RugbyRebels

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 11:49 am

p/d wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 11:33 am Not too sure what target we are setting SB but, at this stage, I’m just judging on how our pack are developing. At the moment we look to be heading in the right direction, from a starting and off the bench perspective. I will add that Earl has got him out of a hole of his own making, but that aside there seems to be plenty of positives.

Next game I expect/want the pack to be clinically brutal. Win ugly, so be it, but they need to tear Samoa a new one! This will be the perfect message to Fiji and (hopefully) our SF opponents.

As for the backs. We don’t have an attack coach so anything creative will be warmly received, however we apparently have a top notch defence coach so expect the backs to be strangling the life out of the Samoan attack

I want to see what back row he picks for Samoa. If he looks at the body of historical evidence of Lawes and BillyV together in the same back row, and looks at the form of Ben Earl, and looks at the lack of form of BillyV, and still decides that his best option is Lawes/Curry/BillyV, I am going to scream.

Puja

jngf wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 12:39 pm Lawes/Billy/Curry could be the line up for a Last of the Summer Wine Reboot as stodgy as an Aunt Bessie’s Yorkshire pudding…

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 12:43 pm

jngf wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 12:39 pm Lawes/Billy/Curry could be the line up for a Last of the Summer Wine Reboot as stodgy as an Aunt Bessie’s Yorkshire pudding…

Hang on - yorkshire puddings? stodgy?

You had the option of dumplings, or any suet based pudding, but you went with... essentially structured air as your go-to for stodge?

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 12:43 pm

jngf wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 12:39 pm Lawes/Billy/Curry could be the line up for a Last of the Summer Wine Reboot as stodgy as an Aunt Bessie’s Yorkshire pudding…

Hang on - yorkshire puddings? stodgy?

You had the option of dumplings, or any suet based pudding, but you went with... essentially structured air as your go-to for stodge?

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 1:45 pm That's possibly the most Yorkshire cake out there...

Ey up, let's take some animal fat, mix it with some more animal fat, and let's call it a cake.

We should probably add some flour, too.

Ok, Ok, flour, animal fat, and animal fat. But then you have to slather it with butter after.

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 11:49 am

p/d wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 11:33 am Not too sure what target we are setting SB but, at this stage, I’m just judging on how our pack are developing. At the moment we look to be heading in the right direction, from a starting and off the bench perspective. I will add that Earl has got him out of a hole of his own making, but that aside there seems to be plenty of positives.

Next game I expect/want the pack to be clinically brutal. Win ugly, so be it, but they need to tear Samoa a new one! This will be the perfect message to Fiji and (hopefully) our SF opponents.

As for the backs. We don’t have an attack coach so anything creative will be warmly received, however we apparently have a top notch defence coach so expect the backs to be strangling the life out of the Samoan attack

I want to see what back row he picks for Samoa. If he looks at the body of historical evidence of Lawes and BillyV together in the same back row, and looks at the form of Ben Earl, and looks at the lack of form of BillyV, and still decides that his best option is Lawes/Curry/BillyV, I am going to scream.

Puja

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 3:19 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 11:49 am

p/d wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 11:33 am Not too sure what target we are setting SB but, at this stage, I’m just judging on how our pack are developing. At the moment we look to be heading in the right direction, from a starting and off the bench perspective. I will add that Earl has got him out of a hole of his own making, but that aside there seems to be plenty of positives.

Next game I expect/want the pack to be clinically brutal. Win ugly, so be it, but they need to tear Samoa a new one! This will be the perfect message to Fiji and (hopefully) our SF opponents.

As for the backs. We don’t have an attack coach so anything creative will be warmly received, however we apparently have a top notch defence coach so expect the backs to be strangling the life out of the Samoan attack

I want to see what back row he picks for Samoa. If he looks at the body of historical evidence of Lawes and BillyV together in the same back row, and looks at the form of Ben Earl, and looks at the lack of form of BillyV, and still decides that his best option is Lawes/Curry/BillyV, I am going to scream.

