Peej wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 11:26 am
And Itoje reverting to lock for our most important game shows what a balls that whole idea was, it's not like the same players weren't available.
Yep. Two more games go by fiddling with the backrow. And now we try something else different. Come on Jones, we should be close to a Holy Trinity by now!!!
Tbh, I'm just happy we've ended up playing only two locks again. I don't care how we got here or what bizarro combo results in the back row, I'm just glad we're here.
I actually do think there's things to like in that back-row. It's different to previous efforts of crowbarring in two 8 where both of them want to be first-line carriers and don't offer much else. As jngf pointed out many times, Simmonds is a very flankerish number 8 and having him there will provide another carrier while also being a pacy option so that Curry's not left alone dealing with all the breakdowns. If JWillis wasn't an option, then I'd be wholeheartedly in favour of trying it.
I worry that it'll be straight back to Itoje at 6 for the SA game though. We'd've had a much better rugby team the last 3 years if the RFU had got Eddie therapy for his PSDT PTSD from the final.
I don't understand why Hill is getting so much stick. He is the dependable athlete who complements Itoje perfectly. Ribbans and Coles represent reasonable back-up alternatives but neither are as good as Hill. Jones may consider that he has made the most of the two lesser AIs if testing reserve locks was a priority.
Now, with his first choice 2nd row back in place, perhaps he is testing back-row theories. If he was totally satisfied with BV's all-round game at 8, surely he would not be messing around with Simmonds at 6. Why the hell can't he just decide on one or the other?
As for the backs, is it now Youngs's fault that Smith/Farrell is not working? I rate JVP and want him to start but fear he's on a hiding-to-nothing with that horrible 10/12/13 unit outside him.
Both Slade and Porter on the bench can only make sense for me if they come on together at 12/13 with Smith/Tuilagi coming off and Farrell moving to 10. It's not worth even dreaming that Farrell might be the one pulled.
Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:58 pm
I don't understand why Hill is getting so much stick. He is the dependable athlete who complements Itoje perfectly. Ribbans and Coles represent reasonable back-up alternatives but neither are as good as Hill. Jones may consider that he has made the most of the two lesser AIs if testing reserve locks was a priority.
Now, with his first choice 2nd row back in place, perhaps he is testing back-row theories. If he was totally satisfied with BV's all-round game at 8, surely he would not be messing around with Simmonds at 6. Why the hell can't he just decide on one or the other?
As for the backs, is it now Youngs's fault that Smith/Farrell is not working? I rate JVP and want him to start but fear he's on a hiding-to-nothing with that horrible 10/12/13 unit outside him.
Both Slade and Porter on the bench can only make sense for me if they come on together at 12/13 with Smith/Tuilagi coming off and Farrell moving to 10. It's not worth even dreaming that Farrell might be the one pulled.
Hill was better than Coles/Ribbans before injury, but has he actually shown that since coming back? He's been rubbish in the AIs so far.
You theory on the bench misses the obvious - Slade is seen as the 15 cover to Steward and it'll be Nowell off, Slade to 15 and Steward to 14. Porter will get 3 minutes, unless Tuilagi is injured or Smith gets the shepherd's crook for being the sole reason the backline's not working.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 1:06 pm
Do, we now have Simmonds and Billy rotating at 8 on top of Smith and Farrell rotating at first receiver. It sounds clever I suppose…
Peej wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 11:26 am
And Itoje reverting to lock for our most important game shows what a balls that whole idea was, it's not like the same players weren't available.
Yep. Two more games go by fiddling with the backrow. And now we try something else different. Come on Jones, we should be close to a Holy Trinity by now!!!
Tbh, I'm just happy we've ended up playing only two locks again. I don't care how we got here or what bizarro combo results in the back row, I'm just glad we're here.
Puja
Agree. But should we really be in a situation where happiness comes in starting only two locks.
Oakboy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:58 pm
I don't understand why Hill is getting so much stick. He is the dependable athlete who complements Itoje perfectly. Ribbans and Coles represent reasonable back-up alternatives but neither are as good as Hill. Jones may consider that he has made the most of the two lesser AIs if testing reserve locks was a priority.
Now, with his first choice 2nd row back in place, perhaps he is testing back-row theories. If he was totally satisfied with BV's all-round game at 8, surely he would not be messing around with Simmonds at 6. Why the hell can't he just decide on one or the other?
