RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:6 back rows isn't that many to have in an extended squad - it's only 3 times the number in a Leicester XXIII.

The trouble is, we've got a dozen* players who all deserve to be in the 6 selected 0 there WILL be some unhappy players and fans about who doesn't make it; and yet no-one will be able to say that whoever does, doesn't deserve it.
Backrow for England has got to the point where, so long as you pick backrowers rather than lock, you can't really make a bad selection.

It's similar on the wing - if you don't rate Nowell as one of the best wingers in the world (aka, deserving selection ahead of Watson, May and Daly - all of whom are or have been world class) then the only solution is not that you criminally under-rate him; but that it's a position of enormous strength.


*ETA: in case anyone thinks that's exaggerating
Curry, Curry, Willis, Underhill, Hill, Wilson, Earl, Ludlam, Mercer, Dombrandt, Vunipola, Simmonds
Hell, you could pick 3 opensides or 3 #8s and still put out a good backrow!

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:6 back rows isn't that many to have in an extended squad - it's only 3 times the number in a Leicester XXIII.

The trouble is, we've got a dozen* players who all deserve to be in the 6 selected 0 there WILL be some unhappy players and fans about who doesn't make it; and yet no-one will be able to say that whoever does, doesn't deserve it.
Backrow for England has got to the point where, so long as you pick backrowers rather than lock, you can't really make a bad selection.

It's similar on the wing - if you don't rate Nowell as one of the best wingers in the world (aka, deserving selection ahead of Watson, May and Daly - all of whom are or have been world class) then the only solution is not that you criminally under-rate him; but that it's a position of enormous strength.


*ETA: in case anyone thinks that's exaggerating
Curry, Curry, Willis, Underhill, Hill, Wilson, Earl, Ludlam, Mercer, Dombrandt, Vunipola, Simmonds
Hell, you could pick 3 opensides or 3 #8s and still put out a good backrow!

It's a fantastic problem for EJ to have! Unfortunately for BCurry and Willis I fear that EJ will go with the tried and tested for the 8-team tournament, so likely TCurry, Underhill, Billy, Wilson and Ludlam & Earl as backups.

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:6 back rows isn't that many to have in an extended squad - it's only 3 times the number in a Leicester XXIII.

The trouble is, we've got a dozen* players who all deserve to be in the 6 selected 0 there WILL be some unhappy players and fans about who doesn't make it; and yet no-one will be able to say that whoever does, doesn't deserve it.
Backrow for England has got to the point where, so long as you pick backrowers rather than lock, you can't really make a bad selection.

It's similar on the wing - if you don't rate Nowell as one of the best wingers in the world (aka, deserving selection ahead of Watson, May and Daly - all of whom are or have been world class) then the only solution is not that you criminally under-rate him; but that it's a position of enormous strength.


*ETA: in case anyone thinks that's exaggerating
Curry, Curry, Willis, Underhill, Hill, Wilson, Earl, Ludlam, Mercer, Dombrandt, Vunipola, Simmonds
Hell, you could pick 3 opensides or 3 #8s and still put out a good backrow!

#lawtoje

Lawes is being consistently named at 6 for Northampton these days. I can really see it happening.

Puja

And throw Eddie's mind into the mix and I can guarantee we'll all be on here complaining about the squad as soon as it's announced.

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:6 back rows isn't that many to have in an extended squad - it's only 3 times the number in a Leicester XXIII.

The trouble is, we've got a dozen* players who all deserve to be in the 6 selected 0 there WILL be some unhappy players and fans about who doesn't make it; and yet no-one will be able to say that whoever does, doesn't deserve it.
Backrow for England has got to the point where, so long as you pick backrowers rather than lock, you can't really make a bad selection.

It's similar on the wing - if you don't rate Nowell as one of the best wingers in the world (aka, deserving selection ahead of Watson, May and Daly - all of whom are or have been world class) then the only solution is not that you criminally under-rate him; but that it's a position of enormous strength.


