Scrumhead wrote:Interesting that Ewels has dropped out too. I thought he had a decent enough game last weekend.
Agreed. However, in a straight choice between Ewels and Hill I'd say Ewels was second by some margin. Having said that, I was really concerned that Jones would dump Hill.
So, based on recent Jonesism, will Itoje start at 6 with both Earl and Underhill on the bench? If not, Hill or Launchbury to start?
Hill’s stats against Italy were actually very poor and when he was dropped vs. Georgia, I thought that might be a bad sign.
Banquo wrote:
Good point had utterly forgotten Ted Hill.
EJ had had a good look and that’s possibly not a great sign for them short term.
I often ask the question, "Do the assistant coaches have any say in selection?"
Basically, would anybody else in the whole set-up (or the rugby world, come to that) choose Ludlam over Willis?
Jngf
The only good point to Willis being dropped is the irony/lols of jngf wanting Jones sacked whilst both being the only two people outside of the Ludlum family to think this is the correct choice.
Stom wrote:btw, I don't really get Earl. I mean, he seems perfectly good but... I just don't get it. Why has he been promoted over the others?
With you on this one Stom. Plenty of posts telling us he is ‘big, fast and strong’ so I suppose we better accept big, fast and strong is all boxes ticked.....not forgetting he shits in the garden
Eh?
My now weekly reminder to stop making unfunny jokes.
Willis wasn't exactly stellar against Georgia, but that does feel a touch harsh given it was a first cap. And still more so when the upside of Willis looks to have so much potential
Digby wrote:Willis wasn't exactly stellar against Georgia, but that does feel a touch harsh given it was a first cap. And still more so when the upside of Willis looks to have so much potential
I would like to see what happens if Ireland catch our box kicks and maybe nick 3-4 lineouts after we've gone 7-10 points down. We don't have Manu or Cokanasiga to worry them out the back, so what would we do?
Digby wrote:I would like to see what happens if Ireland catch our box kicks
This is always the worry of every England team for the past 16 years against Ireland. They're just so unsporting in catching all the ball that we kick to them and not giving it back to us. Nullifies 90% of our attack.
Digby wrote:I would like to see what happens if Ireland catch our box kicks and maybe nick 3-4 lineouts after we've gone 7-10 points down. We don't have Manu or Cokanasiga to worry them out the back, so what would we do?
The aspect I like about both Willis and Ludlum is that they can play to their strengths regardless of whether they’re picked at openside or blindside and with enlightened selection that enables a bit more opportunity to be creative with the other flanker berth, for instance Willis taking care of the fetching, doing some hard carrying and lineout work enables a flier like Earl or Simmonds (and to a lesser extent (as some would inexplicably have it )Richard Hill’s anointed heir apparent T Curry to mix it with the three quarters in the other flanker berth). Alternatively Ludlum’s mobility, high energy/work rate and again good lineout support enables an out and out destroyer like Underhill to do what he’s good at on the other berth - notice I’m not demarcating who should play 6 and who should play 7.
My concern would be that whilst there are loads of great options for flanker - Jones and co have really too heavily relied on Billy being fit and firing and completely failed to unearth a convincing alternative 8 which is why I think Dombrandt needs to be given an opportunity for England sooner rather than later to see if he can be that viable alternative 8 option that England are desperately needs imo.
Digby wrote:Willis wasn't exactly stellar against Georgia, but that does feel a touch harsh given it was a first cap. And still more so when the upside of Willis looks to have so much potential
I've seen suggestions elsewhere that it's an Eddie tactic to keep players on their toes. He doesn't want them to feel like they've made it having just come into the team. Hill and Thorley were in then dropped and now in again. Willis could be back in again next game. Just Eddie being Eddie and trying to drive competition.
Digby wrote:I would like to see what happens if Ireland catch our box kicks and maybe nick 3-4 lineouts after we've gone 7-10 points down. We don't have Manu or Cokanasiga to worry them out the back, so what would we do?
Well Ford's back so hopefully give him some weapons in attack and let him play?
Digby wrote:Willis wasn't exactly stellar against Georgia, but that does feel a touch harsh given it was a first cap. And still more so when the upside of Willis looks to have so much potential
I've seen suggestions elsewhere that it's an Eddie tactic to keep players on their toes. He doesn't want them to feel like they've made it having just come into the team. Hill and Thorley were in then dropped and now in again. Willis could be back in again next game. Just Eddie being Eddie and trying to drive competition.
Digby wrote:I would like to see what happens if Ireland catch our box kicks and maybe nick 3-4 lineouts after we've gone 7-10 points down. We don't have Manu or Cokanasiga to worry them out the back, so what would we do?
Well Ford's back so hopefully give him some weapons in attack and let him play?
And Willis' response in preparation for that came out with the right soundbites, about looking to improve etc., which is the right thing from him. He's brand new, had a dip of his toe and will be around to fight for a bench or starting spot next week.
Digby wrote:Willis wasn't exactly stellar against Georgia, but that does feel a touch harsh given it was a first cap. And still more so when the upside of Willis looks to have so much potential
I've seen suggestions elsewhere that it's an Eddie tactic to keep players on their toes. He doesn't want them to feel like they've made it having just come into the team. Hill and Thorley were in then dropped and now in again. Willis could be back in again next game. Just Eddie being Eddie and trying to drive competition.
Digby wrote:I would like to see what happens if Ireland catch our box kicks and maybe nick 3-4 lineouts after we've gone 7-10 points down. We don't have Manu or Cokanasiga to worry them out the back, so what would we do?
Well Ford's back so hopefully give him some weapons in attack and let him play?
This seems to make more sense than just dropping him after a perfectly serviceable performance. The next question being has Robson moved onto the next of Eddie's levels?
