RugbyRebels

Raggs 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.

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?

Stom wrote:You could actually make a decent team out of that lot...

Obano
Dunn
Cole
Lawes
Kruis
WIllis
Underhill
Clifford
Care
Mallinder
Nowell
Tuilagi
Joseph
Roko
Watson

Hartley, Genge, ?, Ewels, Haskell, Wigglesworth, Redpath, Lewington

Peat wrote:Players who'd be involved from that list if available

Hartley (Don't like it, but the George + LCD combo isn't outperforming what Hartley + George does, and we appear to be missing his captaincy)
Cole (Probably even on Sinckler)
Lawes, Kruis (both would have been in the week Launch wasn't available, one would have started ahead of him this week as he recovered form injury)
Underhill (maybe, maybe ahead of Shields for 6?)
Care (off the bench, definite improvement)
Tuilagi, Te'o, Joseph (at least one of them starts ahead of Slade, maybe one of them is on the bench)
Every wing named because Mike Brown (duh)

A fully fit - or even partially fit - England has a stronger second row, centres, back three and bench. Is it making a difference? I dunno.

I think you can make a case that we're missing about a third of Jones' preferred match day squad at most.

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:Players who'd be involved from that list if available

Hartley (Don't like it, but the George + LCD combo isn't outperforming what Hartley + George does, and we appear to be missing his captaincy)
Cole (Probably even on Sinckler)
Lawes, Kruis (both would have been in the week Launch wasn't available, one would have started ahead of him this week as he recovered form injury)
Underhill (maybe, maybe ahead of Shields for 6?)
Care (off the bench, definite improvement)
Tuilagi, Te'o, Joseph (at least one of them starts ahead of Slade, maybe one of them is on the bench)
Every wing named because Mike Brown (duh)

A fully fit - or even partially fit - England has a stronger second row, centres, back three and bench. Is it making a difference? I dunno.

I think you can make a case that we're missing about a third of Jones' preferred match day squad at most.

Didn’t seem to make much difference during the 6N.

Also, Underhill would’ve been in for Curry not Shields/Robshaw, I’d have thought. That would be a negative.

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:Players who'd be involved from that list if available

Hartley (Don't like it, but the George + LCD combo isn't outperforming what Hartley + George does, and we appear to be missing his captaincy)
Cole (Probably even on Sinckler)
Lawes, Kruis (both would have been in the week Launch wasn't available, one would have started ahead of him this week as he recovered form injury)
Underhill (maybe, maybe ahead of Shields for 6?)
Care (off the bench, definite improvement)
Tuilagi, Te'o, Joseph (at least one of them starts ahead of Slade, maybe one of them is on the bench)
Every wing named because Mike Brown (duh)

A fully fit - or even partially fit - England has a stronger second row, centres, back three and bench. Is it making a difference? I dunno.

I think you can make a case that we're missing about a third of Jones' preferred match day squad at most.

Didn’t seem to make much difference during the 6N.

Also, Underhill would’ve been in for Curry not Shields/Robshaw, I’d have thought. That would be a negative.

Possibly right on Underhill there.

And just because a group of players doesn't work - or works - one window doesn't mean that it will happen the same way the next. Their presence would definitely improve the side.

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Didn’t seem to make much difference during the 6N.

Also, Underhill would’ve been in for Curry not Shields/Robshaw, I’d have thought. That would be a negative.

Possibly right on Underhill there.

And just because a group of players doesn't work - or works - one window doesn't mean that it will happen the same way the next. Their presence would definitely improve the side.

I’m not sure the 6N team with those names would make that much of a difference. A couple of scrum pens aside I think bringing back Cole is a step backwards. George, even if not at his best, is still better than Hartley. Whether Hartley brings so much leadership he’s worth a drop-off in quality I honestly don’t know. Second row is definitely an upgrade. As would be the inclusion of Joseph and whoever replaced Brown. Though, I’d argue replacing 11 & 13 is a sticking plaster on the knee you cut when you collapsed from a heart attack.
For me, the only upgrade that would’ve made a difference is the lock situation but then SA are missing both of their first choice locks.

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:
Possibly right on Underhill there.

And just because a group of players doesn't work - or works - one window doesn't mean that it will happen the same way the next. Their presence would definitely improve the side.

I’m not sure the 6N team with those names would make that much of a difference. A couple of scrum pens aside I think bringing back Cole is a step backwards. George, even if not at his best, is still better than Hartley. Whether Hartley brings so much leadership he’s worth a drop-off in quality I honestly don’t know. Second row is definitely an upgrade. As would be the inclusion of Joseph and whoever replaced Brown. Though, I’d argue replacing 11 & 13 is a sticking plaster on the knee you cut when you collapsed from a heart attack.
For me, the only upgrade that would’ve made a difference is the lock situation but then SA are missing both of their first choice locks.

George is better than Hartley, but is 50 of George and 30 of LCD better than 50 of Hartley and 30 of George? I'm unsure on that. Plus there does seem to be a leadership problem without him.

And Sinckler has to be better before bringing back Cole would be a step backwards.

And considering how many problems we've had with getting cut to shreds out wide, a better wing and our best defensive 13 feel like they're a lot closer to the heart than the knee.

And their replacement locks seem to be better than ours!

Incidentally, I think the loss of Youngs/Care is getting seriously overlooked. Having one of them on the bench seems to make a serious difference to how strong we finish, and a strong finish was a big part of how we won games.

