RugbyRebels

Warrior85 wrote:Has Joseph been playing so badly that his form is worse than a guy who hasn't played for months and was average at best before that??

I think Joseph has been playing pretty well tbh. But Eddie thinks that we need more power in the backline.

I don’t imagine Eddie cares particularly how Te’o was doing at Worcester.

I'd agree selecting Te'o is more about adding strike running ability rather than anything JJ has done, or not done.

Banquo wrote:

TheDasher wrote:Backline is ok, tight five ok (other than Hartley) but hate the back-row.

how is the backline ok?

Four fuckin locks in the squad. Handling skills in the starting XV limited. Its a territory team, but why should I be surprised......but it's really not a direction I'm totally happy with.

Haha, I know what you mean. I wouldn't pick that backline but it's so Eddie and was always going to happen so not a complete shocker, Lawes at 6 though is.

Te'o is quality, I'd be shocked if we're not saying on Sunday evening that he played well.

Don't like Brown at 15 and don't like 10/12 but he was always going to pick as he has.

Warrior85 wrote:Has Joseph been playing so badly that his form is worse than a guy who hasn't played for months and was average at best before that??

JJ hasnt been great. I dont mind Te'o. He's looked good for England when given a chance and i'm happy to see him get a start.
Youngs is lucky to start and Hartley is overdue paying Eddie back for his loyalty.
Bit disappointed Williams doesnt get a start but not unexpected.
Lawes at 6.....well......

Timbo wrote:

Warrior85 wrote:Has Joseph been playing so badly that his form is worse than a guy who hasn't played for months and was average at best before that??

I think Joseph has been playing pretty well tbh. But Eddie thinks that we need more power in the backline.

I don’t imagine Eddie cares particularly how Te’o was doing at Worcester.

He definitely doesn't care how he was doing at Worcester. He hasn't done anything at all in Worcester for months!

fivepointer wrote: JJ hasnt been great.

But he has been the best back for a few seasons, so if he's not been great and can be dropped it rather suggests he shouldn't be the only one making way

Ffs.

I hope May and, particularly, Watson have a good pair of gloves.
Given that Underhill is fit, are we now to assume Lawtoje and Robshaw are the preferred flanking option if Haskell is unavailable or does Jones see a backrow with both Simmonds and Underhill as too raw.

As for Teo v Joseph, didn’t Jones do this last year against Italy only for Joseph to play in every other match?

Mellsblue wrote:Ffs.

I hope May and, particularly, Watson have a good pair of gloves.
Given that Underhill is fit, are we now to assume Lawtoje and Robshaw are the preferred flanking option if Haskell is unavailable or does Jones see a backrow with both Simmonds and Underhill as too raw.

As for Teo v Joseph, didn’t Jones do this last year against Italy only for Joseph to play in every other match?

Has Underhill done enough though anyway? I know he was hyped to high heaven but other than great defence I haven't been blown away to be honest. The Currys both look better to me at this point and I'd prefer Kvesic or even Simmonds at 7 (dependent on the 6 and 8) I think.

How the fuck are our flanking options so poor that we have Lawes and Robshaw at 6 or 7? It's beyond me.

TheDasher wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Ffs.

I hope May and, particularly, Watson have a good pair of gloves.
Given that Underhill is fit, are we now to assume Lawtoje and Robshaw are the preferred flanking option if Haskell is unavailable or does Jones see a backrow with both Simmonds and Underhill as too raw.

As for Teo v Joseph, didn’t Jones do this last year against Italy only for Joseph to play in every other match?

Has Underhill done enough though anyway? I know he was hyped to high heaven but other than great defence I haven't been blown away to be honest. The Currys both look better to me at this point and I'd prefer Kvesic or even Simmonds at 7 (dependent on the 6 and 8) I think.

How the fuck are our flanking options so poor that we have Lawes and Robshaw at 6 or 7? It's beyond me.

My point isn’t really that Underhill is the saviour*. It’s either that he’s not the saviour after being touted as such by Jones or that he’s so poorly thought of that a lock at 6 and a 6 at 7 is preferable to him at 7 and a 6 at 6.

