RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

jimKRFC wrote:Don't know what Tom Dunn has done to be in ahead of Thacker either.

Bristol the only premiership side with no players in the 6N.

Not be small...

OK, thoughts...

Dunn wouldn't be my choice, but I'm fine with it.
Williams wouldn't be my choice, but OK.
6 locks? I would have dumped 2 of the established 4 to make places for the new 2 if I wanted to bring 2 new faces in.
No 8...Dombrandt, Simmonds, Mercer (yes, only just back from injury, but he'll have had some gametime before the 6N, no?) Clusterfuck
No Willis? wtf?
Youngs and Heinz? No Robson, Mitchell only an apprentice, no Maunder, none of the Bristol pair...

So...meh.

Yeah. Thacker is not going to be a realistic option at test level and frankly hasn’t been in such good form this season for his size to be overlooked.

Dunn has been in and around the squad before and is a solid, nuts and bolts hooker with a good set piece game and massive defensive work rate.

While I’d prefer we had Billy to call on at 8, I’m not overly depressed at the idea of having to come up with a plan B. Billy’s not been brilliant to the extent that he should be untouchable and he’s increasingly injury prone. It’s a little ironic given I’ve just called out Thacker’s size as an issue, but at 8, I think we’re overly obsessed with the idea of a massive human at the back of the scrum. None of the other 8s in the 6N are monsters and actually I think the role is becoming more like a 3rd flanker. Earl won’t be losing much in size compared to any of them and deserves his chance off the back of his excellent form this season. I’d have liked to have seen Dombrandt and Simmonds too, but I can roll with what we’ve got.

No Willis is indeed a WTF. Ludlam should count himself very lucky.

I am massively hacked off about Youngs and Heinz but the only conclusion I can draw is that Eddie is unconvinced by Robson and Spencer to the extent that he’s prepared to bypass them for the next generation. Mitchell would be my favoured option (when fit) so I can take some consolation from his presence as an apprentice. Perhaps he’d have been more than that if he’d been able to play this season. Maunder is just a complete meh for me.

What is the plan B with this selection?

You mean if Earl gets injured in a match or just generally? Curry at 8 with a lock/openside at 6?

Beyond that feels like Eddie's plans only amount to a) win b) lose.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Adam_P wrote:

Raggs wrote:Alex Moon is enormous. Is he any good?

Yep, has been very good all round this season. Very decent at the lineout and gives good ballast in the scrum.

Looks rather willowy (from stills, never consciously watched/followed him in a game) and certainly nowhere near the 125kg listed, but that might just be a false impression given your second comment?

I certainly wouldn't describe Alex Moon as willowy. Next to Lawes he is a significantly sized player

Oakboy wrote:Maybe Exeter would argue that (Sam) Hill is ahead of Devoto at 12? I'd guess that he's worn the shirt more often than Devoto in the time that the latter has been with the club.

You'd be wrong though
I know it goes against your bias (and we all have our little irrational blind spots) - but as far as I've been able to tell, Devoto has been first choice IC since about 6 weeks after joining Exeter... when fit.
He's just not fit as often.

Aside from that, he's simply a better rugby player than Hill (which is not to denigrate Hill at all, Devoto's a much better player than you've ever given him credit for - in the opinions of myself, his club coaches and his international coach, and many others). Their similar in bulk (OD's taller, but they're officially the same weight), similar in their use of bulk, but Ollie's got a far better boot, and far defter touch.

ETA 2016-20 - source Stat Bunker:
OD 58 starts + 10 (4094 minutes + 237)
SH 41 starts + 36 (2908 minutes + 859)
2017-18 is the only season Hill had more starts or more minutes than Ollie - because OD missed most of that season with injury. And yes, that "only" includes this season, where Ollie's been injured and Sam hasn't

I was wrong though - it didn't take 6 weeks for OD to establish himself as first choice; he was getting the starts from game 1 - must have been about 6 weeks for Exeter fans to acknowledge it (many of whom didn't like them signing him in the firtst place as SH was so obviously better)

Mikey Brown wrote:Beyond that feels like Eddie's plans only amount to a) win b) lose.

This is the best summation of Eddie's tenure ever.

Which Tyler wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Maybe Exeter would argue that (Sam) Hill is ahead of Devoto at 12? I'd guess that he's worn the shirt more often than Devoto in the time that the latter has been with the club.

You'd be wrong though
I know it goes against your bias (and we all have our little irrational blind spots) - but as far as I've been able to tell, Devoto has been first choice IC since about 6 weeks after joining Exeter... when fit.
He's just not fit as often.

