Digby 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
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 snowball
In some people's opinion, Kruis looked better against Italy than Launchbury did? All I think was indicated was that they are not a good pairing against top opposition but they both did what was required on the day. Let's face it, by definition, Italy are not a big threat to our engine room - Jones had Hughes as 2nd row back-up to confirm that (and he looked comfortable in the role when he came on, proving diddly squat).
A fully fit and on-form Launchbury (which he is not, currently) remains the first name on my team-sheet.
If we're going on how they looked Launch was scanning a lot and crouching to get off the line whereas Kruis was far more upright in the line, but that seems more style than substance
Digby wrote:If we're going on how they looked Launch was scanning a lot and crouching to get off the line whereas Kruis was far more upright in the line, but that seems more style than substance
Digby wrote:If we're going on how they looked Launch was scanning a lot and crouching to get off the line whereas Kruis was far more upright in the line, but that seems more style than substance
I was going to post something along the lines of if only there was a left field bolted or a 20yr old who could sit on the bench and then gets a surprise involvement and rips up trees.
Vellacott doesn't fit Eddie's game plan in the slightest just now. He has a cracking pass and is a fast, sniping 9 - his box kicking however is the major part of his game lacking.
SH back-up is Jones's biggest failing. Serious injury to Youngs leaves a right mess. Assuming Youngs had contracted the illness, would he have started Robson and still called up Spencer? Or, would he have started Wigglesworth and recalled Care for the bench?
Gloskarlos wrote:Vellacott doesn't fit Eddie's game plan in the slightest just now. He has a cracking pass and is a fast, sniping 9 - his box kicking however is the major part of his game lacking.
Sounds the ideal SH to me. Together with Cipriani at 10, we might even then see some decent rugby.
Gloskarlos wrote:Vellacott doesn't fit Eddie's game plan in the slightest just now. He has a cracking pass and is a fast, sniping 9 - his box kicking however is the major part of his game lacking.
Sounds the ideal SH to me. Together with Cipriani at 10, we might even then see some decent rugby.
Gloskarlos wrote:Vellacott doesn't fit Eddie's game plan in the slightest just now. He has a cracking pass and is a fast, sniping 9 - his box kicking however is the major part of his game lacking.
Sounds the ideal SH to me. Together with Cipriani at 10, we might even then see some decent rugby.
Agreed
3rded.
Mind you, with a backline consisting or 2 from Manu, Slade, JJ; and 3 from May, Daly, Watson, Coka, Nowell - any competent halfback pairing should show us some decent rugby.
Oakboy wrote:
Sounds the ideal SH to me. Together with Cipriani at 10, we might even then see some decent rugby.
Agreed
3rded.
Mind you, with a backline consisting or 2 from Manu, Slade, JJ; and 3 from May, Daly, Watson, Coka, Nowell - any competent halfback pairing should show us some decent rugby.
Oakboy wrote:SH back-up is Jones's biggest failing. Serious injury to Youngs leaves a right mess. Assuming Youngs had contracted the illness, would he have started Robson and still called up Spencer? Or, would he have started Wigglesworth and recalled Care for the bench?
Wigglesworth and Care both ahead of Spencer, but both injured.
Oakboy wrote:SH back-up is Jones's biggest failing. Serious injury to Youngs leaves a right mess. Assuming Youngs had contracted the illness, would he have started Robson and still called up Spencer? Or, would he have started Wigglesworth and recalled Care for the bench?
Wigglesworth and Care both ahead of Spencer, but both injured.
Ah, didn't know that. It actually highlights Jones's failings even more. Of his 5 SHs, 3 are injured/ill. With those odds, he is very lucky Youngs is available (or we are unlucky, arguably).
If Youngs had gone down ill he’d have to pull someone in from outside the squad and/or start a player with 33secs worth of experience over two caps. He has bet the house on Youngs and Care, then dropped Care and not given his replacement any meaningful international
action.
Last edited by Mellsblue on Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Epaminondas Pules wrote:How does that highlight Jones' failing?
3 out of 5 odds and it's not Youngs. He has Nos 1 and 5 in his SH list available. That is bad enough but had Youngs been ill instead of Robson it would have been unprepared No 2 and No 5. Sounds like failing to me.
Epaminondas Pules wrote:How does that highlight Jones' failing?
3 out of 5 odds and it's not Youngs. He has Nos 1 and 5 in his SH list available. That is bad enough but had Youngs been ill instead of Robson it would have been unprepared No 2 and No 5. Sounds like failing to me.
Again how is it Jones failing? There’s 3 scrum halves out. So....
He called up Robson and Robson is ill and thus has to be replaced. Care and Wigglesworth are also out so he calls Spencer. And the problem is?
Epaminondas Pules wrote:How does that highlight Jones' failing?
3 out of 5 odds and it's not Youngs. He has Nos 1 and 5 in his SH list available. That is bad enough but had Youngs been ill instead of Robson it would have been unprepared No 2 and No 5. Sounds like failing to me.
Again how is it Jones failing? There’s 3 scrum halves out. So....
He called up Robson and Robson is ill and thus has to be replaced. Care and Wigglesworth are also out so he calls Spencer. And the problem is?
Youngs is poor, Care is out of favour, Wigglesworth is bordering on pensionable: all of these have been factors since this time last year and no one else has had a look in.
Oakboy wrote:
3 out of 5 odds and it's not Youngs. He has Nos 1 and 5 in his SH list available. That is bad enough but had Youngs been ill instead of Robson it would have been unprepared No 2 and No 5. Sounds like failing to me.
Again how is it Jones failing? There’s 3 scrum halves out. So....
He called up Robson and Robson is ill and thus has to be replaced. Care and Wigglesworth are also out so he calls Spencer. And the problem is?
Youngs is poor, Care is out of favour, Wigglesworth is bordering on pensionable: all of these have been factors since this time last year and no one else has had a look in.
Epaminondas Pules wrote:How does that highlight Jones' failing?
3 out of 5 odds and it's not Youngs. He has Nos 1 and 5 in his SH list available. That is bad enough but had Youngs been ill instead of Robson it would have been unprepared No 2 and No 5. Sounds like failing to me.
Again how is it Jones failing? There’s 3 scrum halves out. So....
He called up Robson and Robson is ill and thus has to be replaced. Care and Wigglesworth are also out so he calls Spencer. And the problem is?
He is failing because he has no ready starting alternatives to Youngs and the risk of having no back-up is highlighted by injuries/illness to three SHs who theoretically (but not realistically in terms of recent game time) might be in the squad. He is lucky that Youngs is not one of the three because he has FAILED to prepare an alternative.
