RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I know. Jones has me over training in readiness for the baiting World Cup.

I head him say you get knocked off topic more easily than Kvesic gets counter rucked

If that’s the case, I’ll expect you to champion me for the team regardless of form, and rightly so.

Eastmond looked mustard today from the highlights. Nice running lines, crisp passing - could be an option for England if he stays fit and gets back to where he's capable of.

Puja

Puja wrote:Eastmond looked mustard today from the highlights. Nice running lines, crisp passing - could be an option for England if he stays fit and gets back to where he's capable of.

Puja

Very talented runner. Shredded NZ with Burns, then we dropped em

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:Eastmond looked mustard today from the highlights. Nice running lines, crisp passing - could be an option for England if he stays fit and gets back to where he's capable of.

Puja

Very talented runner. Shredded NZ with Burns, then we dropped em

It wasn't the only thing we dropped when Burt & Co had a panic attack that having upped the tempo it was us that fell of the pace in the last quarter. That was the moment confusion set in and they no longer understood what they wanted or how to get there, and very much laid the foundation for a WC conditioning camp that worked aerobically on the players to the point they weren't much use at rugby.

I can't see Eastmond being Eddie's cup of tea, I can't really see Burns impressing him much either tbh. Not enough power, too much extemporaneous play

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:Eastmond looked mustard today from the highlights. Nice running lines, crisp passing - could be an option for England if he stays fit and gets back to where he's capable of.

Puja

Very talented runner. Shredded NZ with Burns, then we dropped em

It wasn't the only thing we dropped when Burt & Co had a panic attack that having upped the tempo it was us that fell of the pace in the last quarter. That was the moment confusion set in and they no longer understood what they wanted or how to get there, and very much laid the foundation for a WC conditioning camp that worked aerobically on the players to the point they weren't much use at rugby.

I can't see Eastmond being Eddie's cup of tea, I can't really see Burns impressing him much either tbh. Not enough power, too much extemporaneous play

I would actually say that Eastmond's power might be what interests Eddie. He may be a short-a*se, but he's certainly capable of crashing the ball up when needed.

Puja

The power combined with his acceleration and step definitely make him a front foot option at 12, even if it's not a classic crashball. He's also no worse than Farrell or Slade in stopping carriers.

Eh? I agree that going forward there is a misconception with his size, but in defence he can certainly get dragged for those extra yards (brave as he is) which in a combo with Ford I cannot see as a goer.

Mikey Brown wrote:Eh? I agree that going forward there is a misconception with his size, but in defence he can certainly get dragged for those extra yards (brave as he is) which in a combo with Ford I cannot see as a goer.

I'd have put it a different way, but I don't think defence would be much, if an weakened by Eastmond v Faz (creates doglegs, and flies up and misses) v Slade (drag em down from the side defender). I've always like Eastmond as an attacker- really challenges and holds the defence, which as I may have mentioned, is vital for a 12.

Aye. Certainly wasn't a defence of Faz as a defender, who does a very good job of isolating our own defenders.

Mikey Brown wrote:Aye. Certainly wasn't a defence of Faz as a defender, who does a very good job of isolating our own defenders.

I actually think he was a bit to blame for the bust off the lineout that Oz made when they nearly scored- definite dog leg.

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Aye. Certainly wasn't a defence of Faz as a defender, who does a very good job of isolating our own defenders.

I actually think he was a bit to blame for the bust off the lineout that Oz made when they nearly scored- definite dog leg.

I haven't watched that moment back but I think I know the one you mean. I've given up expecting to it get noticed by any commentator/pundit when watching an England game, but I really would have thought Jones/Gustard would be all over this.

He often cuts down the option for a pass in the centre channel but leaves Joseph having to do a hell of a lot of work. With the forwards covering across in two minds whether to stick with Ford/12-channel or race across to the 2nd wave and support Joseph/winger.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Aye. Certainly wasn't a defence of Faz as a defender, who does a very good job of isolating our own defenders.

I actually think he was a bit to blame for the bust off the lineout that Oz made when they nearly scored- definite dog leg.

I haven't watched that moment back but I think I know the one you mean. I've given up expecting to it get noticed by any commentator/pundit when watching an England game, but I really would have thought Jones/Gustard would be all over this.

He often cuts down the option for a pass in the centre channel but leaves Joseph having to do a hell of a lot of work. With the forwards covering across in two minds whether to stick with Ford/12-channel or race across to the 2nd wave and support Joseph/winger.

its why Josephs speed and agility are so important to our defence.