*6N hyperbole clause invoked.

Timbo wrote:

Warrior85 wrote:Has Joseph been playing so badly that his form is worse than a guy who hasn't played for months and was average at best before that??

I think Joseph has been playing pretty well tbh. But Eddie thinks that we need more power in the backline.

I don’t imagine Eddie cares particularly how Te’o was doing at Worcester.

Its carrying generally I'd say.

TheDasher wrote:

Banquo wrote:

TheDasher wrote:Backline is ok, tight five ok (other than Hartley) but hate the back-row.

how is the backline ok?

Four fuckin locks in the squad. Handling skills in the starting XV limited. Its a territory team, but why should I be surprised......but it's really not a direction I'm totally happy with.

Haha, I know what you mean. I wouldn't pick that backline but it's so Eddie and was always going to happen so not a complete shocker, Lawes at 6 though is.

Te'o is quality, I'd be shocked if we're not saying on Sunday evening that he played well.

Don't like Brown at 15 and don't like 10/12 but he was always going to pick as he has.

I'd be surprised if Teo lasted that long, given he hasn't played in forever. I like Teo, but as a 12. That's a shitty, ill-balanced backline imo.

I'm not a fan of that backrow, but it's a compromise. Eddie obviously sees playing Underwood and Simmonds in the same backrow as just too inexperienced.

Youngs > Care seems wrong, but in keeping.

Slap in the face for JJ, but I guess Eddie has earned our trust for man-management. I still don't understand accusations that he has quiet games, I can only presume that the come from people who only office defence when it fails. Maybe he's just one of those player (for some) who value is only noticed by his absence?

I don't see the wings getting much ball, let alone in any space. Fax* doesn't have the best mis-pass, whilst Te'o is far more interested in popping the ball out of a tackle rather than passing the ball further out. come on, don't disappoint me...

I don't really see the point of JJ AND Nowell on the bench. Granted, with Farrell, Te'o and Watson all starting, then all positions are covered. Would seem the perfect opportunity to give Earl a shot.


* Yes, I saw this typo, but i quite like it for an out-of-date player with slow service, but can still do the job in a crunch

Mellsblue wrote:Ffs.

I hope May and, particularly, Watson have a good pair of gloves.
Given that Underhill is fit, are we now to assume Lawtoje and Robshaw are the preferred flanking option if Haskell is unavailable or does Jones see a backrow with both Simmonds and Underhill as too raw.

As for Teo v Joseph, didn’t Jones do this last year against Italy only for Joseph to play in every other match?

yes, so its likely just to see what shape Teo is in for the rest of the 6N

But FFS

Which Tyler wrote:I'm not a fan of that backrow, but it's a compromise. Eddie obviously sees playing Underwood and Simmonds in the same backrow as just too inexperienced.

Youngs > Care seems wrong, but in keeping.

Slap in the face for JJ, but I guess Eddie has earned our trust for man-management. I still don't understand accusations that he has quiet games, I can only presume that the come from people who only office defence when it fails. Maybe he's just one of those player (for some) who value is only noticed by his absence?

I don't see the wings getting much ball, let alone in any space. Fax doesn't have the best mis-pass, whilst Te'o is far more interested in popping the ball out of a tackle rather than passing the ball further out. come on, don't disappoint me...

I don't really see the point of JJ AND Nowell on the bench. Granted, with Farrell, Te'o and Watson all starting, then all positions are covered. Would seem the perfect opportunity to give Earl a shot.

That's no compromise. It basically shows that we're ignoring the breakdown again. So Eddie is going for wins rather than building a team that can challenge NZ. Which is wrong.

Against Italy, it will win. Against Ireland, it will struggle. Against NZ, it will be dry humped. No matter what is going on in the AP, we cannot ignore the breakdown.

Banquo wrote:

TheDasher wrote:

Banquo wrote: how is the backline ok?

Four fuckin locks in the squad. Handling skills in the starting XV limited. Its a territory team, but why should I be surprised......but it's really not a direction I'm totally happy with.

