RugbyRebels

The main issue I have with Porter is he has a really punchable face. It will be difficult to support his selection for that reason alone.

Peej wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Peej wrote:Those centre selections, locks and backrow are all a bit of a mess. Scrum half too is a bit odd. Personally think Eddie is floundering.

The centres are, give or take, all we’ve got tbh

Locks minus Ewels look good to me, especially if you add in Lawes. What’s the issue? Backrow is strong?

I meant mess more as look what state we're in AND odd selection choices. I don't think backrow is strong, I think it's unbalanced and players are being carried. I think chances to try others have been wasted, both last summer and in the game yesterday. Billy supposedly failed an HIA and is going but as the sole 8? Why not take another? Why play some randomer like Chick yesterday and then drop the idea of a back up 8 completely?

I can’t comment on the unbalanced and players being carried element unless you’re more specific. 2 from Curry, Underhill, Ludlum and Willis looks good and balanced enough to me. We’ll have to see how Eddie plans on using Lawes.

At 8, I think he’d rather play someone with ‘(proven?) test match qualities’ out of position- Curry- than a specialist he doesn’t rate. Barebeary is a freakish talent and I rate Tom Willis, but not sure I’d want either on the field in a big test match over Curry, Underhill, J Willis etc.

p/d wrote:

Tigersman wrote:I feel that if Porter went through the English setup it would be looked differently by people TBH.
He outplayed Thompkins and Daly opposite him this weekend IMO.

Right with you Tigersman.

Mind, if he'd gone through the England setup, he'd probably be less attractive to Jones. Eddie loves a "difficult route to the top flight" story and especially loves picking Southern Hemisphere-originated players. I'm surprised he didn't go the whole hog and take Potter as well!

Puja

Tough on England having so many players on the injured list, but that is a pretty dull looking squad, especially since the more exciting "apprentices" will not get a look in.

No spare 10 - suppose Furbank will cover.

Timbo wrote:

Peej wrote:

Timbo wrote:
The centres are, give or take, all we’ve got tbh

Locks minus Ewels look good to me, especially if you add in Lawes. What’s the issue? Backrow is strong?

I meant mess more as look what state we're in AND odd selection choices. I don't think backrow is strong, I think it's unbalanced and players are being carried. I think chances to try others have been wasted, both last summer and in the game yesterday. Billy supposedly failed an HIA and is going but as the sole 8? Why not take another? Why play some randomer like Chick yesterday and then drop the idea of a back up 8 completely?

I can’t comment on the unbalanced and players being carried element unless you’re more specific. 2 from Curry, Underhill, Ludlum and Willis looks good and balanced enough to me. We’ll have to see how Eddie plans on using Lawes.

At 8, I think he’d rather play someone with ‘(proven?) test match qualities’ out of position- Curry- than a specialist he doesn’t rate. Barebeary is a freakish talent and I rate Tom Willis, but not sure I’d want either on the field in a big test match over Curry, Underhill, J Willis etc.

I think Underhill is overrated, to be honest. Position wise we don't have effective 8 back up. Curry can play there, but that puts one of our world class players out of position. And then we'd have a backrow of Lawes, Underhill and Curry? No thanks. I get what you're saying about the 'proven' thing, but what really gets my goat is the fact that Eddie won't invest in a back up so we're always likely to be in this situation - and that goes for other positions too.

I don't think Barbeary is anywhere near Test standard yet, but I don't understand why he didn't get a run yesterday as Chick isn't either. I'd take Tom Willis, but you could make an argument for Ted Hill, Earl, even Ackermann.

Lawes-Underhill-Curry was the backrow we used in the Autumn against Oz and Saffa I think. I recall they looked quite good tbh. I think Underhill is a slightly limited but overall excellent flanker of his type, so I guess that’s where we diverge.

I think my issue being underwhelmed every time a squad is announced is realising we generally have just about the best group of players available but no faith in them putting together a cohesive performance. I keep expecting to see a squad announcement that reignites my excitement about watching England, but I feel like the lack of direction, cohesion, momentum (whatever words you want to use) are really what is holding this team back.

Sure there are a number of positions we could do with a real superstar popping up, but every side in the world would say that, and we do have a very good group of players to pick from. I'd love to see Kruis, Willis, Mitchell, Murley, a fit Tuilagi etc. but at this point I simply don't have that much confidence that we'd put them to good use. There's always some excuse, whether that's coaching reshuffles, injuries, tactical rethinks, but I've lost count of the number of jaded looking team performances over the last few years. This tour/squad might be fantastic, but I'm a bit bored of hoping.

