RugbyRebels

I know we've discussed some of the points in the individual match threads, but now all three games have been played, I thought it would be good to create a 'catch-all' thread.

My take is as follows:

As a top-level overview, we got the results we wanted without looking dominant, but without being massively threatened either. There are definitely some positives, to take away, but for the most part, I was underwhelmed by our performances and I feel like we will really need to step it up for the 6N.

Front Row

No huge surprises here. George finally getting a start is a positive, but whether that was a token gesture given that it was against Samoa remains to be seen. I'd like to see him start in the 6N, but I think it's more likely we'll see Hartley starting with George possibly getting a start against Italy.

Genge was good without shining quite as much as he does in the AP, but I still think he's behind Mako and Marler. Cole increasingly looks past his best and I was disappointed we didn't take a longer look at Williams. At this stage, I genuinely don't believe we'd miss Cole if Williams were to start but Sinckler is now back from his ban, so hopefully he can put in a run of form that pushes him back in to contention.

Second Row

Arguably the strongest area of the side but it's still difficult to settle on the best combination. I'd argue that Itoje has to play, but with Kruis' loss of form, the 'Krutoje' partnership isn't our best option right now. Kruis has slipped to fourth choice IMO and while I'd personally favour Launchbury starting over Lawes, I'd be happy enough with the order being reversed.

Ewels and Isiekwe did themselves no harm and are rightly fifth and sixth choice.

Back Row

Some positives here IMO. While there are questions over Underhill's all round game, I think he demonstrated that he is more than capable of being a destructive defensive force at test level. It's a shame we didn't see more of him against Australia, but I'd say he probably did enough to warrant starting the 6N. If that happens, I think we can say Haskell's test career is probably over.

Simmonds also showed up well. His substitute appearances were good and I think he showed against Samoa that he can be a real asset. Personally I'd like to see him tried at 7 (ahead of Underhill). If not, when we have Billy back, I'd prefer Simmonds to Hughes on the bench. It's a different threat and I'd argue it gives us more dynamism and more tactical flexibility.

On the less positive side, it was a shame Tom Curry was injured. If Underhill and Simmonds are fit, I think it's unlikely we'll see Tom (or Ben) Curry given a chance in the 6N. They could well get a shot on tour in South Africa, but they wouldn't have much time to press their case and I suspect Eddie may want to use the opportunity to get Underhill fully settled in to the side.

I also don't want to see Lawes or Itoje at 6. It's good to have the option as an emergency solution, but I don't think it's a substitute for having a proper 6 on the field.

Halfbacks

No change here. Like pretty much everyone else, I'm nervous at the lack of a third scrum half being tested but I don't see that situation changing unless injury forces Eddie's hand.

Similarly, the 10/12 Ford/Farrell axis isn't going to change, even if it did look a little predictable against Australia.

Centres

Disappointing really. JJ still looks out of sorts, but at least some of that is down to our kicking tactics. I don't really recall him being given a great deal of opportunity to show what he can do against Argentina and Australia as we either kicked the ball away or gave him the ball with too little space and too little time to be effective. He's still our top 13 IMO, but we need to find a way to bring him in to the game like we did against Scotland on a more consistent basis.

Slade still fails to convince me. He was better yesterday, but I thought he was woeful against Argentina and I'd take JJ even at his quietest ahead of him every day of the week.

Lozowski was decent when he had opportunities and seems to have the right temperament for test rugby. I'd have him ahead of Slade. Francis looks decent enough, but hasn't shown enough to demand more action IMO.

If Te'o and possibly Tuilagi are fit, they will be straight back in, probably at JJ's expense.

Back Three

It's a shame Watson was sent back to Bath as I would have liked to have seen more of him at 15. Brown is more of a solid defensive option, but he butchered at least two try-scoring opportunities for us yesterday and doesn't do enough in attack to justify being first choice any more IMO.

Daly did himself no harm and was very good yesterday, but I still question whether he is a winger. May was good, particularly against Australia and, if Watson moves to 15, I'd say he's in the box seat for one of the wing berths.

