RugbyRebels

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Is Eddie being experimental for the AIs or what? I'd expect him to pick the best available team for Argentina and Australia, saving changes for the last match. With the Lions disruption and a virtual 2nd XV in Argentina, the team unit is bound to be rusty. Australia are too good to risk units of the team raw against them.

IMO, the best available 'back five' is Launchbury, Itoje, Lawes, Robshaw, Hughes.

I'm assuming you don't want any width on the game, and Faz to start

What I want and what Eddie will do are somewhat different. What is our best available backs' line-up? Presumably, based on the past, it is Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, Joseph, Watson and Brown. Why would Eddie not start with that line-up?

I'd pick Slade at 12 or 13 but I doubt if Eddie will.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: I'm assuming you don't want any width on the game, and Faz to start

What I want and what Eddie will do are somewhat different. What is our best available backs' line-up? Presumably, based on the past, it is Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, Joseph, Watson and Brown. Why would Eddie not start with that line-up?

I'd pick Slade at 12 or 13 but I doubt if Eddie will.

yet you'd pick a back 5 in the pack that doesn't give that back line the best chance of working, both in supply of good ball and support?

Which Tyler wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Simmonds isn’t big, but he’s about the same size and weight as Michael Hooper who hasn’t done too badly in test rugby.

Just because I've done this elsewhere in a thread where people were claiming that Mercer and Simmonds were too small for international rugby:

Zach Mercer: 190cm; 105 kg (BMI: 29.09)
Sam Simmonds: 184cm; 103kg (BMI: 30.42)

Sergio Parisse: 196cm; 112kg (BMI: 29.15)
Kieran Read: 193cm; 110kg (BMI: 29.53)
Jamie Heaslip: 192cm; 110kg (BMI: 29.84)
Taupe Faletau: 189cm; 110kg (BMI: 30.79)
David Pocock: 183cm; 103kg (BMI: 30.76)
Louis Picamoles: 192cm; 116kg (BMI: 31.47)

Ben Morgan: 191cm; 116kg (BMI: 31.8)
Nathan Hughes: 196cm; 125kg (BMI: 32.54)
Thomas Waldron: 185cm; 114kg (BMI: 33.31)
Billy Vunipola: 188cm; 130kg (BMI: 36.78)

IMO Simmonds is more-or-less as bulky as he can go, Mercer's probably got another 5-10 kg before stressing his frame (based on eye-balling their physiques).
Simmonds almost exactly the same stats as Pocock; Mercer(+5kg) almost exactly the same stats as Faletau (who he's also learning from, and plays very similarly to)

belgarion wrote: Can you please put all thos numbers into a form the slightly older users on this board can understand.
I was brought up/taught at school ft & inches, stones & pounds & acutally prefer them to all this metric crap

Which Tyler wrote:

belgarion wrote: Can you please put all thos numbers into a form the slightly older users on this board can understand.
I was brought up/taught at school ft & inches, stones & pounds & acutally prefer them to all this metric crap

No

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: I'm assuming you don't want any width on the game, and Faz to start

What I want and what Eddie will do are somewhat different. What is our best available backs' line-up? Presumably, based on the past, it is Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, Joseph, Watson and Brown. Why would Eddie not start with that line-up?

I'd pick Slade at 12 or 13 but I doubt if Eddie will.

yet you'd pick a back 5 in the pack that doesn't give that back line the best chance of working, both in supply of good ball and support?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
What I want and what Eddie will do are somewhat different. What is our best available backs' line-up? Presumably, based on the past, it is Youngs, Ford, May, Farrell, Joseph, Watson and Brown. Why would Eddie not start with that line-up?

I'd pick Slade at 12 or 13 but I doubt if Eddie will.

yet you'd pick a back 5 in the pack that doesn't give that back line the best chance of working, both in supply of good ball and support?

You make it sound like there are realistic alternatives which would produce more ball for the backs and support them out wide. I just don't see who that might be and I don't see how the game style can open up with Eddie's insistence on playing Farrell and no adequate alternatives at 9.

Idealistically, If available, I'd still try Simpson, Cipriani and Slade.

So, who would you choose?

Raggs wrote:May out for Argentina with a hamstring strain.

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:May out for Argentina with a hamstring strain.

Oh FFS!

Puja

fivepointer wrote:Launchbury doubtful too.

Tom Moore wrote:Given that he was selected in the initial squad, I suspect it will be Solomona now with Watson and Brown.

Rokoduguni to potentially get a run against Samoa, maybe with Daly if his knee clears up.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: yet you'd pick a back 5 in the pack that doesn't give that back line the best chance of working, both in supply of good ball and support?

You make it sound like there are realistic alternatives which would produce more ball for the backs and support them out wide. I just don't see who that might be and I don't see how the game style can open up with Eddie's insistence on playing Farrell and no adequate alternatives at 9.

Idealistically, If available, I'd still try Simpson, Cipriani and Slade.

So, who would you choose?

all I am saying is that you put forward a back five which doesn't complement the style of play you propound ad infinitum, based on Eddie's squad. A more balanced selection in the back 5 to support more than a tight game might look like Itoje, Launchbury, Robshaw, Underhill, Hughes, which has mobility if not quite the attacking skills at 7 I might want. I'd like to see- from the squad now- Care, Ford, May, Slade, JJ, Roko/Watson, Watson/Brown. That said, I'd be pretty nervous about the midfield conceding the gainline too easily. I'm pi55ed that Teo and Daly are crocked.


(and now May)

Oakboy wrote:IMO, the best available 'back five' is Launchbury, Itoje, Lawes, Robshaw, Hughes.

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
You make it sound like there are realistic alternatives which would produce more ball for the backs and support them out wide. I just don't see who that might be and I don't see how the game style can open up with Eddie's insistence on playing Farrell and no adequate alternatives at 9.

Idealistically, If available, I'd still try Simpson, Cipriani and Slade.

So, who would you choose?

all I am saying is that you put forward a back five which doesn't complement the style of play you propound ad infinitum, based on Eddie's squad. A more balanced selection in the back 5 to support more than a tight game might look like Itoje, Launchbury, Robshaw, Underhill, Hughes, which has mobility if not quite the attacking skills at 7 I might want. I'd like to see- from the squad now- Care, Ford, May, Slade, JJ, Roko/Watson, Watson/Brown. That said, I'd be pretty nervous about the midfield conceding the gainline too easily. I'm pi55ed that Teo and Daly are crocked.


(and now May)

The snag with that is that Underhill has dropped off (IMO). I just can't see that he will affect a game like Lawes can, whatever their theoretical skill slants. Lawes is a hardened international. Underhill is a pretender (so far).

Why Care over Youngs? Both are equally crap.

I just don't think Eddie will leave Farrell out, much as I'd be delighted to see Slade and JJ. We both have to swallow hard and accept that if Eddie breaks his usual 10/12 selection, it will be Ford who dips out. I don't think we were ever likely to see Ford and T'eo, for example. We just might have seen (still might) Farrell and T'eo, I suppose.

Timbo wrote:I hope Eddie is bold with his backrow selections this Autumn. For all the column inches on this forum about the back 3 and various aspects of the back line, the backrow is the single biggest issue he has to address imo.

Timbo wrote:I hope Eddie is bold with his backrow selections this Autumn. For all the column inches on this forum about the back 3 and various aspects of the back line, the backrow is the single biggest issue he has to address imo.