RugbyRebels

more questions than answers in the back row.

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:I'm looking at this positively. Billy is going to be in bloody brilliant shape!

I like that optimisim! TBF, Eddie has a very good record of getting players to their best for World Cups and I kinda trust that he knows what he's doing from a player management standpoint, as he has so much more data than we do. I'll still breathe a sigh of relief if he comes through intact though.

TCurry is apparently a 6 forever and a day now (just like Manu's nothing but a 12), regardless of who the other flank is. I'm in favour if it makes room in future for BCurry to be involved as well, slightly less so to have more obvious blindsides like Wilson, Ludlam, and Underhill pushing him there. And yes, yes, I know position's just a number, etc, etc, but he is definitely taking on different responsibilities when asked to play 6 and I don't know that they suit him as well as when he's given licence to roam.

Puja

I was going to ask you about your evidence base for that based on the conversation pre-game- and not a loaded question.

I don't understand your reference to Manu, unless its humour-based

The Manu comment is a reference to what Eddie said about him on arrival in England


Beginning to wonder (again) why we even took Nowell in the first place. Slade and Wilson got fit in time; and Mako is that important to us, that it's worth it if he's fit in time for a QF - but is Nowell enough beter than May & Watson, or at all better for that matter? Is he neough better than Coka to have been worth the gamble?
I understand taking a gamble on a definitive first choice starter (Mako) or someone who is fit to play by arrival in Japan; but for someone who's may not even be in the match-day 23 come the knock-out stages? This mistake is then doubled by also (seemingly) including his injury replacement in the original squad at the expense of a THP/SH.
I think he just bottled the Slade/Francis decision; and the Nowell/McConnochie ones - and took all 4, despite none of them being first choice starters

Which Tyler wrote: I think he just bottled the Slade/Francis decision; and the Nowell/McConnochie ones - and took all 4, despite none of them being first choice starters

No matter how much I rate Slade and Nowell, I have to say that none of those four players would have been on the plane if I was picking the squad unless they were fully fit and on form in the warm-up games. Francis was lucky to be picked anyway but at least he was fit.

Nowell was never expected to be fit until the Argentina game.

Personally, I don’t mind us having taken the gamble on him. I think he is a completely different type of player to our other wingers and almost always plays well for England.

My issue was more that McConnochie was taken along for what may amount to one game. If Eddie was adamant he needed another back three player, I’d have much rather have seen Brown. Otherwise, a third scrum half - Spencer or Robson.

I think Francis is better than he gets credit for. Yes, he’s lucky to make the plane, but Te’o was the only other option in the squad, given Marchant is pretty much exclusively a 13.

Which Tyler wrote:The Manu comment is a reference to what Eddie said about him on arrival in England


Beginning to wonder (again) why we even took Nowell in the first place. Slade and Wilson got fit in time; and Mako is that important to us, that it's worth it if he's fit in time for a QF - but is Nowell enough beter than May & Watson, or at all better for that matter? Is he neough better than Coka to have been worth the gamble?
I understand taking a gamble on a definitive first choice starter (Mako) or someone who is fit to play by arrival in Japan; but for someone who's may not even be in the match-day 23 come the knock-out stages? This mistake is then doubled by also (seemingly) including his injury replacement in the original squad at the expense of a THP/SH.
I think he just bottled the Slade/Francis decision; and the Nowell/McConnochie ones - and took all 4, despite none of them being first choice starters

Oh, so humourous then. I'm still with Eddie on that

Agree on Nowell, but I don't believe Slade is fit.

Francis and Slade have to provide FH cover, presumably, against the chance of injury to Farrell/Ford. The alternative was to take another genuine FH with Farrell fixed in the 12 shirt.

TBH, I don’t believe Slade is fit either.

As someone said elsewhere on the board, I think the knee injury requires an op and he’s just trying to make it through the RWC.

Happy with that. Plenty of rotation whilst players ‘needing’ game time retain their place. All good.

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:I'm looking at this positively. Billy is going to be in bloody brilliant shape!

