RugbyRebels

Oakboy wrote:It's like a compromise dream to avoid having to make important decisions.

Lol. Nailed it.

Interesting indeed. I guess EJ reckons the intensity and power can be maintained over 80 with that bench. When do we see what the Aussies are gonna try?

B

p/d wrote:

Puja wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote:Oh god I'm so confused by that.

So say we all. No number 8s on the pitch, but two on the bench. What's the bet Dombrandt ends up at lock for part of the game?
Puja

Which makes you wonder why Ewels is on the bench

No, I wonder that even when Dombrandt isn't there.

Puja

Kruis can't get back in soon enough!

Oakboy wrote:I wonder what Australia make of the selection. Might they be delighted that Farrell is at 12? I think they would have preferred not to face Smith/Tuilagi/Slade at 10/12/13.

I just don't understand WHY you wouldn't at least try that set-up out at some point over the Autumn. In fairness it might be part of the plan to have a look at it on Saturday.

Puja wrote:

p/d wrote:

Puja wrote:
So say we all. No number 8s on the pitch, but two on the bench. What's the bet Dombrandt ends up at lock for part of the game?
Puja

Which makes you wonder why Ewels is on the bench

No, I wonder that even when Dombrandt isn't there.

Puja

SDHoneymonster wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I wonder what Australia make of the selection. Might they be delighted that Farrell is at 12? I think they would have preferred not to face Smith/Tuilagi/Slade at 10/12/13.

I just don't understand WHY you wouldn't at least try that set-up out at some point over the Autumn. In fairness it might be part of the plan to have a look at it on Saturday.

I'm pretty sure Tuilagi will see the ball in the 12 channel at least once.

SDHoneymonster wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I wonder what Australia make of the selection. Might they be delighted that Farrell is at 12? I think they would have preferred not to face Smith/Tuilagi/Slade at 10/12/13.

I just don't understand WHY you wouldn't at least try that set-up out at some point over the Autumn. In fairness it might be part of the plan to have a look at it on Saturday.

We might get the brilliant situation where a fly-half by trade (Malins) comes on for a fly-half (Smith) and it results in 3 players moving infield so that he can go on the wing.

p/d wrote:

Puja wrote:

p/d wrote: Which makes you wonder why Ewels is on the bench

No, I wonder that even when Dombrandt isn't there.

Puja

You set 'em up; I'll knock 'em down!

Cheap jokes aside, I am confused about the purpose of Dombrandt and Simmonds on the same bench. Is Dombrandt seen as a Lawes alternative at 6? As a potential number 5 option (which I would actually be thoroughly in favour of trying, given our paucity of lock options atm)? Is he the 8 option and Eddie agrees with jngf about Simmonds as a flanker? Or is he planning on giving all three of them 27.3 minutes to prove themselves?

Hells, is Simmonds the lock option?! We just have too few clues as to what on earth Uncle Eddie is thinking.

Puja

Mr Mwenda wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I wonder what Australia make of the selection. Might they be delighted that Farrell is at 12? I think they would have preferred not to face Smith/Tuilagi/Slade at 10/12/13.

I just don't understand WHY you wouldn't at least try that set-up out at some point over the Autumn. In fairness it might be part of the plan to have a look at it on Saturday.

I'm pretty sure Tuilagi will see the ball in the 12 channel at least once.

Who would that have on the end of the line, waiting to capitalise on the break? Is Slade standing there? Is Farrell?! Gods help us if we turn over the ball at whatever set-piece we have that lineup on.

Puja

I reckon Simmonds is Tuilagi's injury replacement. He's Jack Nowell in reverse...

Puja wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote:
I just don't understand WHY you wouldn't at least try that set-up out at some point over the Autumn. In fairness it might be part of the plan to have a look at it on Saturday.

I'm pretty sure Tuilagi will see the ball in the 12 channel at least once.

Who would that have on the end of the line, waiting to capitalise on the break? Is Slade standing there? Is Farrell?! Gods help us if we turn over the ball at whatever set-piece we have that lineup on.

Puja

Do you remember when Matthew Tait was the next big thing at centre for England, but Newcastle had to fit Wilkinson, Flood, Noon and Tait in to the same backline, so insisted on listing the team sheet with Flood on the wing and Noon at 12, claiming to have an entirely fluid setup in the backs?

I’ve lost track of why I thought that was relevant here but I’ve written it now so there you go.

There’s a bunch of good players here so it might be totally fine, but what an incoherent mess.

I really would love to see a situation Simmonds has to run out at 12. He and Slade already have a fantastic sense of timing running off of eachother.

I've decided not to get too fussed with who Jones selects. Inevitably he will throw in one or two that make me want to despair but thats just the way it is.
If we play well and get a win, all will be forgotten until the next time he makes a highly dubious selection that seems to make no sense.

