RugbyRebels

Actually I think the turning point was where you said not to go too early and I said that I wanted to gloat while I could in case I didn't get to later.

Foresight.

Puja

Puja wrote:Actually I think the turning point was where you said not to go too early and I said that I wanted to gloat while I could in case I didn't get to later.

Foresight.

Puja

already rolled the dice, and fate sh*t on you

If we get whitewashed, we'll see the excremental approach (with due deference to Digby's thread) from the Blazers - in other words, the shoight will hit the fan - and Eddie'll probably emerge with a fat cheque and a grin like a Cheshire cat.

So what are the odds now on the whitewash?
Eddie's head must surely be for rolling if they lose at Newlands.

If we lose again next week, I wouldn’t be massively surprised if he has a huge meltdown and walks/reaches a compromise agreement ...

I went in to these tests in support of EJ, and definitely not expecting myself to want him gone, but nothing is changing…

We still can't build pressure
We still can't handle pressure on us
We still give away silly penalties
We still don't get the support of the ref
We still have players out of position

Sigh

Renniks wrote:I went in to these tests in support of EJ, and definitely not expecting myself to want him gone, but nothing is changing…

We still can't build pressure
We still can't handle pressure on us
We still give away silly penalties
We still don't get the support of the ref
We still have players out of position

Sigh

His choice of Farrell as captain is baffling. It's possible that he's a very good leader of men and good at rousing the troops (not really evident on this tour, but maybe), but a large part of captaincy is liaising with the ref and Farrell just can't do that. The bit where he went to Poite to complain about SA players asking for yellow cards, after Poite had literally just dealt with the South African players for asking for yellow cards, was breathtaking. Rude, completely unnecessary, without any potential positive impact that I could see, and well deserving of Poite's sardonic, "Yes Owen, thank you for your opinion."

And it's not even like that behaviour is something that comes as a surprise now that he's been made captain - Fazlet has always rubbed refs up the wrong way. What Eddie might call straight-talking, blunt Wiganer truth-telling, everyone else interprets as being a twat. So why keep pushing Farrell as captain when he clearly doesn't have one of the major skills for it?

Puja

Puja wrote:
His choice of Farrell as captain is baffling. It's possible that he's a very good leader of men and good at rousing the troops (not really evident on this tour, but maybe), but a large part of captaincy is liaising with the ref and Farrell just can't do that. The bit where he went to Poite to complain about SA players asking for yellow cards, after Poite had literally just dealt with the South African players for asking for yellow cards, was breathtaking. Rude, completely unnecessary, without any potential positive impact that I could see, and well deserving of Poite's sardonic, "Yes Owen, thank you for your opinion."

And it's not even like that behaviour is something that comes as a surprise now that he's been made captain - Fazlet has always rubbed refs up the wrong way. What Eddie might call straight-talking, blunt Wiganer truth-telling, everyone else interprets as being a twat. So why keep pushing Farrell as captain when he clearly doesn't have one of the major skills for it?

Puja

It's amazing how someone can make Hartley look like a great captain choice isn't it…

I liked the bit where Farrell had decided to take out de Klerk but Pote was right there so he just kind of did it in slow motion. I can’t temember if he even called it. Maybe Piotr was just too shocked.

Problem is he made Farrell a vice captain so it was inevitable that he would promote him when Hartley wasnt available. Far from making him play better, the captaincy seems to be bringing out the worst in him. Pressure no doubt, but he's not setting the right tone with refs, or playing in a way that inspires those around him.
Still think nothing is going to happen to Eddie until later in the year, and then only if we have a dreadful autumn.
For now, he can say we are building depth with a much depleted squad. Unless we wants out - which he may if the atmosphere is poor - then i think the RFU will sit tight.
Lose badly at home with a mostly full strength side, then things get racheted up by several degrees.

Banquo wrote:

Peat wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:What is a ‘Pollyanna’? I’ve seen it a few times and got the gist of it without really knowing what it is ...

An excessively optimistic person, to the point of delusion.

The sort of person who'd post this:

Puja wrote:So, out of interest, what does happen if we get whitewashed?

