RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:So we need to move the ball away from contact then, or we need Mako, Lawes and Hughes to be making big dents on the carry. It's a decent enough squad given what's gone before and players missing

Yep, George starting would give better balance in the loose, and I think Launchbury a better carrier than Kruis. Wish BV was fit.

Broadly I'd have wanted George and a carrier at 3, or another carrier at either 6 or 7. If we had extra carrying options in the 2 and 3 shirt it's make more sense to me to them have 2 flankers whose game is better suited to supporting a team than carrying a team. And we've still no carrying options at 12 or 13 to bail the team out of trouble, Slade might be doing more than he did but it's not the stuff of legend at test level

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Banquo wrote: You've commented before on Eddie's statements

True, but seeing as Eddie stuck with Hughes for 80 in Arg, I don't see why I'd assume he's lying now. Of course, if we're winning well, it might be more important to take Hughes off that someone else, in terms of keeping an 8 fit.

yep, and most of the other games he's started, I now know!

That does make sense, I guess. If Hughes is starting, then that means Billy wasn't available and, given the gulf to our next 8 options, means that Hughes was unlikely to be subbed unless absolutely necessary.

Puja

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:So we need to move the ball away from contact then, or we need Mako, Lawes and Hughes to be making big dents on the carry. It's a decent enough squad given what's gone before and players missing

Yep, George starting would give better balance in the loose, and I think Launchbury a better carrier than Kruis. Wish BV was fit.

Broadly I'd have wanted George and a carrier at 3, or another carrier at either 6 or 7. If we had extra carrying options in the 2 and 3 shirt it's make more sense to me to them have 2 flankers whose game is better suited to supporting a team than carrying a team. And we've still no carrying options at 12 or 13 to bail the team out of trouble, Slade might be doing more than he did but it's not the stuff of legend at test level

yes, I said earlier, a more direct option in the backs would be ideal- who is a valid question, to which Roko might be an answer. Sinckler might have been the 3 we are looking for, and you could look for more from the locks.

Stop being such a bastard Digby.

I did write a slightly more eloquent response but lost it and can’t be bothered to re-type it. I think I captured the mood of it though.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Yep, George starting would give better balance in the loose, and I think Launchbury a better carrier than Kruis. Wish BV was fit.

Broadly I'd have wanted George and a carrier at 3, or another carrier at either 6 or 7. If we had extra carrying options in the 2 and 3 shirt it's make more sense to me to them have 2 flankers whose game is better suited to supporting a team than carrying a team. And we've still no carrying options at 12 or 13 to bail the team out of trouble, Slade might be doing more than he did but it's not the stuff of legend at test level

yes, I said earlier, a more direct option in the backs would be ideal- who is a valid question, to which Roko might be an answer. Sinckler might have been the 3 we are looking for, and you could look for more from the locks.

This side could work, but the handling in the pack outside of Mako doesn't make it obvious the ball can or will be moved with pace phase upon phase. So we're back to trying to keep pace in pick and go plays to then work of a lazy or fatigued defence, but it shouldn't worry a decent defence

Mako, George, Sinckler, Launchbury, Itoje is maybe our most attacking tight five, though LCD should take real issue with that and maybe Genge too, and even then handling isn't stellar, but there are more carrying options

Mikey Brown wrote:Stop being such a bastard Digby.

And I thought I'd only written nice things today

Digby wrote:
This side could work, but the handling in the pack outside of Mako doesn't make it obvious the ball can or will be moved with pace phase upon phase. So we're back to trying to keep pace in pick and go plays to then work of a lazy or fatigued defence, but it shouldn't worry a decent defence

Mako, George, Sinckler, Launchbury, Itoje is maybe our most attacking tight five, though LCD should take real issue with that and maybe Genge too, and even then handling isn't stellar, but there are more carrying options

Will LCD ever stay fit for long enough? Not looking promising really, which is such a shame

Just one of those things with LCD. At this point I'd still cite his throwing as more of an issue than his injury record, and possibly his discipline too

Might Mako need a rest every bit as much as Itoje and Farrell? Or, is Marler going to start against Australia?

Oakboy wrote:Might Mako need a rest every bit as much as Itoje and Farrell? Or, is Marler going to start against Australia?