Haha, I know what you mean. I wouldn't pick that backline but it's so Eddie and was always going to happen so not a complete shocker, Lawes at 6 though is.

Te'o is quality, I'd be shocked if we're not saying on Sunday evening that he played well.

Don't like Brown at 15 and don't like 10/12 but he was always going to pick as he has.

I'd be surprised if Teo lasted that long, given he hasn't played in forever. I like Teo, but as a 12. That's a shitty, ill-balanced backline imo.

I prefer him as a 12 too definitely but he has also played extremely well at 13, he can certainly do his stuff there too.

Stom wrote:That's no compromise. It basically shows that we're ignoring the breakdown again. So Eddie is going for wins rather than building a team that can challenge NZ. Which is wrong.

Against Italy, it will win. Against Ireland, it will struggle. Against NZ, it will be dry humped. No matter what is going on in the AP, we cannot ignore the breakdown.

TheDasher wrote:I prefer him as a 12 too definitely but he has also played extremely well at 13, he can certainly do his stuff there too.

He can certainly play 13, but for England he's more needed at 12.
At 13, he'll be buying space/time for Farrell to carry the ball, and be relying on May to read his running lines.
At 12, he'd be buying space/time for Ford to carry the ball / delay his decision, and be relying on JJ to read his running lines.
Hell, buying that time for Farrell at 10, with JJ outside would be better than this way around IMO

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:I'm not a fan of that backrow, but it's a compromise. Eddie obviously sees playing Underwood and Simmonds in the same backrow as just too inexperienced.

That's no compromise. It basically shows that we're ignoring the breakdown again. So Eddie is going for wins rather than building a team that can challenge NZ. Which is wrong.

Against Italy, it will win. Against Ireland, it will struggle. Against NZ, it will be dry humped. No matter what is going on in the AP, we cannot ignore the breakdown.

QFT.

My only hope is that Simmonds's presence at the breakdown will make that work better than it did against Samoa (or against France or Wales or any of the other times that Lawshaw has been selected on the flanks). But you are absolutely right - that back row will grunt through Italy, look pained against Ireland and be laughed at by NZ.

I appreciate that BCurry is still very light and is a growing lad, but surely it's better to take a punt on a future talent and have a proper back row, rather than this abortion of an effort that will be a success only by Robshaw and Simmonds frantically scrambling to cover the flank work while Itoje, Launchbury and Lawes all attempt to make up a third back row between them.

I haven't even got the energy to be annoyed at Te'o at 13; it's not like we'll be getting good ball anyway, so it's somewhat irrelevant who the backs are.

Puja

Which Tyler wrote:

TheDasher wrote:I prefer him as a 12 too definitely but he has also played extremely well at 13, he can certainly do his stuff there too.

He can certainly play 13, but for England he's more needed at 12.
At 13, he'll be buying space/time for Farrell to carry the ball, and be relying on May to read his running lines.
At 12, he'd be buying space/time for Ford to carry the ball / delay his decision, and be relying on JJ to read his running lines.
Hell, buying that time for Farrell at 10, with JJ outside would be better than this way around IMO

Agreed. But as shown, the Ford/Farrell axis is absolutely key to how our attack runs, rightly or (imo) wrongly. Of course should either get crocked early on, plan B, whatever that is, will be invoked

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:I'm not a fan of that backrow, but it's a compromise. Eddie obviously sees playing Underwood and Simmonds in the same backrow as just too inexperienced.

That's no compromise. It basically shows that we're ignoring the breakdown again. So Eddie is going for wins rather than building a team that can challenge NZ. Which is wrong.

Against Italy, it will win. Against Ireland, it will struggle. Against NZ, it will be dry humped. No matter what is going on in the AP, we cannot ignore the breakdown.

QFT.

My only hope is that Simmonds's presence at the breakdown will make that work better than it did against Samoa (or against France or Wales or any of the other times that Lawshaw has been selected on the flanks). But you are absolutely right - that back row will grunt through Italy, look pained against Ireland and be laughed at by NZ.

