RugbyRebels

Gloskarlos wrote:I’m not sure you can be that harsh on Ludlow. A lot on his shoulders, made no mistakes and led the defensive line throughout. A stark difference in that aspect when he went off, shape deteriorated noticeably. Full back went well, thought Genge had a decent game, but errors all over the park made for a frustrating afternoon. No momentum gained.

That fact we played most of the game with two pairs of half backs on the pitch also speaks volumes

Perhaps making him captain on his debut wasnt the best move?

Hard to judge with the changes in the backline and the revolving door that was Umaga. I lost count of the missed tackles. Starting pack all went well. Locks the least impactful. Replacement in the pack were mixed. Balmire with equal good and bad. Backrow replacement all put themselves about.

Very scrappy all round though. A little trying to hard and rustiness. Lots of little mistakes stunting play and then some lovely little touches in there.

A note on Andrew Brace. He was genuinely awful. How on Earth he referees local club rugby let alone internationals is beyond me. A staggering performance.

Sounds like I didn’t miss much. I would have thought Steward would go to wing with Umaga at fullback but he went to 12 with Lawrence on the wing?

Worth a full watch back or just highlights?

Mikey Brown wrote:Sounds like I didn’t miss much. I would have thought Steward would go to wing with Umaga at fullback but he went to 12 with Lawrence on the wing?

Worth a full watch back or just highlights?

Full watch. You need the context for the highlights.

Steward was used to cover a lot of the backfield so the wingers could push up. Given that Umaga repeatedly showed he couldn't tackle or more amazingly beat a man (something he's normally excellent at) it was best he wasn't the last line of defence and fielding kicks. Steward also looked to the manor born, very confident display converted a two on one into a try with text book play and then grubbered through for Cockasiga to score.

Mikey Brown wrote:Sounds like I didn’t miss much. I would have thought Steward would go to wing with Umaga at fullback but he went to 12 with Lawrence on the wing?

Worth a full watch back or just highlights?

Or neither.

Was dire.

USA were rubbish, I have no idea how EP can say the pack did well...both Randall and Smith made half breaks not far from the pack yet were not supported at all and were turned over. I'm loathe to blame them there, as they'd expect to be supported at club level and, well, internationals are meant to be a step up.

Both locks were awful, they might as well not been playing.
Underhill got around, the other 2...well, where were they?

But talking of "where was he", where the hell was Slade? I mean, talk about invisible man. And he was the senior member of that backline..

No way he should play next week. Marchant deserves his spot on merit. We're also not going to learn anything with that lock pairing, so I'd ditch them both and if that means Ted Hill needs to play lock, Ted Hill needs to play lock. Even if he wasn't great, either.

Umaga was awful. The best thing about Ludlam was his hair. The hookers were fine. Heyes was good. Coka needs gametime and some confidence, but showed flashes.

Randall is very alert, I like the look of him. Smith struggled to adapt to the players around him not doing what he would expect, I felt, but still had some good moments. Steward was very good, I like the look of him, too.

So yeah, some good, some work-ons, and a pair of god-awfuls.

So question would be how much is it worth aiming for better cohesion next week, with a similar side, rather than just giving ‘the rest’ a go?

It’s frustrating still thinking Slade is going to bring all his talents together and impose himself on games at the top level, but maybe he’s just knackered?

Stom wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Sounds like I didn’t miss much. I would have thought Steward would go to wing with Umaga at fullback but he went to 12 with Lawrence on the wing?

Worth a full watch back or just highlights?

Or neither.

Was dire.

USA were rubbish, I have no idea how EP can say the pack did well...both Randall and Smith made half breaks not far from the pack yet were not supported at all and were turned over. I'm loathe to blame them there, as they'd expect to be supported at club level and, well, internationals are meant to be a step up.

Both locks were awful, they might as well not been playing.
Underhill got around, the other 2...well, where were they?

But talking of "where was he", where the hell was Slade? I mean, talk about invisible man. And he was the senior member of that backline..

No way he should play next week. Marchant deserves his spot on merit. We're also not going to learn anything with that lock pairing, so I'd ditch them both and if that means Ted Hill needs to play lock, Ted Hill needs to play lock. Even if he wasn't great, either.

Umaga was awful. The best thing about Ludlam was his hair. The hookers were fine. Heyes was good. Coka needs gametime and some confidence, but showed flashes.

Randall is very alert, I like the look of him. Smith struggled to adapt to the players around him not doing what he would expect, I felt, but still had some good moments. Steward was very good, I like the look of him, too.

So yeah, some good, some work-ons, and a pair of god-awfuls.