Roko kept up his scoring rate for England without doing anything to show that he's any more than a finisher of chances. He didn't created anything and I think he is just a placeholder for other players. Nowell will come back in to contention, but I'd see him as competing for the 23 shirt rather than the 11 or 14.

Solomona apparently didn't impress enough to warrant any more of a look. He's battling with Roko to be the 5th choice IMO.


Thoughts???

A few minor quibbles. Maybe Kruis has work to do to get back up to 4th best lock.

I think Daly is nailed on as a winger. He showed some great work off his wing too. I think May is close to forcing himself in as a starter. That pushes Brown out for me.

T'eo is an enigma until fit. Maybe Eddie rates him, maybe he doesn't. I can't see him shifting Farrell or JJ but who knows?

Agree with most of that Scrumhead.

hard to argue with 3 wins but i'm left feeling just a touch disappointed. Didnt think we played to a consistently high standard in any of the games. At times we looked slick, purposeful and threatening, while at others we laboured, making dull errors.

Some of the selections went well, but some were not the successes we hoped they would be, though i dont think anyone has played themselves completely out of contention. big question marks remain about the optimum combinations in key areas. It was a pity certain players were unavailable as that would have helped to firm up the pecking order. i'm thinking here of principally Sinckler and Te'o. The lack of a 3rd SH is starting to get just a bit daft.

6N's is going to be a challenge - a revitalised Scotland in Edinburgh is already looking a tough key game - and overall we are going to have to be better.

I didn't watch much of it and most of what I did was a bit meh. Kinda predictable given everything. I think everyone knows the team is short a big powerful carrier or two but the guys we want to use keep getting injured. Not a lot is going to change until we get those carriers.

Oakboy wrote:A few minor quibbles. Maybe Kruis has work to do to get back up to 4th best lock.

I think Daly is nailed on as a winger. He showed some great work off his wing too. I think May is close to forcing himself in as a starter. That pushes Brown out for me.

T'eo is an enigma until fit. Maybe Eddie rates him, maybe he doesn't. I can't see him shifting Farrell or JJ but who knows?

I wouldn’t say Te’o’s ‘an enigma’. He’s done well in his limited opportunities with England and played well for the Lions. I don’t think there is any doubt over whether he is a test calibre player and I think Eddie would have started him in the AIs ahead of JJ if he had been fit.

I think on a more general point, these games have shown how important billy is to our game plan. He either takes us over the gain line or sucks in defenders allowing others to profit. We simply aren't the same team without him.

Has there been any updates on his fitness/rehab?

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:A few minor quibbles. Maybe Kruis has work to do to get back up to 4th best lock.

I think Daly is nailed on as a winger. He showed some great work off his wing too. I think May is close to forcing himself in as a starter. That pushes Brown out for me.

T'eo is an enigma until fit. Maybe Eddie rates him, maybe he doesn't. I can't see him shifting Farrell or JJ but who knows?

I wouldn’t say Te’o’s ‘an enigma’. He’s done well in his limited opportunities with England and played well for the Lions. I don’t think there is any doubt over whether he is a test calibre player and I think Eddie would have started him in the AIs ahead of JJ if he had been fit.

Teo and JJ should play together, but that won't happen. JJ will be the casualty of the tactics Jones will pursue with the resources he currently has.

Just on an earlier point, he touched the ball 4 times v Oz, one of which was a try. So hard to say whether his attacking zip is there or not tbh; he's still the best defender we have,

That pretty much was my point re. the tactics not suiting him. It’s virtually impossible to judge him on his attacking game if you don’t give him the ball.

It’s fair to say he didn’t do anything to create the try he scored, but it still needed him to be alert to the chance and on the same wavelength as Care and it wasn’t an easy finish.

Scrumhead wrote:That pretty much was my point re. the tactics not suiting him. It’s virtually impossible to judge him on his attacking game if you don’t give him the ball.

It’s fair to say he didn’t do anything to create the try he scored, but it still needed him to be alert to the chance and on the same wavelength as Care and it wasn’t an easy finish.

Its not just getting him the ball though. With slow ball, no threat from 12, its a hiding to nothing for a player like him.

‘No threat’ is overstating it IMO, but ‘limited threat’ from 12 would be entirely fair.