Puja wrote:

Mr Mwenda wrote:

SDHoneymonster wrote:
I just don't understand WHY you wouldn't at least try that set-up out at some point over the Autumn. In fairness it might be part of the plan to have a look at it on Saturday.

I'm pretty sure Tuilagi will see the ball in the 12 channel at least once.

Who would that have on the end of the line, waiting to capitalise on the break? Is Slade standing there? Is Farrell?! Gods help us if we turn over the ball at whatever set-piece we have that lineup on.

Puja

May! See Jones has thought of everything

This one has to be up there for most baffling selection. It's pretty much French.

The crazy part of it all is that it just APPEARS to be based on shoe-horning Farrell into the starting line-up. Why not just put him in the 22 shirt? Would that be so radical? That single change with Malins in the 14 shirt gives the team balance. Should it then go tits-up bring our Lord and Saviour off the bench.

Eddie fucking Jones. It's almost like he has got distracted with fame or something!

Fully expected Farrell to start but was expecting him at 10 with Smith benched. Really wasn't expecting Tuilagi on the wing. He isn't going to trouble Australia from there unless he receives the ball 20 metres from their tryline...but he could do that, plus a lot more from centre. Dropping Radwan is just nuts. Would've been great to see him running at Australia for 80 mins.

Expected to see Lawes in the backrow, Curry still at 8 and Dombrandt on the bench.

Expected an 6-2 bench split.

Hate to sound like a typical arrogant Saes twat but, I still expect to win. Australia looked extremely ordinary last week although I'm aware they've had some better results before that.

Pleased for Steward. He is class.

Eddie fucking Jones though!





Sent from my SM-N986B using Tapatalk

Oakboy wrote:The crazy part of it all is that it just APPEARS to be based on shoe-horning Farrell into the starting line-up. Why not just put him in the 22 shirt? Would that be so radical? That single change with Malins in the 14 shirt gives the team balance. Should it then go tits-up bring our Lord and Saviour off the bench.

Totally agree. I thought exactly the same thing.

IMO, the best way of using Farrell now is as the experienced game manager to close out tight test matches. He’s just simply not effective enough to take Smith (or Ford) or a centre’s place in the side.

"I don't have any misgivings about what I said - I am disappointed it was taken out of context, and I would be disappointed if Emma was upset by it," Jones said on Thursday.

"It was deemed as being sexist and that was never the aim of the point."

Brilliant.

Scrumhead wrote:

Oakboy wrote:The crazy part of it all is that it just APPEARS to be based on shoe-horning Farrell into the starting line-up. Why not just put him in the 22 shirt? Would that be so radical? That single change with Malins in the 14 shirt gives the team balance. Should it then go tits-up bring our Lord and Saviour off the bench.

Totally agree. I thought exactly the same thing.

IMO, the best way of using Farrell now is as the experienced game manager to close out tight test matches. He’s just simply not effective enough to take Smith (or Ford) or a centre’s place in the side.

In fairness I think Jones is right in trying it out, even if it's just to say he's ticked that particular box in the build-up to the World Cup. Ultimately though I don't think he's going to be able to avoid the question turning from 'how do I fit Smith and Farrell into the same team?' to 'Smith OR Farrell?' Given his goal kicking, the fact he's held in such high esteem by everyone he's ever played or trained with (including the non-English Lions players) and his ability to cover 12 there's obviously a spot for Farrell in the World Cup squad, but the question marks over whether he's any longer one of England's best options at either 10 or 12 are only going to get louder between now and then.

Australia team out:
Australia: Beale; Kellaway, Ikitau, Paisami, Wright; O'Connor, White; Bell, Fainga'a, Slipper, Arnold, Rodda, Leota, Hooper, Valetini.

Replacements: Latu, Robertson, Hoskins, Skelton, Samu, McDermott, Lolesio, Perese.

That Australia scrum is there for the taking from the off - both Tupou and Alaatoa out and Skelton kept on the bench. Genge should be looking at that and licking his lips. Other than that, no real surprises there.

Puja

Yeah we should have their set piece on toast. When did Slipper last play TH? The LH is very young too.

Tuilagi practically never has to deal with the high ball when playing centre for club or country. He is just not used to it. Expect Oz to pepper him all day. On the offensive side, he could be very effective coming off the wing and through the middle. We could see a lot of mix and match as to how the England backs actually line up.
Sad that Jones doesn't have the balls to field a team without Farrell.

Danno wrote:Yeah we should have their set piece on toast. When did Slipper last play TH? The LH is very young too.

Apparently played some Super Rugby there last season, so he's not rusty, but still not his best position. I'm surprised they haven't started Skelton - yes, he's better as a sub, but if England start rumbling over Australia early, then it puts thoughts in the ref's mind. The threat on the England loosehead will drop sharply in the second half when Genge tires/Rodd comes on, so you'd've thought they'd be better fighting hard early.

Puja