Aside from that, he's simply a better rugby player than Hill (which is not to denigrate Hill at all, Devoto's a much better player than you've ever given him credit for - in the opinions of myself, his club coaches and his international coach, and many others). Their similar in bulk (OD's taller, but they're officially the same weight), similar in their use of bulk, but Ollie's got a far better boot, and far defter touch.

ETA 2016-20 - source Stat Bunker:
OD 58 starts + 10 (4094 minutes + 237)
SH 41 starts + 36 (2908 minutes + 859)
2017-18 is the only season Hill had more starts or more minutes than Ollie - because OD missed most of that season with injury. And yes, that "only" includes this season, where Ollie's been injured and Sam hasn't

I was wrong though - it didn't take 6 weeks for OD to establish himself as first choice; he was getting the starts from game 1 - must have been about 6 weeks for Exeter fans to acknowledge it (many of whom didn't like them signing him in the firtst place as SH was so obviously better)

Bloody facts - they never help one's prejudices.

Scrumhead wrote:

Stom wrote:

jimKRFC wrote:Don't know what Tom Dunn has done to be in ahead of Thacker either.

Bristol the only premiership side with no players in the 6N.

Not be small...

OK, thoughts...

Dunn wouldn't be my choice, but I'm fine with it.
Williams wouldn't be my choice, but OK.
6 locks? I would have dumped 2 of the established 4 to make places for the new 2 if I wanted to bring 2 new faces in.
No 8...Dombrandt, Simmonds, Mercer (yes, only just back from injury, but he'll have had some gametime before the 6N, no?) Clusterfuck
No Willis? wtf?
Youngs and Heinz? No Robson, Mitchell only an apprentice, no Maunder, none of the Bristol pair...

So...meh.

Yeah. Thacker is not going to be a realistic option at test level and frankly hasn’t been in such good form this season for his size to be overlooked.

Dunn has been in and around the squad before and is a solid, nuts and bolts hooker with a good set piece game and massive defensive work rate.

While I’d prefer we had Billy to call on at 8, I’m not overly depressed at the idea of having to come up with a plan B. Billy’s not been brilliant to the extent that he should be untouchable and he’s increasingly injury prone. It’s a little ironic given I’ve just called out Thacker’s size as an issue, but at 8, I think we’re overly obsessed with the idea of a massive human at the back of the scrum. None of the other 8s in the 6N are monsters and actually I think the role is becoming more like a 3rd flanker. Earl won’t be losing much in size compared to any of them and deserves his chance off the back of his excellent form this season. I’d have liked to have seen Dombrandt and Simmonds too, but I can roll with what we’ve got.

No Willis is indeed a WTF. Ludlam should count himself very lucky.

I am massively hacked off about Youngs and Heinz but the only conclusion I can draw is that Eddie is unconvinced by Robson and Spencer to the extent that he’s prepared to bypass them for the next generation. Mitchell would be my favoured option (when fit) so I can take some consolation from his presence as an apprentice. Perhaps he’d have been more than that if he’d been able to play this season. Maunder is just a complete meh for me.

Agree with all of this and think it’s a balanced assessment. Will say though, that any time I’ve seen Ludlam this season he’s looked good. Why lucky?

Timbo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Stom wrote:
Not be small...

OK, thoughts...

Dunn wouldn't be my choice, but I'm fine with it.
Williams wouldn't be my choice, but OK.
6 locks? I would have dumped 2 of the established 4 to make places for the new 2 if I wanted to bring 2 new faces in.
No 8...Dombrandt, Simmonds, Mercer (yes, only just back from injury, but he'll have had some gametime before the 6N, no?) Clusterfuck
No Willis? wtf?
Youngs and Heinz? No Robson, Mitchell only an apprentice, no Maunder, none of the Bristol pair...

So...meh.

Yeah. Thacker is not going to be a realistic option at test level and frankly hasn’t been in such good form this season for his size to be overlooked.

Dunn has been in and around the squad before and is a solid, nuts and bolts hooker with a good set piece game and massive defensive work rate.

While I’d prefer we had Billy to call on at 8, I’m not overly depressed at the idea of having to come up with a plan B. Billy’s not been brilliant to the extent that he should be untouchable and he’s increasingly injury prone. It’s a little ironic given I’ve just called out Thacker’s size as an issue, but at 8, I think we’re overly obsessed with the idea of a massive human at the back of the scrum. None of the other 8s in the 6N are monsters and actually I think the role is becoming more like a 3rd flanker. Earl won’t be losing much in size compared to any of them and deserves his chance off the back of his excellent form this season. I’d have liked to have seen Dombrandt and Simmonds too, but I can roll with what we’ve got.