*ETA: in case anyone thinks that's exaggerating
Curry, Curry, Willis, Underhill, Hill, Wilson, Earl, Ludlam, Mercer, Dombrandt, Vunipola, Simmonds
Hell, you could pick 3 opensides or 3 #8s and still put out a good backrow!

#lawtoje

#LawtojeEwels

Beasties wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: The trouble is, we've got a dozen* players who all deserve to be in the 6 selected 0 there WILL be some unhappy players and fans about who doesn't make it; and yet no-one will be able to say that whoever does, doesn't deserve it.
Backrow for England has got to the point where, so long as you pick backrowers rather than lock, you can't really make a bad selection.

It's similar on the wing - if you don't rate Nowell as one of the best wingers in the world (aka, deserving selection ahead of Watson, May and Daly - all of whom are or have been world class) then the only solution is not that you criminally under-rate him; but that it's a position of enormous strength.


*ETA: in case anyone thinks that's exaggerating
Curry, Curry, Willis, Underhill, Hill, Wilson, Earl, Ludlam, Mercer, Dombrandt, Vunipola, Simmonds
Hell, you could pick 3 opensides or 3 #8s and still put out a good backrow!

#lawtoje

#LawtojeEwels

nearly ...lawtojewels has a ring to it...

Dont forget to factor in Tommy Reffel.....

fivepointer wrote:Dont forget to factor in Tommy Reffel.....

I personally don't think Wales are strong enough right now for us to be tailoring our selection based around who they pick.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
TCurry, BCurry, JWillis, Underhill, BillyV, Dombrandt. 6 back rows isn't that many to have in an extended squad - it's only 3 times the number in a Leicester XXIII.

Ludlam, Hill, and Mercer are unlucky to miss out, but I'd say 5 of those are the form players and the 6th is BillyV who does have credit in the bank.

I don't see what Jono Ross offers that we don't already have in a very crowded field. Can you enlighten me as to what you see that's worth dropping any of the above 9 for?

Puja

I'd imagine Wilson will be in there as well. If only to get him some game time. Given we have the BaaBaas, Italy and the 8N, there’s plenty of opportunity to spread the workload.

I’d also add Simmonds in to the mix.

I had actually forgotten Simmonds. Good god what a time to be alive and discussing back row selection.

I hadn't forgotten Mark Wilson though. Great player, but I'm not sure where he fits in amongst all the other talent around - I think he might struggle to play.

Puja

Earl's name is missing too, a name I omitted myself a couple of days back when listing other options should Willis decide to pretend he's Irish

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I'd imagine Wilson will be in there as well. If only to get him some game time. Given we have the BaaBaas, Italy and the 8N, there’s plenty of opportunity to spread the workload.

I’d also add Simmonds in to the mix.

I had actually forgotten Simmonds. Good god what a time to be alive and discussing back row selection.

I hadn't forgotten Mark Wilson though. Great player, but I'm not sure where he fits in amongst all the other talent around - I think he might struggle to play.

Puja

Earl's name is missing too, a name I omitted myself a couple of days back when listing other options should Willis decide to pretend he's Irish

I'd rate Earl below that top 10 - personally I'd say he's behind the top 6, Simmonds, Mercer, Ludlam, and Hill, and probably Wilson too (with the caveat that Earl is a better long-term prospect than Wilson). Uncle Eddie seems to sort of rate him, in a "using him for 10 minutes at most" kind of way.

Puja

Wilson
Earl
Billy
Hill
Willis
Ludlam
Curry
Dombrandt
Curry
Simmonds
Mercer
Willis
Underhill
Ludlow
Isiekwe

Stom wrote:Wilson
Earl
Billy
Hill
Willis
Ludlam
Curry
Dombrandt
Curry
Simmonds
Mercer
Willis
Underhill
Ludlow
Isiekwe

Is that your order, or are you just naming them in the order in which they occurred to you? Also, if we're going as far down as TWillis and Ludlow, I'd say Lawes would come in before either of them and the likes of Chisholm, Shields, and Harrison would probably rank higher at the moment.

