RugbyRebels

Epaminondas Pules wrote:The England Rugby motm (fan voted) was JVP

Mellsblue wrote:I thought he played ok and his motm was more a reflection of how distinctly average everyone else was. For me, only JVP, Lawes and Billy were obviously better with Stuart perhaps edging ahead. I thought it was a low quality (and pretty boring) match. Bad times.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I thought he played ok and his motm was more a reflection of how distinctly average everyone else was. For me, only JVP, Lawes and Billy were obviously better with Stuart perhaps edging ahead. I thought it was a low quality (and pretty boring) match. Bad times.

Without being picky, the guys you mention were very good not average. And Faz’s average isn’t very good.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I thought he played ok and his motm was more a reflection of how distinctly average everyone else was. For me, only JVP, Lawes and Billy were obviously better with Stuart perhaps edging ahead. I thought it was a low quality (and pretty boring) match. Bad times.

Without being picky, the guys you mention were very good not average. And Faz’s average isn’t very good.

Yep, fair. Poor wording. They were good but the rest in general were below par. In my defence, I’ve had a couple of beverages…

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I thought he played ok and his motm was more a reflection of how distinctly average everyone else was. For me, only JVP, Lawes and Billy were obviously better with Stuart perhaps edging ahead. I thought it was a low quality (and pretty boring) match. Bad times.

Without being picky, the guys you mention were very good not average. And Faz’s average isn’t very good.

chris1850 wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

chris1850 wrote:We miss Itoje and Curry when they're not on the pitch. Our other options may be good prem players but they're not international class

I agree on your first sentence, but the second one is complete crap.

Underhill and Ludlam might not be as good as Curry but to suggest they’re ‘not international class’ is total bullshit.

Chessum is light years away from Itoje, but that’s not unexpected given the gulf in experience, but so far he’s looked at home in test rugby.

Fair point. I phrased it badly. Meant that Chessum and Underhill are a step down from Itoje and Curry, and it showed tbh

Mellsblue wrote:I know me moan about the England team and players but it could be worse, we could support Scotland.

Puja wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

chris1850 wrote:We miss Itoje and Curry when they're not on the pitch. Our other options may be good prem players but they're not international class

I agree on your first sentence, but the second one is complete crap.

Underhill and Ludlam might not be as good as Curry but to suggest they’re ‘not international class’ is total bullshit.

Chessum is light years away from Itoje, but that’s not unexpected given the gulf in experience, but so far he’s looked at home in test rugby.

Chris1850 had this to say, but accidentally reported the post rather than replying:

"Fair point. I probably phrased it badly. Meant that Chesssum and Underhill are a step down from Itoje and Curry and it showed tbh."

Mod

Banquo wrote:

p/d wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
I thought this would have been one of the odd games where both lovers and haters could agree he was just totally fine. Not much more, not much less. Ah well.

The way Smith is playing is a concern. We don’t look set up to make the most of his strengths but his general skill execution just isn’t where it should be. God knows what’s happened to his kicking, some real aimless stuff in there.

Maybe Faz/Porter/Marchant might see our attack spring in to life but I’d be a little bit surprised.

As you say Farrell was fine. Not motm, but fine nonetheless. The problem for me he is half of a 10/12 axis that looks terribly at sea. Smith is starting to look a luxury this side currently doesn’t need, and that isn’t where we should be. As you say wouldn’t be surprised to see Farrell with Porter and Marchant next week. (But that is what I wanted for this game)

We've been so gaslighted by Farrell that an inside centre making one run for 6 yards, missing three tackles out of 10, conceding one turnover and one penalty, kicking with mediocrity from hand, and even missing one kick at goal is agreed as being 'fine' and also MOTM.

Lol.

Freddo wrote:It still upsets me that we never got to see a Stuart Abbott, Ollie Smith centre partnership.

I thought we were decent today with room for improvement. Injuries permitting I would probably keep the same side for next week but I'd put Marchant back in.

Oakboy wrote:Can the Quins fans tell me if Smith has ever before played 160 minutes and carried the ball so few metres.

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Can the Quins fans tell me if Smith has ever before played 160 minutes and carried the ball so few metres.

He had a pretty rubbish season after his first breakout.
Puja

Oakboy wrote:Can the Quins fans tell me if Smith has ever before played 160 minutes and carried the ball so few metres.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Can the Quins fans tell me if Smith has ever before played 160 minutes and carried the ball so few metres.

He had a pretty rubbish season after his first breakout.
Puja

He did?!?!?

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote: He had a pretty rubbish season after his first breakout.
Puja

He did?!?!?

He didn't? I thought there was a season where he regressed a bit and struggled getting game time ahead of James Lang. Please note before the board bursts into full hyperbole, I'm not saying he's not a very good player, I'm simply saying that it's not unheard of for him to have an occasional run of bad form like a human does and this isn't some unprecedented fall caused solely by Jones/Farrell.

Puja

p/d wrote:see an instinctive player become, well, average.