I like that optimisim! TBF, Eddie has a very good record of getting players to their best for World Cups and I kinda trust that he knows what he's doing from a player management standpoint, as he has so much more data than we do. I'll still breathe a sigh of relief if he comes through intact though.

TCurry is apparently a 6 forever and a day now (just like Manu's nothing but a 12), regardless of who the other flank is. I'm in favour if it makes room in future for BCurry to be involved as well, slightly less so to have more obvious blindsides like Wilson, Ludlam, and Underhill pushing him there. And yes, yes, I know position's just a number, etc, etc, but he is definitely taking on different responsibilities when asked to play 6 and I don't know that they suit him as well as when he's given licence to roam.

Puja

I’m beginning to think that Eddie might have found himself in the same dilemma over Curry and Underhill that SCW did with Hill and Back namely rather than have them dog it out for the single 7 berth - field them as a combo. Though this approach has strengths (as 2003 World Cup win proved) a drawback might be that it comes at the expense of having less of a hard yards carrier at 6 and no obvious line out target in the back row.

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:I'm looking at this positively. Billy is going to be in bloody brilliant shape!

I like that optimisim! TBF, Eddie has a very good record of getting players to their best for World Cups and I kinda trust that he knows what he's doing from a player management standpoint, as he has so much more data than we do. I'll still breathe a sigh of relief if he comes through intact though.

TCurry is apparently a 6 forever and a day now (just like Manu's nothing but a 12), regardless of who the other flank is. I'm in favour if it makes room in future for BCurry to be involved as well, slightly less so to have more obvious blindsides like Wilson, Ludlam, and Underhill pushing him there. And yes, yes, I know position's just a number, etc, etc, but he is definitely taking on different responsibilities when asked to play 6 and I don't know that they suit him as well as when he's given licence to roam.

Puja

I’m beginning to think that Eddie might have found himself in the same dilemma over Curry and Underhill that SCW did with Hill and Back namely rather than have them dog it out for the single 7 berth - field them as a combo. Though this approach has strengths (as 2003 World Cup win proved) a drawback might be that it comes at the expense of having less of a hard yards carrier at 6 and no obvious line out target in the back row.

We have a lot of carriers when all are fit, and Curry has been getting a fair bit of lineout ball. We've learned a bit there- get your big guys to lift a smaller guy- gets him up quicker and likely a bit higher. You are correct that Hill was a better intl 7 than Back, but he was also a world class 6- SCW briefly toyed with binning Dayglo and playing Hill at 8 for a game or two.

Both Curry and Underhill have shown some half decent carrying. Generally through hitting a line at really high pace and just crashing a bit, rather than power, but both have that ability.

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:
I like that optimisim! TBF, Eddie has a very good record of getting players to their best for World Cups and I kinda trust that he knows what he's doing from a player management standpoint, as he has so much more data than we do. I'll still breathe a sigh of relief if he comes through intact though.

TCurry is apparently a 6 forever and a day now (just like Manu's nothing but a 12), regardless of who the other flank is. I'm in favour if it makes room in future for BCurry to be involved as well, slightly less so to have more obvious blindsides like Wilson, Ludlam, and Underhill pushing him there. And yes, yes, I know position's just a number, etc, etc, but he is definitely taking on different responsibilities when asked to play 6 and I don't know that they suit him as well as when he's given licence to roam.

Puja

I’m beginning to think that Eddie might have found himself in the same dilemma over Curry and Underhill that SCW did with Hill and Back namely rather than have them dog it out for the single 7 berth - field them as a combo. Though this approach has strengths (as 2003 World Cup win proved) a drawback might be that it comes at the expense of having less of a hard yards carrier at 6 and no obvious line out target in the back row.

We have a lot of carriers when all are fit, and Curry has been getting a fair bit of lineout ball. We've learned a bit there- get your big guys to lift a smaller guy- gets him up quicker and likely a bit higher. You are correct that Hill was a better intl 7 than Back, but he was also a world class 6- SCW briefly toyed with binning Dayglo and playing Hill at 8 for a game or two.

Actually I said nothing of the sort!