No Willis is indeed a WTF. Ludlam should count himself very lucky.

I am massively hacked off about Youngs and Heinz but the only conclusion I can draw is that Eddie is unconvinced by Robson and Spencer to the extent that he’s prepared to bypass them for the next generation. Mitchell would be my favoured option (when fit) so I can take some consolation from his presence as an apprentice. Perhaps he’d have been more than that if he’d been able to play this season. Maunder is just a complete meh for me.

Agree with all of this and think it’s a balanced assessment. Will say though, that any time I’ve seen Ludlam this season he’s looked good. Why lucky?

He’s also looked good when play for England which, rightly, counts for an awful lot.

Timbo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:

Stom wrote:
Not be small...

OK, thoughts...

Dunn wouldn't be my choice, but I'm fine with it.
Williams wouldn't be my choice, but OK.
6 locks? I would have dumped 2 of the established 4 to make places for the new 2 if I wanted to bring 2 new faces in.
No 8...Dombrandt, Simmonds, Mercer (yes, only just back from injury, but he'll have had some gametime before the 6N, no?) Clusterfuck
No Willis? wtf?
Youngs and Heinz? No Robson, Mitchell only an apprentice, no Maunder, none of the Bristol pair...

So...meh.

Yeah. Thacker is not going to be a realistic option at test level and frankly hasn’t been in such good form this season for his size to be overlooked.

Dunn has been in and around the squad before and is a solid, nuts and bolts hooker with a good set piece game and massive defensive work rate.

While I’d prefer we had Billy to call on at 8, I’m not overly depressed at the idea of having to come up with a plan B. Billy’s not been brilliant to the extent that he should be untouchable and he’s increasingly injury prone. It’s a little ironic given I’ve just called out Thacker’s size as an issue, but at 8, I think we’re overly obsessed with the idea of a massive human at the back of the scrum. None of the other 8s in the 6N are monsters and actually I think the role is becoming more like a 3rd flanker. Earl won’t be losing much in size compared to any of them and deserves his chance off the back of his excellent form this season. I’d have liked to have seen Dombrandt and Simmonds too, but I can roll with what we’ve got.

No Willis is indeed a WTF. Ludlam should count himself very lucky.

I am massively hacked off about Youngs and Heinz but the only conclusion I can draw is that Eddie is unconvinced by Robson and Spencer to the extent that he’s prepared to bypass them for the next generation. Mitchell would be my favoured option (when fit) so I can take some consolation from his presence as an apprentice. Perhaps he’d have been more than that if he’d been able to play this season. Maunder is just a complete meh for me.

Agree with all of this and think it’s a balanced assessment. Will say though, that any time I’ve seen Ludlam this season he’s looked good. Why lucky?

Because Willis is the 19/20 season's messiah.

(Not to say he doesn't look preeeetty good).

The SH situation remains wtf. Even the most pessimistic among us would've surely gambled on Eddie removing one of Youngs or Heinz if acknowledging he'd leave it at one. Robson has been playing like a drain since his return at Wasps so it would've been a shock if he'd been selected. Then again, it's Eddie, and he does love selecting players who are out of form. One can only hope there'll be a chapter about it in his book.

Oakboy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Maybe Exeter would argue that (Sam) Hill is ahead of Devoto at 12? I'd guess that he's worn the shirt more often than Devoto in the time that the latter has been with the club.

You'd be wrong though
I know it goes against your bias (and we all have our little irrational blind spots) - but as far as I've been able to tell, Devoto has been first choice IC since about 6 weeks after joining Exeter... when fit.
He's just not fit as often.

Aside from that, he's simply a better rugby player than Hill (which is not to denigrate Hill at all, Devoto's a much better player than you've ever given him credit for - in the opinions of myself, his club coaches and his international coach, and many others). Their similar in bulk (OD's taller, but they're officially the same weight), similar in their use of bulk, but Ollie's got a far better boot, and far defter touch.

ETA 2016-20 - source Stat Bunker:
OD 58 starts + 10 (4094 minutes + 237)
SH 41 starts + 36 (2908 minutes + 859)
2017-18 is the only season Hill had more starts or more minutes than Ollie - because OD missed most of that season with injury. And yes, that "only" includes this season, where Ollie's been injured and Sam hasn't

I was wrong though - it didn't take 6 weeks for OD to establish himself as first choice; he was getting the starts from game 1 - must have been about 6 weeks for Exeter fans to acknowledge it (many of whom didn't like them signing him in the firtst place as SH was so obviously better)

Bloody facts - they never help one's prejudices.