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Aye. Certainly wasn't a defence of Faz as a defender, who does a very good job of isolating our own defenders.

I actually think he was a bit to blame for the bust off the lineout that Oz made when they nearly scored- definite dog leg.

Watched it back the other day and he's not just "a bit to blame" but the entire reason the hole's there in the first place. It's a really nice set play from the Aussies, but Farrell bought it hook, line, sinker, rod, and copy of Angling Times.

Puja

Farrell made 7 tackles yesterday and missed 3. I reckon thats pretty much par for the course.
Stats also show he made a whole 8 meters running with the ball. Mind you, JJ only managed 12!

fivepointer wrote:Farrell made 7 tackles yesterday and missed 3. I reckon thats pretty much par for the course.
Stats also show he made a whole 8 meters running with the ball. Mind you, JJ only managed 12!

JJ touched the ball 4 times; two passes, two runs, and I assume that includes the try. 9 tackles made, 1 missed- he covered up a few Faz mistakes.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Aye. Certainly wasn't a defence of Faz as a defender, who does a very good job of isolating our own defenders.

I actually think he was a bit to blame for the bust off the lineout that Oz made when they nearly scored- definite dog leg.

Watched it back the other day and he's not just "a bit to blame" but the entire reason the hole's there in the first place. It's a really nice set play from the Aussies, but Farrell bought it hook, line, sinker, rod, and copy of Angling Times.

Puja

hence definite dog leg comment....but bit to blame is fair, as Ford missed the tackle and no back row there either, so bits of blame all round

fivepointer wrote:Farrell made 7 tackles yesterday and missed 3. I reckon thats pretty much par for the course.
Stats also show he made a whole 8 meters running with the ball. Mind you, JJ only managed 12!

that wouldn't include the line break mentioned, as Ford missed it, nor the times he created holes by being out of position

Raggs wrote:The power combined with his acceleration and step definitely make him a front foot option at 12, even if it's not a classic crashball. He's also no worse than Farrell or Slade in stopping carriers.

He's also one of our few options at 12 who can both hold a defence with running threat and pass a ball.

I’d love to see if Ford - Eastmond - Joseph could replicate the form that took Bath to the Prem final. 100% certain Jones disagrees.
Might as well put Banahan in the 11 shirt, as well, just for s**ts and giggles.

Mellsblue wrote:I’d love to see if Ford - Eastmond - Joseph could replicate the form that took Bath to the Prem final. 100% certain Jones disagrees.
Might as well put Banahan in the 11 shirt, as well, just for s**ts and giggles.

Aye. Stick Burns/Homer in at 15 and you’ve got a Bath backline.

A few observations after watching the highlights ...

Eastmond looked electric. I’ve always been a fan, but I wonder if a sustained run of form could interest Eddie? We know he works well with Ford and JJ so if Slade warrants a chance, why not Eastmond? I suspect the answer is size, but we’ll see.

Ben Curry continues to impress me. He looks like a proper rugby player with a real feel of the game and the ability to be in the right place at the right time. Similarly, Evans looked like he was running some good support lines, in particular for Genge’s try, Chisholm looked like he could pick up where he left off prior to the concussion problems.

Worcester looked well worth their win. Hougaard and Mills looked to have made a real difference and with Te’o in the mix, they look a good bet to be safe.

London Irish looked very hard done by. Worcester look better equipped to pick up points but Marshall coming back for Irish looks like it will make a big difference for them.

Re: Eastmond - I don't think he has a prayer. Not saying I agree, but I don't think Eddie will ever get there

- Farrell will play, come what may
- I think Eddie's looking increasingly for size options
- I think it's weirdly a Ford vs. Eastmond debate, in terms of the first XV
- I think there are several players ahead of Eastmond at 12

Shame, as I've always liked him personally

The big spread earlier in the season in the Torygraph telling us Sale were on the up is looking dafter and dafter, although it does seem their latest away defeat did see them play reasonably well

Results aside, I do think Sale have improved. De Klerk and Ross have been excellent signings and I think there’s a decent chance that O’Connor and Strauss will improve as the season goes on.

All in all, the league is more competitive than ever. With the exception of London Irish, every side has a good chance of winning most of their home games. The difference between 5th and 10th will probably come down to who has picked up more bonus points and who has won a couple of games on the road.

Even London Irish have been competitive in defeat and Worcester looked really good against Saints. I still think Worcester are better equipped to stay up than London Irish.

That Adams guy is crap and I wouldn’t want him anywhere near the EPS.