The bit I don't quite follow in this is being kinder about Randall and Smith than some of the forwards when they were all hit and miss. Yes sometimes the forwards let the halfbacks down, but sometimes the halfbacks directed the forwards badly. Granted there's a lack of experience in players and unit at halfback, but that same thing applies at least in part all across the pack too

Also, and perhaps incorrectly, I was much less cross with Slade than some others in our team, arguably if only having less chance to show he could get
things wrong.

The players are probably pretty pleased tbh, they've got the game done, they've got the win, they did some (if not many) good things, and there's plenty of obvious things to correct. And I suppose the game today at least saved me from watching the F1

Mikey Brown wrote:So question would be how much is it worth aiming for better cohesion next week, with a similar side, rather than just giving ‘the rest’ a go?

It’s frustrating still thinking Slade is going to bring all his talents together and impose himself on games at the top level, but maybe he’s just knackered?

I'll note that the USA are a decent group of players with a good coaching setup, who are probably a bit unlucky that they've had less than a week's training time to put together a defence (and then suffered from having to rearrange the backline when Hooley pulled out and then again when Brache went off). Canada are significantly worse than them. We will learn little to nothing about players' qualities or fitness for international rugby from that game.

Whether that lends itself to keeping the same lot for cohesion or making widespread changes to give the rest a go, I don't really know. The result will be the same either way.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:So question would be how much is it worth aiming for better cohesion next week, with a similar side, rather than just giving ‘the rest’ a go?

It’s frustrating still thinking Slade is going to bring all his talents together and impose himself on games at the top level, but maybe he’s just knackered?

I'll note that the USA are a decent group of players with a good coaching setup, who are probably a bit unlucky that they've had less than a week's training time to put together a defence (and then suffered from having to rearrange the backline when Hooley pulled out and then again when Brache went off). Canada are significantly worse than them. We will learn little to nothing about players' qualities or fitness for international rugby from that game.

Whether that lends itself to keeping the same lot for cohesion or making widespread changes to give the rest a go, I don't really know. The result will be the same either way.

Puja

The frightening thing is the scoreline may be similar too!

Imagine shipping 4 tries at home to Canada

Just hope Eddie sets a sensible bench of finishers, nope can't do it...replacements!

There is also given I thought nobody could look good in this game, because it's against a bad set of players who only just met themselves in the USA, it's perhaps as well not a game to worry about being abject in if I was never going to consider doing well really meant anything either

Digby wrote:There is also given I thought nobody could look good in this game, because it's against a bad set of players who only just met themselves in the USA, it's perhaps as well not a game to worry about being abject in if I was never going to consider doing well really meant anything either

The why did it take place Sylvia Plath? The ABs put 102 on a Tongan team bereft of all European-based players and fielding 13 uncapped players. Sam Whitelock had more caps than the combined Tongan team. What is the point of either game? Every single metric comes out in the negative. I think the suits are very fucking out of touch in persisting with these fixtures.

Mikey Brown wrote:Sounds like I didn’t miss much. I would have thought Steward would go to wing with Umaga at fullback but he went to 12 with Lawrence on the wing?

Worth a full watch back or just highlights?

Don't bother. Rotten setup was found out in the first 10. Hope for better next week.

Digby wrote:There is also given I thought nobody could look good in this game, because it's against a bad set of players who only just met themselves in the USA, it's perhaps as well not a game to worry about being abject in if I was never going to consider doing well really meant anything either

I cannot get this to make any sense

Danno wrote:

Digby wrote:There is also given I thought nobody could look good in this game, because it's against a bad set of players who only just met themselves in the USA, it's perhaps as well not a game to worry about being abject in if I was never going to consider doing well really meant anything either

I cannot get this to make any sense

It's a long form alternative to "who gives a fuck". No dis-respeck to players, just, why?

morepork wrote: The why did it take place Sylvia Plath? The ABs put 102 on a Tongan team bereft of all European-based players and fielding 13 uncapped players. Sam Whitelock had more caps than the combined Tongan team. What is the point of either game? Every single metric comes out in the negative. I think the suits are very fucking out of touch in persisting with these fixtures.

Yes. Maybe it's just because they can.

When you're in Matlock Bath,
You don't need Sylvia Plath,
Not while they've got Mrs Gibson's jam.

WaspInWales wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:So question would be how much is it worth aiming for better cohesion next week, with a similar side, rather than just giving ‘the rest’ a go?

It’s frustrating still thinking Slade is going to bring all his talents together and impose himself on games at the top level, but maybe he’s just knackered?

I'll note that the USA are a decent group of players with a good coaching setup, who are probably a bit unlucky that they've had less than a week's training time to put together a defence (and then suffered from having to rearrange the backline when Hooley pulled out and then again when Brache went off). Canada are significantly worse than them. We will learn little to nothing about players' qualities or fitness for international rugby from that game.