Puja

I don't think any of the three red-card merchants should have expected to walk straight back in. Assuming they remained in the 33 (a mistake, IMO) I'd have made all of them wait for injury vacancies. Vunipola has played himself out of contention. Curry should have to prove himself off the bench v Samoa. Discussing Farrell is pointless.

TheDasher wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 2:15 pm Lawes, Curry, Earl starting back-row, it has to be - Ludlam has impressed me of late too, he's useful.

I'd go with six forwards on the bench.

Genge
George
Stuart
Chessum
Itoje
Lawes
Curry
Earl
starting pack

bench:
Marler
Sinckler
Dan
Ribbans
Ludlam
Willis

TheDasher wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 2:15 pm Lawes, Curry, Earl starting back-row, it has to be - Ludlam has impressed me of late too, he's useful.

I'd go with six forwards on the bench.

Genge
George
Stuart
Chessum
Itoje
Lawes
Curry
Earl
starting pack

bench:
Marler
Sinckler
Dan
Ribbans
Ludlam
Willis

TheDasher wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 2:17 pm I'd add to that, whilst Dan has been great, I'd like to see a bit more of Walker - Dan is tiny and whilst his carrying against Chile and Japan has looked good, I'd be worried he might get found out against a Samoa or South Africa... Walker is a bigger unit and has looked pretty good for Quins when I've seen him. Hey ho, too late now I think.

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 4:40 pm

TheDasher wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 2:15 pm Lawes, Curry, Earl starting back-row, it has to be - Ludlam has impressed me of late too, he's useful.

I'd go with six forwards on the bench.

Genge
George
Stuart
Chessum
Itoje
Lawes
Curry
Earl
starting pack

bench:
Marler
Sinckler
Dan
Ribbans
Ludlam
Willis

Can't fault you too much there - only thing I'd do differently is swap Sinckler and Stuart, but that's not a big call. I'm usually very much against a 6:2 split, but we don't generally seem to *do* much with our no 23 at present. If we start Arundell, then there's not really anyone else who you'd bring on to change a game and, given that we're playing a high work rate/low percentages this tournament, it might make sense to have an extra back row to keep the chasing energy high, rather than replacing a back who probably hasn't had that much to do.

TheDasher wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 2:17 pm I'd add to that, whilst Dan has been great, I'd like to see a bit more of Walker - Dan is tiny and whilst his carrying against Chile and Japan has looked good, I'd be worried he might get found out against a Samoa or South Africa... Walker is a bigger unit and has looked pretty good for Quins when I've seen him. Hey ho, too late now I think.

I personally like Dan because he's run with purpose so far - he's attacked passes and run full tilt at shoulders, rather than anticipating a tackle and slowing down (like the anti Cokanasiga). While it is always good to have a good big 'un, I don't fear Dan's size because he throws it around far more effectively than a more cautious player of larger build would, in a very similar fashion to how SSimmonds punches above his weight. Doesn't seem to affect the scrums, so I'm not concerned as of yet.

Puja

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 5:08 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 4:40 pm Can't fault you too much there - only thing I'd do differently is swap Sinckler and Stuart, but that's not a big call. I'm usually very much against a 6:2 split, but we don't generally seem to *do* much with our no 23 at present. If we start Arundell, then there's not really anyone else who you'd bring on to change a game and, given that we're playing a high work rate/low percentages this tournament, it might make sense to have an extra back row to keep the chasing energy high, rather than replacing a back who probably hasn't had that much to do.

TheDasher wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 2:17 pm I'd add to that, whilst Dan has been great, I'd like to see a bit more of Walker - Dan is tiny and whilst his carrying against Chile and Japan has looked good, I'd be worried he might get found out against a Samoa or South Africa... Walker is a bigger unit and has looked pretty good for Quins when I've seen him. Hey ho, too late now I think.