Timbo wrote:I don’t think that the margins have been so great that a bunch of our missing players wouldn’t have made a difference. It would have been a bit of a smash and grab, but literally one other fit, experienced lock and we could have taken the first test.

But it still would have been papering over significant underlying problems.

Mellsblue wrote: Ok. I’ll accept that my sticking plaster analogy was hyperbole but I’m just trying to get with the times.
I’d agree to an extent with Hartley - George v George - LCD and Youngs - Care v Youngs - Spencer. We seem to have moved away from having a more dynamic player on the bench, ie the finishers, see also tight head. Considering it was the big success of Jones’s reign it seems strange to ditch it.

TheDasher wrote:Isn't it getting to the stage where it's about more than selection? Most of us thought that this was one of the more interesting packs EJ has picked thus far. Yes the backline is broken but it's not terrible.

He isn't managing the squad properly. He also hasn't worked out how he wants us to play. It's all over the place.

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Ok. I’ll accept that my sticking plaster analogy was hyperbole but I’m just trying to get with the times.
I’d agree to an extent with Hartley - George v George - LCD and Youngs - Care v Youngs - Spencer. We seem to have moved away from having a more dynamic player on the bench, ie the finishers, see also tight head. Considering it was the big success of Jones’s reign it seems strange to ditch it.

Only so much you can do when you start running out of impact players I guess. Maybe Robson would have prospered if given the nod?

Mikey Brown wrote:

TheDasher wrote:Isn't it getting to the stage where it's about more than selection? Most of us thought that this was one of the more interesting packs EJ has picked thus far. Yes the backline is broken but it's not terrible.

He isn't managing the squad properly. He also hasn't worked out how he wants us to play. It's all over the place.

That’s yet another frustrating element to all of this. I don’t know how much point there is judging Slade, Daly as a 15 etc. with all the shit being served up all across the team. Youngs gets a bit of a pass I get but has still managed to be shit in most of the areas he actually has control over.

The balance in selection could certainly be improved, but I’d certainly put it below tactics, fitness/conditioning, leadership, bench make-up/use and the general distribution of key roles in the side.

It’s really something that this is where we are after such a promising start. I really bought into EJ’s 3 stage plan, but step 2 just didn’t work out at all.

Stom wrote:You could actually make a decent team out of that lot...

Obano
Dunn
Cole
Lawes
Kruis
WIllis
Underhill
Clifford
Care
Mallinder
Nowell
Tuilagi
Joseph
Roko
Watson

Hartley, Genge, ?, Ewels, Haskell, Wigglesworth, Redpath, Lewington

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Ok. I’ll accept that my sticking plaster analogy was hyperbole but I’m just trying to get with the times.
I’d agree to an extent with Hartley - George v George - LCD and Youngs - Care v Youngs - Spencer. We seem to have moved away from having a more dynamic player on the bench, ie the finishers, see also tight head. Considering it was the big success of Jones’s reign it seems strange to ditch it.

Only so much you can do when you start running out of impact players I guess. Maybe Robson would have prospered if given the nod?

Its Spencer over Robson, Care starting with Wiggler on the bench and Sinckler starting over Williams that leads me to that. Otherwise, you’re right, the cupboard is bare.

TheDasher wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

TheDasher wrote:Isn't it getting to the stage where it's about more than selection? Most of us thought that this was one of the more interesting packs EJ has picked thus far. Yes the backline is broken but it's not terrible.

He isn't managing the squad properly. He also hasn't worked out how he wants us to play. It's all over the place.

That’s yet another frustrating element to all of this. I don’t know how much point there is judging Slade, Daly as a 15 etc. with all the shit being served up all across the team. Youngs gets a bit of a pass I get but has still managed to be shit in most of the areas he actually has control over.

The balance in selection could certainly be improved, but I’d certainly put it below tactics, fitness/conditioning, leadership, bench make-up/use and the general distribution of key roles in the side.

It’s really something that this is where we are after such a promising start. I really bought into EJ’s 3 stage plan, but step 2 just didn’t work out at all.

I completely agree.

On selection, he isn't convinced by his midfield, his 10, his wingers, his fullback, the back-row or the front-row. He should have more clarity in all these areas.

We don't have an identity. He talked about having a dominating pack and having a great set-piece. We have neither. We're pretty dangerous out wide but nowhere else.

There's no leadership and frankly, I find it increasingly amazing how these pro players look so lost and rudderless game after game. Some of the players with most potential look average.

It's all down to Eddie and I really don't think he'll find the answers and stop the rot. If we lose on Saturday, I'd get rid of him.

Peat wrote:What's the team excuse for Slade falling off a lot of tackles after shooting up at 13? I like his general game, but that bit's been poor, and I'm not sure how that's not mostly on him.

Mellsblue wrote:

Peat wrote:
Only so much you can do when you start running out of impact players I guess. Maybe Robson would have prospered if given the nod?

Its Spencer over Robson, Care starting with Wiggler on the bench and Sinckler starting over Williams that leads me to that. Otherwise, you’re right, the cupboard is bare.

Of course you're going to start Care and play Wigglesworth as little as possible! But yes, those two run against the grain. Maybe he has changed his mind. The Spencer/Robson thing is particularly baffling to me.

Mikey Brown wrote:Isn’t our defensive strategy built entirely around making life as difficult for our 13 as possible? A 10 that goes backwards in contact, a 12 that shoots out the line and no forwards quick enough to cover across. That’s the model isn’t it?

Obviously I’m just the Slade apologist, really though Joseph has just been hiding how retarded our defence is.