Hill is also a sick note but I’d agree that Devoto is both first choice and a better player. Both are inferior to Atkinson, totes obvs.

Really pleased to see Stuart, Dunn and Moon in the squad. All been excellent this season. Heard a long-ish interview with Chris Boyd and it was obvious how highly he rates Moon.

Happy with Ben Earl and Ted Hill. Would have liked to see Sam Simmonds in as well. Dombrandt i’m happy to leave to a coaches prerogative, especially as the issues seem to be around work rate and fitness- if he’s not hitting those basic requirements, then you can’t pick him.

Very surprised to see Umaga and Dingwall. Talented players, but doubt we’ll actually see them play. I suppose if Slade and Marchant had been available they wouldn’t have been picked.

Devoto in there on merit, and should have gone to the World Cup. He has everything you want in a 12 and is the best in the country in his position.

Excited to see how Thorley and Furbank go at test level. Fun players to watch.

Young and Heinz....if my choice is those 2 then I’m picking Heinz to start this 6N’s. At least he’s playing well for Gloucester, and has actually looked very decent for England thus far.

I can forgive Jones leaving out good back row players. Heck, he was never going to fit every deserving player into the squad even f he had picked 10 of them.
What I quibble about is the the fact there are just 5, when at least 6 or 7 could have been selected, and that the balance looks just wrong. If Earl is going to play 8 - which he surely will - can we still select Curry and Underhill at flanker and arent we missing some ballast to call upon?

Beasties wrote:The SH situation remains wtf. Even the most pessimistic among us would've surely gambled on Eddie removing one of Youngs or Heinz if acknowledging he'd leave it at one. Robson has been playing like a drain since his return at Wasps so it would've been a shock if he'd been selected. Then again, it's Eddie, and he does love selecting players who are out of form. One can only hope there'll be a chapter about it in his book.

Youngs will hit the ton if he doesn't get hurt. Beggars belief.

Timbo wrote:All been excellent this season. Heard a long-ish interview with Chris Boyd and it was obvious how highly he rates Moon.

I wonder how much weight, if any, Jones puts on a Boyd recommendation? There have been a few left field Northampton picks recently.

Mellsblue wrote:

Timbo wrote:All been excellent this season. Heard a long-ish interview with Chris Boyd and it was obvious how highly he rates Moon.

I wonder how much weight, if any, Jones puts on a Boyd recommendation? There have been a few left field Northampton picks recently.

Jones does not rate anyone else's opinion from what I can make out. He is obviously always right (apart from when he's a perennial runner-up). I fear for English rugby. We are starting to rival France in how we royally fu#k up potential. The current crop of players is special but this selection does not reflect that.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Timbo wrote:All been excellent this season. Heard a long-ish interview with Chris Boyd and it was obvious how highly he rates Moon.

I wonder how much weight, if any, Jones puts on a Boyd recommendation? There have been a few left field Northampton picks recently.

Jones does not rate anyone else's opinion from what I can make out. He is obviously always right (apart from when he's a perennial runner-up). I fear for English rugby. We are starting to rival France in how we royally fu#k up potential. The current crop of players is special but this selection does not reflect that.

I really think you are just completely backwards on Jones. Reading his book it’s clear that he’s unbelievably hard on himself, incredibly open minded and very into self improvement.

What’s also clear is that there are no flys on Eddie. All the criticisms and moans we made on here are largely reflected in his book. He knew the team he created in his first 2 years wasn’t good enough, that the backrow was stodgy, not enough carriers in the tight 5, Brown was too limited etc. But he’s also got a way better tactical and technical eye (along with his coaches) than any of us. He didn’t think, for example, that Don Armand, Kvesic or Cipriani had what he needed...and that’s his prerogative.

Usually much better when thinking about selection, imo, to ask why a player HAS been picked, rather than focus on why a particular favourite HASN’T been picked.

Danno wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:
Yeah. Thacker is not going to be a realistic option at test level and frankly hasn’t been in such good form this season for his size to be overlooked.

Dunn has been in and around the squad before and is a solid, nuts and bolts hooker with a good set piece game and massive defensive work rate.

While I’d prefer we had Billy to call on at 8, I’m not overly depressed at the idea of having to come up with a plan B. Billy’s not been brilliant to the extent that he should be untouchable and he’s increasingly injury prone. It’s a little ironic given I’ve just called out Thacker’s size as an issue, but at 8, I think we’re overly obsessed with the idea of a massive human at the back of the scrum. None of the other 8s in the 6N are monsters and actually I think the role is becoming more like a 3rd flanker. Earl won’t be losing much in size compared to any of them and deserves his chance off the back of his excellent form this season. I’d have liked to have seen Dombrandt and Simmonds too, but I can roll with what we’ve got.

