The RugbyRebels Messageboard
http://rugbyrebels.co.uk/
I agree with 99% of this, but I think it’s premature to say Eddie’s ‘not fussed’. Until recently, Earl has been a fixture in the squad and when he has been left out, I suspect it’s simply a case of him being he unlucky one in an either/or decision with Simmonds.FKAS wrote:Luxury is harsh. He's Sarries main threat over the ball and scores quite a few tries through clever link play. Basically what you want in an openside, particularly when he's surrounded by the bruisers of the Sarries pack. His work rate is good and he carries quite a bit.Danno wrote:I don't watch many Sarries games, so I haven't seen a lot of Earl's grunt work, just highlights. Based on that and his England performances he seems like a bit of a luxury flanker. Is that unfair?
Also, yay, we're back!
For England I think he's just a bit in-between. He's not a good enough to displace Curry from the 7 shirt but let's face it few are. He's not got the height to play the hybrid role at 6 and jump in the lineout like Eddie wants from Lawes and Chessum (Martin and Hill). At 8 he's not quite physical enough to get away with the carrying workload Eddie likes from an 8. He was a fairly ideal bench option as he could do enough across the backrow to cover all from the bench, similar to Ludlum but Eddie doesn't seem that fussed and Earl's England highlights reel would be quite dull.
Suspect he's not 'abrasive' enough for what Eddie wants somewhere in the back row tbh. I think he could provide something a bit different which is frankly needed.Scrumhead wrote:I agree with 99% of this, but I think it’s premature to say Eddie’s ‘not fussed’. Until recently, Earl has been a fixture in the squad and when he has been left out, I suspect it’s simply a case of him being he unlucky one in an either/or decision with Simmonds.FKAS wrote:Luxury is harsh. He's Sarries main threat over the ball and scores quite a few tries through clever link play. Basically what you want in an openside, particularly when he's surrounded by the bruisers of the Sarries pack. His work rate is good and he carries quite a bit.Danno wrote:I don't watch many Sarries games, so I haven't seen a lot of Earl's grunt work, just highlights. Based on that and his England performances he seems like a bit of a luxury flanker. Is that unfair?
Also, yay, we're back!
For England I think he's just a bit in-between. He's not a good enough to displace Curry from the 7 shirt but let's face it few are. He's not got the height to play the hybrid role at 6 and jump in the lineout like Eddie wants from Lawes and Chessum (Martin and Hill). At 8 he's not quite physical enough to get away with the carrying workload Eddie likes from an 8. He was a fairly ideal bench option as he could do enough across the backrow to cover all from the bench, similar to Ludlum but Eddie doesn't seem that fussed and Earl's England highlights reel would be quite dull.
I’m fully expecting him to be back in the squad for Australia.
I saw it as a battle between him a Simmonds for the pacy, quasi-centre backrow player, and Simmonds has deserved the nod so far this season. However, for me, Earl seems to be playing a bit tighter than at Bris and has improved as the season has gone on… I wonder if he’ll make the cut this summer.Banquo wrote:Suspect he's not 'abrasive' enough for what Eddie wants somewhere in the back row tbh. I think he could provide something a bit different which is frankly needed.Scrumhead wrote:I agree with 99% of this, but I think it’s premature to say Eddie’s ‘not fussed’. Until recently, Earl has been a fixture in the squad and when he has been left out, I suspect it’s simply a case of him being he unlucky one in an either/or decision with Simmonds.FKAS wrote:
Luxury is harsh. He's Sarries main threat over the ball and scores quite a few tries through clever link play. Basically what you want in an openside, particularly when he's surrounded by the bruisers of the Sarries pack. His work rate is good and he carries quite a bit.
For England I think he's just a bit in-between. He's not a good enough to displace Curry from the 7 shirt but let's face it few are. He's not got the height to play the hybrid role at 6 and jump in the lineout like Eddie wants from Lawes and Chessum (Martin and Hill). At 8 he's not quite physical enough to get away with the carrying workload Eddie likes from an 8. He was a fairly ideal bench option as he could do enough across the backrow to cover all from the bench, similar to Ludlum but Eddie doesn't seem that fussed and Earl's England highlights reel would be quite dull.
I’m fully expecting him to be back in the squad for Australia.
You're serious aren't you.SDHoneymonster wrote:Not sure if it's been mentioned anywhere else but Austin Healey now seems to think Marcus Smith should be playing on the wing
yep, including lineout balance.Epaminondas Pules wrote:I'd say it's more balance and then flexibility off the bench, which includes the replacement lock, rather than just a rankings piece.
For example Chessum & Earl bench options means you can cover 4 back to 8 without a need for a positional switch from your starters.
If only somebody else had posted this you could have done one your trademark Kenneth Williams bits.Banquo wrote:I liked Smith wrapping around Slade albeit a bit deep initially. Didnt see enough of it.
always good to get feedbackMikey Brown wrote:If only somebody else had posted this you could have done one your trademark Kenneth Williams bits.Banquo wrote:I liked Smith wrapping around Slade albeit a bit deep initially. Didnt see enough of it.
Ooh, really!Mikey Brown wrote:If only somebody else had posted this you could have done one your trademark Kenneth Williams bits.Banquo wrote:I liked Smith wrapping around Slade albeit a bit deep initially. Didnt see enough of it.