Two big things stood out for me. The first and most important is the ruck, both decision making and technique. Second best in all matches. Second has been covered. We don't have any game line breaking carriers in the pack or backs. Given those two fundamental flaws 3 comfirtavle wins shows just how close we are.

I'd have Underhill in carrying camp. If he can add carrying to his game a back 3 of him simmonds/a curry and billy would be brilliant. Simmonds impressed me.

Scrumhead wrote:‘No threat’ is overstating it IMO, but ‘limited threat’ from 12 would be entirely fair.

He is no threat at international level as 12's go.

The exact level of threat Farrell gives is irrelevant as long as we all agree its "Below what is needed to give Joseph space".

If we're second best at the ruck, Underhill's place in the team has to be questioned, destructive tackler or no.

I thought Simmonds went well and broke the gain line plenty of times. Granted he used some voodoo/magic by running at gaps rather than bodies but he made plenty of ground in traffic. He looked slightly hesitant on kick returns in the first 10/15 mins but once he got in to it I thought he went very well. He also seems to hit the oppo d a fair few metres further forward than Billy and Hughes as he is faster.
Having said all that, there are some quotes from Jones about him not being dominant in the tackle and needing to put on some ‘beef’. Off the back of that I think Underhill is in pole position for the 7 shirt. However, I think Simmonds has overtaken Clifford as the pacey backrow cover.

Peat wrote:The exact level of threat Farrell gives is irrelevant as long as we all agree its "Below what is needed to give Joseph space".

If we're second best at the ruck, Underhill's place in the team has to be questioned, destructive tackler or no.

Stephen Jones has Itoje at 7, Faz at 10, Teo and Daly at 12 and 13. Yay.

Peat wrote: If we're second best at the ruck, Underhill's place in the team has to be questioned, destructive tackler or no.

I think he’s nailed on in the 7 shirt going by Jones’s utterances. We’re going to have to find others to help secure ball. With Itoje, Launch and Robshaw I think it shouldn’t be too much of a problem. If Williams and Sinckler can usurp Cole that will help, too. Watching Francis being cleaned out by an NZ back yesterday it made me think how secure Cole is over the ball at ruck time but after watching him play the last couple of seasons he doesn’t get to enough rucks in a quick enough time.

Banquo wrote:

Peat wrote:The exact level of threat Farrell gives is irrelevant as long as we all agree its "Below what is needed to give Joseph space".

If we're second best at the ruck, Underhill's place in the team has to be questioned, destructive tackler or no.

Stephen Jones has Itoje at 7, Faz at 10, Teo and Daly at 12 and 13. Yay.

I had a little giggle to myself when I read that this morning.

Oh yeah, don’t forget Wigglesworth at 9.

Toad of Toad Hall also had Itoje at 7.

Banquo wrote:

Peat wrote:The exact level of threat Farrell gives is irrelevant as long as we all agree its "Below what is needed to give Joseph space".

If we're second best at the ruck, Underhill's place in the team has to be questioned, destructive tackler or no.

Stephen Jones has Itoje at 7, Faz at 10, Teo and Daly at 12 and 13. Yay.

I'm in a bad enough mood without having to hear the latest example of why Stephen Jones is a gormless cretin.


Mells - Today he is - how much improvement do you think his competitors need to put in to change that?

Peat wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Peat wrote:The exact level of threat Farrell gives is irrelevant as long as we all agree its "Below what is needed to give Joseph space".

If we're second best at the ruck, Underhill's place in the team has to be questioned, destructive tackler or no.

Stephen Jones has Itoje at 7, Faz at 10, Teo and Daly at 12 and 13. Yay.

I'm in a bad enough mood without having to hear the latest example of why Stephen Jones is a gormless cretin.


Mells - Today he is - how much improvement do you think his competitors need to put in to change that?

To be what Jones wants from his 7......a lot. And that’s with Underhill standing still which I doubt he will. He’s got plenty of room to improve. Isn’t this only his second full season as a pro?

I'd not count Haskell out just yet either. Unlikely, but he definitely did a lot of good ruck work for us in the past.

