RugbyRebels

Oakboy wrote:I'm intrigued with this debate. I think Hill, Itoje and Lawes should guarantee line-out ball. The scrum should compete even if it does not dominate. I suspect that we'll get a decent amount of ball at ruck time.

So, all-in-all, that could mean enough ball to allow the backs to be creative, perhaps to a game-winning extent.

What bothers me is that Farrell and Care naturally, and Smith by instruction, will simply kick too much possession away. With no 'gas-merchants' to chase, where are points to come from?

I don't think you pick Care for a kicking game and I think EJ knows this. I'd be surprised if we didn't look to run. Especially as all analysis will be that we kick, kick, kick.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:I'll be honest in saying my foibles with this selection are the same ones I've had for ages: the backrow.

I think it's slow. I think we've picked a 1-5 who are agile and get involved in the play, and then we've picked Lawes at 6 to totally negate that. It's like he's a safety blanket. And then Ludlam on the bench, too. Why, I don't know. We have this guy called Willis, he's pretty good. Why isn't he in the 23 at all? That's what I don't get.

top notch lineout and big tackles (and in fairness improved carrying) v turnovers, mobility and breakdown; Ludlam offers more versatility across the backrow. That's all I've got . I'd have gone for Willis somewhere for sure.

I'd have Willis in there, at least bench. Though he's nowhere near where he was pre-injury yet. Understandably so.

I think Lawes is somewhat overlooked in terms of breakdown, where he has improved massively and his mobility, and engine are good. I'm not sure Ludlam or Willis chases down Veainu like Lawes did. Plus with the lineout and defence at 6, and as you say improved carrying it is a really understandable selection. Especially as Billy ain't doing much lineout wise other than lifting maybe.

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:Going back a bit, but didn't Coka terrorise aus last time he played them?

Terrorise might be a bit strong, but he did knock someone out on his way to a try:



Puja

7 runs, 3 clean breaks and 7 defenders beaten. Pretty damn handy!

This doesn't deserve it's own thread but for a bit of light relief.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:I'll be honest in saying my foibles with this selection are the same ones I've had for ages: the backrow.

I think it's slow. I think we've picked a 1-5 who are agile and get involved in the play, and then we've picked Lawes at 6 to totally negate that. It's like he's a safety blanket. And then Ludlam on the bench, too. Why, I don't know. We have this guy called Willis, he's pretty good. Why isn't he in the 23 at all? That's what I don't get.

top notch lineout and big tackles (and in fairness improved carrying) v turnovers, mobility and breakdown; Ludlam offers more versatility across the backrow. That's all I've got . I'd have gone for Willis somewhere for sure.

I'd have Willis in there, at least bench. Though he's nowhere near where he was pre-injury yet. Understandably so.

I think Lawes is somewhat overlooked in terms of breakdown, where he has improved massively and his mobility, and engine are good. I'm not sure Ludlam or Willis chases down Veainu like Lawes did. Plus with the lineout and defence at 6, and as you say improved carrying it is a really understandable selection. Especially as Billy ain't doing much lineout wise other than lifting maybe.

He's very good at club level for breakdown and is mobile for a big unit (but willis is certainly better at the breakdown)- perhaps agile would be a better descriptor between the two.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I'm intrigued with this debate. I think Hill, Itoje and Lawes should guarantee line-out ball. The scrum should compete even if it does not dominate. I suspect that we'll get a decent amount of ball at ruck time.

So, all-in-all, that could mean enough ball to allow the backs to be creative, perhaps to a game-winning extent.

What bothers me is that Farrell and Care naturally, and Smith by instruction, will simply kick too much possession away. With no 'gas-merchants' to chase, where are points to come from?

I don't think you pick Care for a kicking game and I think EJ knows this. I'd be surprised if we didn't look to run. Especially as all analysis will be that we kick, kick, kick.

Care is a decent kicker in terms of length, but it was decision making over kicking that got him dropped. We kick less than France say, but Tigers showed the importance of kicking innit

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: top notch lineout and big tackles (and in fairness improved carrying) v turnovers, mobility and breakdown; Ludlam offers more versatility across the backrow. That's all I've got . I'd have gone for Willis somewhere for sure.

I'd have Willis in there, at least bench. Though he's nowhere near where he was pre-injury yet. Understandably so.

I think Lawes is somewhat overlooked in terms of breakdown, where he has improved massively and his mobility, and engine are good. I'm not sure Ludlam or Willis chases down Veainu like Lawes did. Plus with the lineout and defence at 6, and as you say improved carrying it is a really understandable selection. Especially as Billy ain't doing much lineout wise other than lifting maybe.

