RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote:Falcons in trouble

More salary shenanigans?

Danno wrote:More salary shenanigans?

Apparently, when a player plays for England, their England salary goes to the club, who then hands it on (no idea why)
Allegedly Falcons "forgot" to actually let Radean and Davison their cheques.

Which Tyler wrote:

Danno wrote:More salary shenanigans?

Apparently, when a player plays for England, their England salary goes to the club, who then hands it on (no idea why)
Allegedly Falcons "forgot" to actually let Radean and Davison their cheques.

Presumably the RFU do it that way to avoid any suggestion that the players are employed by the RFU.

Radwan, Blamire and maybe Davison all played in the AIs. Non-payment of monies owed could amount to breach of contract. Not the best time for one of those players to be able to get out of their contract early with a reduced cap for next season. A lot of teams would be interested in those players though.

FKAS wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Danno wrote:More salary shenanigans?

Apparently, when a player plays for England, their England salary goes to the club, who then hands it on (no idea why)
Allegedly Falcons "forgot" to actually let Radean and Davison their cheques.

Presumably the RFU do it that way to avoid any suggestion that the players are employed by the RFU.

Radwan, Blamire and maybe Davison all played in the AIs. Non-payment of monies owed could amount to breach of contract. Not the best time for one of those players to be able to get out of their contract early with a reduced cap for next season. A lot of teams would be interested in those players though.

Blamire especially is a dangerous one - you'd've thought he might be eyeing up the opportunity to be first choice somewhere else and keep his chances of getting future England paycheques open, so he might be available cheap at the promise of a guaranteed first team place. Mind, thinking about it, I don't know who could offer that at the moment as most teams have a settled first choice hooker. Maybe Saints? Or Bristol depending on how optimistic they are about Thacker's injuries?

Puja

Which Tyler wrote:

Danno wrote:More salary shenanigans?

Apparently, when a player plays for England, their England salary goes to the club, who then hands it on (no idea why)
Allegedly Falcons "forgot" to actually let Radean and Davison their cheques.

Have you a link to an article on this? Haven't been able to find anything about it.

Puja

Bollocks. Kenningham out for 6 months had to have surgery on his neck. He’s been absolutely class and looked like he’s got the chops to play for England at some point.

https://www.quins.co.uk/news/kenningham-injury-update

Seems that HIA he went for was a much more serious injury than presumed. I didn’t catch the incident and the focus was on Marler getting speared in to his head in the following phase, so I’m not really sure what happened.

Mikey Brown wrote:Bollocks. Kenningham out for 6 months had to have surgery on his neck. He’s been absolutely class and looked like he’s got the chops to play for England at some point.

https://www.quins.co.uk/news/kenningham-injury-update

Seems that HIA he went for was a much more serious injury than presumed. I didn’t catch the incident and the focus was on Marler getting speared in to his head in the following phase, so I’m not really sure what happened.

Balls. Neck injuries are never great and ruling him out for 6 months just when his development needs him to be getting as many games under his belt as he can is brutal. Hopefully he comes back stronger.

Puja

Odogwu is fit, been in full training 3-4 weeks now apparently (they wanted to be sure). Thing is, with Mills back as well, and Spink doing pretty well, and Umaga's ban over, Wasps actually have a selection issue in the backs! It's been a while!

Odogwu looked sharp at the weekend against quality opponents. Barbeary grabbed the headlines (and there are two articles today outlining why Eddie should pick him), but Shields has been Wasps' standout player. Eddie could do a lot worse than pick him. But has he ever gone back on a decision?

Peej wrote:Odogwu looked sharp at the weekend against quality opponents. Barbeary grabbed the headlines (and there are two articles today outlining why Eddie should pick him), but Shields has been Wasps' standout player. Eddie could do a lot worse than pick him. But has he ever gone back on a decision?

Agreed - I'd be very happy to have Shields back in the squad on current form and I think his leadership wouldn't hurt the team environment either.

Puja

Shields has been very good for a season and a half. His initial introduction to the England side was all wrong but right now his form is impressive. Problem for him is the BR is just about the most competitive area of the team and his inclusion means leaving someone else out.
Mind you, if Prem form means anything then Dave Ewers would have 30+ caps by now.

Where's he playing? Is Lawes moving? Stick him at 7 so Curry can continue to play 8?

I wouldn't disagree with his inclusion on form but I'd be very surprised if it happens. He's 30 already and doesn't have many caps.