It's hard to tell sometimes whether the players just look tired or that they're simply unsure of what they're supposed to be doing. It feels like the tactics and the selections/subs are working against eachother a lot of the time. I can understand why Jones clings so tightly to Farrell and Curry who bring immense energy and enthusiasm every single game, regardless of their actual performance, because it so often looks like the team are lacking that drive and togetherness.

I do wonder sometimes what the psychological effect is for the players of putting so much stock in the RWC, having entire seasons of poor performances essentially written off because hopefully it will come good a year or two down the line. At the same time, it might be that this team is just about to 'click' and it will all seem worth it.

On Underhill I'm unsure is he still the same force he was a few years back? Have injuries taken their toll?

Timbo wrote:

Peej wrote:Those centre selections, locks and backrow are all a bit of a mess. Scrum half too is a bit odd. Personally think Eddie is floundering.

The centres are, give or take, all we’ve got tbh

Locks minus Ewels look good to me, especially if you add in Lawes. What’s the issue? Backrow is strong?

5 locks.

1 world class
1 just back from injury
1 back row
1 meh
1 invisible man

Doesn’t scream great unit now, does it.

I have issues with the lack of wings and over abundance of full backs, too. Plus the centers could do with another actual 12, or better: a 10/12

I still fail to see the point in either of the luds. I’d rather another Willis or shields

Peej wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Peej wrote:
I meant mess more as look what state we're in AND odd selection choices. I don't think backrow is strong, I think it's unbalanced and players are being carried. I think chances to try others have been wasted, both last summer and in the game yesterday. Billy supposedly failed an HIA and is going but as the sole 8? Why not take another? Why play some randomer like Chick yesterday and then drop the idea of a back up 8 completely?

I can’t comment on the unbalanced and players being carried element unless you’re more specific. 2 from Curry, Underhill, Ludlum and Willis looks good and balanced enough to me. We’ll have to see how Eddie plans on using Lawes.

At 8, I think he’d rather play someone with ‘(proven?) test match qualities’ out of position- Curry- than a specialist he doesn’t rate. Barebeary is a freakish talent and I rate Tom Willis, but not sure I’d want either on the field in a big test match over Curry, Underhill, J Willis etc.

I think Underhill is overrated, to be honest. Position wise we don't have effective 8 back up. Curry can play there, but that puts one of our world class players out of position. And then we'd have a backrow of Lawes, Underhill and Curry? No thanks. I get what you're saying about the 'proven' thing, but what really gets my goat is the fact that Eddie won't invest in a back up so we're always likely to be in this situation - and that goes for other positions too.

I don't think Barbeary is anywhere near Test standard yet, but I don't understand why he didn't get a run yesterday as Chick isn't either. I'd take Tom Willis, but you could make an argument for Ted Hill, Earl, even Ackermann.

I only just noticed Earl has been left out. A poor reward for a great season and a bit of an extra slap in the face after losing on Saturday. He’s worked hard to increase the less flashy aspects of his game and is at least as good as Ludlam (who is probably his main competition).

It’s strange you think Underhill is overrated. I sort of feel like he’s had a strange arc where he was overrated because we had few good 7s and then he got overshadowed by Curry and other new kids on the block to the point that he’s probably a bit underrated.

Stom wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Peej wrote:Those centre selections, locks and backrow are all a bit of a mess. Scrum half too is a bit odd. Personally think Eddie is floundering.

The centres are, give or take, all we’ve got tbh

Locks minus Ewels look good to me, especially if you add in Lawes. What’s the issue? Backrow is strong?

5 locks.

1 world class
1 just back from injury
1 back row
1 meh
1 invisible man

Doesn’t scream great unit now, does it.

Maro Itoje - world class
Jonny Hill - just back from injury ok true but he looked very good in the AIs pre injury
Ollie Chessum - isn't a backrow, played there last year before he bulked up and has covered injuries at time this season but when all locks and 6s available he's normally in at lock as per the final on Saturday where he was the best lock on the pitch.
Nick Isiekwe - blows hot and cold, good at the lineout
Charlie Ewels - yeah no idea why he's there.

A combination of Itoje and Hill with Chessum coming off the bench should work nicely for us. Good combination of power, mobility and work rate. Lawes likely at 6 throwing his weight around as well be a good physical set up.

Scrumhead wrote:I’m OK with he squad. More or less what I would have picked with a couple of exceptions.