Presumably that was something you saw off the pitch.Banquo wrote:I liked Smith wrapping around Slade albeit a bit deep initially. Didnt see enough of it.
v italy ectually, discussed at the time. Put yer man Steward in lots of space. Abandoned as a tactic, though given what was happening up front....FKAS wrote:Presumably that was something you saw off the pitch.Banquo wrote:I liked Smith wrapping around Slade albeit a bit deep initially. Didnt see enough of it.
They had moments in the Autumn but bloody awful as a combination in the 6N. Slade is injured for the Australia tour and might not make it back in afterwards if others stake a claim this summer.
I quite like the idea of a Chessum/Earl bench. Lots of dynamic impact there, neatly covers all positions as said.
I refuse to believe in a world where we have Underhill, Curry, and JWillis and choose to only pick one of them. Hells, I'm not unconvinced that that shouldn't be our starting back row.FKAS wrote:Presumably that was something you saw off the pitch.Banquo wrote:I liked Smith wrapping around Slade albeit a bit deep initially. Didnt see enough of it.
They had moments in the Autumn but bloody awful as a combination in the 6N. Slade is injured for the Australia tour and might not make it back in afterwards if others stake a claim this summer.
I quite like the idea of a Chessum/Earl bench. Lots of dynamic impact there, neatly covers all positions as said.
Yes please and thank you. All your breakdowns are belong to us. Especially with the likes of Rodd and Itoje too.Puja wrote:I refuse to believe in a world where we have Underhill, Curry, and JWillis and choose to only pick one of them. Hells, I'm not unconvinced that that shouldn't be our starting back row.FKAS wrote:Presumably that was something you saw off the pitch.Banquo wrote:I liked Smith wrapping around Slade albeit a bit deep initially. Didnt see enough of it.
They had moments in the Autumn but bloody awful as a combination in the 6N. Slade is injured for the Australia tour and might not make it back in afterwards if others stake a claim this summer.
I quite like the idea of a Chessum/Earl bench. Lots of dynamic impact there, neatly covers all positions as said.
Puja
and LCD. However, carrying and lineout would have to be cleverly addressedRaggs wrote:Yes please and thank you. All your breakdowns are belong to us. Especially with the likes of Rodd and Itoje too.Puja wrote:I refuse to believe in a world where we have Underhill, Curry, and JWillis and choose to only pick one of them. Hells, I'm not unconvinced that that shouldn't be our starting back row.FKAS wrote:
Presumably that was something you saw off the pitch.
They had moments in the Autumn but bloody awful as a combination in the 6N. Slade is injured for the Australia tour and might not make it back in afterwards if others stake a claim this summer.
I quite like the idea of a Chessum/Earl bench. Lots of dynamic impact there, neatly covers all positions as said.
Puja
I don't know - Willis has always been a very powerful carrier and it's something which both TCurry and Underhill have added to their games of late. And all three can jump in the lineout, so a halfway adroit set of lineout moves should see us with enough flexible options to be able to go up uncontested most times. I think it could work for carrying and lineout without too much disarrangement of the team.Banquo wrote:and LCD. However, carrying and lineout would have to be cleverly addressedRaggs wrote:Yes please and thank you. All your breakdowns are belong to us. Especially with the likes of Rodd and Itoje too.Puja wrote:
I refuse to believe in a world where we have Underhill, Curry, and JWillis and choose to only pick one of them. Hells, I'm not unconvinced that that shouldn't be our starting back row.
Puja
Willis is an aggressive tight carrier, but hardly a big guy in intl terms, and sure he and Curry can be hoisted, but not the same as being a lineout weapon like say Lawes. All I'm saying it would need thinking through if you picked three players who mostly play as opensides.Not sure thats contentious tbh, esp as you kind of half agree on having adroit lineout moves.Puja wrote:I don't know - Willis has always been a very powerful carrier and it's something which both TCurry and Underhill have added to their games of late. And all three can jump in the lineout, so a halfway adroit set of lineout moves should see us with enough flexible options to be able to go up uncontested most times. I think it could work for carrying and lineout without too much disarrangement of the team.Banquo wrote:and LCD. However, carrying and lineout would have to be cleverly addressedRaggs wrote:
Yes please and thank you. All your breakdowns are belong to us. Especially with the likes of Rodd and Itoje too.
If we are going completely unbalanced, imagine this:
Mako
LCD
Cole
Launchbury
Itoje
Underhill
TCurry
Willis
Hugely unbalanced, but it'd be a bit good at the breakdown.
Puja
What's to stop us going;Puja wrote:I refuse to believe in a world where we have Underhill, Curry, and JWillis and choose to only pick one of them. Hells, I'm not unconvinced that that shouldn't be our starting back row.FKAS wrote:Presumably that was something you saw off the pitch.Banquo wrote:I liked Smith wrapping around Slade albeit a bit deep initially. Didnt see enough of it.
They had moments in the Autumn but bloody awful as a combination in the 6N. Slade is injured for the Australia tour and might not make it back in afterwards if others stake a claim this summer.
I quite like the idea of a Chessum/Earl bench. Lots of dynamic impact there, neatly covers all positions as said.
Puja