Puja

Its tough on Mark Wilson, but its very difficult to see how he can be picked as he's not playing. That might open the door for Ted Hill.
Simmonds deserves a recall such is his fine form but i suspect he'll miss out. I think Dombrandt, Mercer and possibly B Curry are going to be unlucky too. Ludlam will be lucky to keep his place.
Willis should be inked in but you never know.

What really puzzles me is that we've been talking back row selection for three whole pages and there's not been even the slightest hint of jngf. Do you think we ought to send someone to check if they're okay?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:Wilson
Earl
Billy
Hill
Willis
Ludlam
Curry
Dombrandt
Curry
Simmonds
Mercer
Willis
Underhill
Ludlow
Isiekwe

Is that your order, or are you just naming them in the order in which they occurred to you? Also, if we're going as far down as TWillis and Ludlow, I'd say Lawes would come in before either of them and the likes of Chisholm, Shields, and Harrison would probably rank higher at the moment.

Puja

I was trying to make a XV... but failed. Isiekwe would obviously be at lock.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:Wilson
Earl
Billy
Hill
Willis
Ludlam
Curry
Dombrandt
Curry
Simmonds
Mercer
Willis
Underhill
Ludlow
Isiekwe

Is that your order, or are you just naming them in the order in which they occurred to you? Also, if we're going as far down as TWillis and Ludlow, I'd say Lawes would come in before either of them and the likes of Chisholm, Shields, and Harrison would probably rank higher at the moment.

Puja

I was trying to make a XV... but failed. Isiekwe would obviously be at lock.

I was a bit concerned that you might have a ranking that somehow put Underhill below TWillis. Was worried about your health!

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:
Is that your order, or are you just naming them in the order in which they occurred to you? Also, if we're going as far down as TWillis and Ludlow, I'd say Lawes would come in before either of them and the likes of Chisholm, Shields, and Harrison would probably rank higher at the moment.

Puja

I was trying to make a XV... but failed. Isiekwe would obviously be at lock.

I was a bit concerned that you might have a ranking that somehow put Underhill below TWillis. Was worried about your health!

Puja

Lol.

My order is any combination of:

Curry
Curry
Willis
Underhill
Billy
Mercer
Simmonds
Hill

Honestly, I wouldn’t complain with any of those. Obviously, if Curry the capped was available and not selected, I’d be perplexed, but I’d think any combination of those players would be excellent.

They’d be the 8 I’d have in my squad. Dombrandt unfortunate but there’s some serious talent available.

Poor old Kvesic.

fivepointer wrote:Its tough on Mark Wilson, but its very difficult to see how he can be picked as he's not playing. That might open the door for Ted Hill.
Simmonds deserves a recall such is his fine form but i suspect he'll miss out. I think Dombrandt, Mercer and possibly B Curry are going to be unlucky too. Ludlam will be lucky to keep his place.
Willis should be inked in but you never know.

Wilson is a proven international class act, but it is unlucky.

Itoje at 8 obvs.

Banquo wrote:Itoje at 8 obvs.

Then where are you putting Ewels? Ewels has at least packed down there recently, while Itoje is much better over the ball. You're going all Andy Robinson here.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Banquo wrote:Itoje at 8 obvs.

Then where are you putting Ewels? Ewels has at least packed down there recently, while Itoje is much better over the ball. You're going all Andy Robinson here.

Blindside obvs. Itoje has everything it takes to be an 8, other than what it takes to be an 8.

So your 6 at 7 (presumably), 7 at 8 and 8 at 6. Yeah nice one, Andy.

Though I'll admit I like the idea of Lawes assigned with no other task than chasing half-backs. I think that's what a 7 does.

Mikey Brown wrote:So your 6 at 7 (presumably), 7 at 8 and 8 at 6. Yeah nice one, Andy.

Though I'll admit I like the idea of Lawes assigned with no other task than chasing half-backs. I think that's what a 7 does.

Some aren't blessed with the same gifts as Andy or jgnf.