RugbyRebels

I say rip it up and start again. The new tactics are simple: to bastardise a famous line, it’s a 15 man game, all of you give to Arundell.

p/d wrote:Drop Smith and Hill to bench. Bring in Underhill and Porter……. And no Eddie, playing against 14 doesn’t work against you.

Hill for Underhill and Lawes at lock, I could get behind.

Dropping Smith for Porter … ummm what?

Farrell isn't making all the decisions though. Any time it goes out the back from Farrell to Smith, that's Smith calling it. Every time it went to Farrell could have been Smith or Farrell calling it.

What about the time Danny Care got the ball and some big f**ker out the back?

Scrumhead wrote:

p/d wrote:Drop Smith and Hill to bench. Bring in Underhill and Porter……. And no Eddie, playing against 14 doesn’t work against you.

Hill for Underhill and Lawes at lock, I could get behind.

Dropping Smith for Porter … ummm what?

If Farrell is the bar we have set ourselves at 12 then I have no problem trying Porter or Dingwall or Freeman

Mellsblue wrote:What about the time Danny Care got the ball and some big f**ker out the back?

You could clearly hear Smith shout ‘Danny in space!’

p/d wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:What about the time Danny Care got the ball and some big f**ker out the back?

You could clearly hear Smith shout ‘Danny in space!’

p/d wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

p/d wrote:Drop Smith and Hill to bench. Bring in Underhill and Porter……. And no Eddie, playing against 14 doesn’t work against you.

Hill for Underhill and Lawes at lock, I could get behind.

Dropping Smith for Porter … ummm what?

If Farrell is the bar we have set ourselves at 12 then I have no problem trying Porter or Dingwall or Freeman

Just no. I’m no lover of Farrell but while I like Dingwall as a player, I don’t see bringing him in at 12 as a realistic solution at all. Porter even less so. He did OK in he handful of games he played there for Tigers but is fairly lucky to be on tour let alone starting.

Not sure where you’re going with Freeman at all? He’s a fullback who is adept on the wing. I’m not sure how playing him at 12 is a good idea? If we’re going to play position lottery, we may as well just play Cokanasiga there or at least have him keep the shirt warm for Simmonds. While we’re at it, I’ve always thought Nowell would make an excellent flanker …

Mellsblue wrote:What about the time Danny Care got the ball and some big f**ker out the back?

No idea, I said when it went from Farrell to Smith. Farrell doesn't pull it out the back without a call in those circumstances.

Scrumhead wrote:

p/d wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
Hill for Underhill and Lawes at lock, I could get behind.

Dropping Smith for Porter … ummm what?

If Farrell is the bar we have set ourselves at 12 then I have no problem trying Porter or Dingwall or Freeman

Just no. I’m no lover of Farrell but while I like Dingwall as a player, I don’t see bringing him in at 12 as a realistic solution at all. Porter even less so. He did OK in he handful of games he played there for Tigers but is fairly lucky to be on tour let alone starting.

Not sure where you’re going with Freeman at all? He’s a fullback who is adept on the wing. I’m not sure how playing him at 12 is a good idea? If we’re going to play position lottery, we may as well just play Cokanasiga there or at least have him keep the shirt warm for Simmonds. While we’re at it, I’ve always thought Nowell would make an excellent flanker …

Freeman was tongue in cheek throw away. Like suggesting Coka on the wing…. Joking (sort of)

Farrell and Smith are both tidy 10’s with different styles. I know it is against the grain but I want one to start and one on bench. I don’t really care which way round that is - just trust the coach to make that decision. What I don’t want is 3 tests - which will be forgotten come the Autumn - seeing if they can replicate the Irish wrap around whilst Porter and Dingwall are shopping for budgies

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:What about the time Danny Care got the ball and some big f**ker out the back?

No idea, I said when it went from Farrell to Smith. Farrell doesn't pull it out the back without a call in those circumstances.

For someone who seems so sure about how Eng manage each situation between Smith and Farrell I’m surprised you’re not in the know about this.

I'd settle for one future selection guarantee: Farrell never again plays at 12. Fuck everything else.

Oakboy wrote:I'd settle for one future selection guarantee: Farrell never again plays at 12. Fuck everything else.

