RugbyRebels

At least there’s something interesting going on there. Tuilagi has magically learned how to play 13 under Jones then? I don’t think Farrell at 12 is the answer but it gets Ford on the pitch and there’s at least some semblance of balance in the midfield axis. It could be absolutely hilarious in defence though.

I wonder how EJ is viewing Slade v Joseph at the moment. Is Slade’s versatility a plus? Is he actually even versatile? Hasn’t played 10 for years. Actually quite like him at fullback but surely Watson will be in the mix somewhere?

Shame we’re going to concede 50 though as the flankers are wearing the wrong numbers.

True, but last time they were paired-up he was de facto attack coach so having proper input can’t hurt.

It's obvious what will happen early in the second half. Francis and Joseph will come on for Tuilagi and Ford. Farrell will move to 10 no matter what the state of the game.

The team is Ok apart from Farrell at 12 though I think Launchbury is unlucky if this means he is only 4th choice lock.

Of course, one unintended consequence and the odd injury in a few games time could see Slade at 12 and Tuilagi at 13, my favourite centre pairing.

Won’t happen. Eddie loves a good reshuffle and doesn’t view Slade as a 12.

Oakboy wrote:Launchbury is unlucky if this means he is only 4th choice lock

Was this ever in doubt?

Throw Slade and an injured Farrell into the mix and I'm not sure I could cope with the excitement.

Beasties wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Launchbury is unlucky if this means he is only 4th choice lock

Was this ever in doubt?

Throw Slade and an injured Farrell into the mix and I'm not sure I could cope with the excitement.

I can't decide if I'd rather lose the RWC with Ford (which, in my view, has a much higher chance of us winning it)
or with Farrell (which, would reduce the whinging compared to if he isn't picked)

Beasties wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Launchbury is unlucky if this means he is only 4th choice lock

Was this ever in doubt?

No, not with Jones, but he'd be my 1st name on the team sheet and captain.

Oakboy wrote:

Beasties wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Launchbury is unlucky if this means he is only 4th choice lock

Was this ever in doubt?

No, not with Jones, but he'd be my 1st name on the team sheet and captain.

I really like Launch (though I think he peaked under Burt and has lost the mobility and fetching skills of that period ) - both him, Kruis and Ewels do come across as a bit too quiet/emoliant/cuddly though imo - don’t think oppo packs fear them - to an extent same can be said about Itoje (despite his on pitch gurning) - of our locks arguably only Lawes has some ‘tough nastiness’ aura about his play.

jngf wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Beasties wrote: Was this ever in doubt?

No, not with Jones, but he'd be my 1st name on the team sheet and captain.

I really like Launch (though I think he peaked under Burt and has lost the mobility and fetching skills of that period ) - both him, Kruis and Ewels do come across as a bit too quiet/emoliant/cuddly though imo - don’t think oppo packs fear them - to an extent same can be said about Itoje (despite his on pitch gurning) - of our locks arguably only Lawes has some ‘tough nastiness’ aura about his play.

I think Itoje or Lawes provide sufficient 2nd row aggression. To balance that we need composure, a smart rugby brain and the ability to do the right thing at the right time. IMO, we have seen that from Launchbury in the two Wales matches as far as his individual contribution is concerned. I'd give him the captaincy so that we got more of the same from the team. It rarely happens under Farrell's or Ford's captaincy. Frankly, a forward captain yelling at SH, FH and FB, "Don't kick the fricking thing," would improve our game no end.

Renniks wrote:

Beasties wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Launchbury is unlucky if this means he is only 4th choice lock

Was this ever in doubt?

Throw Slade and an injured Farrell into the mix and I'm not sure I could cope with the excitement.

I can't decide if I'd rather lose the RWC with Ford (which, in my view, has a much higher chance of us winning it)
or with Farrell (which, would reduce the whinging compared to if he isn't picked)

A dark part of me wants him to cost us the QF match with a red for one of his trademark "tackles" early in the game.

Oakboy wrote:a forward captain yelling at SH, FH and FB, "Don't kick the fricking thing," would improve our game no end.

And how.

I'd rather he get a trademark tackle red in the 78th minute of a pool game, leaving Ford to do amazingly for the rest of the tournament including the final.

Regardless of my distaste for Farrell, can we stop wishing for red cards? That’s just tempting fate more than I’d like.

Scrumhead wrote:Regardless of my distaste for Farrell, can we stop wishing for red cards? That’s just tempting fate more than I’d like.

We're tempting it a lot less than Farrell!

I did say it was a dark part of my psyche.

Seems harsh on Francis who looked the best back over the past two games. Not sure why we can't try a back up 15. In some ways it feels like we're going backwards.

Staggard that Billy is being played again.

McConnachie continues to earn his place.

What is Eddie supposed to do if someone else plays 15 and is good there?

Digby wrote:
I don't know of anyone claiming he's really any sort of carrier, indeed one of the problems is he doesn't especially carry causing them problems when they only have Rob Evans, and perhaps AWJ who do. It seems possible Moriarty can add to his game in this area, but whilst his defence is very powerful his carrying isn't similarly charged. Part of the shame of Faletau being injured is not seeing how Wales tried to include both, they'd want Moriarty setting the physical standard in their defence, but they'd also want what Faletau offers extra in attack, and they can't roll both players into one

This

Danno wrote:Likewise
Can Francis play FB? I don't think I would like to see May covering if Daly tweaks something and goes off early. Can't see anyone else that's played there.
Apart from that I hope Billy is hooked at half time

While it might be an outre suggestion (and overall I think I'd prefer to see May there in the case of injury), didn't Joseph play full-back for a bit for London Irish?