Digby wrote:Willis wasn't exactly stellar against Georgia, but that does feel a touch harsh given it was a first cap. And still more so when the upside of Willis looks to have so much potential
I've seen suggestions elsewhere that it's an Eddie tactic to keep players on their toes. He doesn't want them to feel like they've made it having just come into the team. Hill and Thorley were in then dropped and now in again. Willis could be back in again next game. Just Eddie being Eddie and trying to drive competition.
Digby wrote:I would like to see what happens if Ireland catch our box kicks and maybe nick 3-4 lineouts after we've gone 7-10 points down. We don't have Manu or Cokanasiga to worry them out the back, so what would we do?
Well Ford's back so hopefully give him some weapons in attack and let him play?
This seems to make more sense than just dropping him after a perfectly serviceable performance. The next question being has Robson moved onto the next of Eddie's levels?
Looks to be. Whether that is due to Heinz injury is up for grabs.
Digby wrote:Willis wasn't exactly stellar against Georgia, but that does feel a touch harsh given it was a first cap. And still more so when the upside of Willis looks to have so much potential
I've seen suggestions elsewhere that it's an Eddie tactic to keep players on their toes. He doesn't want them to feel like they've made it having just come into the team. Hill and Thorley were in then dropped and now in again. Willis could be back in again next game. Just Eddie being Eddie and trying to drive competition.
Digby wrote:I would like to see what happens if Ireland catch our box kicks and maybe nick 3-4 lineouts after we've gone 7-10 points down. We don't have Manu or Cokanasiga to worry them out the back, so what would we do?
Well Ford's back so hopefully give him some weapons in attack and let him play?
I think Digby is asking ‘what weapons’ given how we look to play?
It does look like the three centre model seems favoured at present looking at Saturday; whilst it looked promising v Georgia, their backs defence was not top notch.
Yep. Ford can take the ball to the line better than Farrell, but is that transformative, and is that transformative enough given Ireland are much better in defence?
Beyond that our weapons seem to be (a) wait for Manu to be fit and (b) see what the next version of our attack is under Eddie
Digby wrote:Yep. Ford can take the ball to the line better than Farrell, but is that transformative, and is that transformative enough given Ireland are much better in defence?
Beyond that our weapons seem to be (a) wait for Manu to be fit and (b) see what the next version of our attack is under Eddie
I do think we have a few combinations of back three players (if all fit) that would scare top sides if we used them better. It doesn’t even need a big unit to enable that, but it does need running threat, good handling and a pack able to support it.
Digby wrote:Yep. Ford can take the ball to the line better than Farrell, but is that transformative, and is that transformative enough given Ireland are much better in defence?
Beyond that our weapons seem to be (a) wait for Manu to be fit and (b) see what the next version of our attack is under Eddie
I do think we have a few combinations of back three players (if all fit) that would scare top sides if we used them better. It doesn’t even need a big unit to enable that, but it does need running threat, good handling and a pack able to support it.
I think this is what annoys me the most. We have an incredibly mobile pack, with world class players smattered throughout, a back three that is full of truly fast and elusive players and yet.....
Digby wrote:Yep. Ford can take the ball to the line better than Farrell, but is that transformative, and is that transformative enough given Ireland are much better in defence?
Beyond that our weapons seem to be (a) wait for Manu to be fit and (b) see what the next version of our attack is under Eddie
I do think we have a few combinations of back three players (if all fit) that would scare top sides if we used them better. It doesn’t even need a big unit to enable that, but it does need running threat, good handling and a pack able to support it.
I think this is what annoys me the most. We have an incredibly mobile pack, with world class players smattered throughout, a back three that is full of truly fast and elusive players and yet.....
....our decision making and technique in the loose isn’t deemed good enough to play this sort of game?
Banquo wrote:
I do think we have a few combinations of back three players (if all fit) that would scare top sides if we used them better. It doesn’t even need a big unit to enable that, but it does need running threat, good handling and a pack able to support it.
I think this is what annoys me the most. We have an incredibly mobile pack, with world class players smattered throughout, a back three that is full of truly fast and elusive players and yet.....
....our decision making and technique in the loose isn’t deemed good enough to play this sort of game?
Possibly true. Would be nice to find out. I think players such as Itoje, Curry, Ford and Slade are good enough to play a wider game and we’ve certainly achieved in isolated matches.
The Times reporting that Jack had a dead leg and couldn't train Monday. Seems to suggest he'll be fit by the weekend, as it was a selection, not a fitness issue for the weekend. However it's not like he's Sinkler/Farrell/Ford etc where he's already familiar with the side and the gameplan in general etc. I wouldn't have selected him if he hadn't trained either.
Wonder how early on he picked that up, he definitely had it by half time.
We look good on the back of huge setpiece dominance, brutally winning contact or the other side dropping every kick or allowing a stupid number of kicks to find grass. And you can't reasonably expect any of those in a test match, else it's not really a test.
With Japan and us Eddie has sought a simplified answer to initial problems in players available. One of those simplified answers also produced something people more often liked watching.
Mellsblue wrote:
I think this is what annoys me the most. We have an incredibly mobile pack, with world class players smattered throughout, a back three that is full of truly fast and elusive players and yet.....
....our decision making and technique in the loose isn’t deemed good enough to play this sort of game?
Possibly true. Would be nice to find out. I think players such as Itoje, Curry, Ford and Slade are good enough to play a wider game and we’ve certainly achieved in isolated matches.
Indeed, just trotting out Eddie think. He is wedded to the traditions of ‘how countries have played historically’ so big pack, kick and clap it is - obviously regarding England under SCW til 2003 as a blip - and in fairness...