Put down the sherry, Dors. You potty mouth.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:He’s not impressing but, broken record time, we’re asking him to play completely differently than he does at Quins and expecting him to run the show with single figure caps.

That's international rugby though. If he cannot play in anything except for a system that has been built solely around him, then he's no more use than Cipriani.

Puja

Agreed but a nod to how Quins play would be nice or a settled 9 & 12 or more than 10 caps for him to settle in would be nice. I think Jones has dropped him in the deepest end he could manufacture.

Doesn't get more settled than playing 10 in-between a 150 od England caps at 9 and 12. A nod to Quins style will start Smith throwing good passes and not making bad decisions ball in hand?

It's just a game to forget for Smith, he was bad. Didn't cost us the game that was once again down to the indiscipline of the forwards but Smith has got to find another level because otherwise Eddie will revert to Farrell at 10, who looked considerably more comfortable even with his own errors. I'm almost tempted to predict an Eddie drop to the bench to prove a point and reinstate for the third test move with Smith.

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
That's international rugby though. If he cannot play in anything except for a system that has been built solely around him, then he's no more use than Cipriani.

Puja

Agreed but a nod to how Quins play would be nice or a settled 9 & 12 or more than 10 caps for him to settle in would be nice. I think Jones has dropped him in the deepest end he could manufacture.

Doesn't get more settled than playing 10 in-between a 150 od England caps at 9 and 12. A nod to Quins style will start Smith throwing good passes and not making bad decisions ball in hand?

It's just a game to forget for Smith, he was bad. Didn't cost us the game that was once again down to the indiscipline of the forwards but Smith has got to find another level because otherwise Eddie will revert to Farrell at 10, who looked considerably more comfortable even with his own errors. I'm almost tempted to predict an Eddie drop to the bench to prove a point and reinstate for the third test move with Smith.

It’s one game in between that pairing, which is my part of my point.
Farrell and Youngs have thrown numerous shoite passes and have over 200 (I think) caps between them. Perhaps give Smith more than 10.
Yep, putting him in familiar systems will almost certainly reduce bad decisions. If it doesn’t then drop him.

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Our backrow depth is good at Prem level, but there’s only one that could really lay claim to world class at present. Lawes is good. Billy is in better form. Underhill is good. Willis, Earl, Simmonds, Dombrandt, Hill, Martin, Chessum all unproven. Theoretically we have good depth, but at international level it is largely unknown beyond Curry, Underhill, Lawes and Billy.

I forgot Ludlum originally, who I do feel is the most limited option.

Your depth can’t all be world class/top class. Curry and Billy are both good internationals with world class performances in them. Lawes and Underhill are both solid, if limited, test players with the possibility of Underhill moving up a level if he can stay fit. Dombrandt has shown glimpses in a handful of caps. Ludlum can hold his own. Willis is arguably a better player than Curry but needs a run to show whether that’s the case.
England now have a decent pool of players I’d be happy can perform at test level, ie good depth.

So basically we’ve got one world class backrow, and then some potentially good depth in theory.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Our backrow depth is good at Prem level, but there’s only one that could really lay claim to world class at present. Lawes is good. Billy is in better form. Underhill is good. Willis, Earl, Simmonds, Dombrandt, Hill, Martin, Chessum all unproven. Theoretically we have good depth, but at international level it is largely unknown beyond Curry, Underhill, Lawes and Billy.

I forgot Ludlum originally, who I do feel is the most limited option.

Soz, are you saying Curry is world class?

Yes Curry, the rest could be, were once, maybe could be again.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Our backrow depth is good at Prem level, but there’s only one that could really lay claim to world class at present. Lawes is good. Billy is in better form. Underhill is good. Willis, Earl, Simmonds, Dombrandt, Hill, Martin, Chessum all unproven. Theoretically we have good depth, but at international level it is largely unknown beyond Curry, Underhill, Lawes and Billy.

I forgot Ludlum originally, who I do feel is the most limited option.

Your depth can’t all be world class/top class. Curry and Billy are both good internationals with world class performances in them. Lawes and Underhill are both solid, if limited, test players with the possibility of Underhill moving up a level if he can stay fit. Dombrandt has shown glimpses in a handful of caps. Ludlum can hold his own. Willis is arguably a better player than Curry but needs a run to show whether that’s the case.
England now have a decent pool of players I’d be happy can perform at test level, ie good depth.

