channel outside him. He was trying to make breaks, make something happen a lot of the time; maybe he was a little greedy and forcing it a bit.Peat wrote:The only one I remember I thought I saw go straight through Kruis' hands; but no one else seems to remember that, so maybe that was over his hands. This is what happens when you watch games in the morning all bleary-eyed, and not particularly interested because England aren't particularly interesting.Renniks wrote:Was there not 1 overthrow over a full stretch jumper, and at least 1 pinged for not straight (though at least 2 more that were really bad) ?Peat wrote:
Thank you. Nothing exasperates me more than the hooker getting it in the neck for a dodgy lineout while the caller isn't even considered for criticism.
Hoping Kruis doesn't call the same line outs for first few next time out - but would keep letting him call them
And, because it wasn't particularly interesting, I'm not gonna go back and check!
To make it look like I've got something intelligent to contribute, I'm gonna look at ESPN stats and reel off the more interesting points to me, completely aware they're still probably wrong...
Kruis missed 4 tackles. Not sure that means much.
FordFaz kicked 17 times and passed only 34 times. Joseph ran it 12 times and passed 2 times. I'm beginning to get a feeling that our wingers exist solely to counter-attack and defend.
Wild Bill Vunipola is down for 10 passes and 2 offloads. He also made 19 carries, equal to the combined efforts of the 6 forwards that got subbed off.
Hang on - doesn't the 6N site do stats now? Why am I looking at the dogshit things on ESPN?
Wings are screwed with this 10/12 set up.Peat wrote:The only one I remember I thought I saw go straight through Kruis' hands; but no one else seems to remember that, so maybe that was over his hands. This is what happens when you watch games in the morning all bleary-eyed, and not particularly interested because England aren't particularly interesting.Renniks wrote:Was there not 1 overthrow over a full stretch jumper, and at least 1 pinged for not straight (though at least 2 more that were really bad) ?Peat wrote:
Thank you. Nothing exasperates me more than the hooker getting it in the neck for a dodgy lineout while the caller isn't even considered for criticism.
Hoping Kruis doesn't call the same line outs for first few next time out - but would keep letting him call them
And, because it wasn't particularly interesting, I'm not gonna go back and check!
To make it look like I've got something intelligent to contribute, I'm gonna look at ESPN stats and reel off the more interesting points to me, completely aware they're still probably wrong...
Kruis missed 4 tackles. Not sure that means much.
FordFaz kicked 17 times and passed only 34 times. Joseph ran it 12 times and passed 2 times. I'm beginning to get a feeling that our wingers exist solely to counter-attack and defend.
Wild Bill Vunipola is down for 10 passes and 2 offloads. He also made 19 carries, equal to the combined efforts of the 6 forwards that got subbed off.
Hang on - doesn't the 6N site do stats now? Why am I looking at the dogshit things on ESPN?
edit: 4 turnovers for Kruis on the 6N site, fair play that's nice work. 2 for Robshaw. Watson and Itoje also listed with 2.
This made me lolbitts wrote: Obviously ive lost all ability to be objective about the twat though.
This also made me lol. A little bit because it's true. They almost expect to lose and when they throw away their slim chance of a win they just have a hissy fit. A bit like Scotland ........ and their rugby team.morepork wrote: Italy just gave up after that JJ intercept, the pricks.
12 is new?!WaspInWales wrote:Exactly what I thought would happen, happened.
Our backrow put in a shift individually, made shed load of tackles, missed none and were praised for it. But, just how effective were they? How many turnovers did they win? How many metres were made...meaningful metres that is? Why don't espn show turnovers won? Surely this is a vital stat these days...shewerly?
Our backrow is still our achilles heel.
Our new achilles heel is now our 12.
Our 9 is now our pulled hamstring.
3 areas that could be sorted as alternatives are there but I won't be holding my breath.
Fair point...I was just trying to be dramatic.Peat wrote:12 is new?!WaspInWales wrote:Exactly what I thought would happen, happened.
Our backrow put in a shift individually, made shed load of tackles, missed none and were praised for it. But, just how effective were they? How many turnovers did they win? How many metres were made...meaningful metres that is? Why don't espn show turnovers won? Surely this is a vital stat these days...shewerly?
Our backrow is still our achilles heel.
Our new achilles heel is now our 12.
Our 9 is now our pulled hamstring.
3 areas that could be sorted as alternatives are there but I won't be holding my breath.
Have we had a lad put in 2 good 6Ns at 12 since Greenwood retired?
The 6N site is the place to go for stats for the 6N now. Some on the England Rugby site too. Robshaw got 2. Think Haskell may have got one? Itoje got two.
I can.WaspInWales wrote:Fair point...I was just trying to be dramatic.Peat wrote:12 is new?!WaspInWales wrote:Exactly what I thought would happen, happened.
Our backrow put in a shift individually, made shed load of tackles, missed none and were praised for it. But, just how effective were they? How many turnovers did they win? How many metres were made...meaningful metres that is? Why don't espn show turnovers won? Surely this is a vital stat these days...shewerly?
