RugbyRebels

Not for me, Dash. Im far more interested in the prem than Europe.

Stom wrote:Not for me, Dash. Im far more interested in the prem than Europe.

Stom, I'm of the same opinion. I can't remember the last time I bothered to watch a European game not involving an English club. Ten years back, I'd watch them all and enjoy them purely for the quality of the rugby.

I think the game needs to be careful not to follow football where glorifying a boring 1-0 win by a team of at least 7 foreigners requires a particularly partisan type of fan. I think European rugby is closer to that low point than the premiership. The debate has petered out since we won in Dublin and that victory may be a long-term blessing-in-disguise just for re-designating standards. The counter argument may decry our style of rugby, I suppose. We need to win more attractively in Cardiff to really cement progress.

I think the style of rugby discussion is interesting - I didn't hear many people have issues with how we played in Dublin - winning like that, against Ireland was impressive, and people (even non-England supporters) seemed happy to have watched it!

The issue comes when we play that same game plan, with 20% less effectiveness, against Italy, and scrape a +10 point win

Renniks wrote:I think the style of rugby discussion is interesting - I didn't hear many people have issues with how we played in Dublin - winning like that, against Ireland was impressive, and people (even non-England supporters) seemed happy to have watched it!

The issue comes when we play that same game plan, with 20% less effectiveness, against Italy, and scrape a +10 point win

Agreed but that was a bit of what I was getting at. A fan sees a win through rose-tinted specs. I hope we can all applaud good play by the opposition for example but for how much longer will such purist sentiment last?

Great piece about Mark Wilson in today’s Times, and what about these stats:

Impressive but no surprise. Do they have those stats per minute played Mells?

Beasties wrote:Impressive but no surprise. Do they have those stats per minute played Mells?

Probably, but they'd be slightly less impressive as he's one of only two to have played 480 minutes since November.

Curry's first to ruck numbers are impressive considering he's only played 2 of those 6 games!

Puja

Puja wrote:

Beasties wrote:Impressive but no surprise. Do they have those stats per minute played Mells?

Probably, but they'd be slightly less impressive as he's one of only two to have played 480 minutes since November.

Curry's first to ruck numbers are impressive considering he's only played 2 of those 6 games!

Puja

If they have them, then they haven’t put them in the article.

Curry played 50ish mins against SA but, yep, impressive, even if it’s a primary role if an openside.

Mins played shouldn’t be sniffed at. Durability and the ability to go a full 80mins are important.

Mark Wilson is going to tear it up in The Championship.

Mellsblue wrote:Great piece about Mark Wilson in today’s Times, and what about these stats:

I liked the stats, the rest took a long time to say he has a strong work ethic, that a test standard player stood out at school level, and despite the wisdom of Will Carling it's some other bloke who's working on the mindset of the squad who's detailed in the article as having done well with Wilson. Perhaps it's just my aversion to people meandering on needlessly but whatever it wasn’t a great article to me

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Great piece about Mark Wilson in today’s Times, and what about these stats:

I liked the stats, the rest took a long time to say he has a strong work ethic, that a test standard player stood out at school level, and despite the wisdom of Will Carling it's some other bloke who's working on the mindset of the squad who's detailed in the article as having done well with Wilson. Perhaps it's just my aversion to people meandering on needlessly but whatever it wasn’t a great article to me

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say this was intentionally ironic.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Great piece about Mark Wilson in today’s Times, and what about these stats:

I liked the stats, the rest took a long time to say he has a strong work ethic, that a test standard player stood out at school level, and despite the wisdom of Will Carling it's some other bloke who's working on the mindset of the squad who's detailed in the article as having done well with Wilson. Perhaps it's just my aversion to people meandering on needlessly but whatever it wasn’t a great article to me

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say this was intentionally ironic.

I thought the idea of Will Carling having wisdom was amusing too, I presume at least that’s what you're driving at?

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Great piece about Mark Wilson in today’s Times, and what about these stats:

I liked the stats, the rest took a long time to say he has a strong work ethic, that a test standard player stood out at school level, and despite the wisdom of Will Carling it's some other bloke who's working on the mindset of the squad who's detailed in the article as having done well with Wilson. Perhaps it's just my aversion to people meandering on needlessly but whatever it wasn’t a great article to me

People meandering on needlessly, tsk tsk.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Great piece about Mark Wilson in today’s Times, and what about these stats:

I liked the stats, the rest took a long time to say he has a strong work ethic, that a test standard player stood out at school level, and despite the wisdom of Will Carling it's some other bloke who's working on the mindset of the squad who's detailed in the article as having done well with Wilson. Perhaps it's just my aversion to people meandering on needlessly but whatever it wasn’t a great article to me

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say this was intentionally ironic.

