RugbyRebels

I didn't see his workrate but it's always been a big part of his game. For me he just seemed to keep missing tackle after tackle. Ones I'd have expected him to make it at least do better in.

Twelvetrees always looks like he's turned the corner though. He's like if the phrase, "It's the hope that gets you," suddenly took on human form - lots of bits of good with horrifying errors mixed in at entirely random intervals, so that sometimes he goes several games looking superb and you just start believing in time for him to make thirteen cockups in a row.

Puja

Right, this is how I saw the game, now I’ve had a chance to calm down a bit. For me, it’s a lesson in the importance of momentum, and capitalising when it’s with you.

The first 10 minutes or so were all Bath; with a penalty on 9 minutes completely against the run of play.
We were confident, and playing reasonably well, kicking to the corner when we Glos were penalised. Glos only really had their hands on the ball for long enough to box kick before we applied pressure again. Plenty of pressure, but nothing much to show for it on the score board – but that’s okay, it’s the opening salvos, we're just waiting for it to click.

Minutes 10-20 and Glos played better, but we were still on top in terms of general play – then Harris scores his try, off first phase ball, in one of their few forays into our half. IIRC his try was the first time a Gloucester hand was on the ball inside our 22. IMO – that try was made by Twelvetrees – who sat Matavesi onto his heels, causing a slight disconnect between our centres, and then popped the ball to Evans who exploits that disconnect as Josh has been robbed of his momentum. Right off the training paddock.

From there, there was a definite swing in momentum. Glos confidence went up through the roof as they’d actually earned and achieved something. We looked back on 20 minutes of playing reasonably, but complacently; and saw ourselves 0-10 down on the score board. Our heads dropped, theirs came up. We started to kick more, choosing to go for the posts rather than corner, and trying to turn Banahan in the backfield, but generally finding May or Thorley.
Glos had the momentum for half an hour, but were never truly on top in terms of the play on the pitch – but we were ever more disheartened by the score board.

At 56 minutes, Polledri bursts through on a really intelligent line (that still should have been covered), before some beautiful hands from Harris puts Banahan over. Glos have had about 35 minutes of momentum; they’ve made hard work of it, never really building pressure, but have put some points on the board. Momentum is with Glos; we’re not playing badly, we’re just flat, frustrated… imprecise.
Hooper had noted in his mid-match interview that Bath were good in the first and final thirds of the pitch, but had more work to do in the middle third. Commentary team early on has mentioned that Glos are good at scoring long distance tries, but not really in the red zone. Astute.

A couple minutes later, we do that Bath/Exeter thing that we were failing at before the lockdown, but are much better at now – catch and drive from 10-12 metres out. Initially Glos have it covered, but our forward momentum sucks in their blind-side defender; Heinz isn’t paying attention (a SH? Appealing to the ref instead of watching the game? Never!); but Spencer and Dunn know exactly what’s happened, and peel off to score down the blind side. Thanks Glos - that was perfectly gift-wrapped.

Momentum now swings our way. I don’t think we’re particularly doing anything different, but the additions of Redpath, Boyce and McNally have tightened up what we’re doing – we’re concentrating again, working harder, executing better. It’s helped that Glos are starting to tire as well; quite possibly with a degree of complacency of their own after the Banahan try. I’ve not been paying much attention to them – have they been overplaying people over the last 6 weeks?

From there, there’s no looking back for Bath – we’ve swung the momentum, and we’re keeping it. Johnny is lucky to stay on the pitch with that trailing leg, but gifts us territory to do what we do. It’s still Plan A, we’re just doing it better than we had been (and Glos hadn't been letting us in their 22 since earning some confidence).
At 17-20, we’re right back in this, and momentum has put our foot on Glos’ throat. That belief and trust in our systems, and in each other, that assurance that it’s not over until it’s over - Never In Doubt – we’re building that nicely, not finished, but the foundations are looking strong.
Watson and Underhill make some ground up the field; and we’re back to the Bath/Exeter phase play within 5m of the line – complete with lots and lots of illegal-but-never-penalised pre-binding. We know what we’re doing, we’re comfortable with it now (unlike 12 months ago); and we’ll d it as many times as we need to to get across the whitewash. We do fluff our lines a couple of times, but react quickly and assuredly enough not to matter. Eventually it’s Boyce dotting it down; and suddenly, we’ve taken the lead and are chasing a TBP.