So basically we’ve got one world class backrow, and then some potentially good depth in theory.

Nope. We’ve two intermittently world class players, two good internationals, a competent international, one who’s shown potential in the handful he’s started, improving in each match, and one who’s probably the best flanker in the Premiership, above our intermittently world class one, but has been hampered by injury. There’s also a BIL who I haven’t included cos I think he’s a flat track bully.
Thought we weren’t allowed to be fun sponges. Ya hoo.

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Your depth can’t all be world class/top class. Curry and Billy are both good internationals with world class performances in them. Lawes and Underhill are both solid, if limited, test players with the possibility of Underhill moving up a level if he can stay fit. Dombrandt has shown glimpses in a handful of caps. Ludlum can hold his own. Willis is arguably a better player than Curry but needs a run to show whether that’s the case.
England now have a decent pool of players I’d be happy can perform at test level, ie good depth.

So basically we’ve got one world class backrow, and then some potentially good depth in theory.

Nope. We’ve two intermittently world class players, two good internationals, a competent international, one who’s shown potential in the handful he’s started, improving in each match, and one who’s probably the best flanker in the Premiership, above our intermittently world class one, but has been hampered by injury. There’s also a BIL who I haven’t included cos I think he’s a flat track bully.
Thought we weren’t allowed to be fun sponges. Ya hoo.

Curry is consistently world class and then…..a few solid players at this level, Billy who has been world class at 8, factoring in how many people would actually play Lawes at 6, and a handful of caps amongst some talented but unproven people. I thought you liked critical thinking?

Curry: world class
Lawes: mixed bag. Good international. Questionable backrow
Underhill: solid backrow
Billy: was world class, dropped significantly. Has prem form.
Willis: great a prem, way off that at present (it’s a very high bar), but unproven at test level
Dombrandt: very good at prem but unproven consistently at this level
Simmonds: same
Earl: same
Martin: even less proven
Chessum: same
Hill: same

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Agreed but a nod to how Quins play would be nice or a settled 9 & 12 or more than 10 caps for him to settle in would be nice. I think Jones has dropped him in the deepest end he could manufacture.

Doesn't get more settled than playing 10 in-between a 150 od England caps at 9 and 12. A nod to Quins style will start Smith throwing good passes and not making bad decisions ball in hand?

It's just a game to forget for Smith, he was bad. Didn't cost us the game that was once again down to the indiscipline of the forwards but Smith has got to find another level because otherwise Eddie will revert to Farrell at 10, who looked considerably more comfortable even with his own errors. I'm almost tempted to predict an Eddie drop to the bench to prove a point and reinstate for the third test move with Smith.

It’s one game in between that pairing, which is my part of my point.
Farrell and Youngs have thrown numerous shoite passes and have over 200 (I think) caps between them. Perhaps give Smith more than 10.
Yep, putting him in familiar systems will almost certainly reduce bad decisions. If it doesn’t then drop him.

One game in-between that pairing but he's played, what a 100 games with Care? Farrell he's played and trained with before. The system with Farrell was all about giving Smith more time on the ball which to be fair he had and squandered. Smith has been the incumbent for a year. It's been a tough topsy turvy sort of year but international rugby is pretty cute throat. You have to stamp your authority on it and coming up to the world cup it's likely to become cut throat, he starts taking his club form to international level or Eddie has his two experienced go to options to hand and last season both played well.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

So basically we’ve got one world class backrow, and then some potentially good depth in theory.

Nope. We’ve two intermittently world class players, two good internationals, a competent international, one who’s shown potential in the handful he’s started, improving in each match, and one who’s probably the best flanker in the Premiership, above our intermittently world class one, but has been hampered by injury. There’s also a BIL who I haven’t included cos I think he’s a flat track bully.
Thought we weren’t allowed to be fun sponges. Ya hoo.

Curry is consistently world class and then…..a few solid players at this level, Billy who has been world class at 8, factoring in how many people would actually play Lawes at 6, and a handful of caps amongst some talented but unproven people. I thought you liked critical thinking?