As for the backs, is it now Youngs's fault that Smith/Farrell is not working? I rate JVP and want him to start but fear he's on a hiding-to-nothing with that horrible 10/12/13 unit outside him.
Both Slade and Porter on the bench can only make sense for me if they come on together at 12/13 with Smith/Tuilagi coming off and Farrell moving to 10. It's not worth even dreaming that Farrell might be the one pulled.
Hill was better than Coles/Ribbans before injury, but has he actually shown that since coming back? He's been rubbish in the AIs so far.
You theory on the bench misses the obvious - Slade is seen as the 15 cover to Steward and it'll be Nowell off, Slade to 15 and Steward to 14. Porter will get 3 minutes, unless Tuilagi is injured or Smith gets the shepherd's crook for being the sole reason the backline's not working.
Puja
Don't forget that Jones's weird move of Itoje to 6 left Hill with debutants when, arguably, he needs the time with Itoje. That Cokes/Ribbans looked OK was nothing to do with Hill, presumably????
I understand the Slade to FB bit. I was saying what would make sense to me - not Jones. I'd cheerfully dump Youngs, Smith, Tuilagi, Porter and Nowell from the 23 so trying to make sense of the whole thing is beyond me.
Mellsblue wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 1:06 pm
Do, we now have Simmonds and Billy rotating at 8 on top of Smith and Farrell rotating at first receiver. It sounds clever I suppose…
Jones is forming an interchangeable 14 and Nowell
I’ll take the 14 players without Nowell please Bob.
francoisfou wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:34 pm
I’m surprised that Mako V’s name is still there. For a while I’ve thought that his scrummaging isn’t of Test level, and against the ABs and maybe the Boks, he may get found out.
I was hoping to see a bit more of Rodd these AIs. He has shown over the last 12 months his scrummaging and all round game is really coming along
Hill is average with the propensity to do something really very stupid. I can forgive the likes of Genge for moments of stupidity (in lieu of the hope they’ll ever completely cut them out) as they’re capable of world/top class performances but Hill isn’t good enough to justify the moments idiocy. I was hoping he’d be an ante-Samson when loping off the locks but alas…
Eddie, Week 1: 6 has to be a lineout option, no questions, mate
Eddie, Week 3: Think it's crucial we play our shortest backrow out of position at 6.... mate
Peej wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 1:27 pm
Eddie, Week 1: 6 has to be a lineout option, no questions, mate
Eddie, Week 3: Think it's crucial we play our shortest backrow out of position at 6.... mate
Meanwhile, NZ have put SBarrett at 6 again.
This worked out quite well when we had the Borthwick lineout moves and Lawes calling. I am less convinced by Cockerill's lineout and am slightly concerned about the possibility of our lineout going to hell and us getting stuck back in Week 1 for the rest of Eddie's tenure.
Peej wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 1:27 pm
Eddie, Week 1: 6 has to be a lineout option, no questions, mate
Eddie, Week 3: Think it's crucial we play our shortest backrow out of position at 6.... mate
Meanwhile, NZ have put SBarrett at 6 again.
This worked out quite well when we had the Borthwick lineout moves and Lawes calling. I am less convinced by Cockerill's lineout and am slightly concerned about the possibility of our lineout going to hell and us getting stuck back in Week 1 for the rest of Eddie's tenure.
Puja
Interesting, reckon Eddie was banking on no third jumper for inzid. LCD has been wobbly enough without this
p/d wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 1:53 pm
I thought Ribbans was excellent. Hard and uncomplicated. As any good SA lock should be
he was. So was Coles tbf.
If you were picking purely on the form in this AI series, for me, Ribbans and Coles would be starting, Itoje would be benching and Hill would be back up north.
francoisfou wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:34 pm
I’m surprised that Mako V’s name is still there. For a while I’ve thought that his scrummaging isn’t of Test level, and against the ABs and maybe the Boks, he may get found out.
I was hoping to see a bit more of Rodd these AIs. He has shown over the last 12 months his scrummaging and all round game is really coming along
I thought we might have given him another cap Vs Japan but I guess Eddie thought we needed a statement after the iffy performance Vs Argentina.