Poor restart from Bath, leading to a scrappy exchange of box kicks until Banahan puts the ball down Rhys’ throat. Rhys looks to kick to the corner, but sees a bunch of tired Gloucester players there, gives it to Ant who takes the ball left instead. McNally, Coka and Spencer combine brilliantly for the TBP.

Raggs wrote:I didn't see his workrate but it's always been a big part of his game. For me he just seemed to keep missing tackle after tackle. Ones I'd have expected him to make it at least do better in.

Not entirely unfair, and I'd have to watch it back, but my memory is none of those were tackles he'd have lined up and instead were more of a scramble. The two closest to being lined up were the Faletau one I mentioned and he might have been looking at another option, and then Watson, and I did make allowances for you'd be doing well to line Watson up and too I'm pretty sure he was sweeping across to fill a hole.

All of those tackles he could perhaps have gotten into a better position and made more dominant tackles, just he might have not been doing much wrong to not have them all lined up to make the best tackle he could.

If he's only attempting those tackles because he's worked like a dog to get there, then fair dos. However, maybe he'd have been better off telling someone else to make it, if he's not going to do it properly because he's knackered. If you see your team mate go in, you tend to slow a little expecting them to do the job.

For a team that are arguably (potentially officially!) the number 1 in Europe, Exeter are not providing many players to the England first XV.

Why is that? Slade should play, he’s a fantastic talent. And I guess a few are on the fringes. But it does feel like we’re slightly missing a trick in the pack. I think with LCD, he’d be first choice if his throwing was better. And with Simmonds - I don’t think Eddie likes him and I do understand why.

Bu then there’s Hill - I realise lock is a strength, but for me this is the one we’re not making the most of. He looks a really good player.

I think the position next to Itoje is slightly up for grabs and I think he should be given a shot.

Joe Simmonds could hardly be doing more as well. Looks a good running 10 and his kicking is solid.

All fair points. I’ve definitely come round to the idea of Hill at 5 next to Itoje. He looks to have the attitude that he’d feed off the intensity of the step up.

I’d love to see if Simmonds can ever turn EJ’s opinion on him, which I’m choosing to speculate is that he’s not an in-the-trenches sort of 8. Despite him punching well above his weight in close quarters carrying I think he may always be viewed as too small.

Baxter has developed a very cunning system where he can have Simmonds play this well at 8 (with any random lock/blindside in the 7 shirt) and no fear the Jones will poach him.

Exeter just have players that fit their system. I think all of them have been given a fair crack at england I wouldn't say any have been over looked.

I'm sure hill's performances have been noticed by eddie.

twitchy wrote:Exeter just have players that fit their system. I think all of them have been given a fair crack at england I wouldn't say any have been over looked.

I'm sure hill's performances have been noticed by eddie.

I think Hill and J.Simmonds deserve a proper go.

They’ve both improved a lot

You could make a strong case for half a dozen or more Exe players. Some are in very competitive positions where we do have a number of options.
Hill's form is such that it would be a travesty if he didnt get a chance this autumn,.

I think many pundits are reluctant to give Exeter, as a club, sufficient credit. Their win has not received any more coverage than Saracens' loss, for example. The 'champions' sad demise' type headline seems to rank higher than 'Exeter grind out a win'. Saracens are a discredited club relegated for cheating. Exeter have climbed out of nowhere and are a profitable unit. That seems to apply to the rating of the players too. I think rugby would benefit if no Saracens players were picked. That would certainly put Hill in the England 23, IMO, and it ought to put Sam Simmonds there too. His brother as bench understudy to Ford makes sense. I'd start Slade and Nowell. 5 players from our best club seems about right.