Mikey Brown wrote:Where's he playing? Is Lawes moving? Stick him at 7 so Curry can continue to play 8?

I wouldn't disagree with his inclusion on form but I'd be very surprised if it happens. He's 30 already and doesn't have many caps.

With Underhill out, I'd have Lawes and Curry on the flanks and then some combo of Shields/Dombrandt/Simmonds filling the 8 and 20 shirts (and possibly 21 if Eddie continues to want 6:2 on the bench finishers). The only question is if Eddie thinks Barbeary's such a talent that it's worth dropping him in early and getting as much game time into him before 2023 as possible. That's not exactly Eddie's style with wunderkinds (cf Smith and Itoje), but he might.

Puja

Hmm. Shields and Lawes in the same backrow just doesn’t feel inspiring. I feel like either could be a good foil for one of those others at 8, but seems like a waste of a spot to crowbar Shields in at 8.

You might be right on Barbeary I guess. I’d figured he’d leapfrog Simmonds/Dombrandt. Has Eddie had Tom Willis in a squad at any point yet?

Mikey Brown wrote:Hmm. Shields and Lawes in the same backrow just doesn’t feel inspiring. I feel like either could be a good foil for one of those others at 8, but seems like a waste of a spot to crowbar Shields in at 8.

You might be right on Barbeary I guess. I’d figured he’d leapfrog Simmonds/Dombrandt. Has Eddie had Tom Willis in a squad at any point yet?

You're not wrong - they're filling a very similar space aren't they? I think ideally I'd have Simmonds at 8 and Shields at 20 (possibly even 19 given that we still don't have any decent locks and we'd have the option of shoving Lawes forward) as a jack of all trades with Dombrandt given more work-ons.

I still don't like Lawes at 6 as a concept. However, he hasn't really played lock in a couple of seasons, and so continuing to insist that he's a 5 or nothing is just being unnecessarily dogmatic against the actual evidence of reality at this point. Plus he's our captain if Farrell's away, so I'd rather him than have the Iceman rushed back into service.

Puja

Both Simmonds and Dombrandt deserved a run of games in the 8 shirt ahead of Curry, IMO. Picking all three in the 23 was simply bizarre. Whatever the bench split, Barbeary has to be useful there. 'Impact-player' is pretty much a compulsory description.

What is so strange at this point is that Lawes in the 6 shirt seems a back-row selection certainty. Curry is a certain pick too but in which shirt?

I really like Dombrandt but I also want to see Simmonds's game style given a proper test. His pace off the back of the scrum and his contribution in open play just seem too exceptional to waste. It would be Lawes, Curry and Simmonds for me first-up.

I think Jones has stated he doesn’t see Simmonds as an 8, so I guess his pace off the back of the scrum (or presumably fielding/returning kicks) is not something Jones is massively bothered about. I don’t really understand what Jones does want him for to be honest.

I don’t know if EJ is trying to ease Dombrandt in or just wasn’t certain about giving him more, but it feels he could easily be leapfrogged any of the Wasps backrows at this point. Barbeary is young and relatively unproven but if we just want someone to truck it up then I can’t see how he’d fail to be a step up from Curry.

May be a leftfield pick? - https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/sport/1 ... ons-squad/

Looks a good player from the little i've seen.

fivepointer wrote:May be a leftfield pick? - https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/sport/1 ... ons-squad/

Looks a good player from the little i've seen.

Is he the new George Graham?

fivepointer wrote:May be a leftfield pick? - https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/sport/1 ... ons-squad/

Looks a good player from the little i've seen.

Shame Kenningham got such a bad injury imo.

Oakboy wrote:Both Simmonds and Dombrandt deserved a run of games in the 8 shirt ahead of Curry, IMO. Picking all three in the 23 was simply bizarre. Whatever the bench split, Barbeary has to be useful there. 'Impact-player' is pretty much a compulsory description.

What is so strange at this point is that Lawes in the 6 shirt seems a back-row selection certainty. Curry is a certain pick too but in which shirt?

I really like Dombrandt but I also want to see Simmonds's game style given a proper test. His pace off the back of the scrum and his contribution in open play just seem too exceptional to waste. It would be Lawes, Curry and Simmonds for me first-up.

I’ve revised my opinion on Lawes at 6 TBH. I was never a fan, but in the last 2yrs he’s become a much better carrier and seems to have developed a penchant for some surprisingly good little passes. Add that to his defensive skills, lineout capability and work rate and you have a very well rounded blindside.