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:

Puja wrote:
I like that optimisim! TBF, Eddie has a very good record of getting players to their best for World Cups and I kinda trust that he knows what he's doing from a player management standpoint, as he has so much more data than we do. I'll still breathe a sigh of relief if he comes through intact though.

TCurry is apparently a 6 forever and a day now (just like Manu's nothing but a 12), regardless of who the other flank is. I'm in favour if it makes room in future for BCurry to be involved as well, slightly less so to have more obvious blindsides like Wilson, Ludlam, and Underhill pushing him there. And yes, yes, I know position's just a number, etc, etc, but he is definitely taking on different responsibilities when asked to play 6 and I don't know that they suit him as well as when he's given licence to roam.

Puja

I’m beginning to think that Eddie might have found himself in the same dilemma over Curry and Underhill that SCW did with Hill and Back namely rather than have them dog it out for the single 7 berth - field them as a combo. Though this approach has strengths (as 2003 World Cup win proved) a drawback might be that it comes at the expense of having less of a hard yards carrier at 6 and no obvious line out target in the back row.

We have a lot of carriers when all are fit, and Curry has been getting a fair bit of lineout ball. We've learned a bit there- get your big guys to lift a smaller guy- gets him up quicker and likely a bit higher. You are correct that Hill was a better intl 7 than Back, but he was also a world class 6- SCW briefly toyed with binning Dayglo and playing Hill at 8 for a game or two.

I actually said nothing of the sort - as I don’t agree with that!

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:I'm looking at this positively. Billy is going to be in bloody brilliant shape!

I like that optimisim! TBF, Eddie has a very good record of getting players to their best for World Cups and I kinda trust that he knows what he's doing from a player management standpoint, as he has so much more data than we do. I'll still breathe a sigh of relief if he comes through intact though.

TCurry is apparently a 6 forever and a day now (just like Manu's nothing but a 12), regardless of who the other flank is. I'm in favour if it makes room in future for BCurry to be involved as well, slightly less so to have more obvious blindsides like Wilson, Ludlam, and Underhill pushing him there. And yes, yes, I know position's just a number, etc, etc, but he is definitely taking on different responsibilities when asked to play 6 and I don't know that they suit him as well as when he's given licence to roam.

Puja

I know I argued with you that is doesn't particularly matter what shirts/roles they have when paired with Underhill, but this does seem weird now. I know Ludlam plays 7 too, but obviously is more suited to 6 of the two of them.

I figured Wilson at 7 was just a systems check but it's starting to look like another weird EJ quirk alright.

Was hoping to see Mako on the bench at least, trying not to read too much into that.

jngf wrote:

Banquo wrote:

jngf wrote:
I’m beginning to think that Eddie might have found himself in the same dilemma over Curry and Underhill that SCW did with Hill and Back namely rather than have them dog it out for the single 7 berth - field them as a combo. Though this approach has strengths (as 2003 World Cup win proved) a drawback might be that it comes at the expense of having less of a hard yards carrier at 6 and no obvious line out target in the back row.

We have a lot of carriers when all are fit, and Curry has been getting a fair bit of lineout ball. We've learned a bit there- get your big guys to lift a smaller guy- gets him up quicker and likely a bit higher. You are correct that Hill was a better intl 7 than Back, but he was also a world class 6- SCW briefly toyed with binning Dayglo and playing Hill at 8 for a game or two.

I actually said nothing of the sort - as I don’t agree with that!

Though if you listed great back rows of all time, Hill would be very high on that list at either 6 or 7.

I'm assuming Slade, Nowell and probably Mako are fully crocked. I can't believe we're going into a world cup with Heinz and Francis an injury away from being starters.

Gloskarlos wrote:Was hoping to see Mako on the bench at least, trying not to read too much into that.

I'm sanguine - they did say that he'd be back for Argentina, which is a full week and a half away, and I fully expect even that to be off the bench. No point in rushing him - we need him fully fit for the quarter-finals onwards, not because we need his impact to get out of the pool.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Gloskarlos wrote:Was hoping to see Mako on the bench at least, trying not to read too much into that.

I'm sanguine - they did say that he'd be back for Argentina, which is a full week and a half away, and I fully expect even that to be off the bench. No point in rushing him - we need him fully fit for the quarter-finals onwards, not because we need his impact to get out of the pool.