TheNomad wrote:For a team that are arguably (potentially officially!) the number 1 in Europe, Exeter are not providing many players to the England first XV.

Why is that? Slade should play, he’s a fantastic talent. And I guess a few are on the fringes. But it does feel like we’re slightly missing a trick in the pack. I think with LCD, he’d be first choice if his throwing was better. And with Simmonds - I don’t think Eddie likes him and I do understand why.

Bu then there’s Hill - I realise lock is a strength, but for me this is the one we’re not making the most of. He looks a really good player.

I think the position next to Itoje is slightly up for grabs and I think he should be given a shot.

Joe Simmonds could hardly be doing more as well. Looks a good running 10 and his kicking is solid.

Exeter are very well coached to execute a very specific gameplan that allows them to operate as unit rather than individuals. When you take those players out of that system, I’m not sure they’re as effective. As a specific example, Harry Williams typically looks good for Exeter, but has always been very underwhelming when he’s played test rugby. IMO, that’s why we don’t see as many of their players for England.

To break it down a bit more:

George isn’t as eye-catching as LCD, but he’s a much stronger all-round hooker and very consistent. LCD is a great weapon to bring off the bench. I think Eddie has the pecking order correct.

I’d completely agree that Hill deserves his chance. Other than Itoje, his form is a lot better than the players he’s competing with and with Kruis unavailable, he’s the obvious choice to come in to the squad.

I’m a big fan of Simmonds too, but the competition in the back row is unbelievable and while it’s unfortunate, I don’t think he’s actually better than the players being picked ahead of him.

It’s the same in other positions. Hepburn and Moon are good players, they’re just not better than Mako, Marler and Genge. Williams is rightly 3rd choice. The rest of Exeter’s first choice pack aren’t English or EQ, so assuming, Hill is selected, I think Eddie has it right.

The speed of Exeter's game is a ways off test rugby even allowing for the gap between club and country, hard to sell Eddie on that idea you can play at pace when you basically never play at pace

I think that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but I do agree that may also be an influencing factor.

Scrumhead wrote:Exeter are very well coached to execute a very specific gameplan that allows them to operate as unit rather than individuals. When you take those players out of that system, I’m not sure they’re as effective. As a specific example, Harry Williams typically looks good for Exeter, but has always been very underwhelming when he’s played test rugby. IMO, that’s why we don’t see as many of their players for England.

To break it down a bit more:

George isn’t as eye-catching as LCD, but he’s a much stronger all-round hooker and very consistent. LCD is a great weapon to bring off the bench. I think Eddie has the pecking order correct.

I’d completely agree that Hill deserves his chance. Other than Itoje, his form is a lot better than the players he’s competing with and with Kruis unavailable, he’s the obvious choice to come in to the squad.

I’m a big fan of Simmonds too, but the competition in the back row is unbelievable and while it’s unfortunate, I don’t think he’s actually better than the players being picked ahead of him.

It’s the same in other positions. Hepburn and Moon are good players, they’re just not better than Mako, Marler and Genge. Williams is rightly 3rd choice. The rest of Exeter’s first choice pack aren’t English or EQ, so assuming, Hill is selected, I think Eddie has it right.

Agreed - Exeter have been great at getting the absolute best out of good-but-not-brilliant players. Their track record with brilliant players is... a work in progress.

Hepburn, Moon & Williams simply aren't as good as their competition for England.
LCD is plenty involved, but George and Hartley simply have (had) better basics. You could argue that Dunn also has better basics, (but way less international pedigree)
I'm coming round to Jonny Hill since the restart - but (a bit like Ewels) I don't get the impression he'll manage to step up to international rugby well - but (less like Ewels) he's earned a shot at proving me wrong. He should certainly be in the conversation. I'm not sure he's earned a shot ahead of or top 4 locks before this Autumn though.
In the backrow - Exeter's players are hamstrung by the specific system that Exeter use. Baxter just sets them up differently to any other coach. I feel that if Simmonds had been playing flanker for the last 6 years, he'd have been capped earlier, and had a much better chance at staying in the team. As it is, he's in a position of real strength, and his attributes are better suited to a position he doesn't play.

