RugbyRebels

Raggs wrote:I think whilst we cannot say Simmonds is weak over the ball, we equally can't claim it as any sort of strength. We just don't see it. And because it's not seen, it could very well be marked down as a weakness as far as Eddie is concerned. If you're not performing the skills week in/week out, then you won't be honing them regardless.

True. Plus, it is obvious that Jones's way is not Baxter's and vice-versa. It will be interesting to see how stubborn on that Jones is when it comes to picking/retaining Hill, for example.

Stom wrote:btw, I don't really get Earl. I mean, he seems perfectly good but... I just don't get it. Why has he been promoted over the others?

With you on this one Stom. Plenty of posts telling us he is ‘big, fast and strong’ so I suppose we better accept big, fast and strong is all boxes ticked.....not forgetting he shits in the garden

Raggs wrote:I think whilst we cannot say Simmonds is weak over the ball, we equally can't claim it as any sort of strength. We just don't see it. And because it's not seen, it could very well be marked down as a weakness as far as Eddie is concerned. If you're not performing the skills week in/week out, then you won't be honing them regardless.

I’m not sure that’s true- he’s been very effective over the ball for Exeter in defence when I’ve watched them; both he and LCD pick and choose well. To your point about an 8 being in a good place as second man to a tackle from scrums.

There is some truth in that Exeter don’t really play in a way that encompasses a Jackal in the back row, but I’ve seen him do it enough times to believe he is very good at it.

Scrumhead wrote:Depends what you mean? I often think Exeter are crying out for someone who can come up with more turnovers. LCD is the only one who really seems to jackal with any regularity.

Simmonds might be good on the clear out etc. but I don’t see him as being particularly good over the ball.

He historically has got a lot of turnovers in the jackal from my memories of Exeter. I’ve remarked on it here before. Maybe not so much since the restart. It’s one of the reasons I thought in any other club side he’d be at 7.

p/d wrote:

Stom wrote:btw, I don't really get Earl. I mean, he seems perfectly good but... I just don't get it. Why has he been promoted over the others?

With you on this one Stom. Plenty of posts telling us he is ‘big, fast and strong’ so I suppose we better accept big, fast and strong is all boxes ticked.....not forgetting he shits in the garden

Quick, big and skilful is what I said if that helps. He’s very good.

p/d wrote:

Stom wrote:btw, I don't really get Earl. I mean, he seems perfectly good but... I just don't get it. Why has he been promoted over the others?

With you on this one Stom. Plenty of posts telling us he is ‘big, fast and strong’ so I suppose we better accept big, fast and strong is all boxes ticked.....not forgetting he shits in the garden

Eh?

I don’t think he’s actually that big, but he’s definitely fast and strong and brings a different dynamic to the back row.

TBH, I’m not sure where the debate is coming from given how good he was last season. A few people have referred to the Premiership semi-final as a showdown between Willis and Earl, but I’d argue the whole Bristol team was second best that day and he had an excellent game in the Challenge Cup Final.

If it’s true that Willis is going to miss out, it’s a shame, but let’s not forget that the back row of Curry, Underhill and Billy has had Ireland’s number in the last three times we’ve faced them. That probably counts for something for Eddie, meaning it’s a shoot out between Earl and Willis for a bench spot. Perhaps Earl is simply a better fit for the gameplan Eddie has for the Ireland game. Not that controversial IMO.

Willis appeared to be in a bit of pain with his quad at half time against Georgia, may have a knock.

Scrumhead wrote:If it’s true that Willis is going to miss out, it’s a shame, but let’s not forget that the back row of Curry, Underhill and Billy has had Ireland’s number in the last three times we’ve faced them. That probably counts for something for Eddie, meaning it’s a shoot out between Earl and Willis for a bench spot. Perhaps Earl is simply a better fit for the gameplan Eddie has for the Ireland game. Not that controversial IMO.

That's a sensible point. Curry and Underhill have an awful lot of credit as our starters and Earl is a very, very handy bench option. As long as no locks are named, we're going to have a very good back row and one extremely unlucky player, regardless of the selection.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:If it’s true that Willis is going to miss out, it’s a shame, but let’s not forget that the back row of Curry, Underhill and Billy has had Ireland’s number in the last three times we’ve faced them. That probably counts for something for Eddie, meaning it’s a shoot out between Earl and Willis for a bench spot. Perhaps Earl is simply a better fit for the gameplan Eddie has for the Ireland game. Not that controversial IMO.

That's a sensible point. Curry and Underhill have an awful lot of credit as our starters and Earl is a very, very handy bench option. As long as no locks are named, we're going to have a very good back row and one extremely unlucky player, regardless of the selection.

Puja

As I said above, Willis has earned the right to join a queue of proven quality intl players. Personally I think he is sufficiently different to the others and offers something we really need and so should be jumping the queue- credit in the bank doesn’t really mean too much, save being tested and succeeding at this level. But It wouldn’t be horrendous not to start him.