Whether that lends itself to keeping the same lot for cohesion or making widespread changes to give the rest a go, I don't really know. The result will be the same either way.

Puja

The frightening thing is the scoreline may be similar too!

Imagine shipping 4 tries at home to Canada

Just hope Eddie sets a sensible bench of finishers, nope can't do it...replacements!

I think there's a bit of overreaction on here. The only players in that England team who weren't third choice or lower were Underhill, Slade, and Malins (and the latter didn't last long). It was an England A game against the USA first XV in everything but name, and no-one particularly cared if England A looked disorganised and conceded a few tries back in the old Churchill Cup.

Puja

Puja wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Puja wrote:
I'll note that the USA are a decent group of players with a good coaching setup, who are probably a bit unlucky that they've had less than a week's training time to put together a defence (and then suffered from having to rearrange the backline when Hooley pulled out and then again when Brache went off). Canada are significantly worse than them. We will learn little to nothing about players' qualities or fitness for international rugby from that game.

Whether that lends itself to keeping the same lot for cohesion or making widespread changes to give the rest a go, I don't really know. The result will be the same either way.

Puja

The frightening thing is the scoreline may be similar too!

Imagine shipping 4 tries at home to Canada

Just hope Eddie sets a sensible bench of finishers, nope can't do it...replacements!

I think there's a bit of overreaction on here. The only players in that England team who weren't third choice or lower were Underhill, Slade, and Malins (and the latter didn't last long). It was an England A game against the USA first XV in everything but name, and no-one particularly cared if England A looked disorganised and conceded a few tries back in the old Churchill Cup.

Puja

And Slade was anonymous.

At least that should be the end of Ewels, who should be stepping up there as a senior player but was totally anonymous, too. I was willing to cut him slack before but he needed to be stepping up in this game and didn’t in the slightest.

I think there's a bit of overreaction on here. The only players in that England team who weren't third choice or lower were Underhill, Slade, and Malins (and the latter didn't last long). It was an England A game against the USA first XV in everything but name, and no-one particularly cared if England A looked disorganised and conceded a few tries back in the old Churchill Cup.

Puja

Yes, this was a seriously weakened England side but i dont think it was unreasonable to expect a higher level of performance than what was produced.
Inevitably the team contained some makeweights who probably wont be in Jones plans after next weekend, but it did contain a number of bright young players who it is hoped we will see a lot more of.
We should have been a lot better and i expect everyone on here thought we would be.

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:
The frightening thing is the scoreline may be similar too!

Imagine shipping 4 tries at home to Canada

Just hope Eddie sets a sensible bench of finishers, nope can't do it...replacements!

I think there's a bit of overreaction on here. The only players in that England team who weren't third choice or lower were Underhill, Slade, and Malins (and the latter didn't last long). It was an England A game against the USA first XV in everything but name, and no-one particularly cared if England A looked disorganised and conceded a few tries back in the old Churchill Cup.

Puja

And Slade was anonymous.

At least that should be the end of Ewels, who should be stepping up there as a senior player but was totally anonymous, too. I was willing to cut him slack before but he needed to be stepping up in this game and didn’t in the slightest.

I don’t rate Ewels, but in normal circumstances is at best 5th choice behind Itoje, Launchbury, Lawes and Hill. 6th if you include Kruis. By definition, 5th choice locks aren’t usually stellar.

We’d all like to have seen whether Ribbans can make a step up to test level and there was every suggestion he would have played, but suspension put paid to that.

If we were to jettison Ewels completely. Who do you bring in? I can’t say there’s anyone obvious that was missed.

Isiekwe is one option but I think that really depends whether he’s playing at 6 or lock. I’m all for trying Ted Hill at lock too, but I’d want him to be playing there regularly for Worcester.

After the injuries we had 8, 9, 10 and 12 all on debut and one out of position. Not surprising there was a lack of cohesion. The only running threats were steward, big Phil and randall. Not surprising we had little penetration and relied on a few magic moments to score. If underhill hadn't been doing an underhill all match it could have been quite different. Slade really needs to have a word with himself if he wants to continue to be an international. Jones needs to stop being a .... His 6:2 split cost him the chance to have a proper look at a few players.

JellyHead wrote: If underhill hadn't been doing an underhill all match it could have been quite different.

Bingo.