Puja

Peej wrote:Staggard that Billy is being played again.

This x1000

WTF is Eddie thinking?

Part of me thinks he's trying to win every match rather than trying out alternatives. Billy is absolutely vital to our chances in the world cup. We know what he can do and we know what it's like when he's injured.

WaspInWales wrote:

Peej wrote:Staggard that Billy is being played again.

This x1000

WTF is Eddie thinking?

Part of me thinks he's trying to win every match rather than trying out alternatives. Billy is absolutely vital to our chances in the world cup. We know what he can do and we know what it's like when he's injured.

On the flip side, BillyV has always tended to be the kind of player that plays best with a bit of a run up. He's never at his best for Saracens after an injury or at the start of the year until he's had 4/5 games under his belt. I'm praying he doesn't get injured, but three games in three weeks is hardly overworking and if it gets him firing for the RWC, then so much the better.

Puja

Mikey Brown wrote:What is Eddie supposed to do if someone else plays 15 and is good there?

Jones' lack of rotation at 15 is surprising. Obviously Daly is his main man, but he is not an outstanding FB (though he is getting better.) He is though, a top quality wing, as he has shown in the past for England and the Lions. I think Watson could do the job at 15, but if he is the understudy, then Jones should be giving him game time in this slot. I would not be concerned with his less than stellar performances at 15 in the past since I think he has improved all aspects of his play in the back three since.
Still think the most potent back three for England could be Watson (FB) May/Daly (wings) - I doubt there would be a faster trio in world rugby.
All of that said, if Jones is looking for a tough nut, safety-first FB who can defend and still run a bit, Mike Brown would still be someone to consider. The ultra competitor with an abrasive edge. But he's out of the squad.

Puja wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Peej wrote:Staggard that Billy is being played again.

This x1000

WTF is Eddie thinking?

Part of me thinks he's trying to win every match rather than trying out alternatives. Billy is absolutely vital to our chances in the world cup. We know what he can do and we know what it's like when he's injured.

On the flip side, BillyV has always tended to be the kind of player that plays best with a bit of a run up. He's never at his best for Saracens after an injury or at the start of the year until he's had 4/5 games under his belt. I'm praying he doesn't get injured, but three games in three weeks is hardly overworking and if it gets him firing for the RWC, then so much the better.

Puja

Ideally you would want everyone in the squad to play 2/3 times before they arrive in Japan. Billy is getting 3 games on the trot, but i'd be astonished if he isn't stood down for the final run out against Italy. He'll have 4 weeks to recover after the weekend. I fail to see why this schedule is thought to be in any way excessive or unreasonable.

fivepointer wrote:

Puja wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:
This x1000

WTF is Eddie thinking?

Part of me thinks he's trying to win every match rather than trying out alternatives. Billy is absolutely vital to our chances in the world cup. We know what he can do and we know what it's like when he's injured.

On the flip side, BillyV has always tended to be the kind of player that plays best with a bit of a run up. He's never at his best for Saracens after an injury or at the start of the year until he's had 4/5 games under his belt. I'm praying he doesn't get injured, but three games in three weeks is hardly overworking and if it gets him firing for the RWC, then so much the better.

Puja

Ideally you would want everyone in the squad to play 2/3 times before they arrive in Japan. Billy is getting 3 games on the trot, but i'd be astonished if he isn't stood down for the final run out against Italy. He'll have 4 weeks to recover after the weekend. I fail to see why this schedule is thought to be in any way excessive or unreasonable.

Well indeed...

Scrumhead wrote:Regardless of my distaste for Farrell, can we stop wishing for red cards? That’s just tempting fate more than I’d like.

Can we replace a player cited out of the WC?

If so, losing Farrell to a ban in the pool stages would seem our best shot if winning the thing.

fivepointer wrote:

Puja wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:
This x1000

WTF is Eddie thinking?

Part of me thinks he's trying to win every match rather than trying out alternatives. Billy is absolutely vital to our chances in the world cup. We know what he can do and we know what it's like when he's injured.

On the flip side, BillyV has always tended to be the kind of player that plays best with a bit of a run up. He's never at his best for Saracens after an injury or at the start of the year until he's had 4/5 games under his belt. I'm praying he doesn't get injured, but three games in three weeks is hardly overworking and if it gets him firing for the RWC, then so much the better.

Puja

Ideally you would want everyone in the squad to play 2/3 times before they arrive in Japan. Billy is getting 3 games on the trot, but i'd be astonished if he isn't stood down for the final run out against Italy. He'll have 4 weeks to recover after the weekend. I fail to see why this schedule is thought to be in any way excessive or unreasonable.

And, even if he does play the Italy game, he will have had a week to recuperate, with then another two weeks before the first RWC game. Obviously more games is more statistical chances to get freak injured, but I don't think we're wearing him down with this schedule.

Puja