BACKS
Elliot Daly (Saracens, 44 caps)
Owen Farrell (Saracens, 85 caps)
George Ford (Leicester Tigers, 69 caps)
Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 52 caps)
Ollie Lawrence (Worcester Warriors, 2 caps)
Max Malins (Bristol Bears, 1 cap)
Jonny May (Gloucester Rugby, 58 caps)
Dan Robson (Wasps, 4 caps)
Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 31 caps)
Ollie Thorley (Gloucester Rugby, 1 cap)
Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 101 caps)

FORWARDS
Tom Curry (Sale Sharks, 25 caps)
Tom Dunn (Bath Rugby, 2 caps)
Ben Earl (Bristol Bears, 5 caps)
Ellis Genge (Leicester Tigers, 20 caps)
Jamie George (Saracens, 51 caps)
Jonny Hill (Exeter Chiefs, 1 cap)
Maro Itoje (Saracens, 40 caps)
Joe Launchbury (Wasps, 66 caps)
Lewis Ludlam (Northampton Saints, 8 caps)
Kyle Sinckler (Bristol Bears, 37 caps)
Will Stuart (Bath Rugby, 5 caps)
Sam Underhill (Bath Rugby, 19 caps)
Billy Vunipola (Saracens, 53 caps)
Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 61 caps)

Willis didnt make the cut.
Surprised Ford is there given Amor's comments.
Ludlam has come in from nowhere.
Nice to see Malins and Lawrence retained.
2 players to miss out on the final 23, a back rower and centre/wing?

Well that’s annoying unless crocked on Willis. He was yanked quite early.

Ludlam over Willis is almost peak Eddie.

Thorley and Ludlam to miss out? Depends on JJ’s injury I’d think.

I'm betting Ford and Thorley

Danno wrote:Ludlam over Willis is almost peak Eddie.

It does smack of contrariness. But he’s had a good look in camp, and it doesn’t appear to be injury.

Interesting that Ewels has dropped out too. I thought he had a decent enough game last weekend.

Ludlam is lucky to be in the extended squad, let alone the training squad for this weekend.

Danno wrote:I'm betting Ford and Thorley

A 6:2 bench, hope not.

Scrumhead wrote:Interesting that Ewels has dropped out too. I thought he had a decent enough game last weekend.

Ludlam is lucky to be in the extended squad, let alone the training squad for this weekend.

Who are you leaving out for Ewels?

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Interesting that Ewels has dropped out too. I thought he had a decent enough game last weekend.

Ludlam is lucky to be in the extended squad, let alone the training squad for this weekend.

Who are you leaving out for Ewels?

Thats the problem, isnt it? We have 4 good locks so someone has to miss out. Back row is the same. Poor Ted Hill cannot get a look in.
I dont mind Ludlam but is he really any better than either Willis or Hill?

In a straight choice between Ewels and Hill, I’d keep Hill. Just making the point that he is an interesting omission. Eddie’s generally favoured him.

Ludlam is well down the list of back row options IMO. Good player, but no real point of difference compared to others.

fivepointer wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Interesting that Ewels has dropped out too. I thought he had a decent enough game last weekend.

Ludlam is lucky to be in the extended squad, let alone the training squad for this weekend.

Who are you leaving out for Ewels?

Thats the problem, isnt it? We have 4 good locks so someone has to miss out. Back row is the same. Poor Ted Hill cannot get a look in.
I dont mind Ludlam but is he really any better than either Willis or Hill?

Good point had utterly forgotten Ted Hill.
EJ had had a good look and that’s possibly not a great sign for them short term.

Scrumhead wrote:Interesting that Ewels has dropped out too. I thought he had a decent enough game last weekend.

Agreed. However, in a straight choice between Ewels and Hill I'd say Ewels was second by some margin. Having said that, I was really concerned that Jones would dump Hill.

So, based on recent Jonesism, will Itoje start at 6 with both Earl and Underhill on the bench? If not, Hill or Launchbury to start?

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:

Banquo wrote: Who are you leaving out for Ewels?

Thats the problem, isnt it? We have 4 good locks so someone has to miss out. Back row is the same. Poor Ted Hill cannot get a look in.
I dont mind Ludlam but is he really any better than either Willis or Hill?

Good point had utterly forgotten Ted Hill.
EJ had had a good look and that’s possibly not a great sign for them short term.

I often ask the question, "Do the assistant coaches have any say in selection?"

Basically, would anybody else in the whole set-up (or the rugby world, come to that) choose Ludlam over Willis?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:
Thats the problem, isnt it? We have 4 good locks so someone has to miss out. Back row is the same. Poor Ted Hill cannot get a look in.
I dont mind Ludlam but is he really any better than either Willis or Hill?

Good point had utterly forgotten Ted Hill.
EJ had had a good look and that’s possibly not a great sign for them short term.

I often ask the question, "Do the assistant coaches have any say in selection?"

Basically, would anybody else in the whole set-up (or the rugby world, come to that) choose Ludlam over Willis?

Jngf

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Good point had utterly forgotten Ted Hill.
EJ had had a good look and that’s possibly not a great sign for them short term.

I often ask the question, "Do the assistant coaches have any say in selection?"

Basically, would anybody else in the whole set-up (or the rugby world, come to that) choose Ludlam over Willis?

Jngf