Much has been made of Maunder - but he's never kicked on. He's reaching that point that Spencer was in about 5 years ago. He's losing too much development time by not being first choice - he's also not quite earning first choice where he is.
Joe Simmonds should (IMO) be England's 3rd choice FH - maybe 2nd if he takes to international rugby well - Eddie only takes 2 FHs, one of whom is now the captain. Behind that he likes brining in apprentices at FH. Unfortunately for him, 3 years ago, Smith was way ahead of him, whilst being 2 years younger.
Devoto should have been involved more - and may have been were it not for injuries
Slade is plenty involved - but plays in a position of strength for England (and, as has been said before - had he spent the last 6 years playing in his more natural position, he'd have 50+ caps and be automatic starter by now)
Nowell is plenty involved - but plays in a position of strength for England (and, as has been said before - his natural attributes probably suit a different position better, and he IS hamstrung by his pace on the wing; and however much good he does, picking him means dropping at least one of May, Watson or Daly, all of whom are or have been world-class on the wing).


As ever - it's not just "who deserves to be picked" but also "who should be dropped to make room"

twitchy wrote:Exeter just have players that fit their system. I think all of them have been given a fair crack at england I wouldn't say any have been over looked.

I'm sure hill's performances have been noticed by eddie.

This, though Joe Simmonds and Maunder (whose kicking was top notch) have put their hands up in a match of intensity and importance.

Oakboy wrote:I think many pundits are reluctant to give Exeter, as a club, sufficient credit. Their win has not received any more coverage than Saracens' loss, for example. The 'champions' sad demise' type headline seems to rank higher than 'Exeter grind out a win'. Saracens are a discredited club relegated for cheating. Exeter have climbed out of nowhere and are a profitable unit. That seems to apply to the rating of the players too. I think rugby would benefit if no Saracens players were picked. That would certainly put Hill in the England 23, IMO, and it ought to put Sam Simmonds there too. His brother as bench understudy to Ford makes sense. I'd start Slade and Nowell. 5 players from our best club seems about right.

I think they get plenty of credit and representation in the national squad.

Which Tyler wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Exeter are very well coached to execute a very specific gameplan that allows them to operate as unit rather than individuals. When you take those players out of that system, I’m not sure they’re as effective. As a specific example, Harry Williams typically looks good for Exeter, but has always been very underwhelming when he’s played test rugby. IMO, that’s why we don’t see as many of their players for England.

To break it down a bit more:

George isn’t as eye-catching as LCD, but he’s a much stronger all-round hooker and very consistent. LCD is a great weapon to bring off the bench. I think Eddie has the pecking order correct.

I’d completely agree that Hill deserves his chance. Other than Itoje, his form is a lot better than the players he’s competing with and with Kruis unavailable, he’s the obvious choice to come in to the squad.

I’m a big fan of Simmonds too, but the competition in the back row is unbelievable and while it’s unfortunate, I don’t think he’s actually better than the players being picked ahead of him.

It’s the same in other positions. Hepburn and Moon are good players, they’re just not better than Mako, Marler and Genge. Williams is rightly 3rd choice. The rest of Exeter’s first choice pack aren’t English or EQ, so assuming, Hill is selected, I think Eddie has it right.

Agreed - Exeter have been great at getting the absolute best out of good-but-not-brilliant players. Their track record with brilliant players is... a work in progress.

