England - USA

[Banquo]

I know I argued with you that is doesn't particularly matter what shirts/roles they have when paired with Underhill, but this does seem weird now. I know Ludlam plays 7 too, but obviously is more suited to 6 of the two of them.

I figured Wilson at 7 was just a systems check but it's starting to look like another weird EJ quirk alright.

Does he remind you of Lewis Moody at all ?

With Sam Underhill playing the Joe Worsley role?

more likely the Wavell Wakefield role.

[jngf]

I like that optimisim! TBF, Eddie has a very good record of getting players to their best for World Cups and I kinda trust that he knows what he's doing from a player management standpoint, as he has so much more data than we do. I'll still breathe a sigh of relief if he comes through intact though.

TCurry is apparently a 6 forever and a day now (just like Manu's nothing but a 12), regardless of who the other flank is. I'm in favour if it makes room in future for BCurry to be involved as well, slightly less so to have more obvious blindsides like Wilson, Ludlam, and Underhill pushing him there. And yes, yes, I know position's just a number, etc, etc, but he is definitely taking on different responsibilities when asked to play 6 and I don't know that they suit him as well as when he's given licence to roam.

Puja

I’m beginning to think that Eddie might have found himself in the same dilemma over Curry and Underhill that SCW did with Hill and Back namely rather than have them dog it out for the single 7 berth - field them as a combo. Though this approach has strengths (as 2003 World Cup win proved) a drawback might be that it comes at the expense of having less of a hard yards carrier at 6 and no obvious line out target in the back row.

We have a lot of carriers when all are fit, and Curry has been getting a fair bit of lineout ball. We've learned a bit there- get your big guys to lift a smaller guy- gets him up quicker and likely a bit higher. You are correct that Hill was a better intl 7 than Back, but he was also a world class 6- SCW briefly toyed with binning Dayglo and playing Hill at 8 for a game or two.

I absolutely did not say that - as well you know

[Renniks]

I’m with Puja on Mako, plus I think Marler was v good on Sunday. The drop off to Genge is a worry, though.
In some ways, I’d prefer Mako off the bench. Bringing on Marler, Cole and Wilson, as good as they are (Cole not so much) is a real drop in link play and, Wilson aside, carrying. I think bringing Mako off the bench would better maintain the balance of the pack in the final 20/30 mins.

Personally I'd go the other way

Mako and Cole

With Sinckler coming on at 40 (knowing you can replace him back if there is an injury)
And Marler coming on later in the game

[Mellsblue]

I’m with Puja on Mako, plus I think Marler was v good on Sunday. The drop off to Genge is a worry, though.
In some ways, I’d prefer Mako off the bench. Bringing on Marler, Cole and Wilson, as good as they are (Cole not so much) is a real drop in link play and, Wilson aside, carrying. I think bringing Mako off the bench would better maintain the balance of the pack in the final 20/30 mins.

Personally I'd go the other way

Mako and Cole

With Sinckler coming on at 40 (knowing you can replace him back if there is an injury)
And Marler coming on later in the game

I’m easy either way but, on balance, I’d prefer more of Marler than Cole. I’m also concerned that Mako will take a long time to get back to 100% and will therefore be better with 30 mins against tiring players than 50mins against fresh oppo.
All that said, with everyone fit and firing you’d be hard pressed to not start both Mako and Sinckler given how far they are ahead of their competition.

[Digby]

If Mako gets fit it makes it easier for all the other carriers, the more the merrier for England. Marler would need to hit maybe 12-15 more rucks on our ball in his 60 minutes to shift the balance back in his favour by dint of support/clearout work , and that's just very unlikely

[Peej]

Why in God's name is Billy playing again?

[Epaminondas Pules]

Why in God's name is Billy playing again?

Because he prefers match time in terms of both fitness and sharpness.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Yeah, would prefer Mako not to be re-introduced too early

Also a bit worried about May - has there been any news there?

---

This team definitely has the capabilities to beat USA (and many other teams)
And I do like that we have this as a generally second string team - that's a lot of depth very very few other nations have

Per The Times, May went off with cramp so nothing to worry about.
I’m with Puja on Mako, plus I think Marler was v good on Sunday. The drop off to Genge is a worry, though.
In some ways, I’d prefer Mako off the bench. Bringing on Marler, Cole and Wilson, as good as they are (Cole not so much) is a real drop in link play and, Wilson aside, carrying. I think bringing Mako off the bench would better maintain the balance of the pack in the final 20/30 mins.