Genge - third choice
Langdon - fifth choice maybe? I know Dunn and McGuigan have been ignored, but that's more for developmental reasons. If we were playing a RWC final tomorrow, Langdon would not be third.
Heyes - third/fourth choice, depending on how you rank Harry Williams. Argument to be made for 5th considering he's behind Cole at Leicester.
Ewels - 6th choice lock
McNally - 8th choice lock as Ribbans would've been in
Ludlow - We'll be very generous and say that he's 4th choice based on Eddie obviously liking something about him.
Underhill - first choice
Chick - Again, being generous, we'll say 5th choice
Randall - I'd say he should be second choice, but based on previous Eddie, probably third.
Smith - Third choice
Malins - Probably first choice, but not at wing and barely on the pitch for this game
Lawrence - Third choice
Slade - Second choice
Cokanasiga - Fifth choice wing (argument for him being lower given recent form)
Steward - Fourth choice

This starting XV comes from 9 different clubs - 10 when Umaga comes on early for Malins. In fact, when Umaga comes on, every single one of the backline come from different clubs, not a single unit has ever played together (with Lawrence moving to the wing), the fly-half has only been in camp for a week, and the new 12 hasn't played there since he was 17. There are 8 new caps in the starting XV (9 when Umaga comes on). This is an England A side that have been brought together as a scratch side, in everything but name.

This is versus the USA who, while not having a huge amount of time to prepare, are coming from the middle of their professional season (so are at peak match-fitness) and are playing their first team. They're not a terrible team - probably just below Italy.

I just don't see why people are tearing their hair out over what was ultimately a very comfortable victory for a scratch 3rd XV against a decent T2 side?

Puja

Scrumhead wrote:

Stom wrote:

Puja wrote:

I think there's a bit of overreaction on here. The only players in that England team who weren't third choice or lower were Underhill, Slade, and Malins (and the latter didn't last long). It was an England A game against the USA first XV in everything but name, and no-one particularly cared if England A looked disorganised and conceded a few tries back in the old Churchill Cup.

Puja

And Slade was anonymous.

At least that should be the end of Ewels, who should be stepping up there as a senior player but was totally anonymous, too. I was willing to cut him slack before but he needed to be stepping up in this game and didn’t in the slightest.

I don’t rate Ewels, but in normal circumstances is at best 5th choice behind Itoje, Launchbury, Lawes and Hill. 6th if you include Kruis. By definition, 5th choice locks aren’t usually stellar.

We’d all like to have seen whether Ribbans can make a step up to test level and there was every suggestion he would have played, but suspension put paid to that.

If we were to jettison Ewels completely. Who do you bring in? I can’t say there’s anyone obvious that was missed.

Isiekwe is one option but I think that really depends whether he’s playing at 6 or lock. I’m all for trying Ted Hill at lock too, but I’d want him to be playing there regularly for Worcester.

The concern is that Launchbury, Lawes and Kruis are all over thirty and so realistically not going to be involved post the world cup. You also don't want to be putting your hope into three of your four locks when they are coming to the end of their peak. Ewels and Hill should be peaking but neither looks likely to be a long term partner for Itoje.

Hill finished the season at lock for Wuss so could be an option there long term but did nothing off the bench.

Jones needs to find one younger option to push through and challenge. So far no luck.

FKAS wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Stom wrote:
And Slade was anonymous.

At least that should be the end of Ewels, who should be stepping up there as a senior player but was totally anonymous, too. I was willing to cut him slack before but he needed to be stepping up in this game and didn’t in the slightest.

I don’t rate Ewels, but in normal circumstances is at best 5th choice behind Itoje, Launchbury, Lawes and Hill. 6th if you include Kruis. By definition, 5th choice locks aren’t usually stellar.

We’d all like to have seen whether Ribbans can make a step up to test level and there was every suggestion he would have played, but suspension put paid to that.

If we were to jettison Ewels completely. Who do you bring in? I can’t say there’s anyone obvious that was missed.

Isiekwe is one option but I think that really depends whether he’s playing at 6 or lock. I’m all for trying Ted Hill at lock too, but I’d want him to be playing there regularly for Worcester.

The concern is that Launchbury, Lawes and Kruis are all over thirty and so realistically not going to be involved post the world cup. You also don't want to be putting your hope into three of your four locks when they are coming to the end of their peak. Ewels and Hill should be peaking but neither looks likely to be a long term partner for Itoje.

Hill finished the season at lock for Wuss so could be an option there long term but did nothing off the bench.

Jones needs to find one younger option to push through and challenge. So far no luck.

While he's a couple of years away yet, Chunya Munga is in the squad as an apprentice.

Puja

Worth keeping in mind it wouldn't take much to vastly change that game outcome. I don't know what was going on in the scrum, seemingly we infringed a lot with a hugely dominant outfit which is possible and would fit into the pattern of us annoying refs for no reason, but you don't see that too often

So take the scrum and reduce the infringements given against us by 3 instances, drop just 2 of our penalties in open play from our count, reduce 3 handling errors not really made under pressure, and you could hugely swing the emotion and points outcome. And all that before we didn't play as a team, in attack or defence, and it's very hard to play rugby as individuals unless the gulf is such you can just run in a try as and when you want.