I personally like Dan because he's run with purpose so far - he's attacked passes and run full tilt at shoulders, rather than anticipating a tackle and slowing down (like the anti Cokanasiga). While it is always good to have a good big 'un, I don't fear Dan's size because he throws it around far more effectively than a more cautious player of larger build would, in a very similar fashion to how SSimmonds punches above his weight. Doesn't seem to affect the scrums, so I'm not concerned as of yet.

Puja

On only having two backs, its more about injury than impact for me. And then multi shuffles if the wrong player goes down. I know this matters not a jot to forwards

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 5:37 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 5:08 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 4:40 pm Can't fault you too much there - only thing I'd do differently is swap Sinckler and Stuart, but that's not a big call. I'm usually very much against a 6:2 split, but we don't generally seem to *do* much with our no 23 at present. If we start Arundell, then there's not really anyone else who you'd bring on to change a game and, given that we're playing a high work rate/low percentages this tournament, it might make sense to have an extra back row to keep the chasing energy high, rather than replacing a back who probably hasn't had that much to do.



I personally like Dan because he's run with purpose so far - he's attacked passes and run full tilt at shoulders, rather than anticipating a tackle and slowing down (like the anti Cokanasiga). While it is always good to have a good big 'un, I don't fear Dan's size because he throws it around far more effectively than a more cautious player of larger build would, in a very similar fashion to how SSimmonds punches above his weight. Doesn't seem to affect the scrums, so I'm not concerned as of yet.

Puja

On only having two backs, its more about injury than impact for me. And then multi shuffles if the wrong player goes down. I know this matters not a jot to forwards

Eh, all backs positions are pretty much interchangeable, right?

England are actually in a pretty good position when it comes to doing 6:2 - if it's Farrell on the bench, then any injury that's not 10 just means he moves to 12 and Tuilagi and Marchant take one step further out, which is likely to be a rehearsed substitution even if there's no injury. If Farrell is playing 12, then Daly on the bench covers 11-15. The only way there's a problem is if Farrell is not playing (never thought I'd say that) - if the 23 is Smith, then there is the issue with a centre going down injured - no problem if Daly is on the wing, but otherwise it'd probably mean pushing May in, which is... not ideal, to say the least.

Puja

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 5:08 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 4:40 pm

TheDasher wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 2:15 pm Lawes, Curry, Earl starting back-row, it has to be - Ludlam has impressed me of late too, he's useful.

I'd go with six forwards on the bench.

Genge
George
Stuart
Chessum
Itoje
Lawes
Curry
Earl
starting pack

bench:
Marler
Sinckler
Dan
Ribbans
Ludlam
Willis

Can't fault you too much there - only thing I'd do differently is swap Sinckler and Stuart, but that's not a big call. I'm usually very much against a 6:2 split, but we don't generally seem to *do* much with our no 23 at present. If we start Arundell, then there's not really anyone else who you'd bring on to change a game and, given that we're playing a high work rate/low percentages this tournament, it might make sense to have an extra back row to keep the chasing energy high, rather than replacing a back who probably hasn't had that much to do.

TheDasher wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 2:17 pm I'd add to that, whilst Dan has been great, I'd like to see a bit more of Walker - Dan is tiny and whilst his carrying against Chile and Japan has looked good, I'd be worried he might get found out against a Samoa or South Africa... Walker is a bigger unit and has looked pretty good for Quins when I've seen him. Hey ho, too late now I think.

I personally like Dan because he's run with purpose so far - he's attacked passes and run full tilt at shoulders, rather than anticipating a tackle and slowing down (like the anti Cokanasiga). While it is always good to have a good big 'un, I don't fear Dan's size because he throws it around far more effectively than a more cautious player of larger build would, in a very similar fashion to how SSimmonds punches above his weight. Doesn't seem to affect the scrums, so I'm not concerned as of yet.

