RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The Telegraph's ratings are maybe a touch high here or there. The Times marks are more around 5/6 mark and seem a bit more realistic.
Irrespective of markings, the question needs to be asked: just who has enhanced their reputation this 6N's?
We had a solid core of established, experienced players, many in their prime, and yet i'm struggling to think of any that have looked a better player now than they did at the WC.
Not only that but the newer players havent exactly shone either.

I can think of one... unlucky Willis. Was looking very good, so unlucky. I really hope he turns into a great player and not another Rees.

+ 1

Stom wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The Telegraph's ratings are maybe a touch high here or there. The Times marks are more around 5/6 mark and seem a bit more realistic.
Irrespective of markings, the question needs to be asked: just who has enhanced their reputation this 6N's?
We had a solid core of established, experienced players, many in their prime, and yet i'm struggling to think of any that have looked a better player now than they did at the WC.
Not only that but the newer players havent exactly shone either.

I can think of one... unlucky Willis. Was looking very good, so unlucky. I really hope he turns into a great player and not another Rees.

Do you rate his brother?

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

FKAS wrote:
Both Itoje and Martin finish the game without their scrum caps. Not sure if that was intentional or because they got pulled off. Should be a penalty at least for pulling on a scrum cap, you wouldn't grab someone's hair.

Should be penalised for putting one on if you are back

I used to wear one as a 9, back in the days when I had flowing locks it was easier to help keep hair out of the way and stop people being able to pull on one's hair.

Life is full of surprises.

Oakboy wrote:

Stom wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The Telegraph's ratings are maybe a touch high here or there. The Times marks are more around 5/6 mark and seem a bit more realistic.
Irrespective of markings, the question needs to be asked: just who has enhanced their reputation this 6N's?
We had a solid core of established, experienced players, many in their prime, and yet i'm struggling to think of any that have looked a better player now than they did at the WC.
Not only that but the newer players havent exactly shone either.

I can think of one... unlucky Willis. Was looking very good, so unlucky. I really hope he turns into a great player and not another Rees.

Do you rate his brother?

He looks perfectly good from what I've seen, but I haven't seen so much of him personally, and I'm also unsure if he has those same x-factor things Jack has. Jack's pretty incredible, tbh. His strength and power coupled with his reading of the game is pretty incredible.

Digby wrote:

fivepointer wrote: Not only that but the newer players havent exactly shone either.

And that's been a problem, amusing too when Eddie is being ranted at for not picking enough new players. It's almost like stepping up to test rugby isn't easy.

That said I do have a query about our attack system still, perhaps too much a moot point given the penalties, but if we are going to play much faster as a norm then do we still need such a league based approach to attack, or can we simplify and pick just two runners in the centres and move the ball in more basic fashion. Sadly we don't seem to have a Fickou we can pick, and it's not clear Lawrence is much of a runner, and it's not clear who the other options should be. Maybe simplifying would make us too easy to defend, but it might also make our own game easier to support

We do seem to be a bit of an outlier in terms of not really wanting two runners- and sometimes not even one- in midfield.

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Stom wrote:
I can think of one... unlucky Willis. Was looking very good, so unlucky. I really hope he turns into a great player and not another Rees.

Do you rate his brother?

He looks perfectly good from what I've seen, but I haven't seen so much of him personally, and I'm also unsure if he has those same x-factor things Jack has. Jack's pretty incredible, tbh. His strength and power coupled with his reading of the game is pretty incredible.

Tom was being touted as superior to Jack when Jack first broke into the Wasps team. He does indeed look a good player with work rate being his most obvious plus point, but I've yet to see him do extraordinary things in the way Jack does so often.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

fivepointer wrote: Not only that but the newer players havent exactly shone either.

And that's been a problem, amusing too when Eddie is being ranted at for not picking enough new players. It's almost like stepping up to test rugby isn't easy.

That said I do have a query about our attack system still, perhaps too much a moot point given the penalties, but if we are going to play much faster as a norm then do we still need such a league based approach to attack, or can we simplify and pick just two runners in the centres and move the ball in more basic fashion. Sadly we don't seem to have a Fickou we can pick, and it's not clear Lawrence is much of a runner, and it's not clear who the other options should be. Maybe simplifying would make us too easy to defend, but it might also make our own game easier to support

We do seem to be a bit of an outlier in terms of not really wanting two runners- and sometimes not even one- in midfield.

We do want one, but we only want one, and whilst he's a freak he's injured and perhaps off to France after the jamboree anyway.

I did though understand the more complex system as a means of doing something playing with slower ball, but looking at some of our rugby speed now if we can get past phase 2 without coughing up a penalty I do wonder how much we need to stick with that thinking. It's just entirely different playing off rucks that are 1.5 seconds and below, and the rucks below 1 second are going to cause any defence a problem. As is a defence has 2 choices, pile into the breakdown because you just can't fold fast enough, or pray you win the overwhelming number of collisions to make England go sideways quickly, which seems to suggest we'd want more carriers.