Surely, if fit, you’d start with arguably the best loosehead in the world? Seems odd to restrict his impact.

[Oakboy]

Yeah, would prefer Mako not to be re-introduced too early

Also a bit worried about May - has there been any news there?

---

This team definitely has the capabilities to beat USA (and many other teams)
And I do like that we have this as a generally second string team - that's a lot of depth very very few other nations have

Per The Times, May went off with cramp so nothing to worry about.
I’m with Puja on Mako, plus I think Marler was v good on Sunday. The drop off to Genge is a worry, though.
In some ways, I’d prefer Mako off the bench. Bringing on Marler, Cole and Wilson, as good as they are (Cole not so much) is a real drop in link play and, Wilson aside, carrying. I think bringing Mako off the bench would better maintain the balance of the pack in the final 20/30 mins.

Surely, if fit, you’d start with arguably the best loosehead in the world? Seems odd to restrict his impact.

Perhaps, but Marler is the scrummager and Mako is the carrier (over-simplified, obviously). There is a case for a solid scrum to set the base for a win with Mako causing havoc later in the game. I just prefer it tight earlier and open later rather than the other way around, especially against the stronger teams.

[Scrumhead]

Yeah, would prefer Mako not to be re-introduced too early

Also a bit worried about May - has there been any news there?

---

This team definitely has the capabilities to beat USA (and many other teams)
And I do like that we have this as a generally second string team - that's a lot of depth very very few other nations have

Per The Times, May went off with cramp so nothing to worry about.
I’m with Puja on Mako, plus I think Marler was v good on Sunday. The drop off to Genge is a worry, though.
In some ways, I’d prefer Mako off the bench. Bringing on Marler, Cole and Wilson, as good as they are (Cole not so much) is a real drop in link play and, Wilson aside, carrying. I think bringing Mako off the bench would better maintain the balance of the pack in the final 20/30 mins.

Surely, if fit, you’d start with arguably the best loosehead in the world? Seems odd to restrict his impact.

The ‘if fit’ part is the big question though. If he’s fit enough for Argentina, then I think he’ll be best utilised as an impact sub. If he comes through that, another week of training might mean he’s fully fit to start against France.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Per The Times, May went off with cramp so nothing to worry about.
I’m with Puja on Mako, plus I think Marler was v good on Sunday. The drop off to Genge is a worry, though.
In some ways, I’d prefer Mako off the bench. Bringing on Marler, Cole and Wilson, as good as they are (Cole not so much) is a real drop in link play and, Wilson aside, carrying. I think bringing Mako off the bench would better maintain the balance of the pack in the final 20/30 mins.

Surely, if fit, you’d start with arguably the best loosehead in the world? Seems odd to restrict his impact.

Perhaps, but Marler is the scrummager and Mako is the carrier (over-simplified, obviously). There is a case for a solid scrum to set the base for a win with Mako causing havoc later in the game. I just prefer it tight earlier and open later rather than the other way around, especially against the stronger teams.

Mako is quite underrated in that aspect. I’d much rather have that and everything else he brings. 50/60 minutes of a fit Mako is a no brainer for me.

[Stom]

Yeah, 20 minutes against Argentina and 30 against France should see Mako good.

And if fit, he starts.

[Digby]

Surely, if fit, you’d start with arguably the best loosehead in the world? Seems odd to restrict his impact.

Perhaps, but Marler is the scrummager and Mako is the carrier (over-simplified, obviously). There is a case for a solid scrum to set the base for a win with Mako causing havoc later in the game. I just prefer it tight earlier and open later rather than the other way around, especially against the stronger teams.

Mako is quite underrated in that aspect. I’d much rather have that and everything else he brings. 50/60 minutes of a fit Mako is a no brainer for me.

if I was playing against England I'd much rather deal with Marler for 50-60 minutes

[Banquo]

Surely, if fit, you’d start with arguably the best loosehead in the world? Seems odd to restrict his impact.