Puja

That post was the jinxy turning point #justsaying

Absolutely - this should not be forgotten.

fivepointer wrote:Problem is he made Farrell a vice captain so it was inevitable that he would promote him when Hartley wasnt available. Far from making him play better, the captaincy seems to be bringing out the worst in him. Pressure no doubt, but he's not setting the right tone with refs, or playing in a way that inspires those around him.
Still think nothing is going to happen to Eddie until later in the year, and then only if we have a dreadful autumn.
For now, he can say we are building depth with a much depleted squad. Unless we wants out - which he may if the atmosphere is poor - then i think the RFU will sit tight.
Lose badly at home with a mostly full strength side, then things get racheted up by several degrees.

The trouble is there are always players missing. It must be about par for at least 4 of the 1st choice 23 to unavailable on any match day. 'Much depleted' is not much of a defence really.

With Mako, Billy and Genge on the way home, you could argue that it’s ‘much depleted’ now, but I don’t know how much weight that argument holds for the first two tests. We were missing probably 4-5 players from the regular starting XV (Hartley, Cole, Lawes, Joseph and Watson). However, most of us wanted Hartley and Cole rested anyway and it’s definitely debatable who is first choice out of Launchbury vs. Lawes.

From a match day 23 point of view, losing the option of Lawes or Kruis on the bench is really the only major change. Arguably, Spencer/Robson are improvements over Care on recent form and the other regular bench options are they.

As Oakboy said, it’s quite normal to be missing circa 4 players so it’s not an excuse.

Scrumhead wrote:With Mako, Billy and Genge on the way home, you could argue that it’s ‘much depleted’ now, but I don’t know how much weight that argument holds for the first two tests. We were missing probably 4-5 players from the regular starting XV (Hartley, Cole, Lawes, Joseph and Watson). However, most of us wanted Hartley and Cole rested anyway and it’s definitely debatable who is first choice out of Launchbury vs. Lawes.

From a match day 23 point of view, losing the option of Lawes or Kruis on the bench is really the only major change. Arguably, Spencer/Robson are improvements over Care on recent form and the other regular bench options are they.

As Oakboy said, it’s quite normal to be missing circa 4 players so it’s not an excuse.

agreed. Eddie to moan about being so depleted going into this game is so much bollocks; though you could add Nowell in I suppose. If he'd have said most of my gun players in the forwards are sha55ed out, then fair enough.

He said he was missing 25 players in the post match interview. Nobody has won the tenner up for grabs by naming them all.

The title of this thread sums things up. 10 matches ago it was inconceivable to even consider a whitewash. Arguably, it was inconceivable to consider a series defeat. Now, it's just depressing to think SA are favourites to win 3-0.


We may not be as good as we thought/hoped but for certain we should not be as bad as the two matches so far indicate. I've reached the stage where I'm feeling sorry for the players (most of them, anyway).

Oakboy wrote: I've reached the stage where I'm feeling sorry for the players (most of them, anyway).

I'm starting to feel sorry for you, I can't remember the last time you posted anything actually positive!

Renniks wrote:

Oakboy wrote: I've reached the stage where I'm feeling sorry for the players (most of them, anyway).

I'm starting to feel sorry for you, I can't remember the last time you posted anything actually positive!

Your sympathy is appreciated. I'd much rather be praising but it's bloody difficult. Positives:

From Saturday: May, Daly, Brown and Cipriani all showed attacking class. Launchbury's solidity (and therefore Itoje's game improved as a result). Curry looks a prospect. So I can find something to like about 6 of the starting XV. I'd love to add Slade but he is now in JJ's position whereby he gets hardly any useful ball outside of Youngs/Ford/Farrell.

I've really tried, for your sake, to find one single positive factor about any of the preparation/coaching but I can't.

Care to add?

Oakboy wrote:

Renniks wrote:

Oakboy wrote: I've reached the stage where I'm feeling sorry for the players (most of them, anyway).

I'm starting to feel sorry for you, I can't remember the last time you posted anything actually positive!

Your sympathy is appreciated. I'd much rather be praising but it's bloody difficult. Positives:

From Saturday: May, Daly, Brown and Cipriani all showed attacking class. Launchbury's solidity (and therefore Itoje's game improved as a result). Curry looks a prospect. So I can find something to like about 6 of the starting XV. I'd love to add Slade but he is now in JJ's position whereby he gets hardly any useful ball outside of Youngs/Ford/Farrell.

I've really tried, for your sake, to find one single positive factor about any of the preparation/coaching but I can't.