TheNomad wrote:Jones should have gone after the WC. After that, after the 6Ns. We've flatlined for a long time. At present, I think we're totally out of the running for the WC. Totally.

I agree. However, I think the ‘at present’ is the operative piece. We really are in bad place right now and it’s hard to see us coming out of it without a significant change.

I could see that coming in 2 forms …

1) A successful tour (however unlikely that looks right now), could be the catalyst we need. If we can come away with a tour victory, I think that would be the kind of turning point we need in order to kick on and accelerate in to the RWC. I know it’s fanciful, but let’s imagine that whatever is missing somehow clicks and we start playing as more than the sum of our parts rather than significantly less.

2) A terrible tour and the end of Eddie. Given where we are, it does feel like a 3-0 loss with no redeeming elements would probably be untenable. Mostly from the POV that anyone new coming in would need the 6N to really get enough time to make an impact.

Either way, it feels like something seismic needs to happen for us to stop the embarrassing descent.

And yet … I still believe that we have some very good players and if that can be harnessed in the right way, we could do OK. I’m not saying we become contenders, but we might just become dark horses.

We can definitely put a decent pack together, but even that would need some extensive coaching at the breakdown, and finding a way of getting forward momentum- I don't think we have the firepower to just play one out.
In the backs- and it kinda depends as always on how well the pack does in generating good ball- its very hard to see us worrying many sides with the players available with any kind of experience. Struggling at 9, Smith needs a proper foil at 10 imo, midfield is at best meh (even with the boy Dingwall- frankly, he's good, but an enabler rather than a strike runner), and back three is anyone's guess at the mo, with the very solid in a good way Steward definitely having a shirt.

And I do think Eddie has lost his way- the issues with having so many ostensibly decent players to choose from is part of it; lack of world class talent available has to be faced up to though.

Timbo wrote:Glad to see the Vunipola’s back. Watching them both play well and look close to their best recently has made me realise that it was faintly ridiculous to think we could move on from 2 such great players easily. They’re not old and if they’re focussed no reason they can’t be key players once again. Really not that long ago it felt like having the 2 of them fit and in form at the same time felt like a having a cheat code in our pack. There’s more than enough raw material there to piece together a serious pack of forwards, one that should be able to go toe-to-toe with (and hopefully get the better of) anyone.

Back line is a lot more iffy. Hopefully Eddie will at least pick some pace and athleticism in our 3 quarters. 6 nations we were so ponderous.

Yes to both, but I can't see any easy answers in the backs.

On Underhill- oddly, he's sort of a luxury, as he has a powerful international one trick, with the rest of his game only average for a top openside. So you need to find tight carrying, lineout, quality ground work and link play elsewhere in the backrow/pack. He's definitely improved his all round play, but only to an acceptable level; when you have decent competition like Willis, Ludlam (improved his ball presentation no end, but link play?) and the not picked Earl, his selection has look a bit limiting in attack. Very good in his own way, but is it what we need given other constraints.

Stom wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Peej wrote:Those centre selections, locks and backrow are all a bit of a mess. Scrum half too is a bit odd. Personally think Eddie is floundering.

The centres are, give or take, all we’ve got tbh

Locks minus Ewels look good to me, especially if you add in Lawes. What’s the issue? Backrow is strong?

5 locks.

1 world class
1 just back from injury
1 back row
1 meh
1 invisible man

Doesn’t scream great unit now, does it.

I have issues with the lack of wings and over abundance of full backs, too. Plus the centers could do with another actual 12, or better: a 10/12

I still fail to see the point in either of the luds. I’d rather another Willis or shields

I thought Ludlam was our best player against Scotland until his injury. Abrasive carrier, back-up lineout option, genuinely comfortable and effective across all three back row positions... ideal squad man, in other words. Basically he's the player Wales Online always try to convince us Josh Navidi is.

Tigersman wrote:JVP is a classic 3rd choice development pick from Eddie, I don't agree with it but that 3rd 9 role always seems to be a "development" thing for him.

Randall honestly I don't think is even the best 9 in Bristol this season

I've always thought Uren was better rounded tbh. Not enough in the highlights reel maybe.

SDHoneymonster wrote:

Stom wrote:

Timbo wrote:
The centres are, give or take, all we’ve got tbh

Locks minus Ewels look good to me, especially if you add in Lawes. What’s the issue? Backrow is strong?

5 locks.

1 world class
1 just back from injury
1 back row
1 meh
1 invisible man

Doesn’t scream great unit now, does it.