That was my initial reaction...

Actually, flippancy or not, England have improved hugely since Will Carling came into camp. Logical observation or logical fallacy?

Digby wrote:Actually, flippancy or not, England have improved hugely since Will Carling came into camp. Logical observation or logical fallacy?

Farrell's certainly been less of a dick to referees, to the extent he actually had pretty decent rapport with Nige against France. Could be a coincidence.

Puja

Who's under pressure or should be under pressure after that rather pish poor performance?

My list entails Moon, Lawes, Youngs, Farrell and Slade

Certainly not Lawes, but I expect he’ll be injured for a while. Looked in a lot of pain with his knee.

Nor Farrell. Not only is he a quality player, who played well in the first 2 games, we need to give this midfield time together to develop some cohesion.

Again the errors from Farrell only serve to highlight his greatness to some. Bloody weird stuff

And Lawes just wasn't physical enough and too upright in contact

Lawes isn't a good heavy carrier, very effective in the fringes but is nothing like a mako replacement. Kruis isn't either. With Mako, sink and Billy, we can have huge carrying threats virtually every phase, even if they aren't used, only two of those cannot produce the same results.

Moon was no different than he was for me. Solid set piece but limited. He offers little else, and is not an 80 minute international.

I don't know what Eddie is doing with the likes of Genge and Robson. They need game time, and are potential game changers, but they get nothing.

Digby wrote:Who's under pressure or should be under pressure after that rather pish poor performance?

My list entails Moon, Lawes, Youngs, Farrell and Slade

I’d agree on Moon, Youngs and Farrell.

Lawes was good (as he usually is) until he went off injured.

I’ve generally been critical of Slade in an England shirt, but he’s played well in the 6 Nations. Hard to judge him yesterday when he barely saw the ball. Manu was fairly anonymous with the exception of one good break and missed a lot of tackles by trying to go for a massive hit when a less powerful but better timed tackle would have been far better.

Italy gives us a chance to reboot without Eddie being seen to be ‘dropping’ anyone. I’d certainly hope to see Genge, Robson, Ford and Cokanasiga. If not from the start, certainly for a lot longer than they’ve been given so far.

Scrumhead wrote:

Digby wrote:Who's under pressure or should be under pressure after that rather pish poor performance?

My list entails Moon, Lawes, Youngs, Farrell and Slade

I’d agree on Moon, Youngs and Farrell.

Lawes was good (as he usually is) until he went off injured.

I’ve generally been critical of Slade in an England shirt, but he’s played well in the 6 Nations. Hard to judge him yesterday when he barely saw the ball. Manu was fairly anonymous with the exception of one good break and missed a lot of tackles by trying to go for a massive hit when a less powerful but better timed tackle would have been far better.

Italy gives us a chance to reboot without Eddie being seen to be ‘dropping’ anyone. I’d certainly hope to see Genge, Robson, Ford and Cokanasiga. If not from the start, certainly for a lot longer than they’ve been given so far.

I don't know if Lawes wasn't working hard enough or it simply was a style of game that didn’t suit him. But for sure we subbed off the far better lock on the day, and Lawes based on one slightly inebriated viewing didn’t come close to good, he wasn't having a bad day like some others, he just didn't look on it

bit harsh on Lawes there Diggers. wasn't his best game in an England shirt but far from poor.

I'd be questioning the 15, 10, 9 shirts and continue to doubt the suitability of the fecker who penned the term 'finishers'

Raggs wrote:Lawes isn't a good heavy carrier, very effective in the fringes but is nothing like a mako replacement. Kruis isn't either. With Mako, sink and Billy, we can have huge carrying threats virtually every phase, even if they aren't used, only two of those cannot produce the same results.

Moon was no different than he was for me. Solid set piece but limited. He offers little else, and is not an 80 minute international.

I don't know what Eddie is doing with the likes of Genge and Robson. They need game time, and are potential game changers, but they get nothing.

I don't think Eddie got one substitution correct yesterday, those made and not made, nicely topped off some negative tactics. Again I can only assume he has virtually no trust in us playing any rugby

I thought lawes was one of our best players. Shows how much we know I suppose.