Perhaps, but Marler is the scrummager and Mako is the carrier (over-simplified, obviously). There is a case for a solid scrum to set the base for a win with Mako causing havoc later in the game. I just prefer it tight earlier and open later rather than the other way around, especially against the stronger teams.

Mako is quite underrated in that aspect. I’d much rather have that and everything else he brings. 50/60 minutes of a fit Mako is a no brainer for me.

Agreed, the problem being if its 30 minutes and a re-tear!

[Raggs]

Perhaps, but Marler is the scrummager and Mako is the carrier (over-simplified, obviously). There is a case for a solid scrum to set the base for a win with Mako causing havoc later in the game. I just prefer it tight earlier and open later rather than the other way around, especially against the stronger teams.

Mako is quite underrated in that aspect. I’d much rather have that and everything else he brings. 50/60 minutes of a fit Mako is a no brainer for me.

Agreed, the problem being if its 30 minutes and a re-tear!

It's better than he coming off the bench with 30 to go, and tearing it after 20, when we lose a man for subbing Marler back on. Better to start him and get 40 out of him to start, than bring him on and then off again.

[Banquo]

Mako is quite underrated in that aspect. I’d much rather have that and everything else he brings. 50/60 minutes of a fit Mako is a no brainer for me.

Agreed, the problem being if its 30 minutes and a re-tear!

It's better than he coming off the bench with 30 to go, and tearing it after 20, when we lose a man for subbing Marler back on. Better to start him and get 40 out of him to start, than bring him on and then off again.

or actually make sure he is fit which is my point.......and I was agreeing that he should start if so. Your strawman is a little strange though.

[Mellsblue]

Yeah, would prefer Mako not to be re-introduced too early

Also a bit worried about May - has there been any news there?

---

This team definitely has the capabilities to beat USA (and many other teams)
And I do like that we have this as a generally second string team - that's a lot of depth very very few other nations have

Per The Times, May went off with cramp so nothing to worry about.
I’m with Puja on Mako, plus I think Marler was v good on Sunday. The drop off to Genge is a worry, though.
In some ways, I’d prefer Mako off the bench. Bringing on Marler, Cole and Wilson, as good as they are (Cole not so much) is a real drop in link play and, Wilson aside, carrying. I think bringing Mako off the bench would better maintain the balance of the pack in the final 20/30 mins.

Surely, if fit, you’d start with arguably the best loosehead in the world? Seems odd to restrict his impact.

If you read the entire convo rather than jumping on that you’d realise I pretty much agree with you.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Perhaps, but Marler is the scrummager and Mako is the carrier (over-simplified, obviously). There is a case for a solid scrum to set the base for a win with Mako causing havoc later in the game. I just prefer it tight earlier and open later rather than the other way around, especially against the stronger teams.

Mako is quite underrated in that aspect. I’d much rather have that and everything else he brings. 50/60 minutes of a fit Mako is a no brainer for me.

Agreed, the problem being if its 30 minutes and a re-tear!

Absolutely. He’s too good a player to lose, ideally. Others you can compensate easier for, but Mako is a bit special.

[Scrumhead]

The Fiji vs. Uruguay game is a very timely warning ...

Fiji looked like they were totally complacent, playing like they were in a bit of light training and Uruguay really took it to them.

I don’t think we’ll have the same approach, but we did against Japan last year so we should definitely heed the warning.

[Mikey Brown]

"You might choose to offload before contact. A pass, if you like"

How much do these guys get paid?

[Beasties]

It's a long long time since I've been able to sit down to watch a match live never mind the buildup. Having watched 5 mins of the bollocks they talk in the buildup I won't be doing it again.

[WaspInWales]

"You might choose to offload before contact. A pass, if you like"

How much do these guys get paid?

[Puja]

How has the referee called that a maul? Granted, BillyV's on his feet, but there's a US player clinging onto his ankles stopping him from driving. It's a tackle, not a maul - if it's a maul, then that player's trying to collapse it.

Puja

[WaspInWales]

It's a long long time since I've been able to sit down to watch a match live never mind the buildup. Having watched 5 mins of the bollocks they talk in the buildup I won't be doing it again.

Dreadful isn't it!

[Which Tyler]

Love a real FH