Curry: world class
Lawes: mixed bag. Good international. Questionable backrow
Underhill: solid backrow
Billy: was world class, dropped significantly. Has prem form.
Willis: great a prem, way off that at present (it’s a very high bar), but unproven at test level
Dombrandt: very good at prem but unproven consistently at this level
Simmonds: same
Earl: same
Martin: even less proven
Chessum: same
Hill: same

Fun sponge. All we can do is support Eddie and the boys.
It’s obviously subjective but I’d say we have good depth in comparison to others.

FKAS wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Doesn't get more settled than playing 10 in-between a 150 od England caps at 9 and 12. A nod to Quins style will start Smith throwing good passes and not making bad decisions ball in hand?

It's just a game to forget for Smith, he was bad. Didn't cost us the game that was once again down to the indiscipline of the forwards but Smith has got to find another level because otherwise Eddie will revert to Farrell at 10, who looked considerably more comfortable even with his own errors. I'm almost tempted to predict an Eddie drop to the bench to prove a point and reinstate for the third test move with Smith.

It’s one game in between that pairing, which is my part of my point.
Farrell and Youngs have thrown numerous shoite passes and have over 200 (I think) caps between them. Perhaps give Smith more than 10.
Yep, putting him in familiar systems will almost certainly reduce bad decisions. If it doesn’t then drop him.

One game in-between that pairing but he's played, what a 100 games with Care? Farrell he's played and trained with before. The system with Farrell was all about giving Smith more time on the ball which to be fair he had and squandered. Smith has been the incumbent for a year. It's been a tough topsy turvy sort of year but international rugby is pretty cute throat. You have to stamp your authority on it and coming up to the world cup it's likely to become cut throat, he starts taking his club form to international level or Eddie has his two experienced go to options to hand and last season both played well.

You said it was a settled combo which it patently isn’t regardless of how many times he’s played with Care at club level. I won’t go over the argument of whether this system suits Smith again, regardless of what it’s meant to achieve.

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Nope. We’ve two intermittently world class players, two good internationals, a competent international, one who’s shown potential in the handful he’s started, improving in each match, and one who’s probably the best flanker in the Premiership, above our intermittently world class one, but has been hampered by injury. There’s also a BIL who I haven’t included cos I think he’s a flat track bully.
Thought we weren’t allowed to be fun sponges. Ya hoo.

Curry is consistently world class and then…..a few solid players at this level, Billy who has been world class at 8, factoring in how many people would actually play Lawes at 6, and a handful of caps amongst some talented but unproven people. I thought you liked critical thinking?

Curry: world class
Lawes: mixed bag. Good international. Questionable backrow
Underhill: solid backrow
Billy: was world class, dropped significantly. Has prem form.
Willis: great a prem, way off that at present (it’s a very high bar), but unproven at test level
Dombrandt: very good at prem but unproven consistently at this level
Simmonds: same
Earl: same
Martin: even less proven
Chessum: same
Hill: same

Fun sponge. All we can do is support Eddie and the boys.
It’s obviously subjective but I’d say we have good depth in comparison to others.

Good critical thinking Mells. I can see the arguments for that in each player and thus why we’ve got such depth. Top work. I mean that’s me convinced.

I actually think we’ve potentially got good options, but beyond four players it is largely unknown and in those four it’s one world class and then a fluctuation of shite to good with the odd class performance largely.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Curry is consistently world class and then…..a few solid players at this level, Billy who has been world class at 8, factoring in how many people would actually play Lawes at 6, and a handful of caps amongst some talented but unproven people. I thought you liked critical thinking?

Curry: world class
Lawes: mixed bag. Good international. Questionable backrow
Underhill: solid backrow
Billy: was world class, dropped significantly. Has prem form.
Willis: great a prem, way off that at present (it’s a very high bar), but unproven at test level
Dombrandt: very good at prem but unproven consistently at this level
Simmonds: same
Earl: same
Martin: even less proven
Chessum: same
Hill: same

Fun sponge. All we can do is support Eddie and the boys.
It’s obviously subjective but I’d say we have good depth in comparison to others.

Good critical thinking Mells. I can see the arguments for that in each player and thus why we’ve got such depth. Top work. I mean that’s me convinced.

Glad to hear it.