Puja

On only having two backs, its more about injury than impact for me. And then multi shuffles if the wrong player goes down. I know this matters not a jot to forwards

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:00 pmWhy anyone (beyond South Africa) goes anything other than 5:3 is beyond me.

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 3:52 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 3:19 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 11:49 am

I want to see what back row he picks for Samoa. If he looks at the body of historical evidence of Lawes and BillyV together in the same back row, and looks at the form of Ben Earl, and looks at the lack of form of BillyV, and still decides that his best option is Lawes/Curry/BillyV, I am going to scream.

Puja

I don't think any of the three red-card merchants should have expected to walk straight back in. Assuming they remained in the 33 (a mistake, IMO) I'd have made all of them wait for injury vacancies. Vunipola has played himself out of contention. Curry should have to prove himself off the bench v Samoa. Discussing Farrell is pointless.

I'd give Curry a pass for three reasons - 1) His ban was arrant bullshit, based on what's been waved through at this RWC, 2) He's had 3 minutes of game time since May and we'd be mad not to be getting as many minutes into him as we possibly can - either we play him 60+ minutes to get the rust off or we decide we're not going to use him at all this tournament, 3) He is a flat-out better player than Ludlam or BillyV and has proven that many times (I don't want to hear it, Jngf) and should be in our 1st XV for the quarters. As such, he needs to be playing with the rest of our first choice, in a game that is likely to be a dead-rubber which is challenging but effectively just a warm-up for the quarters.

Frankly I don't see the point in making a player, who is already proven, prove himself, especially when he's so sorely in need of minutes.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 4:40 pm

TheDasher wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 2:15 pm Lawes, Curry, Earl starting back-row, it has to be - Ludlam has impressed me of late too, he's useful.

I'd go with six forwards on the bench.

Genge
George
Stuart
Chessum
Itoje
Lawes
Curry
Earl
starting pack

bench:
Marler
Sinckler
Dan
Ribbans
Ludlam
Willis

Can't fault you too much there - only thing I'd do differently is swap Sinckler and Stuart, but that's not a big call. I'm usually very much against a 6:2 split, but we don't generally seem to *do* much with our no 23 at present. If we start Arundell, then there's not really anyone else who you'd bring on to change a game and, given that we're playing a high work rate/low percentages this tournament, it might make sense to have an extra back row to keep the chasing energy high, rather than replacing a back who probably hasn't had that much to do.

TheDasher wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 2:17 pm I'd add to that, whilst Dan has been great, I'd like to see a bit more of Walker - Dan is tiny and whilst his carrying against Chile and Japan has looked good, I'd be worried he might get found out against a Samoa or South Africa... Walker is a bigger unit and has looked pretty good for Quins when I've seen him. Hey ho, too late now I think.

I personally like Dan because he's run with purpose so far - he's attacked passes and run full tilt at shoulders, rather than anticipating a tackle and slowing down (like the anti Cokanasiga). While it is always good to have a good big 'un, I don't fear Dan's size because he throws it around far more effectively than a more cautious player of larger build would, in a very similar fashion to how SSimmonds punches above his weight. Doesn't seem to affect the scrums, so I'm not concerned as of yet.

Puja

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 4:35 pm

TheDasher wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 2:15 pm Lawes, Curry, Earl starting back-row, it has to be - Ludlam has impressed me of late too, he's useful.

I'd go with six forwards on the bench.

Genge
George
Stuart
Chessum
Itoje
Lawes
Curry
Earl
starting pack

bench:
Marler
Sinckler
Dan
Ribbans
Ludlam
Willis

why six forwards on the bench......ever. Though you could have 7 I spose.

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 3:52 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 3:19 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 11:49 am

I want to see what back row he picks for Samoa. If he looks at the body of historical evidence of Lawes and BillyV together in the same back row, and looks at the form of Ben Earl, and looks at the lack of form of BillyV, and still decides that his best option is Lawes/Curry/BillyV, I am going to scream.