Mind I think we could use some more carriers in the pack too, we've got a lot of decent secondary choices, but only the Vunipolas as nailed on primary carriers. As with the midfield runners there is the slight problem of who, because the likes of Ludlam, Earl, Simmonds, Underhill can all offer something, but they're much more decent secondary options until they can show they're much more.

I would think Eddie was hoping Hill might offer something more akin to a late career Danny Grewcock on the carrying front, a proper big bastard just looking to lift the knees and be horrible to tackle, so far he's really only copying the stupid pens. It might be Hill has that in him, but so far just keeping up with test rugby isn't leaving him really feeling he's got the energy to go on the rampage.

Short term Hughes at lock would be an option if only worrying about the carrying, I don't think Hughes would clatter people, but if he splits the focal carries with Mako suddenly Billy is free to go look for who he'd like to carry into.

Beasties wrote:

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Do you rate his brother?

He looks perfectly good from what I've seen, but I haven't seen so much of him personally, and I'm also unsure if he has those same x-factor things Jack has. Jack's pretty incredible, tbh. His strength and power coupled with his reading of the game is pretty incredible.

Tom was being touted as superior to Jack when Jack first broke into the Wasps team. He does indeed look a good player with work rate being his most obvious plus point, but I've yet to see him do extraordinary things in the way Jack does so often.

Isn't that the same for every player with a younger brother? Tom Rees' brother David was exceptional apparently. Callum Watson was out of this world good.

I would imagine tom was relatively much bigger at age grade. He is a big guy at adult level but nothing crazy.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
And that's been a problem, amusing too when Eddie is being ranted at for not picking enough new players. It's almost like stepping up to test rugby isn't easy.

That said I do have a query about our attack system still, perhaps too much a moot point given the penalties, but if we are going to play much faster as a norm then do we still need such a league based approach to attack, or can we simplify and pick just two runners in the centres and move the ball in more basic fashion. Sadly we don't seem to have a Fickou we can pick, and it's not clear Lawrence is much of a runner, and it's not clear who the other options should be. Maybe simplifying would make us too easy to defend, but it might also make our own game easier to support

We do seem to be a bit of an outlier in terms of not really wanting two runners- and sometimes not even one- in midfield.

We do want one, but we only want one, and whilst he's a freak he's injured and perhaps off to France after the jamboree anyway.

I did though understand the more complex system as a means of doing something playing with slower ball, but looking at some of our rugby speed now if we can get past phase 2 without coughing up a penalty I do wonder how much we need to stick with that thinking. It's just entirely different playing off rucks that are 1.5 seconds and below, and the rucks below 1 second are going to cause any defence a problem. As is a defence has 2 choices, pile into the breakdown because you just can't fold fast enough, or pray you win the overwhelming number of collisions to make England go sideways quickly, which seems to suggest we'd want more carriers.

Mind I think we could use some more carriers in the pack too, we've got a lot of decent secondary choices, but only the Vunipolas as nailed on primary carriers. As with the midfield runners there is the slight problem of who, because the likes of Ludlam, Earl, Simmonds, Underhill can all offer something, but they're much more decent secondary options until they can show they're much more.

I would think Eddie was hoping Hill might offer something more akin to a late career Danny Grewcock on the carrying front, a proper big bastard just looking to lift the knees and be horrible to tackle, so far he's really only copying the stupid pens. It might be Hill has that in him, but so far just keeping up with test rugby isn't leaving him really feeling he's got the energy to go on the rampage.

Short term Hughes at lock would be an option if only worrying about the carrying, I don't think Hughes would clatter people, but if he splits the focal carries with Mako suddenly Billy is free to go look for who he'd like to carry into.

Yes, I was going to enter a Manu caveat; I'm just so frustrated with the obsession with 'playmakers' in the centre.

Is a sub 1 second ruck actually a ruck?

Totally agree on the pack - I just don't think we are consistently aggressive enough to get beyond the tackle line, combined with not being smart enough to hit good lines....Curry is good at this, to be fair.

I basically go with if the ref is going to look for an offside line you've got a ruck, almost nothing actually looks like what I think a ruck looks like so I've given up on that standard

Digby wrote:I basically go with if the ref is going to look for an offside line you've got a ruck, almost nothing actually looks like what I think a ruck looks like so I've given up on that standard

Not sure a ref could process that thought in less than a second with everything else going on

Really do need to have proper rucks, would create so much more space imo.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:I basically go with if the ref is going to look for an offside line you've got a ruck, almost nothing actually looks like what I think a ruck looks like so I've given up on that standard

Not sure a ref could process that thought in less than a second with everything else going on

Really do need to have proper rucks, would create so much more space imo.

No chance they can consistently do so, sos we get instinct rulings based on what they think a picture looks like. Not sure they can do better than that.

The IRB might want to think about this when considering how they penalise attack

Whether Jones takes it forward or a new regime, might a few players be looking over their shoulder as potentially having peaked with little to offer in raising the ceiling? Perhaps both Vunipolas, George, Youngs, Ford, Farrell, Daly, Wilson, Robson?

Alternatively, how many players from the existing squad demand inclusion based on form? LCD, Sinckler, Itoje, Watson, Curry . . .