If we’re comparing ‘contribution in open play’, I’d argue Dombrandt’s vision and passing skills are quite a bit better than Simmonds’. He’s far more likely to put someone else away or look for an offload.

Lawes, Curry and Dombrandt would be my preferred option.

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Both Simmonds and Dombrandt deserved a run of games in the 8 shirt ahead of Curry, IMO. Picking all three in the 23 was simply bizarre. Whatever the bench split, Barbeary has to be useful there. 'Impact-player' is pretty much a compulsory description.

What is so strange at this point is that Lawes in the 6 shirt seems a back-row selection certainty. Curry is a certain pick too but in which shirt?

I really like Dombrandt but I also want to see Simmonds's game style given a proper test. His pace off the back of the scrum and his contribution in open play just seem too exceptional to waste. It would be Lawes, Curry and Simmonds for me first-up.

I’ve revised my opinion on Lawes at 6 TBH. I was never a fan, but in the last 2yrs he’s become a much better carrier and seems to have developed a penchant for some surprisingly good little passes. Add that to his defensive skills, lineout capability and work rate and you have a very well rounded blindside.

If we’re comparing ‘contribution in open play’, I’d argue Dombrandt’s vision and passing skills are quite a bit better than Simmonds’. He’s far more likely to put someone else away or look for an offload.

Lawes, Curry and Dombrandt would be my preferred option.

I still feel that Lawes, though quick to breakdowns for the average lock, doesn't get to each breakdown with enough speed and execution to have a big enough impact. This is where Cunderhill worked so well: they are both superb at getting across to the breakdown.

And as Dombrandt isn't exactly a terrible lineout option - and Curry is also useful - I don't see the need for Lawes. I'd much rather have the combined skills of Curry, Underhill and Dombrandt for now, my fantasy backrow of Curry, Willis and Dombrandt, and have the option for bringing in Barbeary, Kenningham, or another Willis (or even another Curry, for that matter).

Stom wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Both Simmonds and Dombrandt deserved a run of games in the 8 shirt ahead of Curry, IMO. Picking all three in the 23 was simply bizarre. Whatever the bench split, Barbeary has to be useful there. 'Impact-player' is pretty much a compulsory description.

What is so strange at this point is that Lawes in the 6 shirt seems a back-row selection certainty. Curry is a certain pick too but in which shirt?

I really like Dombrandt but I also want to see Simmonds's game style given a proper test. His pace off the back of the scrum and his contribution in open play just seem too exceptional to waste. It would be Lawes, Curry and Simmonds for me first-up.

I’ve revised my opinion on Lawes at 6 TBH. I was never a fan, but in the last 2yrs he’s become a much better carrier and seems to have developed a penchant for some surprisingly good little passes. Add that to his defensive skills, lineout capability and work rate and you have a very well rounded blindside.

If we’re comparing ‘contribution in open play’, I’d argue Dombrandt’s vision and passing skills are quite a bit better than Simmonds’. He’s far more likely to put someone else away or look for an offload.

Lawes, Curry and Dombrandt would be my preferred option.

I still feel that Lawes, though quick to breakdowns for the average lock, doesn't get to each breakdown with enough speed and execution to have a big enough impact. This is where Cunderhill worked so well: they are both superb at getting across to the breakdown.

And as Dombrandt isn't exactly a terrible lineout option - and Curry is also useful - I don't see the need for Lawes. I'd much rather have the combined skills of Curry, Underhill and Dombrandt for now, my fantasy backrow of Curry, Willis and Dombrandt, and have the option for bringing in Barbeary, Kenningham, or another Willis (or even another Curry, for that matter).

I too am not a fan of Lawes at 6, but he's been very good internationally there this time round, enough to get and keep a lions starting spot. Having a top class, rather than makeshift, lineout option is worth consideration. My personal preference would be more mobility and agility there, but his strengths are worth considering tbh.

As ever, debating selection is a balance between fantasy and practicality within Jones's definition of possibility. Ideally, a year or two back, I would not have had Lawes at 6 if an alternative line-out presence like Croft was available. Now, though, I think Lawes gives a balance at 6 that can be achieved no other way in time for the RWC and within Jones's likely selection process. Quite simply, he is a better back-row than many give him credit for.

From this point forwards, I see two major issues overall: 1. Jones has to have results on the back of last season's horrendous 5th place performance; 2. There is insufficient time to build a settled team unit without limiting the number of new-player selections.

It will be interesting.