Our backrow is still our achilles heel.
Our new achilles heel is now our 12.
Our 9 is now our pulled hamstring.
3 areas that could be sorted as alternatives are there but I won't be holding my breath.
Have we had a lad put in 2 good 6Ns at 12 since Greenwood retired?
The 6N site is the place to go for stats for the 6N now. Some on the England Rugby site too. Robshaw got 2. Think Haskell may have got one? Itoje got two.
Cheers for the tip on stats....not sure I believe those turnover numbers though. Robshaw and Haskell managed three times as many as last week? Can believe Itoje doubled them single-handedly this week though!
Yet I thought they both did well, swapping sides and looking for work on each other's wing and down the centre of the pitchp/d wrote:Wings are screwed with this 10/12 set up.Peat wrote:The only one I remember I thought I saw go straight through Kruis' hands; but no one else seems to remember that, so maybe that was over his hands. This is what happens when you watch games in the morning all bleary-eyed, and not particularly interested because England aren't particularly interesting.Renniks wrote:
Was there not 1 overthrow over a full stretch jumper, and at least 1 pinged for not straight (though at least 2 more that were really bad) ?
Hoping Kruis doesn't call the same line outs for first few next time out - but would keep letting him call them
And, because it wasn't particularly interesting, I'm not gonna go back and check!
To make it look like I've got something intelligent to contribute, I'm gonna look at ESPN stats and reel off the more interesting points to me, completely aware they're still probably wrong...
Kruis missed 4 tackles. Not sure that means much.
FordFaz kicked 17 times and passed only 34 times. Joseph ran it 12 times and passed 2 times. I'm beginning to get a feeling that our wingers exist solely to counter-attack and defend.
Wild Bill Vunipola is down for 10 passes and 2 offloads. He also made 19 carries, equal to the combined efforts of the 6 forwards that got subbed off.
Hang on - doesn't the 6N site do stats now? Why am I looking at the dogshit things on ESPN?
edit: 4 turnovers for Kruis on the 6N site, fair play that's nice work. 2 for Robshaw. Watson and Itoje also listed with 2.
I'm really tempted to put Itoje at 6 but i think you'd have to have a pacy openside alongside him. he's a major talent but it might be best to leave him at lock. He has to be in the 23 from now on either way.Oakboy wrote:Few have mentioned how comfortable Itoje looked in the back-row. If we allow for him being out of practice in the position, it was some debut. I'd definitely pick him at 6 for the Ireland match. I don't think anyone will get the better of him at the breakdown too easily. He also adds a huge presence in the lineout.
Another surprise for me is that one or two are still knocking Nowell. He is a far better defender than any of the alternatives (his first tackles in each half stopped Parisse in his tracks). He showed against Scotland that he takes chances well. I think he is there to stay.
You surprise me every day Dors.....Oakboy wrote:Few have mentioned how comfortable Itoje looked in the back-row. If we allow for him being out of practice in the position, it was some debut. I'd definitely pick him at 6 for the Ireland match. I don't think anyone will get the better of him at the breakdown too easily. He also adds a huge presence in the lineout.
Another surprise for me is that one or two are still knocking Nowell. He is a far better defender than any of thealternatives (his first tackles in each half stopped Parisse in his tracks). He showed against Scotland that he takes chances well. I think he is there to stay.
Why? You've spent ten years educating me!Banquo wrote:You surprise me every day Dors.....Oakboy wrote:Few have mentioned how comfortable Itoje looked in the back-row. If we allow for him being out of practice in the position, it was some debut. I'd definitely pick him at 6 for the Ireland match. I don't think anyone will get the better of him at the breakdown too easily. He also adds a huge presence in the lineout.
Another surprise for me is that one or two are still knocking Nowell. He is a far better defender than any of thealternatives (his first tackles in each half stopped Parisse in his tracks). He showed against Scotland that he takes chances well. I think he is there to stay.
fivepointer wrote:I'm really tempted to put Itoje at 6 but i think you'd have to have a pacy openside alongside him. he's a major talent but it might be best to leave him at lock. He has to be in the 23 from now on either way.Oakboy wrote:Few have mentioned how comfortable Itoje looked in the back-row. If we allow for him being out of practice in the position, it was some debut. I'd definitely pick him at 6 for the Ireland match. I don't think anyone will get the better of him at the breakdown too easily. He also adds a huge presence in the lineout.
Another surprise for me is that one or two are still knocking Nowell. He is a far better defender than any of the alternatives (his first tackles in each half stopped Parisse in his tracks). He showed against Scotland that he takes chances well. I think he is there to stay.