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:

Banquo wrote: Stephen Jones has Itoje at 7, Faz at 10, Teo and Daly at 12 and 13. Yay.

I'm in a bad enough mood without having to hear the latest example of why Stephen Jones is a gormless cretin.


Mells - Today he is - how much improvement do you think his competitors need to put in to change that?

To be what Jones wants from his 7......a lot. And that’s with Underhill standing still which I doubt he will. He’s got plenty of room to improve. Isn’t this only his second full season as a pro?

Why on earth would you doubt a talented young English player standing still in his development? Isn't that how we usually do it? And this is Underhill's third season.

More to the point, Jones wants someone who can really smash over our ball at the breakdown at 7. I don't think I've really seen him do that although I could be wrong. Is he secure if Hask comes back to form, or if Simmonds can add that to his carrying game?

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:
I'm in a bad enough mood without having to hear the latest example of why Stephen Jones is a gormless cretin.


Mells - Today he is - how much improvement do you think his competitors need to put in to change that?

To be what Jones wants from his 7......a lot. And that’s with Underhill standing still which I doubt he will. He’s got plenty of room to improve. Isn’t this only his second full season as a pro?

Why on earth would you doubt a talented young English player standing still in his development? Isn't that how we usually do it? And this is Underhill's third season.

More to the point, Jones wants someone who can really smash over our ball at the breakdown at 7. I don't think I've really seen him do that although I could be wrong. Is he secure if Hask comes back to form, or if Simmonds can add that to his carrying game?

I don’t doubt it, though he wouldn’t be the first to stagnate on hitting senior rugby, but that was my point. He’s a decent way in front already which means those who are challenging need to catch up a player that’s only going to improve. He’s not a static target like a senior pro who has maxed his potential or might go backwards. It is his third season but I believe his first season started at an Ospreys feeder team, hence second full season.
Jones’s post match musings seem to suggest Simmonds’ weak point was in the tackle......he might add a more dominant tackling game but then Underhill might add carrying to his armoury. Underhill is clearly ahead in Jones’s eyes so, and I’ll try and be as clear a possible, people have to catch up where he is now and close the gap of any further improvement and then go far enough past to unseat the incumbent who is more experienced. I’m discounting Haskell coming back.

He played 16 games in his first season at Ospreys - I'd say that counts.

But stagnation aside, I guess my point of disagreement is how much further ahead you believe he is. The ruck thing seems to be a real issue for a 7 in Jones' system - and I definitely wouldn't discount the Hask.

Peat wrote:He played 16 games in his first season at Ospreys - I'd say that counts.

But stagnation aside, I guess my point of disagreement is how much further ahead you believe he is. The ruck thing seems to be a real issue for a 7 in Jones' system - and I definitely wouldn't discount the Hask.

It’s obviously only an opinion but Jones has been name checking Underhill since his first part season at Ospreys and after Simmonds put in what I thought was a quality performance Jones referenced his weak tackling (not that I particularly noticed it).
I wouldn’t pick him at 7, I’d have played T or B Curry in all three matches but I think Jones likes him and thinks he can add on what he wants, ie securing our ball at the breakdown.
On top of this, Simmonds fits the ‘finisher’ role that Jones wants from his replacements better than Underhill.

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:He played 16 games in his first season at Ospreys - I'd say that counts.

But stagnation aside, I guess my point of disagreement is how much further ahead you believe he is. The ruck thing seems to be a real issue for a 7 in Jones' system - and I definitely wouldn't discount the Hask.

It’s obviously only an opinion but Jones has been name checking Underhill since his first part season at Ospreys and after Simmonds put in what I thought was a quality performance Jones referenced his weak tackling (not that I particularly noticed it).
I wouldn’t pick him at 7, I’d have played T or B Curry in all three matches but I think Jones likes him and thinks he can add on what he wants, ie securing our ball at the breakdown.
On top of this, Simmonds fits the ‘finisher’ role that Jones wants from his replacements better than Underhill.

Jones was saying Hask could make his way back but you're still happy to discount him

Tbh, Hask or a quick maturation from the Currys was more what I was thinking. He obviously likes Underhill, but as long as someone can claim to be more abrasive at the breakdown, I think he's under real threat.