I have issues with the lack of wings and over abundance of full backs, too. Plus the centers could do with another actual 12, or better: a 10/12

I still fail to see the point in either of the luds. I’d rather another Willis or shields

I thought Ludlam was our best player against Scotland until his injury. Abrasive carrier, back-up lineout option, genuinely comfortable and effective across all three back row positions... ideal squad man, in other words. Basically he's the player Wales Online always try to convince us Josh Navidi is.

I agree - Ludlam gets a bad rap on here, but I don't know I've ever seen him let England down. Might not be as exciting in a single area as one of the other fashionable options, but I think he's a better all around rugby player than most give him credit for.

Puja

Puja wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote:

Stom wrote:
5 locks.

1 world class
1 just back from injury
1 back row
1 meh
1 invisible man

Doesn’t scream great unit now, does it.

I have issues with the lack of wings and over abundance of full backs, too. Plus the centers could do with another actual 12, or better: a 10/12

I still fail to see the point in either of the luds. I’d rather another Willis or shields

I thought Ludlam was our best player against Scotland until his injury. Abrasive carrier, back-up lineout option, genuinely comfortable and effective across all three back row positions... ideal squad man, in other words. Basically he's the player Wales Online always try to convince us Josh Navidi is.

I agree - Ludlam gets a bad rap on here, but I don't know I've ever seen him let England down. Might not be as exciting in a single area as one of the other fashionable options, but I think he's a better all around rugby player than most give him credit for.

Puja

Ludlam has improved hugely in the last season or so- his puppy dog routine has calmed, his ball presentation and decision making improved. Boyd has made a difference eventually I'd suggest.

I’d have Ludlum over Earl. More tools in his locker and more ways of effecting top class games. He’s also a leader and had a very strong season for Saints.

Timbo wrote:I’d have Ludlum over Earl. More tools in his locker and more ways of effecting top class games. He’s also a leader and had a very strong season for Saints.

both is also possible

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:I’d have Ludlum over Earl. More tools in his locker and more ways of effecting top class games. He’s also a leader and had a very strong season for Saints.

both is also possible

Absolutely not. You can only have one of Ludlam or Earl, and NO other back rowers whatsoever.

SDHoneymonster wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Timbo wrote:I’d have Ludlum over Earl. More tools in his locker and more ways of effecting top class games. He’s also a leader and had a very strong season for Saints.

both is also possible

Absolutely not. You can only have one of Ludlam or Earl, and NO other back rowers whatsoever.

Tigersman wrote:
Randall honestly I don't think is even the best 9 in Bristol this season

Agreed. I've been saying exactly that.

Size is not everything in any position but I really do not favour a SH who can be swatted away nonchalantly. I still don't dislike Spencer. I rate Uren. Mitchell looks worth a bit of perseverance. Quirke, once fit, should be first choice.

Oakboy wrote:

Tigersman wrote:
Randall honestly I don't think is even the best 9 in Bristol this season

Agreed. I've been saying exactly that.

Size is not everything in any position but I really do not favour a SH who can be swatted away nonchalantly. I still don't dislike Spencer. I rate Uren. Mitchell looks worth a bit of perseverance. Quirke, once fit, should be first choice.

I'd forgive him being any size if his passing was just accurate. I just want us to have a Kyran Bracken who gets to every ruck fast and gets the ball in front of the 10's hands every single time - don't care if he can run or tackle or anything, just gets quick, clean, accurate service.

Puja

Puja wrote: I'd forgive him being any size if his passing was just accurate. I just want us to have a Kyran Bracken who gets to every ruck fast and gets the ball in front of the 10's hands every single time - don't care if he can run or tackle or anything, just gets quick, clean, accurate service.

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Tigersman wrote:
Randall honestly I don't think is even the best 9 in Bristol this season

Agreed. I've been saying exactly that.

Size is not everything in any position but I really do not favour a SH who can be swatted away nonchalantly. I still don't dislike Spencer. I rate Uren. Mitchell looks worth a bit of perseverance. Quirke, once fit, should be first choice.

I'd forgive him being any size if his passing was just accurate. I just want us to have a Kyran Bracken who gets to every ruck fast and gets the ball in front of the 10's hands every single time - don't care if he can run or tackle or anything, just gets quick, clean, accurate service.

Puja

I don't watch enough Premiership Rugby to know but is there an England SH like that?

Chapman can do that, as can Mitchell for 80% of a game.

It'd be nice if those were indeed the proper core skill sets coaches wanted from a 9 these days. Now it’s all about the box kick and ‘game management’