RugbyRebels

Curry and IFW out. Hill and Roebuck in.

I don’t have any energy for this at all. It all feels like the end of Eddie’s reign where I just couldn’t give a fuck.

Yeah. The phrase ‘rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic’ seems made for this.

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 7:17 pm I don’t have any energy for this at all. It all feels like the end of Eddie’s reign where I just couldn’t give a fuck.

I'm hoping for a repeat of the Burt year where we lost the two AIs that we were hoping to win and then pulled out a ridiculous performance against the world champions.

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 8:45 pm

Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 7:17 pm I don’t have any energy for this at all. It all feels like the end of Eddie’s reign where I just couldn’t give a fuck.

I'm hoping for a repeat of the Burt year where we lost the two AIs that we were hoping to win and then pulled out a ridiculous performance against the world champions.

Let's hope for a spiteful kebab merchant in Edinburgh tonight!

So what’s the best we can hope for?

Underhill/Burry back in at 7? A place for hill? 6. Hill 7. Curry/Underhill 8. CSS surely too much to ask.

Dingwall or Freeman or get a go in the centres?

JVP on to the bench?

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:31 pm So what’s the best we can hope for?

Underhill/Burry back in at 7? A place for hill? 6. Hill 7. Curry/Underhill 8. CSS surely too much to ask.

Dingwall or Freeman or get a go in the centres?

JVP on to the bench?

Hill, Underhill and CSS. Though how Willis is not even an option is staggering. I would have also bloodied Pepper or Pollock by now so we could get an element off the bench that raised our expectations

I suppose we are stuck with Spencer (investing in a 32 yr old..whoopie), give Freeman the 13 berth with Furbank to wing and Steward back in at fb.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 9:31 pm So what’s the best we can hope for?

Underhill/Burry back in at 7? A place for hill? 6. Hill 7. Curry/Underhill 8. CSS surely too much to ask.

Dingwall or Freeman or get a go in the centres?

JVP on to the bench?

has ccs got a lot of senior 8 experience? going to have to be excellent there come scrum time.

Fear for us tbh. Scotland did well, but SA looked like they were rusty and likely to improve markedly.

Played most of his LI games at 8, but not really for Quins. Covered there very briefly for England I think but not sure he’d really be considered to start.

We need someone pushing Earl and sadly it just isn’t Dombrandt. Obviously it should be T Willis but that’s not happening either.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2024 10:40 pm Played most of his LI games at 8, but not really for Quins. Covered there very briefly for England I think but not sure he’d really be considered to start.

We need someone pushing Earl and sadly it just isn’t Dombrandt. Obviously it should be T Willis but that’s not happening either.

thanks, and yes.

Lets not lose heart. Theres a game to play and a chance for the team to turn it around.

I dont expect many changes bar the enforced ones.

fivepointer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 7:55 am Lets not lose heart. Theres a game to play and a chance for the team to turn it around.

I dont expect many changes bar the enforced ones.

Accepted but . . . . I get depressed when SB keeps picking players in the squad who are either in decline or just not up to it: George, Cole, Ewels, Isiekwe, Dombrandt, B Curry, Ford etc. They might be the best we have today but if they can't contribute to lifting the team's ceiling I want them gone. Two years + from the RWC, I 'd forgive youngsters with potential losing to the top SH teams but this squad . . . .

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:02 am

fivepointer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 7:55 am Lets not lose heart. Theres a game to play and a chance for the team to turn it around.

I dont expect many changes bar the enforced ones.

Accepted but . . . . I get depressed when SB keeps picking players in the squad who are either in decline or just not up to it: George, Cole, Ewels, Isiekwe, Dombrandt, B Curry, Ford, Slade (he has to go) etc. They might be the best we have today but if they can't contribute to lifting the team's ceiling I want them gone. Two years + from the RWC, I 'd forgive youngsters with potential losing to the top SH teams but this squad . . . .

Exactly that, it's pointless.