Maybe the plan is to rest the rest of the Lions players for Samoa? Would make sense and then we could have a team of Genge, Hartley, Williams, Itoje, Launchbury, Robshaw, Underhill, Hughes, Youngs, Ford, May, Fazlet, Slade, Roko, Brown, which should be fine.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Might Mako need a rest every bit as much as Itoje and Farrell? Or, is Marler going to start against Australia?

Maybe the plan is to rest the rest of the Lions players for Samoa? Would make sense and then we could have a team of Genge, Hartley, Williams, Itoje, Launchbury, Robshaw, Underhill, Hughes, Youngs, Ford, May, Fazlet, Slade, Roko, Brown, which should be fine.

Puja

So one game's rest each, you think, with the strongest possible 23 for Aus?

Oakboy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Might Mako need a rest every bit as much as Itoje and Farrell? Or, is Marler going to start against Australia?

Maybe the plan is to rest the rest of the Lions players for Samoa? Would make sense and then we could have a team of Genge, Hartley, Williams, Itoje, Launchbury, Robshaw, Underhill, Hughes, Youngs, Ford, May, Fazlet, Slade, Roko, Brown, which should be fine.

Puja

So one game's rest each, you think, with the strongest possible 23 for Aus?

Would seem to make sense. Which means, of course, that it won't happen.

ETA. Makes sense in terms of the order of things as well. The two most chronically overworked get two weeks off by taking it easy in Portugal as well.

Puja

Curry has injured his wrist, Simmonds now on the bench. Hughes now more likely to get a rest?

Bugger!

Puja

Raggs wrote:Curry has injured his wrist

Wanker

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:Curry has injured his wrist

Wanker

Be fair - he IS a teenager!

So Simmonds was fit? Surely this was the perfect opportunity to sneak Ben Curry in to the squad?

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:Curry has injured his wrist

Wanker

Be fair - he IS a teenager!

I know for a fact Raggs isn't a teenager

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:
Wanker

Be fair - he IS a teenager!

I know for a fact Raggs isn't a teenager

True enough - but if you want to know who the wankers on this board are; you need this link: http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/memberlist.php

Raggs wrote:Curry has injured his wrist, Simmonds now on the bench. Hughes now more likely to get a rest?

If Simmonds does make an appearance at 8 he may well be the smallest player fielded by England in that role since the post war era? Still as Neil Back demonstrated if you’re good enough, you’re big enough (tbh Simmonds looks like my ideal of an attacking and linking openside and has the perfect vital statistics for that role ).

He'd be a little shorter than Hill and Sanderson, but probably not all that different in weight, indeed Simmonds might be the heaviest if compared to the weights Hill and Sanderson were playing at 8

Argentina -
1. S. Garcia Botta
2. A. Creevy
3. N. Tetaz Chaparro
4. M. Alemanno
5. T. Lavanini
6. P. Matera
7. M. Kremer
8. T. Lezana

9. T. Landajo
10. JM. Hernandez
11. E. Boffelli
12. S. Gonzalez Iglesias
13. M. Moroni
14. R. Moyano
15. J. Tuculet

16. J. Motoya, 17. L. Noguera, 18. E Pieretto, 19. B. Macome, 20. L. Senatore, 21. G. Bertranou, 22. N. Sanchez, 23. S. Cancellere.

fivepointer wrote:Argentina -
1. S. Garcia Botta
2. A. Creevy
3. N. Tetaz Chaparro
4. M. Alemanno
5. T. Lavanini
6. P. Matera
7. M. Kremer
8. T. Lezana

9. T. Landajo
10. JM. Hernandez
11. E. Boffelli
12. S. Gonzalez Iglesias
13. M. Moroni
14. R. Moyano
15. J. Tuculet

16. J. Motoya, 17. L. Noguera, 18. E Pieretto, 19. B. Macome, 20. L. Senatore, 21. G. Bertranou, 22. N. Sanchez, 23. S. Cancellere.

They are capable of some top rugby- the backs can be dangerous, and Matera and Creevy are excellent.

jngf wrote:

Raggs wrote:Curry has injured his wrist, Simmonds now on the bench. Hughes now more likely to get a rest?

If Simmonds does make an appearance at 8 he may well be the smallest player fielded by England in that role since the post war era? Still as Neil Back demonstrated if you’re good enough, you’re big enough (tbh Simmonds looks like my ideal of an attacking and linking openside and has the perfect vital statistics for that role ).

post war? which one? Falklands?