England squad named

Moderator: Puja

Post Reply
Mikey Brown
Posts: 12120
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: England squad named

Post by Mikey Brown »

French flankers wearing the wrong numbers. Christ. Here we go again.
User avatar
jngf
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 5:57 pm

Re: England squad named

Post by jngf »

Mikey Brown wrote:French flankers wearing the wrong numbers. Christ. Here we go again.
Yes, it confused me no end that Jean Pierre Rives used to wear the 6 shirt ditto Eric Champ...
Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: England squad named

Post by Digby »

TheNomad wrote:
Digby wrote:6 locks and 6 10s gives a sense the pack will not play at pace and the backs need to play with width. More to it than that, but in advance it doesn't look to have a natural balance.
One of those locks has been playing 6 all season - which makes that look more balanced

And there aren't 6 10s there. Slade has been at 13 all year, Francis is happy in either role, and Farrell started at 12 for the Lions as well as all 6Ns, so I don't feel we're lacking cover at 12 or 13. I'd have still liked Marchant to be there personally and not sure what Francis adds. He wouldn't be there if Teo was fit in my opinion
It does still rather inform what sort of flanker the locks make, and what sort of centre the 10s make.
Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: England squad named

Post by Digby »

Banquo wrote:Its basically fingers crossed Care and Youngs stay fit.
Or not, as the case may be
User avatar
Puja
Posts: 17656
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: England squad named

Post by Puja »

Banquo wrote:Its on the odd side, but has been for a while. Its basically fingers crossed Care and Youngs stay fit.
Yeah, I think that's our Plan A regardless of who trains with the squad. If one of them's injured, the other will play 75-80 minutes. If both are injured, we're stuffed no matter what we do.

Puja
Backist Monk
TheNomad
Posts: 630
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:19 am

Re: England squad named

Post by TheNomad »

Digby wrote:
TheNomad wrote:
Digby wrote:6 locks and 6 10s gives a sense the pack will not play at pace and the backs need to play with width. More to it than that, but in advance it doesn't look to have a natural balance.
One of those locks has been playing 6 all season - which makes that look more balanced

And there aren't 6 10s there. Slade has been at 13 all year, Francis is happy in either role, and Farrell started at 12 for the Lions as well as all 6Ns, so I don't feel we're lacking cover at 12 or 13. I'd have still liked Marchant to be there personally and not sure what Francis adds. He wouldn't be there if Teo was fit in my opinion
It does still rather inform what sort of flanker the locks make, and what sort of centre the 10s make.
Fair comment!
fivepointer
Posts: 5891
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:42 pm

Re: England squad named

Post by fivepointer »

The idea of resting the Lions seems to have bitten the dust. Maybe a few will sit out the Samoa game.

I agree with most of the squad, but like others, do question the balance in one or two areas. Only 2 SH's strikes me as genuinely odd. Pity Maunder isnt fit as i'm sure he would have been included. 6 locks is overdoing it a bit.

i like the apprentice idea. Good to get these promising young players involved. Simmonds call up is very welcome.

Disappointed there's no Wilson or Armand.
User avatar
Oakboy
Posts: 6361
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am

Re: England squad named

Post by Oakboy »

Brown's presence in the squad indicates that Eddie has yet to write him off and gives Haskell hope.

Despite his earlier suggestions about Lions players, he has rested nobody has he?
TheNomad
Posts: 630
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:19 am

Re: England squad named

Post by TheNomad »

So, Simmonds gets picked at 7 for the Chiefs this weekend. Interesting.

Poor Matt Kvesic
User avatar
Oakboy
Posts: 6361
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am

Re: England squad named

Post by Oakboy »

fivepointer wrote:The idea of resting the Lions seems to have bitten the dust. Maybe a few will sit out the Samoa game.

I agree with most of the squad, but like others, do question the balance in one or two areas. Only 2 SH's strikes me as genuinely odd. Pity Maunder isnt fit as i'm sure he would have been included. 6 locks is overdoing it a bit.

i like the apprentice idea. Good to get these promising young players involved. Simmonds call up is very welcome.

Disappointed there's no Wilson or Armand.
Sorry 5P, posted at the same time. I don't think there are 6 locks. Lawes and/or Itoje are picked in their current positions based on numbers.

Maybe, Eddie sees Lozowski as 12 back-up only because I can't see anyone starting at 10 other than Ford or Farrell. Should Ford get injured, Farrell is certain to start at 10, IMO.
User avatar
Oakboy
Posts: 6361
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am

Re: England squad named

Post by Oakboy »

TheNomad wrote:So, Simmonds gets picked at 7 for the Chiefs this weekend. Interesting.

Poor Matt Kvesic
Yes, Kvesic is what, 4th choice?
User avatar
Mellsblue
Posts: 14556
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am

Re: England squad named

Post by Mellsblue »

On the SH situation. I don't think Spencer has what it takes. I like Maunder but he obviously can't be picked. However, it's a real issue that if Youngs or Care are injured we're picking a complete rookie or Wigglesworth who certainly isn't the future and is a totally different style of scrumhalf. At some point, Jones has to admit that his third choice SH isn't up to the standard he'd like and work with what he has.
Scrumhead
Posts: 5979
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:33 am

Re: England squad named

Post by Scrumhead »

Interesting to see Simmonds has been picked at 7 for Exeter’s visit to Sale. Could that be anything to do with Eddie?
User avatar
Puja
Posts: 17656
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm

Re: England squad named

Post by Puja »

Scrumhead wrote:Interesting to see Simmonds has been picked at 7 for Exeter’s visit to Sale. Could that be anything to do with Eddie?
Almost certainly. If he can make a good run at 7, you'd have to say he's in better form than Underhill or TCurry. Good head-to-head this weekend.