No Willis is indeed a WTF. Ludlam should count himself very lucky.

I am massively hacked off about Youngs and Heinz but the only conclusion I can draw is that Eddie is unconvinced by Robson and Spencer to the extent that he’s prepared to bypass them for the next generation. Mitchell would be my favoured option (when fit) so I can take some consolation from his presence as an apprentice. Perhaps he’d have been more than that if he’d been able to play this season. Maunder is just a complete meh for me.

Agree with all of this and think it’s a balanced assessment. Will say though, that any time I’ve seen Ludlam this season he’s looked good. Why lucky?

Because Willis is the 19/20 season's messiah.

(Not to say he doesn't look preeeetty good).

Willis has been very good, if not outright excellent in most of the games he’s played pre and post injury. He has probably suffered from being a little too similar to Underhill and Curry.

Ludlam is a good player but has mostly been on the bench for Saints this season. My comment was purely that he was lucky to retain his place given the form of the other back row players.

Ted Hill has flown under the radar a little but he is one hell of a player. He’s a big, brutal 6 who hits hard, carries well and is a very good lineout forward. He’s more of an O’Mahony style 6 which we don’t really have so he’s bringing something different.

Is Marcus Smith injured or just not picked? He's a good FH, has been around the fringes of the squad for a while and I thought he would kick on. Is Umaga really a better10? Is he even better than Simmonds?

Right now i'd put Umaga behind Smith, Simmonds, Manu Vunipola and James Grayson in the young 10 pecking order. He's shown glimpses of real quality and has talent but it is early days and his outings have been few and far between.
I'm really not sure what his selection is all about. He isnt ready to take a step up and play and i think we have more advanced young 10's available. I'm all for having a look at a good youngster and i like the idea of bringing in apprentices, but this selection does seem really out of left field.

Beasties wrote:The SH situation remains wtf. Even the most pessimistic among us would've surely gambled on Eddie removing one of Youngs or Heinz if acknowledging he'd leave it at one. Robson has been playing like a drain since his return at Wasps so it would've been a shock if he'd been selected. Then again, it's Eddie, and he does love selecting players who are out of form. One can only hope there'll be a chapter about it in his book.

Who else is there though? Mitchell and Maunder aren't playing (albiet the former because of injury), Spencer is bang average, I share Jones's not rating of Robson as an international quality player (and his form has not been changing my mind) - there's precious little in the way of options. I'd've liked a look at Randall myself, but I'll admit he'd be a gamble.

Puja

Agreed. I rate Spencer more highly than you seem to, but as you say, Robson’s form hasn’t screamed out ‘pick me’ and Maunder hasn’t been a stand-out when he has played. Randall’s been playing second fiddle to Uren so I’m not surprised he’s not there.

I’m pinning my hopes firmly on Mitchell.

fivepointer wrote:Right now i'd put Umaga behind Smith, Simmonds, Manu Vunipola and James Grayson in the young 10 pecking order. He's shown glimpses of real quality and has talent but it is early days and his outings have been few and far between.
I'm really not sure what his selection is all about. He isnt ready to take a step up and play and i think we have more advanced young 10's available. I'm all for having a look at a good youngster and i like the idea of bringing in apprentices, but this selection does seem really out of left field.

I agree. I’d have had less of an issue if he’d been picked as an apprentice but he’s clearly not more deserving of a call-up than Smith, Simmonds or Grayson.

Timbo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I wonder how much weight, if any, Jones puts on a Boyd recommendation? There have been a few left field Northampton picks recently.

Jones does not rate anyone else's opinion from what I can make out. He is obviously always right (apart from when he's a perennial runner-up). I fear for English rugby. We are starting to rival France in how we royally fu#k up potential. The current crop of players is special but this selection does not reflect that.

I really think you are just completely backwards on Jones. Reading his book it’s clear that he’s unbelievably hard on himself, incredibly open minded and very into self improvement.

What’s also clear is that there are no flys on Eddie. All the criticisms and moans we made on here are largely reflected in his book. He knew the team he created in his first 2 years wasn’t good enough, that the backrow was stodgy, not enough carriers in the tight 5, Brown was too limited etc. But he’s also got a way better tactical and technical eye (along with his coaches) than any of us. He didn’t think, for example, that Don Armand, Kvesic or Cipriani had what he needed...and that’s his prerogative.

Usually much better when thinking about selection, imo, to ask why a player HAS been picked, rather than focus on why a particular favourite HASN’T been picked.

Time will tell. He will be judged by results.