I'm with you on Nowell but we seem to be in a minority.
balance. dont think Haskell/Robshaw would really fit the bill, though Kvesic might but it seems unlikely EJ is going to call for him.Oakboy wrote:fivepointer wrote:I'm really tempted to put Itoje at 6 but i think you'd have to have a pacy openside alongside him. he's a major talent but it might be best to leave him at lock. He has to be in the 23 from now on either way.Oakboy wrote:Few have mentioned how comfortable Itoje looked in the back-row. If we allow for him being out of practice in the position, it was some debut. I'd definitely pick him at 6 for the Ireland match. I don't think anyone will get the better of him at the breakdown too easily. He also adds a huge presence in the lineout.
Another surprise for me is that one or two are still knocking Nowell. He is a far better defender than any of the alternatives (his first tackles in each half stopped Parisse in his tracks). He showed against Scotland that he takes chances well. I think he is there to stay.
I'm with you on Nowell but we seem to be in a minority.
Why do you say that, 5P?
Clifford at 7 seems the logical choice with Itojefivepointer wrote:I'm really tempted to put Itoje at 6 but i think you'd have to have a pacy openside alongside him. he's a major talent but it might be best to leave him at lock. He has to be in the 23 from now on either way.Oakboy wrote:Few have mentioned how comfortable Itoje looked in the back-row. If we allow for him being out of practice in the position, it was some debut. I'd definitely pick him at 6 for the Ireland match. I don't think anyone will get the better of him at the breakdown too easily. He also adds a huge presence in the lineout.
Another surprise for me is that one or two are still knocking Nowell. He is a far better defender than any of the alternatives (his first tackles in each half stopped Parisse in his tracks). He showed against Scotland that he takes chances well. I think he is there to stay.
I'm with you on Nowell but we seem to be in a minority.
Whilst I like the look of both Clifford and Itoje, one is a utility back row at his club, and the other has been playing lock all season. Its a big ask (esp v Ireland) to field a wholly new back row even if they were specialists- and I'm totally on the page that our breakdown work ball in hand is a bit shoddy, and the back row have a big role in that; Eddie has painted himself into a bit of a corner. Very tricky one; imo he needed to start one or other v Scotland, and I'm wanting Itoje to be playing second row long term (and could well be wrong!).Bloggs wrote:Clifford at 7 seems the logical choice with Itojefivepointer wrote:I'm really tempted to put Itoje at 6 but i think you'd have to have a pacy openside alongside him. he's a major talent but it might be best to leave him at lock. He has to be in the 23 from now on either way.Oakboy wrote:Few have mentioned how comfortable Itoje looked in the back-row. If we allow for him being out of practice in the position, it was some debut. I'd definitely pick him at 6 for the Ireland match. I don't think anyone will get the better of him at the breakdown too easily. He also adds a huge presence in the lineout.
Another surprise for me is that one or two are still knocking Nowell. He is a far better defender than any of the alternatives (his first tackles in each half stopped Parisse in his tracks). He showed against Scotland that he takes chances well. I think he is there to stay.
I'm with you on Nowell but we seem to be in a minority.
I'm also a member of the Jack Nowell fan club!
Yep, the time for experimenting has gone, unfortunately. I'd have both Itoje and Clifford in the XXIII but only Clifford to start.Banquo wrote:Whilst I like the look of both Clifford and Itoje, one is a utility back row at his club, and the other has been playing lock all season. Its a big ask (esp v Ireland) to field a wholly new back row even if they were specialists- and I'm totally on the page that our breakdown work ball in hand is a bit shoddy, and the back row have a big role in that; Eddie has painted himself into a bit of a corner. Very tricky one; imo he needed to start one or other v Scotland, and I'm wanting Itoje to be playing second row long term (and could well be wrong!).Bloggs wrote:Clifford at 7 seems the logical choice with Itojefivepointer wrote:
I'm really tempted to put Itoje at 6 but i think you'd have to have a pacy openside alongside him. he's a major talent but it might be best to leave him at lock. He has to be in the 23 from now on either way.
I'm with you on Nowell but we seem to be in a minority.
I'm also a member of the Jack Nowell fan club!
On Nowell, you get effort, solid defending, work off the ball- but he's not scaring any defences as yet- need to find a way of using his quick feet.
Mellsblue wrote:Yep, the time for experimenting has gone, unfortunately. I'd have both Itoje and Clifford in the XXIII but only Clifford to start.Banquo wrote:Whilst I like the look of both Clifford and Itoje, one is a utility back row at his club, and the other has been playing lock all season. Its a big ask (esp v Ireland) to field a wholly new back row even if they were specialists- and I'm totally on the page that our breakdown work ball in hand is a bit shoddy, and the back row have a big role in that; Eddie has painted himself into a bit of a corner. Very tricky one; imo he needed to start one or other v Scotland, and I'm wanting Itoje to be playing second row long term (and could well be wrong!).Bloggs wrote:
Clifford at 7 seems the logical choice with Itoje
I'm also a member of the Jack Nowell fan club!
On Nowell, you get effort, solid defending, work off the ball- but he's not scaring any defences as yet- need to find a way of using his quick feet.