Puja

I don't think any of the three red-card merchants should have expected to walk straight back in. Assuming they remained in the 33 (a mistake, IMO) I'd have made all of them wait for injury vacancies. Vunipola has played himself out of contention. Curry should have to prove himself off the bench v Samoa. Discussing Farrell is pointless.

I'd give Curry a pass for three reasons - 1) His ban was arrant bullshit, based on what's been waved through at this RWC, 2) He's had 3 minutes of game time since May and we'd be mad not to be getting as many minutes into him as we possibly can - either we play him 60+ minutes to get the rust off or we decide we're not going to use him at all this tournament, 3) He is a flat-out better player than Ludlam or BillyV and has proven that many times (I don't want to hear it, Jngf) and should be in our 1st XV for the quarters. As such, he needs to be playing with the rest of our first choice, in a game that is likely to be a dead-rubber which is challenging but effectively just a warm-up for the quarters.

Frankly I don't see the point in making a player, who is already proven, prove himself, especially when he's so sorely in need of minutes.

Puja

TheDasher wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 7:40 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 4:35 pm

TheDasher wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 2:15 pm Lawes, Curry, Earl starting back-row, it has to be - Ludlam has impressed me of late too, he's useful.

I'd go with six forwards on the bench.

Genge
George
Stuart
Chessum
Itoje
Lawes
Curry
Earl
starting pack

bench:
Marler
Sinckler
Dan
Ribbans
Ludlam
Willis

why six forwards on the bench......ever. Though you could have 7 I spose.

I wouldn't pick Farrell. SB will, and potentially Ford too. So I'm assuming they might be at 10-12. Well regardless, I'd pick Smith at 15 again. So when listing the forwards above I was thinking there's a possibility we'll have three fly halves on the field. I'd also pick Steward at 14, which means if Smith went down injured, Steward go go back to 15. If you had Marchant on the bench, he could cover centre or wing. Obviously you need a reserve 9.

So - if Ford, Farrell and Smith all start, I don't think it's that risky to have 2 backs on the bench.

Why six forwards? Because I think against the top sides over the past couple of years our pack of forwards has been overpowered. So as much fresh firepower as possible on the bench might make more sense than just bringing on a third random back for the sake of it even though those on the field can play 80.

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 5:37 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 5:08 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 4:40 pm Can't fault you too much there - only thing I'd do differently is swap Sinckler and Stuart, but that's not a big call. I'm usually very much against a 6:2 split, but we don't generally seem to *do* much with our no 23 at present. If we start Arundell, then there's not really anyone else who you'd bring on to change a game and, given that we're playing a high work rate/low percentages this tournament, it might make sense to have an extra back row to keep the chasing energy high, rather than replacing a back who probably hasn't had that much to do.



I personally like Dan because he's run with purpose so far - he's attacked passes and run full tilt at shoulders, rather than anticipating a tackle and slowing down (like the anti Cokanasiga). While it is always good to have a good big 'un, I don't fear Dan's size because he throws it around far more effectively than a more cautious player of larger build would, in a very similar fashion to how SSimmonds punches above his weight. Doesn't seem to affect the scrums, so I'm not concerned as of yet.

Puja

On only having two backs, its more about injury than impact for me. And then multi shuffles if the wrong player goes down. I know this matters not a jot to forwards

Eh, all backs positions are pretty much interchangeable, right?

England are actually in a pretty good position when it comes to doing 6:2 - if it's Farrell on the bench, then any injury that's not 10 just means he moves to 12 and Tuilagi and Marchant take one step further out, which is likely to be a rehearsed substitution even if there's no injury. If Farrell is playing 12, then Daly on the bench covers 11-15. The only way there's a problem is if Farrell is not playing (never thought I'd say that) - if the 23 is Smith, then there is the issue with a centre going down injured - no problem if Daly is on the wing, but otherwise it'd probably mean pushing May in, which is... not ideal, to say the least.

Puja