I feel extremely low with Borthwick at this point. I just think he's getting selection wrong too often. That's because to be fair to him we beat Ireland, lost to France in the last few minutes and pushed the ABs close on their patch so I get not ripping up the whole plan, he loses his job if he gets it wrong and we don't of course.

But... as you say - there's not point in the continued selection of Cole, making George (great bloke and player) captain was too short sighted/term, Ewels, Isiekwe and Dombrandt are pointless and whilst Ford has so much quality on his day he's below Finn Smith in the eyes of everyone in the country.

I said this some time ago and some didn't agree but I think there's very clearly a lot of talent in the prem - the ten team format and clubs going bust, the U20 success, players coming back with French experience (T Willis) has helped all of that. The mood should be more buoyant and we should very obviously be building momentum. This was a big step backwards.

Separately, I just dread watching an English pack being driven backwards repeatedly at scrum time and dread this weekend because of it!

Regardless of current squad limitatons is there actually anything we could do about the scrum, with Marler gone?

Is VRR (I know it doesn't make sense outside of the scrum) still performing? Heyes is generally in better form but is he a significantly better scrummager than Cole? Davison looked quite good to me but maybe I was just swept up in Northampton's success. Martin is considered our best tight-head scrummager at lock I think.

I do think we have a huge tendency to simply not look at new players. Even when we play tests against Tier 2 nations, we tend to pick a wishy washy team and keep Slade and Lawrence in midfield if possible. And Earl at 8...which just does not make any sense, as he's clearly not good enough.

9 is a huge problem position, yet we still keep going back to the same players who have been shown not up to it previously. Why not take a chance on someone new? Aus do. Wales do. Scotland do. NZ do. Heck, even France do.

Everyone else changes their team up a lot more, and we're stuck with largely the same XV as years ago, just shorn of carrying because we must have Earl in there for his shouting. And we get IFW. What about trying any of the good players who could shine given the right environment?

And that's before we get to the tactics, which just do not seem to be working.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 2:14 pm Regardless of current squad limitatons is there actually anything we could do about the scrum, with Marler gone?

Is VRR (I know it doesn't make sense outside of the scrum) still performing? Heyes is generally in better form but is he a significantly better scrummager than Cole? Davison looked quite good to me but maybe I was just swept up in Northampton's success. Martin is considered our best tight-head scrummager at lock I think.

When I think of the scrum though Mike there are two elements... 1) we can sit here and name players and question/debate who'd be better than who in these positions... but then we haven't been paid to sort it out before. We haven't got limitless data and information. Bottom line is that the English scrum has been average to poor for too long and it shouldn't be. There will have been and will be solutions. 2) This narrative that's been created about props having to do things outside of the scrum has just gone too far and become too established. Yes you really want your props to be as mobile as possible, of course but fundamentally you want a really dominant scrum and if that requires picking absolute lumps at prop then do that and make your game a tighter game. We'd have been in the world cup final if we'd not got battered at scrum time (or Vunipola been there or Farrell not been a gobby shite). Your example is a good one - VRR should've been looked at. Castres think Will Collier is good enough, England never did despite being battered at scrum time too often over the years. Trevor Davidson and Hayes, god knows, he never plays them and I doubt ever will at this point.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 2:14 pm Regardless of current squad limitatons is there actually anything we could do about the scrum, with Marler gone?

Is VRR (I know it doesn't make sense outside of the scrum) still performing? Heyes is generally in better form but is he a significantly better scrummager than Cole? Davison looked quite good to me but maybe I was just swept up in Northampton's success. Martin is considered our best tight-head scrummager at lock I think.

Right now I'd back Heyes to do at least as well as Cole at scrum time. Lacks a bit in terms of experience but he's a bigger unit. You gain more around the pitch as well. It's only really this season he's kicked on though, he's been pretty average the last two. He's still only 25 so there's the possibility of him being around for a while. Worth the investment of game time.