Hepburn, Moon & Williams simply aren't as good as their competition for England.
LCD is plenty involved, but George and Hartley simply have (had) better basics. You could argue that Dunn also has better basics, (but way less international pedigree)
I'm coming round to Jonny Hill since the restart - but (a bit like Ewels) I don't get the impression he'll manage to step up to international rugby well - but (less like Ewels) he's earned a shot at proving me wrong. He should certainly be in the conversation. I'm not sure he's earned a shot ahead of or top 4 locks before this Autumn though.
In the backrow - Exeter's players are hamstrung by the specific system that Exeter use. Baxter just sets them up differently to any other coach. I feel that if Simmonds had been playing flanker for the last 6 years, he'd have been capped earlier, and had a much better chance at staying in the team. As it is, he's in a position of real strength, and his attributes are better suited to a position he doesn't play.

Much has been made of Maunder - but he's never kicked on. He's reaching that point that Spencer was in about 5 years ago. He's losing too much development time by not being first choice - he's also not quite earning first choice where he is.
Joe Simmonds should (IMO) be England's 3rd choice FH - maybe 2nd if he takes to international rugby well - Eddie only takes 2 FHs, one of whom is now the captain. Behind that he likes brining in apprentices at FH. Unfortunately for him, 3 years ago, Smith was way ahead of him, whilst being 2 years younger.
Devoto should have been involved more - and may have been were it not for injuries
Slade is plenty involved - but plays in a position of strength for England (and, as has been said before - had he spent the last 6 years playing in his more natural position, he'd have 50+ caps and be automatic starter by now)
Nowell is plenty involved - but plays in a position of strength for England (and, as has been said before - his natural attributes probably suit a different position better, and he IS hamstrung by his pace on the wing; and however much good he does, picking him means dropping at least one of May, Watson or Daly, all of whom are or have been world-class on the wing).


As ever - it's not just "who deserves to be picked" but also "who should be dropped to make room"

Joe Simmonds and Marcus Smith are exciting young talents with very good all-round games including kicking from hand and tee. They are both ahead of Owen Farrell when it comes to the running game. He looks ponderous by comparison and does not make the breaks that they do. Farrell is steady and conservative, and effective at what he does, but lacks the real flair to light up the game. I'd like to see Jones take a flier and include both these lads in the 23 against weaker opposition. He has nothing new to learn about Farrell and Ford at all. If other FHs are not blooded soon it won't bode well for England in the long run. There is really nothing to be lost by giving them a shot, especially with the game congestion coming up.

twitchy wrote:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... selection/

Yep, big fan of Joe Simmonds, he's a real threat as a runner, lovely hands and an excellent goal kicker.

Banquo wrote:

twitchy wrote:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... selection/

Yep, big fan of Joe Simmonds, he's a real threat as a runner, lovely hands and an excellent goal kicker.

Do you see him as the next cab off the rank? Or Umaga, Smith, Sheedy . . ?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

twitchy wrote:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... selection/

Yep, big fan of Joe Simmonds, he's a real threat as a runner, lovely hands and an excellent goal kicker.

Do you see him as the next cab off the rank? Or Umaga, Smith, Sheedy . . ?

Yes

Interesting article from Barnes in the times today. Asking the question as to whether Sarries missed Farrell over the last two weekends. It was more a question of praising Goode and Barritt than having a go at Farrell but it’s a valid question.
Not a good weekend for England’s incumbent 10s?

Charlie Morgan just released this image, I was actually just thinking about something like this but with Umaga and Smith. It backs up a little what I've thought about Simmonds when I watch him play, in that he doesn't seem to get his hands on the ball as much as the others. Would be better to see a larger dataset though.

Yes, but we’ve said several times in the thread already that Exeter play to a very specific gameplan.

Simmonds executes that perfectly but it impacts his individual stats (I’m talking generally rather than just this weekend).

I get the impression Umaga has much more creative license. Smith kind of does too, but recently we’ve seen Quins playing a much more rigid (and ugly) style.

Normally, I’d say stats don’t lie, but I think Simmonds is more talented than his numbers suggest. For example, this weekend was a good example of his running threat. It’s there, he just rarely uses it, although when he does, he picks the right times to do it.