Puja

Agreed there is no point in rushing him, but 20 mins against USA, plus 20 odd against Argentina a better introduction to possibly 80 v France or the next round. But if he’s not ready, he’s not ready!

Yeah, would prefer Mako not to be re-introduced too early

Also a bit worried about May - has there been any news there?

---

This team definitely has the capabilities to beat USA (and many other teams)
And I do like that we have this as a generally second string team - that's a lot of depth very very few other nations have

Gloskarlos wrote:

Puja wrote:

Gloskarlos wrote:Was hoping to see Mako on the bench at least, trying not to read too much into that.

I'm sanguine - they did say that he'd be back for Argentina, which is a full week and a half away, and I fully expect even that to be off the bench. No point in rushing him - we need him fully fit for the quarter-finals onwards, not because we need his impact to get out of the pool.

Puja

Agreed there is no point in rushing him, but 20 mins against USA, plus 20 odd against Argentina a better introduction to possibly 80 v France or the next round. But if he’s not ready, he’s not ready!

He’s back live scrummaging apparently. Just not quite ready, or ready to risk.

Renniks wrote:Yeah, would prefer Mako not to be re-introduced too early

Also a bit worried about May - has there been any news there?

---

This team definitely has the capabilities to beat USA (and many other teams)
And I do like that we have this as a generally second string team - that's a lot of depth very very few other nations have

Per The Times, May went off with cramp so nothing to worry about.
I’m with Puja on Mako, plus I think Marler was v good on Sunday. The drop off to Genge is a worry, though.
In some ways, I’d prefer Mako off the bench. Bringing on Marler, Cole and Wilson, as good as they are (Cole not so much) is a real drop in link play and, Wilson aside, carrying. I think bringing Mako off the bench would better maintain the balance of the pack in the final 20/30 mins.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:I'm looking at this positively. Billy is going to be in bloody brilliant shape!

I like that optimisim! TBF, Eddie has a very good record of getting players to their best for World Cups and I kinda trust that he knows what he's doing from a player management standpoint, as he has so much more data than we do. I'll still breathe a sigh of relief if he comes through intact though.

TCurry is apparently a 6 forever and a day now (just like Manu's nothing but a 12), regardless of who the other flank is. I'm in favour if it makes room in future for BCurry to be involved as well, slightly less so to have more obvious blindsides like Wilson, Ludlam, and Underhill pushing him there. And yes, yes, I know position's just a number, etc, etc, but he is definitely taking on different responsibilities when asked to play 6 and I don't know that they suit him as well as when he's given licence to roam.

Puja

I know I argued with you that is doesn't particularly matter what shirts/roles they have when paired with Underhill, but this does seem weird now. I know Ludlam plays 7 too, but obviously is more suited to 6 of the two of them.

I figured Wilson at 7 was just a systems check but it's starting to look like another weird EJ quirk alright.

Does he remind you of Lewis Moody at all ?

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Puja wrote:
I like that optimisim! TBF, Eddie has a very good record of getting players to their best for World Cups and I kinda trust that he knows what he's doing from a player management standpoint, as he has so much more data than we do. I'll still breathe a sigh of relief if he comes through intact though.

TCurry is apparently a 6 forever and a day now (just like Manu's nothing but a 12), regardless of who the other flank is. I'm in favour if it makes room in future for BCurry to be involved as well, slightly less so to have more obvious blindsides like Wilson, Ludlam, and Underhill pushing him there. And yes, yes, I know position's just a number, etc, etc, but he is definitely taking on different responsibilities when asked to play 6 and I don't know that they suit him as well as when he's given licence to roam.

Puja

I know I argued with you that is doesn't particularly matter what shirts/roles they have when paired with Underhill, but this does seem weird now. I know Ludlam plays 7 too, but obviously is more suited to 6 of the two of them.

I figured Wilson at 7 was just a systems check but it's starting to look like another weird EJ quirk alright.

Does he remind you of Lewis Moody at all ?

With Sam Underhill playing the Joe Worsley role?