Almost the reversal of Davison who looked in the form of his life last season but more average this season. Might have been Moon and Lawes pushing him in the scrum last season that helped I don't know but for a guy in his thirties is there really much point in having him in the squad?

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 2:24 pm I do think we have a huge tendency to simply not look at new players. Even when we play tests against Tier 2 nations, we tend to pick a wishy washy team and keep Slade and Lawrence in midfield if possible. And Earl at 8...which just does not make any sense, as he's clearly not good enough.

9 is a huge problem position, yet we still keep going back to the same players who have been shown not up to it previously. Why not take a chance on someone new? Aus do. Wales do. Scotland do. NZ do. Heck, even France do.

Everyone else changes their team up a lot more, and we're stuck with largely the same XV as years ago, just shorn of carrying because we must have Earl in there for his shouting. And we get IFW. What about trying any of the good players who could shine given the right environment?

And that's before we get to the tactics, which just do not seem to be working.

Baxter, Dan, Martin, CCS, IFW, Sleightholme, Furbank's return - we seem to forget that we do bring in new players, just not every one that people clamour for.

Puja

I think 6 Hill 7 Underhill 8 CCS has a nice balance to it.

Earl is many things but he’s more of a 7 than 8 imo

When the squad was announced the one glaring omission was T Willis. The SA match is crying out for him to be involved.

One bright spot out of the last two games is that Will Stuart seems to have rediscovered his scrummaging mojo. That or his injury issues have been niggling on and are now behind him. Reckon the latter. This weekend will be a different kettle of fish though, we’ll see where he’s at.

Stuart has been very solid over the last 4 games. I think we can regard his form as a real positive.

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 6:42 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 2:24 pm I do think we have a huge tendency to simply not look at new players. Even when we play tests against Tier 2 nations, we tend to pick a wishy washy team and keep Slade and Lawrence in midfield if possible. And Earl at 8...which just does not make any sense, as he's clearly not good enough.

9 is a huge problem position, yet we still keep going back to the same players who have been shown not up to it previously. Why not take a chance on someone new? Aus do. Wales do. Scotland do. NZ do. Heck, even France do.

Everyone else changes their team up a lot more, and we're stuck with largely the same XV as years ago, just shorn of carrying because we must have Earl in there for his shouting. And we get IFW. What about trying any of the good players who could shine given the right environment?

And that's before we get to the tactics, which just do not seem to be working.

Baxter, Dan, Martin, CCS, IFW, Sleightholme, Furbank's return - we seem to forget that we do bring in new players, just not every one that people clamour for.

Puja

And how many are centers or 7s or 8s? Problem positions we seem to think we can solve by playing the same players time after time.

I've been a Slade fan for years and still insist that Farrell negated much of his talent. Now, though? Why has Freeman drifted out of consideration to replace him at 13? Arguably, both of them, together with Lawrence are steadily decreasing in effectiveness. That must be about coaching, surely.

Much has been said about the centre pairing but is Freeman just a high ball chaser? How the hell is the way he is being used getting him ready for the 13 shirt? Whatever other aims are in the coaching debates, surely that should be near the top?

Pissing about with shirt numbers just seems irrelevant.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 7:31 pm I've been a Slade fan for years and still insist that Farrell negated much of his talent. Now, though? Why has Freeman drifted out of consideration to replace him at 13? Arguably, both of them, together with Lawrence are steadily decreasing in effectiveness. That must be about coaching, surely.

Much has been said about the centre pairing but is Freeman just a high ball chaser? How the hell is the way he is being used getting him ready for the 13 shirt? Whatever other aims are in the coaching debates, surely that should be near the top?

Pissing about with shirt numbers just seems irrelevant.

They will highlight parts of the game where it worked, and use this as the basis of continuing with the same approach. 'we were disrupted by X, causing us to lose our shape a bit. The result was hard on the players, but they will learn from this'....................... rinse and repeat

Why can't we just play players in their club positions... Except Freeman, of course, oh, and Stewart - now there's a centre pairing made in... well, somewhere that doesn't make centres.