Moderator: Puja
Perhaps he already has. It's not possible to tell.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Why pick Robson and Ford? It's clear Farrell is going start barring injury and you've seen plenty of Ford so why not see if you can cope if Youngs goes lame - obviously you should be looking for an alternative but that's not a realistic hope.
You mean they were not sloppy for only the first 5 min? I don't believe it was quite that bad and would not agree with you. I thought the first half was a good display of disciplined rugby from a team who knew what they were about, had France under the cosh, but really should have scored more points. Still, the pressure did fall off in the second half and the team won't be good enough against Wales without significant improvement.Digby wrote:Ireland were sloppy in the last 75Spiffy wrote:Yes - one step too many there. He should have pinned his ears back. Ireland v. sloppy in the last 5 min. Will be hard pushed to beat Wales in Cardiff.Banquo wrote:Larmour dallies a bit too much.
So you don't think they were sloppy for far longer than five minutes but do think there was a period far longer than five minutes in which they failed to score the points they should? Basically you'd term it careless? Which seems but a politer way of saying the same thingSpiffy wrote:You mean they were not sloppy for only the first 5 min? I don't believe it was quite that bad and would not agree with you. I thought the first half was a good display of disciplined rugby from a team who knew what they were about, had France under the cosh, but really should have scored more points. Still, the pressure did fall off in the second half and the team won't be good enough against Wales without significant improvement.Digby wrote:Ireland were sloppy in the last 75Spiffy wrote:
Yes - one step too many there. He should have pinned his ears back. Ireland v. sloppy in the last 5 min. Will be hard pushed to beat Wales in Cardiff.
True. Somebody said they managed to make France look competent, which I thought was wrong, but looking at the scoreboard.......Digby wrote:Ireland were sloppy in the last 75Spiffy wrote:Yes - one step too many there. He should have pinned his ears back. Ireland v. sloppy in the last 5 min. Will be hard pushed to beat Wales in Cardiff.Banquo wrote:Larmour dallies a bit too much.
Whoever said France looked competent should probably be sectioned for their own safetyBanquo wrote:True. Somebody said they managed to make France look competent, which I thought was wrong, but looking at the scoreboard.......Digby wrote:Ireland were sloppy in the last 75Spiffy wrote:
Yes - one step too many there. He should have pinned his ears back. Ireland v. sloppy in the last 5 min. Will be hard pushed to beat Wales in Cardiff.
Having said that, I thought Sexton looked in much better nick than for a while.
Yeah, there's nowt wrong with his form. It's just that he's a kid and shouldn't really be playing so much rugby...Plus Gustard likes to pick the more pragmatic Lang sometimes. Rarely pays off, mind.Puja wrote:Bloody weird to have Smith in, considering he's not starting for Quins right now. I get that it's one eye on the future, but seems to send the wrong message to have someone in to train who's not been in great form.
Puja
Kruis had more energy for me, but suspect LJ is getting it owing to a pretty poor bit of defending for Italy's try compounding the worse bit of defending by Teo the phase before.Digby wrote:Why is Launchbury getting so much stick for his performance against Italy? Not much in it imo between Kruis and LJ (Little Joe)
Both largely had solid games
Surely you mean:Mellsblue wrote:10. Ford
12. Smith
??????
More energy in which areas, tackling, clearouts, lineout and maul seemed similar, LJ missed a tackle on a back in multi phase, Kruis (was it him?) missed the restart at the start of the second half leading to us defending for 10-15 minutes and ultimately to their second try, Kruis showed up much more on charge downs but I wonder if that was on purpose as Launchbury chased kicks harder up and down the park?Banquo wrote:Kruis had more energy for me, but suspect LJ is getting it owing to a pretty poor bit of defending for Italy's try compounding the worse bit of defending by Teo the phase before.Digby wrote:Why is Launchbury getting so much stick for his performance against Italy? Not much in it imo between Kruis and LJ (Little Joe)
Both largely had solid games
I'd also say expectations are a bit higher for him than Kruis; bit like when Itoje was copping flak this time last year, when all the stats said he was pretty much our best forward (which admittedly was a low bar last 6N)
Being serious, I wonder if we will see Ford - Farrell - Tuilagi. Jones did say he’d try it at some point. Given he’s a big fan of trying to replicate RWC scenarios he’d definitely have to have a third FH in the squad of Ford - Farrell is the starting 10 - 12 in the RWC.Stom wrote:Surely you mean:Mellsblue wrote:10. Ford
12. Smith
??????
9.Ford
10.Smith
12.Farrell
13.Slade
clear outs mostly, plus he actually seemed engagedDigby wrote:More energy in which areas, tackling, clearouts, lineout and maul seemed similar, LJ missed a tackle on a back in multi phase, Kruis (was it him?) missed the restart at the start of the second half leading to us defending for 10-15 minutes and ultimately to their second try, Kruis showed up much more on charge downs but I wonder if that was on purpose as Launchbury chased kicks harder up and down the park?Banquo wrote:Kruis had more energy for me, but suspect LJ is getting it owing to a pretty poor bit of defending for Italy's try compounding the worse bit of defending by Teo the phase before.Digby wrote:Why is Launchbury getting so much stick for his performance against Italy? Not much in it imo between Kruis and LJ (Little Joe)
Both largely had solid games
I'd also say expectations are a bit higher for him than Kruis; bit like when Itoje was copping flak this time last year, when all the stats said he was pretty much our best forward (which admittedly was a low bar last 6N)
, and was the chargedown man. I'm not even saying it was entirely fair, just saying why folks might have been giving JL a hard time. Seems the consensus is that Kruis had the better game across most platforms, but only marginally; in fact, not even sure if Launchbury has been getting much stick, other than for missing a tackle.I've looked through a load of ratings etc and most have JL at 7 and Kruis at 8. You are only proving stuff to yourself, its pretty marginal as I agreed. There's a perception issue, in that JL has rightly a high reputation, and frankly he did look a little less sprightly than normal. But hey, if that's what floats your snowballDigby wrote:Launch seems to be viewed as having a poor game, comments along the lines of leaden, agreed on the charge downs but I'm guessing that saw a specific division of labour. I'd need to watch back on the clearouts but my impression is Kruis hit harder but Launch hit more and was more often the first man in, which gets me back to swings and roundabouts
I also noted two very nicely tapped balls in the lineout from LJ when his support seemed to have been nudged aside. It'd have been easy to fumble but he showed excellent hands