He's very good at club level for breakdown and is mobile for a big unit (but willis is certainly better at the breakdown)- perhaps agile would be a better descriptor between the two.

Oh absolutely. Willis is yards ahead at breakdown, as you'd expect.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
I'd have Willis in there, at least bench. Though he's nowhere near where he was pre-injury yet. Understandably so.

I think Lawes is somewhat overlooked in terms of breakdown, where he has improved massively and his mobility, and engine are good. I'm not sure Ludlam or Willis chases down Veainu like Lawes did. Plus with the lineout and defence at 6, and as you say improved carrying it is a really understandable selection. Especially as Billy ain't doing much lineout wise other than lifting maybe.

He's very good at club level for breakdown and is mobile for a big unit (but willis is certainly better at the breakdown)- perhaps agile would be a better descriptor between the two.

Oh absolutely. Willis is yards ahead at breakdown, as you'd expect.

I would have been very tempted to play Lawes and Itoje in the second row, with a Curry, Willis, Billy backrow. Understand implications of tight head scrummaging though. Seeing how Hooper and Willis compare at the breakdown would have been fascinating- I guess we are hoping to knock Hooper away.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:I'll be honest in saying my foibles with this selection are the same ones I've had for ages: the backrow.

I think it's slow. I think we've picked a 1-5 who are agile and get involved in the play, and then we've picked Lawes at 6 to totally negate that. It's like he's a safety blanket. And then Ludlam on the bench, too. Why, I don't know. We have this guy called Willis, he's pretty good. Why isn't he in the 23 at all? That's what I don't get.

top notch lineout and big tackles (and in fairness improved carrying) v turnovers, mobility and breakdown; Ludlam offers more versatility across the backrow. That's all I've got . I'd have gone for Willis somewhere for sure.

I'd have Willis in there, at least bench. Though he's nowhere near where he was pre-injury yet. Understandably so.

I think Lawes is somewhat overlooked in terms of breakdown, where he has improved massively and his mobility, and engine are good. I'm not sure Ludlam or Willis chases down Veainu like Lawes did. Plus with the lineout and defence at 6, and as you say improved carrying it is a really understandable selection. Especially as Billy ain't doing much lineout wise other than lifting maybe.

Me too. I’d have started with Willis. However, as you’ve noted, he isn’t back to his best yet and Ludlam has had another good season (arguably his best yet). I don’t see him as a regular starter, but I think he is a good player to bring off the bench.

I’ve changed my opinion on Lawes at 6 in recent times. He’s not PSDT, but he is definitely underrated as a flanker and actually, I quite like him as skipper. Certainly more than Farrell.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: He's very good at club level for breakdown and is mobile for a big unit (but willis is certainly better at the breakdown)- perhaps agile would be a better descriptor between the two.

Oh absolutely. Willis is yards ahead at breakdown, as you'd expect.

I would have been very tempted to play Lawes and Itoje in the second row, with a Curry, Willis, Billy backrow. Understand implications of tight head scrummaging though. Seeing how Hooper and Willis compare at the breakdown would have been fascinating- I guess we are hoping to knock Hooper away.

Me too. I'd have balanced Hill's lack of gametime with Willis' slight underperformances (compared to where he was) and moved Lawes into the row and started Willis. Maybe later in the series we'll hopefully see it.

Puja wrote:

Raggs wrote:Going back a bit, but didn't Coka terrorise aus last time he played them?

Terrorise might be a bit strong, but he did knock someone out on his way to a try:



Puja

I'm pretty sure he also defused a high ball on halfway, went 50 metres like a very quick human wrecking ball and got stopped 2 yards out.

It’s a fascinating selection. To me it shows clear thinking. Whether you agree with his thinking is another question. But recent selections previous to this seemed to me to be a kind of let’s throw some options out there and see what happens while trying not to lose too badly. This one at least is beginning to show what he’s trying to do.

Scrumhead wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: top notch lineout and big tackles (and in fairness improved carrying) v turnovers, mobility and breakdown; Ludlam offers more versatility across the backrow. That's all I've got . I'd have gone for Willis somewhere for sure.

I'd have Willis in there, at least bench. Though he's nowhere near where he was pre-injury yet. Understandably so.