The second list is harder to compile than the first.

Of the players you cite as having little to offer I'd think only Robson is at risk, the rest is mostly just daft unless just maybe Wilson (who still has a lot to offer imo) is moved on based on age as much as anything. The form argument remains something of an irrelevance

Digby wrote:Of the players you cite as having little to offer I'd think only Robson is at risk, the rest is mostly just daft unless just maybe Wilson (who still has a lot to offer imo) is moved on based on age as much as anything. The form argument remains something of an irrelevance

I don't think form is irrelevant if a team is continuing to lose games. That is basically saying just play the same old lot of faces, hope for the best, and trust that some day they will regain form and beat their opponents.

Spiffy wrote:

Digby wrote:Of the players you cite as having little to offer I'd think only Robson is at risk, the rest is mostly just daft unless just maybe Wilson (who still has a lot to offer imo) is moved on based on age as much as anything. The form argument remains something of an irrelevance

I don't think form is irrelevant if a team is continuing to lose games. That is basically saying just play the same old lot of faces, hope for the best, and trust that some day they will regain form and beat their opponents.

Continuing to lose games?

It's 3 out of 5 games lost, and that after a record of wins which is unusually good by the standards of rugby. And form is something of an irrelevance. You cannot just call up players because they're in form, they have to be good enough, and you cannot just rotate players in/out of the side on a whim or down to form because you'll struggle to build a team.

Most test sides don't have the problem replicate in quite the same way, most only have 2-5 sides to pick from to begin with so it's naturally a tighter group. I'd agree you wouldn't want to keep the same old players if they weren't the best players, but when they basically are you're naturally limited in changes that can reasonably sought, especially once you have players unavailable whether injury, suspension or not wanting to be in camp. Though with that said we have seen new(ish) faces this 6N, and they haven't exactly over delivered

Its 3 out of 5 games that we've lost badly.

It wasnt as if we were undone by a late penalty after playing well, we were 2nd best by a long way in those games.

This after a year of very inconsistent rugby in which we have failed to improve since the WC.

3 out of 4....

fivepointer wrote:Its 3 out of 5 games that we've lost badly.

It wasnt as if we were undone by a late penalty after playing well, we were 2nd best by a long way in those games.

This after a year of very inconsistent rugby in which we have failed to improve since the WC.

Exactly and it was really 3 out of 4 games. Italy are simply not grade 1 international standard.

As Healy says in today's DT, it is about progress - steady improvement leading to a GS in the 6N preceding the RWC etc. He refers to Jones's roller-coaster track record which is a reasonable metaphor for England under him (and his career as a whole).

fivepointer wrote:Its 3 out of 5 games that we've lost badly.

It wasnt as if we were undone by a late penalty after playing well, we were 2nd best by a long way in those games.

This after a year of very inconsistent rugby in which we have failed to improve since the WC.

we have improved the attack.

we've also worsened results.

both are true


Still whether that were 3 out of 5 games, 3 out of 4 (is that noting Italy is barely an unopposed training run?), or even 3 out of 3 that's not much to be hanging your hat on if you want to fire a coach. And not much to hang your hat on before you can't afford to fire and hire, and you might not know who to hire anyway

fivepointer wrote:Its 3 out of 5 games that we've lost badly.

It wasnt as if we were undone by a late penalty after playing well, we were 2nd best by a long way in those games.

This after a year of very inconsistent rugby in which we have failed to improve since the WC.

Exactly. I've heard people say "Arrogant English, think they've got a divine right to beat the Celts, etc, etc," but that's not the case here. We can't say, "England should never lose to Wales/Ireland/Scotland," because that *would* be arrogant. We can say, "England should never receive a cuffing from Wales/Ireland/Scotland" because we shouldn't - if it happens, something has gone badly wrong. For it to happen twice in the same 6N, several things have gone badly wrong.

Puja

Puja wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Its 3 out of 5 games that we've lost badly.

It wasnt as if we were undone by a late penalty after playing well, we were 2nd best by a long way in those games.

This after a year of very inconsistent rugby in which we have failed to improve since the WC.

Exactly. I've heard people say "Arrogant English, think they've got a divine right to beat the Celts, etc, etc," but that's not the case here. We can't say, "England should never lose to Wales/Ireland/Scotland," because that *would* be arrogant. We can say, "England should never receive a cuffing from Wales/Ireland/Scotland" because we shouldn't - if it happens, something has gone badly wrong. For it to happen twice in the same 6N, several things have gone badly wrong.

Puja

We weren't second best by a long way to either Scotland or Wales, though the scoreboard said so in the latter case. We were humped by Ireland though, seamlessly stitching together all the bad things from the previous games, with Ireland compounding it by playing well and out-thinking Eddie.

Yep, Ireland is the only game we got a kicking. France exposed us at times too, but France are capable of that, actually France exposed us on individual plays more than anyone else

We were well beaten by Scotland. They bossed the game.
Wales put 40 points on us (a record). You can make the point that they had a couple of calls go their way but the way they controlled the final quarter was pretty emphatic.