I appreciate that BCurry is still very light and is a growing lad, but surely it's better to take a punt on a future talent and have a proper back row, rather than this abortion of an effort that will be a success only by Robshaw and Simmonds frantically scrambling to cover the flank work while Itoje, Launchbury and Lawes all attempt to make up a third back row between them.

I haven't even got the energy to be annoyed at Te'o at 13; it's not like we'll be getting good ball anyway, so it's somewhat irrelevant who the backs are.

Puja

If you go down the route that we will be getting shyte ball, I suppose you have to applaud selecting Teo!

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:I'm not a fan of that backrow, but it's a compromise. Eddie obviously sees playing Underwood and Simmonds in the same backrow as just too inexperienced.

That's no compromise. It basically shows that we're ignoring the breakdown again. So Eddie is going for wins rather than building a team that can challenge NZ. Which is wrong.

Against Italy, it will win. Against Ireland, it will struggle. Against NZ, it will be dry humped. No matter what is going on in the AP, we cannot ignore the breakdown.

QFT.

My only hope is that Simmonds's presence at the breakdown will make that work better than it did against Samoa (or against France or Wales or any of the other times that Lawshaw has been selected on the flanks). But you are absolutely right - that back row will grunt through Italy, look pained against Ireland and be laughed at by NZ.

I appreciate that BCurry is still very light and is a growing lad, but surely it's better to take a punt on a future talent and have a proper back row, rather than this abortion of an effort that will be a success only by Robshaw and Simmonds frantically scrambling to cover the flank work while Itoje, Launchbury and Lawes all attempt to make up a third back row between them.

I haven't even got the energy to be annoyed at Te'o at 13; it's not like we'll be getting good ball anyway, so it's somewhat irrelevant who the backs are.

Puja

At least Eddie has chosen Launch over Kruis considering the lack of an extra flanker. Be interesting to see how our fringe defense works, though. Robshaw likely to have his work cut out again...

great to see T'eo back in an England shirt, though with the wrong number on his back.

As the limiting 10/12 axis cannot be broken (pick one, dump the other Eddie!!), then JJ misses out.

Could have done with LCD in the 2 shirt to help that back row out at the breakdown.

p/d wrote:great to see T'eo back in an England shirt, though with the wrong number on his back.

As the limiting 10/12 axis cannot be broken (pick one, dump the other Eddie!!), then JJ misses out.

Could have done with LCD in the 2 shirt to help that back row out at the breakdown.

I guess even LCD couldn't miss 3 locks. But it would be nice to see how he goes in the loose with the big boys

I'm not surprised by any of the selections. It's not the XV I would have picked but it was the one I expected from Eddie.

For some reason he has gone off JJ and while some disagreed with me I said a while back that I thought Eddie had Slade ahead. With him injured, T'eo is no surprise.

As for the back-row, this trio was always going to happen, IMO, with Billy and Hughes out. Robshaw is actually a far better 7 (even at the breakdown) than many give him credit for. Lawes is improving all the time at 6 and should not be condemned for last season's performances. I like the 2nd row and Lawes's presence in the line-out.

The weakest area of the team remains the 9/10/12 axis but Eddie is set on it. He had the chance to start Care/Farrell/T'eo, for example. I would have done.

Oakboy wrote:I'm not surprised by any of the selections. It's not the XV I would have picked but it was the one I expected from Eddie.

For some reason he has gone off JJ and while some disagreed with me I said a while back that I thought Eddie had Slade ahead. With him injured, T'eo is no surprise.

As for the back-row, this trio was always going to happen, IMO, with Billy and Hughes out. Robshaw is actually a far better 7 (even at the breakdown) than many give him credit for. Lawes is improving all the time at 6 and should not be condemned for last season's performances. I like the 2nd row and Lawes's presence in the line-out.

The weakest area of the team remains the 9/10/12 axis but Eddie is set on it. He had the chance to start Care/Farrell/T'eo, for example. I would have done.

I certainly agreed that JJ was hanging on by his fingernails, but not much evidence that Slade was ahead.

The weakest area of the team is the back three of the scrum. Two are definitely not in their best positions.