I think Lawes is somewhat overlooked in terms of breakdown, where he has improved massively and his mobility, and engine are good. I'm not sure Ludlam or Willis chases down Veainu like Lawes did. Plus with the lineout and defence at 6, and as you say improved carrying it is a really understandable selection. Especially as Billy ain't doing much lineout wise other than lifting maybe.

Me too. I’d have started with Willis. However, as you’ve noted, he isn’t back to his best yet and Ludlam has had another good season (arguably his best yet). I don’t see him as a regular starter, but I think he is a good player to bring off the bench.

I’ve changed my opinion on Lawes at 6 in recent times. He’s not PSDT, but he is definitely underrated as a flanker and actually, I quite like him as skipper. Certainly more than Farrell.

I actually agree on this. But… if we’re going to play this quick ruck game, with forwards in the backline, I feel like we need a bit more speed to breakdown. Lawes isn’t slow, but nor is he quick.

But hey, what do I know

Billy V was more brain than bludgeon in the final. There was some good handling and some decent pace for a slightly slimmed-down big guy. I hope Jones or one of his minions has approached Saracens' coaches for the background thinking on that. He looked far more of a threat with his adjusted approach.

Or, was it Jones's idea in the first place? If Billy reverts to former unsubtle ways, we'll have more of a clue perhaps.

Scrumhead wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Banquo wrote: top notch lineout and big tackles (and in fairness improved carrying) v turnovers, mobility and breakdown; Ludlam offers more versatility across the backrow. That's all I've got . I'd have gone for Willis somewhere for sure.

I'd have Willis in there, at least bench. Though he's nowhere near where he was pre-injury yet. Understandably so.

I think Lawes is somewhat overlooked in terms of breakdown, where he has improved massively and his mobility, and engine are good. I'm not sure Ludlam or Willis chases down Veainu like Lawes did. Plus with the lineout and defence at 6, and as you say improved carrying it is a really understandable selection. Especially as Billy ain't doing much lineout wise other than lifting maybe.

Me too. I’d have started with Willis. However, as you’ve noted, he isn’t back to his best yet and Ludlam has had another good season (arguably his best yet). I don’t see him as a regular starter, but I think he is a good player to bring off the bench.

I’ve changed my opinion on Lawes at 6 in recent times. He’s not PSDT, but he is definitely underrated as a flanker and actually, I quite like him as skipper. Certainly more than Farrell.

Looking forward to hearing Lawes tell Faz to shut up.

Banquo wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I'm intrigued with this debate. I think Hill, Itoje and Lawes should guarantee line-out ball. The scrum should compete even if it does not dominate. I suspect that we'll get a decent amount of ball at ruck time.

So, all-in-all, that could mean enough ball to allow the backs to be creative, perhaps to a game-winning extent.

What bothers me is that Farrell and Care naturally, and Smith by instruction, will simply kick too much possession away. With no 'gas-merchants' to chase, where are points to come from?

I don't think you pick Care for a kicking game and I think EJ knows this. I'd be surprised if we didn't look to run. Especially as all analysis will be that we kick, kick, kick.

Care is a decent kicker in terms of length, but it was decision making over kicking that got him dropped. We kick less than France say, but Tigers showed the importance of kicking innit

That and actually implementing the specific drills they’d run into training game scenarios.

Apparently Arundell scored another length of the pitch wonder try in training which helped cement his place on the bench. Also had a knock which kept him out of the Baabaas game

The 90m 'Bryan Habana' wonder try in training that secured Henry Arundell's England selection
London Irish wing blew onlookers away during training this week to earn himself a place in Eddie Jones' matchday squad

Henry Arundell has been selected on the bench by England to face Australia on the back of a wonder try in training, with Eddie Jones, the England head coach, comparing Arundell's finish to the tries "Bryan Habana used to score".

The London Irish teenager has enjoyed a meteoric rise this season ever since his spectacular long-range try in the Challenge Cup against Toulon. Now another remarkable score has left Arundell on the verge of making his England debut on Saturday in Perth at the age of 19.

"He scored a 90-metre try at training on Wednesday. There were a few, I won’t use the expletives, 'he’s fast!' heard," Jones explained. "We had a number of coaches from different sports [sailing, hockey, cricket] watching and they heard this comment. He could be a very good player but he’s got a long way to go.

"He’s just scored a try not many other players in the world would have scored. It was like a try Bryan Habana used to score – one of those."

Jonny Hill, the England lock who starts alongside Maro Itoje in Perth, also gave his view of Arundell's 'crazy' try.