Puja
Backist Monk
User avatar
Adam_P
Posts: 1694
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:14 pm

Re: England squad named

Post by Adam_P »

TheNomad wrote:
Digby wrote:6 locks and 6 10s gives a sense the pack will not play at pace and the backs need to play with width. More to it than that, but in advance it doesn't look to have a natural balance.
...not sure what Francis adds.
Other than being a starting Super Rugby 10/12 for the past couple of seasons? I think having players with experience in that kind of environment will be very valuable.
TheNomad
Posts: 630
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:19 am

Re: England squad named

Post by TheNomad »

Adam_P wrote:
TheNomad wrote:
Digby wrote:6 locks and 6 10s gives a sense the pack will not play at pace and the backs need to play with width. More to it than that, but in advance it doesn't look to have a natural balance.
...not sure what Francis adds.
Other than being a starting Super Rugby 10/12 for the past couple of seasons? I think having players with experience in that kind of environment will be very valuable.
Could the same not be said of Haskell? Neither is playing particularly well at present in the Premiership and that's surely the most important current benchmark.

We're very well stocked in this squad at both the positions he covers and I doubt he'd be in the squad if were Te'o were fit.

At the same time, Marchant is looking great and could genuinely knock on the door the RWC

So yeah, I remain unsure
Banquo
Posts: 19102
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: England squad named

Post by Banquo »

Digby wrote:
Banquo wrote:Its basically fingers crossed Care and Youngs stay fit.
Or not, as the case may be
ha!
Banquo
Posts: 19102
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: England squad named

Post by Banquo »

Oakboy wrote:
fivepointer wrote:The idea of resting the Lions seems to have bitten the dust. Maybe a few will sit out the Samoa game.

I agree with most of the squad, but like others, do question the balance in one or two areas. Only 2 SH's strikes me as genuinely odd. Pity Maunder isnt fit as i'm sure he would have been included. 6 locks is overdoing it a bit.

i like the apprentice idea. Good to get these promising young players involved. Simmonds call up is very welcome.

Disappointed there's no Wilson or Armand.
Sorry 5P, posted at the same time. I don't think there are 6 locks. Lawes and/or Itoje are picked in their current positions based on numbers.

Maybe, Eddie sees Lozowski as 12 back-up only because I can't see anyone starting at 10 other than Ford or Farrell. Should Ford get injured, Farrell is certain to start at 10, IMO.
They are both much better locks than blindsides
User avatar
Oakboy
Posts: 6361
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am

Re: England squad named

Post by Oakboy »

Banquo wrote:
Oakboy wrote:
fivepointer wrote:The idea of resting the Lions seems to have bitten the dust. Maybe a few will sit out the Samoa game.

I agree with most of the squad, but like others, do question the balance in one or two areas. Only 2 SH's strikes me as genuinely odd. Pity Maunder isnt fit as i'm sure he would have been included. 6 locks is overdoing it a bit.

i like the apprentice idea. Good to get these promising young players involved. Simmonds call up is very welcome.

Disappointed there's no Wilson or Armand.
Sorry 5P, posted at the same time. I don't think there are 6 locks. Lawes and/or Itoje are picked in their current positions based on numbers.

Maybe, Eddie sees Lozowski as 12 back-up only because I can't see anyone starting at 10 other than Ford or Farrell. Should Ford get injured, Farrell is certain to start at 10, IMO.
They are both much better locks than blindsides
I don't disagree but it looks as if Eddie will pick one of them at 6. Otherwise, why have Ewels or Isiekwe in the squad ahead of Armand, for example?
Banquo
Posts: 19102
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: England squad named

Post by Banquo »

Puja wrote:
Banquo wrote:Its on the odd side, but has been for a while. Its basically fingers crossed Care and Youngs stay fit.
Yeah, I think that's our Plan A regardless of who trains with the squad. If one of them's injured, the other will play 75-80 minutes. If both are injured, we're stuffed no matter what we do.

Puja
Its hardly a great plan, really. If one gets injured in training, which can happen :), what then?
User avatar
Oakboy
Posts: 6361
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:42 am

Re: England squad named

Post by Oakboy »

Banquo wrote:
Puja wrote:
Banquo wrote:Its on the odd side, but has been for a while. Its basically fingers crossed Care and Youngs stay fit.
Yeah, I think that's our Plan A regardless of who trains with the squad. If one of them's injured, the other will play 75-80 minutes. If both are injured, we're stuffed no matter what we do.

Puja
Its hardly a great plan, really. If one gets injured in training, which can happen :), what then?
Foden? ;)
Banquo
Posts: 19102
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: England squad named

Post by Banquo »

Oakboy wrote:
Banquo wrote:
Puja wrote:
Yeah, I think that's our Plan A regardless of who trains with the squad. If one of them's injured, the other will play 75-80 minutes. If both are injured, we're stuffed no matter what we do.

Puja
Its hardly a great plan, really. If one gets injured in training, which can happen :), what then?
Foden? ;)
Maro Itoje more likely.
Mikey Brown
Posts: 12120
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: England squad named

Post by Mikey Brown »

Stick Ford there.
Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: England squad named

Post by Digby »

Mikey Brown wrote:Stick Ford there.
I'm amazed it doesn't come up more as an idea. It's nice that it doesn't, but it does surprise me
Mikey Brown
Posts: 12120
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: England squad named

Post by Mikey Brown »

I thought it was universally acknowledged that if you're shorter than 5'10" you're only allowed to play scrum-half and perhaps hooker.
Post Reply