Care to add?

Ford has shown attacking class in both tests.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Renniks wrote:
I'm starting to feel sorry for you, I can't remember the last time you posted anything actually positive!

Your sympathy is appreciated. I'd much rather be praising but it's bloody difficult. Positives:

From Saturday: May, Daly, Brown and Cipriani all showed attacking class. Launchbury's solidity (and therefore Itoje's game improved as a result). Curry looks a prospect. So I can find something to like about 6 of the starting XV. I'd love to add Slade but he is now in JJ's position whereby he gets hardly any useful ball outside of Youngs/Ford/Farrell.

I've really tried, for your sake, to find one single positive factor about any of the preparation/coaching but I can't.

Care to add?

Ford has shown attacking class in both tests.

I can't deny it but he's the general. There should be more from a quality FH running the show. The cross-field kicks are symptomatic, IMO. Call it hiding or an inferiority complex perhaps. I think he's a classy player but he's nowhere near his best over 80 minutes. The trouble is that he has a glorious pass and it seems wrong to criticise somehow. I think Cipriani is a far better FH and, if he has to play with Farrell at 12, he won't be overawed as I think Ford is.

Mellsblue wrote:He said he was missing 25 players in the post match interview. Nobody has won the tenner up for grabs by naming them all.

Ooh, let's try:

Obano
Hartley
Taylor
Cole
Lawes
Kruis
Ewels
Haskell
Underhill
Care
Tuilagi
Te'o
Joseph
Nowell
Watson
Marchant
Simmonds
? OK, I'm stumped already...

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:He said he was missing 25 players in the post match interview. Nobody has won the tenner up for grabs by naming them all.

Ooh, let's try:

Obano
Hartley
Taylor
Cole
Lawes
Kruis
Ewels
Haskell
Underhill
Care
Tuilagi
Te'o
Joseph
Nowell
Watson
Marchant
Simmonds
? OK, I'm stumped already...

Wasn't Spencer listed as missing? Also Rokoduguni. Don't know whether Mullan was injured and counts, or just omitted.

Dunn, Rokoduguni, Wiggy, Spencer.......

Doesnt make 25 and some are a bit of a stretch but there are players missing who would have seriously elevated the overall quality of the squad.

fivepointer wrote:Dunn, Rokoduguni, Wiggy, Spencer.......

Doesnt make 25 and some are a bit of a stretch but there are players missing who would have seriously elevated the overall quality of the squad.

If Jones could have had all the names from Stom's list who would he have picked to start the 1st test? Lawes, Watson and Hartley? That's three and most on here prefer George to Hartley anyway.

A fully fit Tuilagi would challenge but will it ever happen?

JJ was mentally shagged ages ago by playing outside Farrell.

Cole? Posters were calling for his head.

T'eo? Jones did not previously see him as the answer at 12.

Mellsblue wrote:He said he was missing 25 players in the post match interview. Nobody has won the tenner up for grabs by naming them all.

Not available for selection:
Danny Care (Harlequins)
Jack Clifford (Harlequins)
Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers)
Tom Dunn (Bath Rugby)
Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby)
Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints)
James Haskell (Wasps)
Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby)
George Kruis (Saracens)
Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints)
Alex Lewington (London Irish)
Harry Mallinder (Northampton Saints)
Joe Marchant (Harlequins)
Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs)
Beno Obano (Bath Rugby)
Cameron Redpath (Sale Sharks)
Semesa Rokoduguni (Bath Rugby)
Will Spencer (Worcester Warriors)
Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors)
Manu Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers)
Sam Underhill (Bath Rugby)
Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby)
Richard Wigglesworth (Saracens)
Jack Willis (Wasps)

You can add Genge to that as he appears to have been injured for the whole time, and therefore brings it upto 25. Or we can say Launch for the first, Genge for the second, now both Vunipolas etc.

Can I have my tenner now?

As for who could be argued in.

Hartley, Cole, Kruis/Lawes, Underhill/Willis/Haskell, Care, Watson/Nowell, Teo, Joseph

I make that 8 who'd get into Eddie's 23 I suspect (even with some options).

Then those that could come into consideration with those in front that are out would be, Obano, Lawes/Kruis, Underhill/Willis/Haskell, Watson/Nowell.

So arguably 13 players that could have been in the 23 in front of those actually selected?