"I asked him this morning what he thought he was [doing in terms of speed] percentage-wise and he said 85-90 per cent. He rounded a couple of lads – Mako Vunipola and Will Stuart, I think it was! No, I think it was some back-three lads.

"It was very impressive – he’s a proper rock star, isn’t he? I’m sure he’s going to have a big future. The Aussies will have seen that try he scored (against Toulon). Everyone did."

Jones also hinted that Arundell's pace had been causing problems for his England team-mates in training, having recovered from minor injury which kept him out of England's game against the Barbarians before they flew to Australia.

"He had that slight knock that kept him out of the BaaBaas game, but he's got exceptional pace and if he gets an opportunity against Australia we're sure he'll be able to show that pace," Jones added.

"He's someone we've been monitoring during his fleeting appearances for his club. He's got exceptional pace, he's got the ability to beat people and he's been able to do that in training when he's back fit."

Should Arundell come off the bench he will become the first player selected as an apprentice by Jones to make his Test debut.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:"Should Arundell come off the bench he will become the first player selected as an apprentice by Jones to make his Test debut."

Well that's just plain incorrect and terrible reporting. Both Ted Hill and George Martin were capped while in the squad as apprentices.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:"Should Arundell come off the bench he will become the first player selected as an apprentice by Jones to make his Test debut."

Well that's just plain incorrect and terrible reporting. Both Ted Hill and George Martin were capped while in the squad as apprentices.

Puja

Ollie Chessum as well?

FKAS wrote:

Puja wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:"Should Arundell come off the bench he will become the first player selected as an apprentice by Jones to make his Test debut."

Well that's just plain incorrect and terrible reporting. Both Ted Hill and George Martin were capped while in the squad as apprentices.

Puja

Ollie Chessum as well?

Was Chessum in as an apprentice or was he just an unexpected name in the squad?

Puja

He’s the first apprentice to be capped whilst still classed as an apprentice.

Martin was in the 'Shadow Squad' for the 2021 Six Nations and Hill was an apprentice in the warm up camp in Portugal before the Autumn internationals in 2018, but no longer listed as an apprentice when the actual Autumn squad was announced.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:He’s the first apprentice to be capped whilst still classed as an apprentice.

Martin was in the 'Shadow Squad' for the 2021 Six Nations and Hill was an apprentice in the warm up camp in Portugal before the Autumn internationals in 2018, but no longer listed as an apprentice when the actual Autumn squad was announced.

I stand corrected on the technicality, but that feels like incredible splitting of hairs between Shadow Squad and apprentice. No-one could think that Martin and Hill and Arundell weren't very similar selections in terms of their accession to the squad.

The difference, of course, is that Arundell is getting a chance at a cap against Australia away, rather than Italy or Japan at home.

Puja

I’m really interested in when Arundell would be used, short of a big points difference (in either direction) later in the game. We’ve picked the two most injury prone wingers possible and surely EJ is conscious of the risk one of them goes down early.

Would Porter go to the wing first? Has he got international winger sort of pace? I guess he can’t be much slower than Nowell.

Mikey Brown wrote:I’m really interested in when Arundell would be used, short of a big points difference (in either direction) later in the game. We’ve picked the two most injury prone wingers possible and surely EJ is conscious of the risk one of them goes down early.

Would Porter go to the wing first? Has he got international winger sort of pace? I guess he can’t be much slower than Nowell.

I wouldn't've said Porter really has international winger pace. He's not slow, but I would be surprised if he was faster than Marchant.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:He’s the first apprentice to be capped whilst still classed as an apprentice.

Martin was in the 'Shadow Squad' for the 2021 Six Nations and Hill was an apprentice in the warm up camp in Portugal before the Autumn internationals in 2018, but no longer listed as an apprentice when the actual Autumn squad was announced.

I stand corrected on the technicality, but that feels like incredible splitting of hairs between Shadow Squad and apprentice. No-one could think that Martin and Hill and Arundell weren't very similar selections in terms of their accession to the squad.

The difference, of course, is that Arundell is getting a chance at a cap against Australia away, rather than Italy or Japan at home.

Puja

The Shadow Squad did include Jonathan Joseph, Ewels, Marchant and Willis, albeit the latter two only had something like 5 caps between them at the time.

Martin was a surprise selection for sure, as was Hill somewhat. If nothing else it shows Jones will give people some opportunity, How many of those make it / are given more than 1 or 2 shots is up for grabs.

And yeah away in Aus is a proper debut, if he comes off the bench.