Peej wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 1:27 pm
Eddie, Week 1: 6 has to be a lineout option, no questions, mate
Eddie, Week 3: Think it's crucial we play our shortest backrow out of position at 6.... mate
Meanwhile, NZ have put SBarrett at 6 again.
This worked out quite well when we had the Borthwick lineout moves and Lawes calling. I am less convinced by Cockerill's lineout and am slightly concerned about the possibility of our lineout going to hell and us getting stuck back in Week 1 for the rest of Eddie's tenure.
Puja
Interesting, reckon Eddie was banking on no third jumper for inzid. LCD has been wobbly enough without this
I dunno, it's either that or he was banking on NZ moving Barrett to 6 with Retallick back and thought he'd try a curved ball option for NZ to deal with. NZ didn't resource the breakdown well and didn't get around the park as effectively as they'd have liked Vs Scotland. Adding Simmonds energy to backrow at the same time NZ drop one of their impressive backrow for a third lock could work well in the loose.
This worked out quite well when we had the Borthwick lineout moves and Lawes calling. I am less convinced by Cockerill's lineout and am slightly concerned about the possibility of our lineout going to hell and us getting stuck back in Week 1 for the rest of Eddie's tenure.
Puja
Interesting, reckon Eddie was banking on no third jumper for inzid. LCD has been wobbly enough without this
I dunno, it's either that or he was banking on NZ moving Barrett to 6 with Retallick back and thought he'd try a curved ball option for NZ to deal with. NZ didn't resource the breakdown well and didn't get around the park as effectively as they'd have liked Vs Scotland. Adding Simmonds energy to backrow at the same time NZ drop one of their impressive backrow for a third lock could work well in the loose.
I like it if we are attacking their weakness. Gods only know that too many of our selections are made with the mindset of worrying what the opposition will do to us and trying to defend that. NZ's loose play and rucks have been a weakness which is open to attack - it's just a bloody shame that we're not doing so with our most potent weapon in that arena.
This worked out quite well when we had the Borthwick lineout moves and Lawes calling. I am less convinced by Cockerill's lineout and am slightly concerned about the possibility of our lineout going to hell and us getting stuck back in Week 1 for the rest of Eddie's tenure.
Puja
Interesting, reckon Eddie was banking on no third jumper for inzid. LCD has been wobbly enough without this
I dunno, it's either that or he was banking on NZ moving Barrett to 6 with Retallick back and thought he'd try a curved ball option for NZ to deal with. NZ didn't resource the breakdown well and didn't get around the park as effectively as they'd have liked Vs Scotland. Adding Simmonds energy to backrow at the same time NZ drop one of their impressive backrow for a third lock could work well in the loose.
.....in which case you'd pick Willis surely? Simmonds is ok on groundwork, but its not his forte, nor does he do much breakdown work for Chiefs. NZ are targeting our lineout either way.
Interesting, reckon Eddie was banking on no third jumper for inzid. LCD has been wobbly enough without this
I dunno, it's either that or he was banking on NZ moving Barrett to 6 with Retallick back and thought he'd try a curved ball option for NZ to deal with. NZ didn't resource the breakdown well and didn't get around the park as effectively as they'd have liked Vs Scotland. Adding Simmonds energy to backrow at the same time NZ drop one of their impressive backrow for a third lock could work well in the loose.
.....in which case you'd pick Willis surely? Simmonds is ok on groundwork, but its not his forte, nor does he do much breakdown work for Chiefs. NZ are targeting our lineout either way.
Or they were attempting to defend us attacking theirs and have been left slightly nonplussed by our abandoning of our firmly-held stupid principles.
I dunno, it's either that or he was banking on NZ moving Barrett to 6 with Retallick back and thought he'd try a curved ball option for NZ to deal with. NZ didn't resource the breakdown well and didn't get around the park as effectively as they'd have liked Vs Scotland. Adding Simmonds energy to backrow at the same time NZ drop one of their impressive backrow for a third lock could work well in the loose.
.....in which case you'd pick Willis surely? Simmonds is ok on groundwork, but its not his forte, nor does he do much breakdown work for Chiefs. NZ are targeting our lineout either way.
Or they were attempting to defend us attacking theirs and have been left slightly nonplussed by our abandoning of our firmly-held stupid principles.
